- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just wondering what you think this phrase in the subject line represents. On one hand, we are taught to “seek learning out of the best books”, yet on the other hand, if you try to weave non-church material into lessons, you run the risk of being censured teaching “the ideas of men mingled with scripture”. So, where is the line between learning from the best books, and mingling the philosophies of men? Particularly when teaching a lesson at church?
Scriptures are just the philosophies of men also. So what we really could be saying is,” The philosophies of men mingled with older philosophies of men” SilentDawning wrote:Just wondering what you think this phrase in the subject line represents.
On one hand, we are taught to “seek learning out of the best books”, yet on the other hand, if you try to weave non-church material into lessons, you run the risk of being censured teaching “the ideas of men mingled with scripture”. So, where is the line between learning from the best books, and mingling the philosophies of men? Particularly when teaching a lesson at church?
I went to the temple last week and noted that every statement Satan makes has a lie associated with it. The origin of this phrase is satan in the temple endowment, and he is simply lying.There is no scriptural prohibition for teaching philosophy and appropriately linking it to scripture, and vice versa. It is even possible that the philosophers may have been inspired in their own way:
2 Nephi 29:11-12 wrote:For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.
For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
God speaks to “All nations of the earth”. where are these writings? In the books written by their sages, prophets, and philosophers. Indeed, we really should be seeking out of the “best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”The real prohibition of mixing things of god with the things of men is as follows:
Matthew 15:9 wrote:But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:7 wrote:Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
These two verses witnessing to the Savior’s injunction of the Rabbinical/Talmudic “fence around the law”, where the Church Leaders would require more obedience from the members than the law prescribed. Sound familiar?JST, Colossians 2:21 wrote:Which are after the doctrines and commandments of men, who teach you to touch not, taste not, handle not; all those things which are to perish with the using?
Hmmmm. does this sound like a rebuke of those who might convert the Word of Wisdom into a mandate. When the restrictions aren’t scripture, they are ‘commandments of men’.Doctrine and Covenants 46:7 wrote:But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or
the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.
This sounds like an idictment against those who would require the saints to take the words of the brethren as the word of the lord without questioning. Instead, we are commanded to ask ALL THINGS OF GOD. and the Spirit testifies what we should do. And if we do this, we will be able to discern and not be seduced by the…commandments of men.And THEN, of course, in the first vision, the indictment wasn’t that the corrupt professors mix scripture with philosophy, but rather,
JSH 19 wrote:They teach for doctrines the commandments of men”
It’s clear to me that this misquoting of the endowment in common use in the church, and doing so in a way that sounds like we’re being evil is profoundly wrong. the main issue in the church is the acceptance as doctrine these commandments of men that have accreted in conferences and various talks of the ‘brethren’, and then requiring the saints to accept them without asking. This is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the what Joseph Smith taught and received as revelation.Personally, I like to think of that phrase and break it down into primary and secondary parts – keeping in mind the context wayfarer just described, which is “preachers” trying to gain a following. The primary focus of that phrase is teaching the philosophies of men – meaning, to me, that someone is teaching what they see as man’s ideas void of any reference to God. Iow, it’s a structure that denies God at the most fundamental level. That fits its use by Lucifer as something he taught and of which he approved.
The secondary focus is scripture – and I see “mingling” as “adding just enough to get people to buy into the philosophies of men”. It’s using just enough religion intentionally to make religiously oriented people think they are focusing on God when they actually aren’t.
Thus, the combination of the two, worded in that way, means to me that people are intentionally crafting something that focused on them by using just enough “God-speak” to deceive people who otherwise would not believe them – and it focuses on what is taught, NOT what is left out in an attempt to simplify. (That last point is critical, imo.)
There are lots and lots of people who fit that description – both in religion and outside of it. It’s rampant in politics, for example. There are problems with the other extreme – teaching scripture primarily and not realizing they also represent the philosophies of humans or teaching exclusively the scriptures and ignoring the non-canonical philosophies of humans, but, for those who are “preachers of religion”, focusing on human, non-God-centered wisdom first and supplementing only as much as necessary with God-focused,”faithful” teachings is one of the purest forms of heresy.
People can argue constantly about the exact nature of the teachings, but it’s the orientation and focus that is the point of the title phrase, imo.
Finally, I think the phrase (and idea) is way over-used and misapplied throughout religion – not just in the LDS Church. It’s used as a hammer in many situations where a hammer isn’t necessary or appropriate at all. We have the scriptural foundation to avoid that, but most members just don’t see it that way.
In this case I will just say “Deru kugi wa utareru Literally: The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”
Ironically this has happened from the very foundation of Mormonism(LDS). I find it ironic when we do the same within as if our own history didn’t teach us about this.
