- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t really know what this means. circumscribe
[ ˈsərkəmˌskrīb ]
verb
past tense: circumscribed · past participle: circumscribed
restrict (something) within limits:
“their movements were strictly monitored and circumscribed”
synonyms: restrict · limit · keep within bounds · curb · confine · restrain ·
regulate · control
More
draw (a figure) around another, touching it at points but not cutting it. Compare with inscribe.
Does this phrase mean that all truth is limited or kept within the bounds of the gospel? Would this mean truth needs to fit within the gospel or does it mean the gospel expands to accept all truth?
In fitting in with the definitions provided… I think it means that when we find additional truth it’s time to draw another, larger figure around whatever figure(s) we have previously drawn to ensure that the additional truth is also included. At least that’s the way I always interpreted it.
I go with “contained” – meaning there is one great whole within which all truth exists. I think it is basically meaningless. It sounds very new age and philosophical, but really doesn’t mean anything, Can truth really be contained? Are there any boundaries for truth? I don’t think so. You can’t put truth in a box to call it truth. However, getting into a philosophical discussion on it would be exhausting :yawn: Don’t laugh at me, but all these years, I thought it meant “all truth will be circumscribed in one great hole”. The fact that the symbol is on the navel didn’t help 😆 😆 I hope I don’t appear to be mocking the phrase — but that was honestly what I thought all these years and never bothered to figure it out. Thanks for clarifying that to me!!!Old-Timer wrote:I go with “contained” – meaning there is one great whole within which all truth exists.
So would this mean that when new truth is discovered that doesn’t fit inside the gospel, that the gospel must expand to include the new truth like Nibbler stated?
If so, it would seem we do it backwards in the church, trying to cram truth within the box that already exists instead of expanding to encompass the greater truth.
The words “will be” stand out to me. They imply something that takes place in the future. It acknowledges that all truth is not currently circumscribed into one great whole. So, is there a point in time where we will be able to say all truth has been circumscribed into one great whole? Or all truth is circumscribed into one great whole?
nibbler wrote:The words “will be” stand out to me. They imply something that takes place in the future. It acknowledges that all truth is not currently circumscribed into one great whole.
So, is there a point in time where we will be able to say all truth has been circumscribed into one great whole? Or all truth is circumscribed into one great whole?
“Will be” can also be a continual present tense as a command so perhaps it is a continuing process in which we’re all involved. Perhaps this is partly what is meant by Uchtdorf’s talk about the continuing restoration.
Good call. That certainly lends itself to the interpretation of including truth, wherever it may be found, into the “great whole.”
nibbler wrote:Good call.
That certainly lends itself to the interpretation of including truth, wherever it may be found, into the “great whole.”
To me, it’s nonsensical. I just read a passage in Rough Stone Rolling that made a lost of sense. Bushman quoted one of Joseph’s revelations in Kirtland, and made this comment:
Quote:
The exact meaning of the passage is elusive, and interpretations differ”To me, coming from a genius like Bushman, it means the particular passage he quoted may well have been gibberish. Just because something is elusive, doesn’t meant its got hidden truth in it. It can sometimes be nonsense.
I will say this — Ghandi made a comment that all aspects of a person’s life — their work, family, friendship, are “one”. That made a lot of sense to me, as they are all based on similar principles of respect, kindness, trust, positive investment, standards, mutual benefits, etcetera. If you want to connect that statement about all truth being circumscribed into one “whole”, then that makes sense to me — a lot of sense.
SilentDawning wrote:nibbler wrote:Good call.
That certainly lends itself to the interpretation of including truth, wherever it may be found, into the “great whole.”
To me, it’s nonsensical. I just read a passage in Rough Stone Rolling that made a lost of sense. Bushman quoted one of Joseph’s revelations in Kirtland, and made this comment:
Quote:
The exact meaning of the passage is elusive, and interpretations differ”To me, coming from a genius like Bushman, it means the particular passage he quoted may well have been gibberish. Just because something is elusive, doesn’t meant its got hidden truth in it. It can sometimes be nonsense.
I will say this — Ghandi made a comment that all aspects of a person’s life — their work, family, friendship, are “one”. That made a lot of sense to me, as they are all based on similar principles of respect, kindness, trust, positive investment, standards, mutual benefits, etcetera. If you want to connect that statement about all truth being circumscribed into one “whole”, then that makes sense to me — a lot of sense.
I agree to a point. We would either need to accept that JS was speaking jibberish or we would have to conclude that there was some intended meaning behind the things he said, or the language used to teach us a higher knowledge. I don’t like dropping things into the “mysteries of God” bucket and letting it drop. That “mysteries” shelf gets pretty heavy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.