I think we ought to read the scriptures in ways that help the best understandings we can develop of the original ideas speak to our contemporary concerns. So, there are two aspects here. We probably ought to try to ground our interpretations in the best reading of authorial intent that we can construct, while nonetheless acknowledging that such readings are always partial and problematic. Even though we will never get there, grounding ourselves in this kind of intent keeps us wrestling with the actual insights of Peter, Paul, Jesus, Nephi, Joseph Smith, etc. — it keeps us from constructing a purely solipsistic faith. Then, we should seek ways of translating those ideas that are faithful to the author’s insights but that also useful for us. That way, we get the Nephi thing and the Peter thing, but it does mean that we have to be careful about how we extrapolate meanings.

Leaving aside the current example, and just focusing on that statement broadly.

So we can no longer liken the scriptures unto ourselves? Unless it fits within the vision of the author at the time they wrote it of course.

Is there a footnote I’m missing somewhere that explains just what is consistent with the authors vision and how I might be able to apply the particular scripture I’m reading?

As I tried to explain earlier the vision wasn’t given to Stephen as some great proclamation about monotheistic doctrine. It was rather Stephen looking and seeing the court doors swing wide open and his star witness standing there to testify that his testimony was true – They were murderers! It’s the greatest defense anyone could hope and it all starts back in verse 1: “Then said the high priest, Are these things so?” Jesus showed up at the trial and because of this his accusers knew they were damned. It’s a beautiful story and you defense lawyers should love it. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords shows up to defend you. God bless Stephen and God Bless You.

Thanks for listening.

Anyway, Brad piqued my interest so I went out and found a free copy of that Fenella Cannell item:

http://www.echols.info/THE-CHRISTIANITY-OF-ANTHROPOLOGY.pdf

He then charges them with their ever unwillingness to submit to God throughout history and finally the murder of the righteous one and all His prophets. By the time he is done with his defense, his accusers are the ones on trial being accused of blasphemy and murder they are in a frenzy.

Now, doesn’t it seem odd that after arguing his “I believe in the same God” defense he would then gaze into the heavens and see Jesus standing, this is where you had added your choice word “separate” from the Father. Doing so would nullify his defense and give just reason for his accusers to drag him off and stone him, which they did but not justly. Instead he cries out “standing on the right hand of God”. His hearers were pricked to the heart that this Jesus they murdered was standing in position of power and authority on the “right hand of God”. Where as he he answers for them the long withstanding puzzle of David’s psalm: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”. Making his accusers the real enemies of God.

So you see then, the vision wasn’t given to show Jesus having flesh and bone, or standing separately in body or spirit, but a continuation of Stephen’s defense he had started and laid out from the beginning. And now his charges strengthened with a heavenly indictment of their sin (Jesus not sitting but standing)and they knew they were guilty. This is why they dragged Stephen out and stoned him.

“And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.”

(And just when I was hoping that Deseret would start placing some of my written materials on the same shelf with Glenn Beck here in the Corridor. Btw, I read through much of his latest Christmas book. Nice tip to Huntsman at the end.)