A mildly heretical question (and a link)
I’ve asked this question once before, but I am curious as to what the response would be here:
Is there any church-related thing that we discuss in our church meetings that isn’t the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?
Does the performing of ordinances count?
Comment by Steve Evans — October 31, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Church Correlation?
Comment by kevinf — October 31, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Only when scripture is eliminated from the discussion.
Comment by KyleM — October 31, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
1. nope, unless we are discussing the performing of ordinances, which often does count
2. I would normally consider that an example of the issue, but maybe you mean something else
3. I don’t understand what you mean
Comment by John C. — October 31, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
(4) I think that as soon as anyone begins interpreting scriptures, the philosophies of men creep in. Even presidents of the church aren’t immune from that. I believe we’ve even had church policies because of this. We all spin things, whether it needs to be spun or not.
What if the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture is itself a philosophy of men, mingled with scripture?
Comment by KyleM — October 31, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Kyle, if scripture is eliminated, then it’s just the philosophies of men, unmingled with scripture, isn’t it?
John C., no, I don’t think there’s a single thing that isn’t. Even the ordinances have philosophies of men tacitly embedded. (Or is the white shirt and tie for administrators of the sacrament ordinance not a philosophy of men?)
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — October 31, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Ironically, you can’t include the temple as a place we don’t!
Comment by Jacob M — October 31, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
6) Yep.
7) Exactly.
Comment by KyleM — October 31, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Kyle,
So is it a bad thing or a good thing?
JNS,
I agree. I think that the ordinances themselves are above the philosophies of men, but how and why we do them does tend to get intermingled.
Jacob,
I don’t do an awful lot of talking in the temple, so I’ll take your word for it.
Comment by John C. — October 31, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
John, re correlation, nope, that’s what I mean.
Comment by kevinf — October 31, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Related question: Are the scriptures free of the philosophies of men? If not, what exactly is meant by ’scriptures, mingled with the philosophies of men’?
Comment by Name (required) — October 31, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
If “teachings of the prophets and apostles” and “anecdotes from the lives of members” is equivalent to “philosophies of men,” then, sure, every Church class is saturated with them.
Comment by John Mansfield — October 31, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
9 - I don’t either. I was just hinting towards something-of-which-we-do-not-speak-of. I will not say anything further about it, or I’ll get . . . well, let’s just say I’ll get in trouble. I’m trying to walk on a fine line here. Hopefully you get the joke. If you don’t, sorry!
Wow. I feel like I’m in Hogwarts with that one sentence.
Comment by Jacob M — October 31, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
I don’t think the intermingling is preventable. The alternative is the horrendous idea that when the brethren speak, the thinking has been done. Even then, if the brethren could think collectively alike on every doctrine or issue it the philosophies of men and scripture would still intermingle. It’s just someone else’s philosophy.
Does the order of words make a difference in the phrasing? Is “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture” worse than “scripture, mingled with the philosophies of men?” If there is a difference, I may have to rethink.
Comment by KyleM — October 31, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
When we speak under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, what comes out is the word of God, filtered through our fallible capacities. That is not the same thing as the philosophies of men mingled with scripture — it is truth.
Which is not to say that there is no truth in the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. I think that phrase has more to do with criticizing/condemning people who proof-text the ideas they are comfortable with by means of scripture than it does with condemning mixing scriptures and our own philosophies. It is inevitable, as your question indicates, that we will do so, but the question, to me, is whether we are seeking to justify and validate our comfort zones in scripture, or whether we are trying to understand the will of God, something which isn’t very easy.
Comment by Blain — October 31, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
I remember my mission president telling us every general conference talk by the prophet and apostles was scripture. While this could be considered a recklessly liberal statement, when you look at the scriptures I guess you could see the point.
Comment by David T. — October 31, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
John C.,
It’s surprising that in the talk you hyperlink, a general authority quotes verbatim a phrase from the temple ceremony. (Perhaps this is why you apparently had no qualms explicitly quoting it in your post). Joseph Smith used overwrought,flowery language. His words are an awkward mix of Early Modern English from the 17th century and American English from the 19th century. It’s more important to focus on the spirit of his revelations and ordinances rather than the strict literal meaning of them. I doubt this phrase from the temple ceremony means that secular thinkers are an abomination and that bad people try to fool people into accepting secular ideas by mixing them with scripture. It probably just means that secular ideas that contradict LDS Church doctrines are wrong. Things like pre-marital sex, social alcohol consumption, abortion, etc. Maybe the whole “mingled with scripture” phrase might refer to a practicing Christian who thinks it’s okay to have a beer or something.
Comment by California Condor — October 31, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
#17, why wouldn’t it be OK for a practicing Christian to have a beer?
Comment by Name (required) — October 31, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Name (18),
From our Mormon perspective, beer drinking is sinful, and we believe this is a commandment from God.
