A recent post I read somewhere on the Internet had a few head-scratching interpretations of scripture and a few mis-quotes, but more interesting to me was the way that different people witnessing the same event pick out alternate and sometimes conflicting ways of remembering. Sadly, what this means is that as ever, we’re all out there following Gods of our creation, whether or not we hold them hostage.
This post regarding the Fall, for example, was clearly meant to accentuate how much God loves us and condescended to send His Son to redeem us. That’s an important lesson. But on the way, is it fair or important to say that a lesson from Adam’s partaking of the fruit is that “in a fallen world like this we can’t keep our hands too clean or stay aloof. We have to go where the people are and make things work, if messily”? Where can that idea take us? It can lead to a good principle — help those in need — but it’s also jab at Mother Eve, albeit unintentional, and a doctrinal misstatement.
It’s all fairly innocuous, I guess, but a difference of a degree can lead people thousands of miles off course. Not long into the comments we read misogynistic stuff like “from a mortal philosophical perspective on the evil nature of man, it is all Eve’s fault. If Adam had only been obedient and not fallen for Eve’s smile, then none of this would be happening and we would be stuck in the pre-earth existence…”, and then there’s no turning back the clock, no way to reconcile, and people are blind to whatever the original message was.
Instinctively, without conscious intent, we can be so focused on our own central messages that we barrel past the central points of others. In our efforts to transmit, we shut off our receivers. How does this happen? How can we prevent it?
January 9, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Interesting thoughts.
nstinctively, without conscious intent, we can be so focussed on our own central messages that we barrel past the central points of others. In our efforts to transmit, we shut off our receivers.
I’ve noticed this in some gospel doctrine classes. Once I’ve noted the core themes of some people, I can count on them to recap them regardless of the message of the particular scripture. Heck, regardless of their calling (just had a member who wanted to change the activities committee into the ward disaster preparedness committee).
It is a fascinating issue, and one that is probably the hardest of all for many to overcome.
BTW, Gordon Smith’s comments on pagerank got my attention, so I’m returning to my constant theme of trying to get a link (and promising to change my link to your new address in return).
bcc is already to a five. My home web page (adrr.com) is only at a 6 compared to ethesis.blogspot.com at a 4.
timesandseasons was down, so …
But, getting back to the point of the essay, the following links to an essay about my thoughts on a very common “bad interpretation” …
http://adrr.com/lingua/divorce.htm
January 9, 2005 at 11:44 pm
It seems that no matter how you cut it, the whole Eve story is problematic. I’ve long thought the whole transgression/sin dichotomy was a bit of a stretch, although I understand it. On the other hand I think we sometimes downplay Eve’s transgression *too* much. If we downplay it too much then the whole story of the fall really ceases to be a fall. The point is Eve had to do wrong to bring about the plan. Yet, I think that because we see it as a good thing ultimately, we want to downplay even the bad in it.
The whole garden story is inherently paradoxical on several fronts. Further, while I consider it an historical event, I also think that the accounts we have are oriented around pushing symbolic points. So it is difficult to know what to do.
Which takes me to the point of this thread and why I reply here rather than T&S. (Well T&S is down, so that’s part of the reason)
Given inherently difficult and often paradoxical texts, exactly what is the good interpretation and what is the bad? It seems almost by default all interpretations are bad in some sense.
January 10, 2005 at 1:08 am
“In our efforts to transmit, we shut off our receivers.”
Is it as simple as “people believe what they want?” This has always been a contention of mine. People don’t like their ideas to be challenged, regardless of who it might be by. They love to be validated (how many Republicans switch off Rush Limbaugh to listen to Al Franken, and vice-versa?) So when the Prophet says something most people are already on board with, they get behind it full force. But when President Kimball gave his talk on hunting in the 70s, I doubt many people put up their rifles for good. People generally believe and do what they want, the lip service about following the prophet aside.
It’s even tougher in online forums. I’m consistently amazed when people get in “respond” mode. They quote what you say line by line, responding to each sentence. That’s all well and good in some scenarios. But I’ve found it happens in the bloggernacle when people are making rather innocuous statements. Too many people are trying to win debates that don’t exist. Inevitable with all you lawyers, I suppose
January 10, 2005 at 7:57 am
Well, T&S has a google pagerank of only 4, though it is now alive and well, whatever hiccup of the internet that was afflicting it, long passed. Strange.
by default all interpretations are bad in some sense is a theme you get from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as they struggle with the concept that our language is flawed and that to be able to get beyond that problem we need a perfect language. You’ve hit a fascinating point in the issues.
January 10, 2005 at 10:07 am
John, I’ve been thinking about it, and I’m not sure that it’s as simple as “people believe what they want.” I mean, of course that’s part of the problem, but it’s a bit more nuanced at times; we talking about preferential treatment of certain ideas even when the overall realm of shared ideas is identical.
