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

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.

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 :)

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.

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….

Any visual interpretation leads to constricting possibilities, sadly, especially when that movie is then used for doctrinal training purposes.

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.

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.