Comment by California Condor — October 31, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
#19–Is inherently sinful or just sinful for a Mormon? Do you consider it sinful for a non-Mormon Christian to drink beer?
Comment by Name (required) — October 31, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
RE the evils of beer, I think this is a well-picked-over issue. Beer, in any case, is clearly the most evil of all mild barley beverages.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — October 31, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Looking at the paragraph that line comes from, it sounds like the president of the church is supposed to do all of the things in the sentence before it:
“From this it is plain that we are not called to preach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture or our own ideas or the mysteries of the kingdom, nor are we called to bring forth new doctrine. The president of the Church will do that.”
He really just meant the last thing, right?
Comment by FHL — October 31, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
I agree with others that, understood generically, virtually everything we say at church could come under this rubric. The idea that we can separate what the scriptures clearly say from our own understanding and interpretation is hopelessly naive.
On the other hand, in its locus classicus, it’s pretty clear that the expression “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture” had a very specific and technical meaning, having to do with the classical Christian dogmas on the nature of God (same substance, without body, parts and passions, and all that kind of stuff).
But if people want to expand the expression beyond its original technical usage, then yes, pretty much everything would fall under this rubric. Which is to say that in the generic sense it isn’t a very helpful expression.
Comment by Kevin Barney — October 31, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
But if the philosophies of men are true, they must have come through revelation. Having been revealed by the Spirit, they are scripture.
Comment by Jim — October 31, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Kevin Barney (23),
Where does the phrase “philosophies of men, mingled with scripture” come from?
Comment by California Condor — October 31, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
California Condor, the temple. Specifically, the pre-1990 (or whenever the changes were made) endowment. There is a very specific context for this expression that anyone who missed out on that version of the endowment wouldn’t know about.
Comment by Kevin Barney — October 31, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
What Kevin said in #23.
I always have read this as meaning that the fundamentally “bad” postulation is based on the philosophies of men (sans scriptures), with scriptural citations picked and chosen intentionally to support something that the scriptural canon as a whole does not support. That is very different than taking what one believes the scriptural canon to say and finding better language or philosophical constructions to make it more understandable to man.
I look at the example of the Priesthood ban in exactly this light - racist philosophies of men mingled with (justified by) scriptures.
Comment by Ray — October 31, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
#25 & #26 - Suddenly, I feel very old.
Comment by Ray — October 31, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Kevin, I think the phrase is still in the current endowment, isn’t it?
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — October 31, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Kevin Barney (26),
Ok, thanks, that’s what I thought. But your comment #23 made it seem like perhaps it had been used elsewhere before Joseph Smith put it into the endowment. Like maybe the Nicean Creed or something.
Comment by California Condor — October 31, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
To be sure to always safely avoid any mingling of scriptures with worldy philosophies: Always wear a conservative suit and keep your hair neatly trimmed. You never have to worry if you look sharp!
Comment by plvmetz — October 31, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
I’ve had a few Sunday School lesssons where we just read scriptures. They were pretty cool.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — October 31, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
I’ve heard a lot of philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Probably done a little mingling myself.
Comment by BHodges — October 31, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Everyone,
So it is “philosophies of men, mingled with scripture” when we disagree with the interpretation, but not when we do?
California Condor,
You read me like a book. I quote the talk because I quote the talk.
Comment by John C. — October 31, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Name (20),
I’ll just say that I believe God doesn’t want us to drink beer.
Comment by California Condor — October 31, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
John C. (34),
I guess the question you should be answering is whether or not you think it’s okay to quote phrases from the endowment ceremony.
Comment by California Condor — October 31, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Jay, yes, you’re right. What has changed is that some of the older context is no longer there.
Comment by Kevin Barney — October 31, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
#36 - Yes, for some; no, for others - but that has nothing to do with scriptures or philosophies of men.
Comment by Ray — October 31, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
In a sense, scriptures are by definition the philosophies of inspired men. Unlike Islam, Mormons don’t believe that scripture is actually the literal words of God. They are philosophies that prophets have worked out in their minds and confirmed by inspiration (at least that’s how Joseph Smith described the process of translation in D&C 9). What separates scriptural “philosophies of men” from other philosophies of men is the fact that the scriptures have been canonized and given greater authority.
Comment by C.O. — October 31, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Church meetings don’t hold a candle to the BYU philosophy department – the above line is its motto.
Comment by Eric Russell — October 31, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
CC,
I’m quoting Elder Rector. Other associations are allowed to be generated in whatever way you choose.
Comment by John C. — October 31, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
John,
I would formulate this equation for systematic theology. st = Bible + human logic
I think ‘human logic’ seems to be a better term.
NT scripture would oppose the vain philosophies but not the use of our God-given tool, called logic.
Right?