I agree with Clark that when it comes to the Fall, all interpretations are flawed. Which is fine, except when the Fall is portrayed onscreen for us and we’re supposed to learn from it….
January 10, 2005 at 10:16 am
I actually think the on-screen portrayal has way too much power because of its visuality. In a live temple session, or in reading the PofGP, multiple interpretations are possible because you have mostly just words. The filmed version drastically constricts the universe of possible interpretations, and I’m not sure how deliberately it was done–how much do GAs know about camera angles, etc.? And the mannerisms of a few actors take on huge interpretive significance. I think the video version was necessary, but it should be approached cautiously.
January 10, 2005 at 10:23 am
I agree — the actors were told to be very careful in their interpretations, not to be expressive or to put out extemporaneous emotion. That’s partly why the acting is so wooden — they are deliberately trying to be non-interpretive (non-interpretive acting? A contradiction in terms!). The exception of course is Satan, who gets all the best lines, as always.
Any visual interpretation leads to constricting possibilities, sadly, especially when that movie is then used for doctrinal training purposes.
January 10, 2005 at 11:19 am
Steve wrote Sadly, what this means is that as ever, we’re all out there following Gods of our creation, whether or not we hold them hostage.
I have actually thought a lot about this notion. Of course, many of you are aware of my own personal “orthodoxy,” so you can probably guess where I come out on the question of Latter-day Saint beliefs about scripture and God. But this question, formulated in this way, reminds me of the essence behind a poem by none less than Goethe. So good job Steve.
The poem is a Spruchweisheit and the relevant stanzas begin with Was wär ein Gott der nur von außen stieße:
Was wär ein Gott, der nur von außen stieße,
Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen ließe!
Ihm ziemts, die Welt im Innern zu bewegen,
Natur in sich, sich in Natur zu hegen,
So daß, was in Ihm lebt und webt und ist,
Nie Seine Kraft, nie Seinen Geist vermißt.
Im Innern ist ein Universum auch;
Daher der Völker löblicher Gebrauch,
Daß jeglicher das Beste, was er kennt,
Er Gott, ja seinen Gott benennt,
Ihm Himmel und Erden übergibt,
Ihn fürchtet, und womöglich liebt.
The second paragraph is telling here (in a very rough [not-Goethe-worthy] two-minute translation of my own):
Within us too a universe is found;
From thence the practice much renowned,
That people take the Best thing they adore,
Name it God, their own God to implore,
Give Him heaven and this earthly vale,
A God to fear and perhaps with love to hail.
January 10, 2005 at 11:38 am
John writes: “Of course, many of you are aware of my own personal “orthodoxy,” so you can probably guess where I come out on the question of Latter-day Saint beliefs about scripture and God.”
I am not being liberal or coy when I say that actually I really couldn’t figure out on the basis of personal orthodoxy where you would come out on the question of beliefs about scripture and God. Obviously, there would be some beliefs that would probably be foreclosed by Mormon “orthodoxy,” but I suspect that the term determines quite a bit less than we assume that it does.
Of course, the real measure of orthodoxy is me.
January 10, 2005 at 11:41 am
Nate, I would have thought that after reading comments from me around the blogs for some time now, you might have some idea of my own “personal orthodoxy,” which, of course, I believe is in line with Latter-day Saint orthodoxy, which assertion is, of course, open to debate from anyone who is not me. And I actually had your post about orthodoxy in mind when I wrote that comment concerning my “personal orthodoxy,” because I, not Nate, am orthodoxy, to the extent that Nate’s orthodoxy and my orthodoxy do not coincide.
January 10, 2005 at 11:52 am
“And I actually had your post about orthodoxy in mind when I wrote that comment concerning my “personal orthodoxy,” because I, not Nate, am orthodoxy, to the extent that Nate’s orthodoxy and my orthodoxy do not coincide.”
Nonsense. Any divergence between your opinions and my opinions is simply evidence of your need to repent.
January 10, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Well, any post that brings out the Goethe can’t be all bad.
And I agree that “orthodoxy” in mormonism means less than people might think. There are a few salient points of practices (praxis?) that orthodoxy connotes, but apart from that the field is pretty wide open. Even unorthodox people can be orthodox mormons, if you catch my drift. But that doesn’t mean that scriptural interpretation is unimportant or that somehow all views are equally valid, for that matter.