Does anyone remember the philosophy of not referring to ourselves as “Mormons” because it it’s not Mormons church. I do. I remember when those that would call thselves Mormons in church would get hammered down. Now we accept it or even
in-brace it. It’s all a matter of teaching something(philosophy of men) that sticks out as the accepted norm or not of the time within the church.
My first point: After reading this I’m confused. 2. I’ve seen philosophers mingle scripture as they teach subjects like evolution and religion from a philosophical point of view (Stephen Jay Gould an evolutionist has done this).
3. I think it is a prohibition against priest craft generally.
4. I teach scripture mingled by the philosophies of men to get my point across, or to turn philosophies of men on its head.
5. Philosophy itself is not bad, it is persuading people down a false path that is wrong, much like Korihor or Nehor in the BOM.
I like Wayfarer’s interpretation — where for example, one priesthood leader stood up and said that tithing it to be paid on gross. That was his philosophy, mingled with the scriptural commandment that we pay tithing. Also, Ray’s comment that it’s like a poison pill meant to deceive, but given the appearance of legitimacy by mingling in scripture. I find the best lessons I teach are where I take a concept from the scripture that tells us what we need to do at a high level (like love our spouses), and then augment it with the philosophies of men. Men like Willard Harley Junior who is a marraige counselor and came out with a theory of love in marriage based on meeting certain common emotional needs. At this point, the lesson becomes both theoretical and practical at the same time and people sit up and listen.
This is helping me as I expect to get lambasted for bringing into the discussions a lot of research and concepts I read about in my spare time that are not church publications in my sunday lessons.
Actually I agree with Cadence. It’s a great turn of phrase until you realize that ALL scripture is mingled with human input. But it’s still a good caution. For example when church members conflate political causes with subjective interpretations of scriptures twisted to make their point. I would add that IMO, the entire PH race ban is a prime example of BY mingling the philosophies of man (from his Protestant upbringing) with scripture. Despite what I wrote above about how I choose to see the specific temple wording, I also agree with Cadence’s point about scripture – and I think the Priesthood ban is probably the best example in Mormon history of using scripture to justify the philosophies of men. The LDS Church absolutely isn’t immune to the principle involved, since all of us tend to see what we believe in the scriptures – and the Church simply is the collection of all its members. When I talk about the temple wording, I acknowledge our fundamental inclination to do it about lots of things, but I also see egregious, seemingly intentional examples of it – and it’s those examples on which I tend to focus.
However, I’m glad Cadence made his point and Hawk followed up on it, since I don’t want to ignore or seem to disagree with it. Just as “nearly all” who have a little authority, as they suppose, tend toward unrighteous dominion, nearly all tend toward mingling scripture with human philosophies (using scriptures to explain their natural beliefs). That is very much part of our natural selves, and it’s important to understand.
Yep — this shows just how important it is to be self-governing as you experience Mormonism – to listen and experience it with filters on, sometimes blinders on, and always with your ears wide open so you can sort the chaff from the wheat. Thanks to Wayfarer on his comment above…I taught a lesson on the Sabbath Day — another hard topic for me and one I struggle with given the achiever in me…had a non-member in the class who asked about how some high profile mormons are involved in professional sports teams on Sundays, and how can that be if they are committed Mormons? Was able to comment on how we believe in worshipping God according to the dictates of our own conscience, which really resonated with the quorum — I could feel it — as they had never heard that interpretation of that article of faith. It really resonated with this non-member deciding if he wants to engage with Mormonism.
And then, I was able to comment on how making firm prescriptions about what is, and what is not acceptable Sabbath Day behavior can be akin to “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture” if people try to attach too specific rules to the sabbath day scripture. As Wayfarer mentioned above. I had never thought of it that way — normally thinking of the mingled with scripture concept aimed at outside religions.
Again, lots of really interesting head-nodding and acceptance from the quorum on that one. Thanks Wayfarer…good point above.
Wish I could’ve cited you as I do in my research papers
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: I mentioned in HPG today that sometimes we focus so much on figuring out what we shouldn’t do that we forget to fill the hole with good things we should do. I quoted the verse about the Sabbath being made for man (as a chance to do ___________), not man for the Sabbath (as a restriction not to do _________). I mentioned a father who works non-stop and can’t spend time with his family going to the park and playing with his kids – that some members would say he’s violating the Sabbath, but, in reality, he’s “resting from his labors” and doing what we teach is critically important.
I wish I would have used the discussion in this thread like you did, SD. It’s a great way to apply it in the Sabbath lesson.
I just wanted to bump up this old thread, for those who are interested in an interesting read, Wayfarer and Ray and SD make some very good points in this thread. Thanks, Heber. It was good to re-read this thread. When I saw the title of this thread I thought they were finally renaming the Correlation Committee something more accurate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.