Comment by Todd Wood — October 31, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
I could be way out there but it seems to me that while drinking alchohol in excess was more or less discouraged in several biblical citations, alchohol itself was not banned until the Word of Wisdom. I could again be wrong, but it also seems to me that in the early, and even not so early days, the Word of Wisdom was seen as a guideline and not so much a hard commandment. Some were asked specifically to live it, but for most it was something along the lines of an admonition. I believe it was in a BYU LDS Church History class where I learned that it was not until after the predominantly LDS State of Utah’s vote to repeal prohibition, contrary to the expressed guidance of the Prophet, Heber J. Grant, that the Word of Wisdom became a hard commandment, more specifically, failure to live the Word of Wisdom resulted in unworthiness to visit the temple and participate in ordinances.
I personally do not think there is something inherently evil about alchohol or its consumption in moderation. It seems to me there are people out there who believe it is the substance itself that is spiritually contaminating. I think we have had the Word of Wisdom imposed upon us because an inspired Prophet understood that too many Mormons do not understand moderation (can we say triple by-pass), and do not make nice drunks. I live the word of wisdom because I have made covenants to do so. In my opinion, a Christian who is a true believer and has a beer every now and then is not necessarily sinning. That person would not have made covenants not to drink alchohol and therefore does not have the same responsibility to the Lord. Now if that person throws back a few to many and goes out for a drive, or beats his wife or kids, in short behaves in a highly irresponsible manner, that person is definitely sinning. Them is my thunks. I realize this is a bit off topic and lengthy and all but one of my biggest annoyances about LDS culture is our tendency to impose our mores, inspired or not, on those who do not necessarily have the same light we have. Particularly when you get into discussions about how wine in the Bible was really grape juice and hold historical events/practices up to current LDS beliefs and policies.
Comment by Gijoero — October 31, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
#42 - Well said. I couldn’t agree more with the final paragraph.
Comment by Ray — October 31, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
Gijoero,
Most people who frequent these blogs, myself included, long ago learned about the history of the Word of Wisdom. I certainly already knew that the complete prohibition of alcohol was not a part of the Word of Wisdom until the Heber J. Grant era.
But since 1921, to be temple-worthy, Mormons have had to abstain from alcohol. I believe that Heber J. Grant was an inspired prophet, so I believe that this rule came from God. I believe that God wants every person to join the LDS Church, so I believe that God wants every person to abstain from alcoholic medicine.
Comment by California Condor — October 31, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
re (44),
Replace “medicine” with “beverages.” Medicinal cough syrups, etc. are one form of alcohol that I believe God does not ban.
Comment by California Condor — October 31, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Just wanted to say I did not mean to seem condescending or anything like that when I got into the history of the Word of Wisdom. I usually opperate on two premises. The first is I assume nothing. I am new around here so I don’t know who is who and such so I didn’t want to make any comments based on the assumption that everybody reading them would know the background. The second is I have a habit of giving as much supporting information in presenting my opinions. I think that touches on another key point, actually, these are my opinions.
I too believe President Grant was inspired. I guess the alchohol (or even better, the coffee/tea issue because they are seemingly much more innocuous substances) leads to a question I have often asked myself. It seems to me that the current, inspired emphasis on the Word of Wisdom seems very lower-law in nature. I believe the original emphasis was much more higher-law in nature. If we were all truly Christ-like beings, would it have been necessary for the Lord to have inspired his Prophet to require all members of the Church to live the Word of Wisdom. Perhaps a bigger question than that would be why there is a focus on the seemingly restrictive aspects. Why doesn’t my Bishop ask me if I am getting my greens and my grains?
I don’t say these things to put myself above the law. The Word of Wisdom is a standard I am deeply grateful for. It makes my life a lot easier. I have a feeling I am one of those types who would be an awful drunk.
Comment by Gijoero — November 1, 2007 @ 6:44 am
If you belive that the Prophet and Apostles are truly inspired of God, then the words they give us are the words of God - not the philosophies of men. Thus their talks should be considered scripture.
Comment by gabe — November 13, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Back to the original question; “Is there any church-related thing that we discuss in our church meetings that isn’t the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?”. I would answer no, I don’t believe there is.
That isn’t to say that all topics and discussions are corrupt and impure, but anything discussed in church or otherwise is subject to the philosophies of men.
It is left up to us to know if what is being taught is divine doctrine or otherwise. It is therefor imperative that as individuals we rely on the promptings of the spirit to know for ourselves. We never were meant to blindly follow man and his interpretation of the scriptures.
Now, if you had a perfect knowledge (beyond mere faith), and let’s say Peter, James and John visited you and proved themselves to be divine messengers, then I believe you could not doubt that there were no philosophies of men involved.
I know that’s a bit extreme of an example, but my point is, other than maybe ordinances, your own patriarchal blessing, and direct divine interpretation, you are going to be subject to the philosophies of men.
The adversary knows this probably better than anyone.
And so, maybe a better question is, can you pose that question you did and accept a true answer, seeing as how what I’ve stated is in itself mingled with the philosophies of a man?
Comment by Kiquito — December 7, 2007 @ 6:23 pm