January 10, 2005 at 6:01 pm
“Not long into the comments we read misogynistic stuff like ‘from a mortal philosophical perspective on the evil nature of man, it is all Eve’s fault. If Adam had only been obedient and not fallen for Eve’s smile, then none of this would be happening and we would be stuck in the pre-earth existence…’” Do you really think that statement is misogynistic? In the first place, even if the author were criticizing Eve — which I don’t think he is — criticizing one woman — even the first woman — does not one a misogynist make. Second, that statement, as far as I can tell, is factually true. Third, I think the fact that the author states that without Eve we’d be “stuck in the pre-earth existence” indicates that he understands that it was a good thing that Eve did what she did.
January 10, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Davis, it depends on how you read the dependent clause in the first sentence. That sentence could mean “The evil nature of man is all Eve’s fault, from a mortal philosophical perspective.” If not misogynistic itself, that is a line of argument that has had some pretty lousy consequences for the treatment of women over the centuries. Still, I doubt Larry was meaning to justify that history by what was undoubtedly a quickly tossed-off comment.
January 10, 2005 at 6:38 pm
It is misogynistic, and I’m surprised that you don’t think so, Davis. Here’s a couple of reasons why:
1. It states that the evil nature of man is Eve’s fault. That’s pretty bad, and doctrinally incorrect.
2. The phrase, “If Adam had only been obedient and not fallen for Eve’s smile” is a particularly insulting turn of phrase; it insults Adam, for suggesting he was a dupe, and it insults Eve, for suggesting she seduced or enticed Adam through “feminine wiles” or whatnot to partake of the fruit. Again, that’s doctrinally incorrect, and bad stuff all around.
Definitely misogynistic, man. But keep in mind that you can be a misogynist and think you’re doing women a favor — that’s clearly what Larry thought he was doing, by saying afterwards, “God bless Eve” or something similar. But that’s condescending.
p.s. criticizing one woman — because of the fact that she is a woman — does indeed a misogynist make. Be careful if you’re thinking about using phrases like Larry’s in the business world!
January 10, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Let me clarify: I don’t think that Larry hates women. I just think it was a poorly worded phrase that ends up demeaning women, Eve in particular, using parlance that is all too common in our Church. I don’t like it, and I think that we should all learn to speak a little better than we do.
January 10, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Steve-O,
First, regarding your first point, I have to admit that I didn’t carefully read the statement of Larry’s that you quoted; I missed the “evil nature of man” part, which, as both you and Kristine point out, is fairly significant. I don’t agree with pinning that on Eve. I thought he was talking only about the Fall.
That, however, doesn’t mean I think the statement was misogynistic, which, according to dictionary.com is defined as: Of or characterized by a hatred of women. (I haven’t learned how to link on a comment). You are right that “criticizing one woman — because of the fact that she is a woman — does indeed a misogynist make.” I still don’t see Larry’s comment as doing that. His comments pertain to Eve, and although she was the first woman, she is just one woman. It’s the difference between saying “That woman is stupid,” and “Women are stupid.”
As for, “If Adam had only been obedient and not fallen for Eve’s smile,” I see your point, but I think you’re being a little too touchy. I don’t know Larry, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was simply trying to be jocular and funny about a serious topic, rather than carefully imbueing his statement with meaning. (Something both you and I are both known to do).
January 10, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Davis, again, the problem is that that particular brand of humor has a long and ugly history. Even if Larry’s particular, er, witticism has no egregiously offensive content, it’s part of a tradition of not taking women’s rational arguments seriously, insisting that they access power only by virtue of their appeal as sex objects, etc. I’m sure that Larry has the best of intentions, as do the many, many Mormon men who speak this way, but good intentions do not excuse sloppy thinking or speaking or unconscious participation in oppression.
And Eve is not exactly just “that one woman.” Criticizing her has metaphorical and archetypal resonance that statements about other individual women would not have. “Eve was stupid” is not the same as “Kristine is stupid.”
(And, yeah, I know I sound like a humorless feminist bitch. If I could think of a less rhetorically loaded way to say this concisely, I would.)
January 10, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Davis, you’re being too generous. Who says stuff like that “Eve’s smile” thing? It’s pretty bad. I’m not imbuing it with meaning — I’m pretty sure it was meaningless. But carelessness in that regard is awful. I might be a bit ####### ol’ Larry, but so be it; he wrote something pretty bad.
January 10, 2005 at 9:39 pm
You can always tell when Kristine is really upset. She pulls out the “metaphorical and archetypal resonances.” I guess it is like when I accuse someone of being lit crit.
January 10, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Actually, Nate, I’m not that upset. Davis can get away with saying stuff like that, because he’s really, really cute.
January 10, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Wow, Kristine, does the fact that you posted it twice mean that I’m really, really, really, really cute? I hope so.
I agree that criticizing Eve, “has metaphorical and archetypal resonance that statements about other individual women would not have.” Nevertheless, I still maintain that one should be able to criticize her without being a misogynist (just as one should should be able to criticize Adam without being a man-hater).
