- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Blair Hodges wrote a comment in a thread on By Common Consent that I thought was profound and want to share. It was in response to a post about the first lesson about the Bible in Gospel Doctrine this year – one that provides come historical perspective on the Bible prior to the regular lessons on specific passages and concepts. The following is what Blair said:
Quote:The takeaway I plan to discuss: Here we have 4 different testimonies of Jesus Christ. (Using the terminology added in the JST, testimony of instead of gospel according to.) They have all been gathered into one book where they each do their best to represent the Savior for our nourishment and to provide saving knowledge. The fact that they are not identical, that they present differing perspectives, seems very crucial to me. I plan to ask the class what we think about the fact that testimonies of Christ in this most important scripture are somewhat diverse in approach, content, perspective, in addition to being united on so many other things.
That says something important about you and me, really.
Thanks for sharing, Ray. I wonder how many of us will get that kind of take on the first lesson of the year? Our GD teacher is pretty orthodox. Thoreau wrote:Sheldon wrote:This article in
Time MagazineNewsweek.
Newsweek. Correct. It is a fantastic article. I took note when they used the term all “cafeteria Christians” in the first couple of paragraphs.This research obliterates the concept of a “historical accurate” AND doctrinal accurate modern day Bible.
Yep, very direct article that makes a good point. It was interesting to skim the comments and read condemnations of the article with no specifics – which only reinforces the point made in the article. I skipped Sunday School as usual (a small group of us less orthodox usually just chat in the chapel or foyer). I did read the lesson, though. What did you all actually hear in the lesson today? DarkJedi, I attended SS for the first time in several years due to a calling and the schedule. We discussed the role of Christ. Sad to say, it was incredibly boring with absolutely no new insights, no energy in the delivery, and I couldn’t wait for it to be over. All in all, a typical SS lesson. I hope things get better from here.
I read the Newsweek article linked in this thread. It was fascinating. I only wish the instructors would bring some of this type of information into the lesson, but I don’t really expect that to happen. We spent a great deal of time reading from the JST in Luke and John. With the advent of my FC, I am not sure I find the JST to be a credible source any longer. This darn FC certainly has taken the peace and enjoyment out of church
:problem: We discussed how Jesus was Jehovah in the OT and how we are the only church that knows that. From there we discussed how the interpretations by other religions of passages in the bible differ from our interpretations and how we have the true interpretations. I left early. I’ve made a commitment to leave a class whenever the discussion ventures into the realm of how other people are wrong and how we are right. In the past I’ve tried to stay to temper the discussion in small ways but the lesson plans are structured to bring the discussion back to those same talking points. The instruction for the OT was the same; use the title of the class as a launching point to skip around the canonical works to point out how the LDS church is unique and therefore true. Unfortunately this is one of those times where sticking to the correlated material would be moving us in a better direction. I would say something but people in the class
lovethe instruction. I love the people in the class and I really love the instructor, so I bear the cross or leave the class early. To that end I see no difference at all between the OT and NT classes, SS is “We’re right and they’re wrong 101” in our corner of zion. I’ve also made the commitment to not attend PH for the month of January, I’m giving it …or me… a time out. The FP message in the ensign for the month of January can be an inadvertent weapon in the wrong hands. That’s a whole other story. Of course my little boycotts or the conditions that I’ve decided should cause me to leave class reflect more on me than they do the instruction.
nibbler wrote:Of course my little boycotts or the conditions that I’ve decided should cause me to leave class reflect more on me than they do the instruction.
I agree, Nibbler – my lack of attendance at Sunday School has nothing to do with the instructor or the class members, it is all about me. I suppose in that sense I am very selfish, but I do value not being riled up or upset by that which I hear in church and while I have made some headway in ignoring stuff and even in appropriately speaking up, I am not totally angst free by any means. Priesthood was somewhat tortuous yesterday, not necessarily for the content but for the instruction method (the guy essentially wrote a 30 minute talk and lectured us).
I’ve sat through difficult classes for years and years, apathy has largely replaced angst. The question then becomes “are there better uses of my time?” and the answer would seem to be “yes.” We didn’t make it to church yesterday. We are still trying to figure out what to do with a 1:00 start time and me not being there half the time. The newsweek article was very interesting. If Blair were my GD instructor I would be there every week.
What are we to do about our pretty scetchy accounts of what really happened in Isreal 2000 years ago? One one hand this is what LDS have claimed forever, that the bible is full of errors and mistranslations. OTOH, the JST and PofGP were supposed to clear that whole mistranslation thing up thus “restoring” the original intent. OTOH, the historical evidence does not seem to support the JST and PofGP to be returning to original documents. If anything they add an extra layer of someone inserting concepts into the holy writ to make it better jive with their theological understanding/exploration/needs.
We LDS certainly can’t condemn the Bible thumpers for what they do when we have simply added some more to it and then called ours the true/true-er version.
At some point I wonder if our modern versions of Christianity are better suited to our modern world than the that of the primitive church. Is it somewhat naive to expect a religion founded at the meridian of time to still be effective/ideal in its original form some 2000 years later? Could it ever be obsolete or improved upon?
Does it matter more what Jesus said or what we collectively need him to have said?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.