I also agree that one should not be careless or sloppy in one’s thoughts, words, or actions. Nevertheless, I think it’s too harsh to call his comments “misogynistic.” They may be foolish, or offensive, but I don’t think they reveal hatred towards women.
January 10, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Yes Davis, you are cutexreallyx4. Also, I am using the oldest browser known to humankind, and it can’t make it through the comment script without hiccupingping.
I wouldn’t use the word misogynist, either–it’s so loaded as to be meaningless in most situations. Then again, I am the one who trotted out “unconscious participation in oppression”–ugh!!
January 11, 2005 at 8:18 am
instinctively, without conscious intent, we can be so focussed on our own central messages that we barrel past the central points of others. In our efforts to transmit, we shut off our receivers.
Isn’t that even more true, sometimes, in comments on blogs? Worth saying twice sometimes.
January 11, 2005 at 9:23 am
John Fowles–thanks for an excellent rendition of Goethe!
January 11, 2005 at 11:18 am
my pleasure, glad you liked it!
January 11, 2005 at 1:19 pm
John, I liked it too. In fact, I was thinking of suggesting that you and I should both translate two stanzas of Goethe (or you do Goethe, I’ll do Rilke) every time we’re tempted to respond to one another’s comments
January 11, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Thought I’d just cut and paste my essay on a scripture I think people get wrong.
Preface: On Divorce — Comments on the Language and Meaning. There is substantial religious language on divorce. This essay attempts to address a small portion of the meaning and intent of the source statements that this language is built on.
Divorce & Christ: What Christ Said On Divorce
“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Luke 16:18, King James Version.
This quote has given many people serious concerns.
There are several reasons why some of these concerns are incorrect, which are addressed in this essay.
1. As a noted Evangelical Scholar has pointed out, the King James version has some flaws in translation (discussed below).
2. As the Bible notes, there are several justifications for divorce, which Paul discusses.
3. Still, divorce is not a light thing.
.
1. The King James translation has some flaws in rendition.
To quote Paul Young:
“In Luke both the verbs “divorce” and “marry” are in the present tense. The parallel in Mark 10:11 puts them in the subjunctive mood. In Hebrew the force of the expression would have linked the two actions together in continuous motion: kol hasholeach et eshto venose acheret noef …
Perhaps in English one could better capture the meaning of the saying by translating it, “Everyone who divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery.” ([] in origional) From Divorce and Adultery in Light of the Words of Jesus, Paul Young in Jesus (Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 1-56563-060-2. Also visit http://hakesher.org)
Note how Mark 10:11 reads:
“…Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
Reading the verses in Luke, using proper parallelism, the rendition is more likely proper as:
“Everyone who divorces his wife in order to marry another commits adultery, he that marries the new wife commits adultery, the same is true if the woman putteth away her husband in order to marry another.”
But, to quote Paul Young (at page 116) “No one should attempt to lesson the force of a powerful saying of Jesus. When a man abuses the law and divorces his wife in order to marry someone new — it is the same as adultery.”
2. As the Bible notes, there are several justifications for divorce, which Paul discusses.
There was concern at the time of Paul as to what Jesus meant and so the people turned to the Apostles for advice. Paul addressed this, both in passing, and directly, in several passages when he wrote and gave advice to the early saints, allowing for divorce in some situations in addition to adultery. e.g. 2 Corinthians 6:14, 1 Corinthians 7:15, etc.
Note that Paul also stated (which is important in cases of abuse) that those who did not care for their own had denied the faith (1 Timothy 5:8).
3. Divorce is not a light thing.
As the Atlantic Monthly put it “Dan Quayle Was Right.” Children prefer to have their parents stay together and absent abuse, do better if the parents do not divorce in order to find “happiness.” Divorce is not a light thing.
On the other hand, it is my personal belief, by citation to authorities that most of the readers of this essay would not recognize, that while divorce is a bad thing, it is an evil thing to stay where there is abuse. While I believe that “for richer or for poorer, in sickness or in health, for better or for worse” for “as long as you both shall live” — and beyond, I believe that abuse vitiates.
So, I oppose divorce, but oppose abuse even more.
4. The language issues cause problems.
The problems addressed by the above essay are good examples of problems caused by language issues — how the translated text is read and how it impacts normal people who read it — and problems that are much easier to avoid with better language than with a good explanation of what the text means (vs. what it appears to say). This sample is an excellent example of where Dr. Elgin’s comments about religious language are proven to be clearly right.
All errors and opinions on this page are the responsibility of (Copyright 1998) Stephen R. Marsh.
[return to Lingua Archives]
[return to Other]
[return to Ethesis]
January 11, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Kristine, that sounds like a great idea.