quote: I mean, you can tell the difference in text that is written by different authors, but if it is all scripture, how much of a personality can be threaded and injected into the words before it strays too far from was intended to be scripture?
I'm just thinking aloud here, but perhaps this is one of the reasons why it is so important to take scripture together as a whole, in context with all other scripture? Because I do think there is always a bit of that person's individual self woven in. I've always kinda looked at it that way.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tammy: [speaking of Joseph Smith's statements about Song of Solomon] "Do you think that means that he didn’t consider the Song of Solomon to be sacred or authoritative?"
In the LDS edition of the KJV Bible, the footnote at the beginning of the Song of Solomon reads, "Note: the JST [Joseph Smith Translation] manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings'." So yes, that means that JS didn't consider the SofS to be sacred or authoritative.
I realize this isn't exactly on topic, but the question was asked.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Someone said that for Latter-day Saints it would be easier to determine what is or is not Scripture because of what is called modern revelation. In some ways that is true. The Canon, through various supporting clarifications, has been determined reliable. On the other hand, there are several statements about scripture that makes identification of what is to be considered "Canon" very difficult. In some ways you could say that there is no problem with the identity of what is already considered scripture, but an extremely open question of what could become such. Even determining what is and is not scripture among our Prophets' statements is a hot topic.
As for understanding Revelation, I think Latter-day Saints should understand a lot of what the book is talking about, at least from its own viewpoints. I have studied the book for ten years and have come to definate conclusions about its meaning. Some of it is specific understanding, and some of it is more general. I hardly say I understand all of it, but I think I understand a great deal.
Here is why I believe LDS should understand, from their own viewpoint, the book of Revelation. Lets start with section 77 that gives very specific answers to particular verses. After that, we have the Book of Mormon that is a kind of apocalyptic literature itself. There is also the Book of Abraham with its many allusions to the final days and cosmic events. The same with the Book of Moses, with its warnings and blessings and cosmic discussions. Finally, there is the Temple experience itself that is filled with allusions to final victory over sin and death, and the return to a Celestial City. Of course, add that in with the Old Testament and New Testament -- specifically the JST of Christ's "Little Apocalype" and there is little reason to not understand, again from an LDS point of view, the meaning of the Book of Revelation. As a deeply millenialist church, the idea of the final days is not very difficult to understand. I would like to break down the Book of Revelation for discussion, but that is beyond my time right now. One thing I would like to know is the historical interpretation of the book, as I do believe it was his time that he used as the symbols for the past and future. He saw things beyond himself, but still from where he stood.
With all that said, I must agree that some LDS go way too far in their interpretation of the book beyond what is either known or true. Some are more fanatical than the most literalist of Protestants.
Eh, big deal. Hatrack has had at least a dozen of those over the years. They're really pretty common.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, the thing is, I'm not sure everyone wants to discuss what the LDS think of scripture and Revelation...
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kath, I understand that. My comments are toward Mormons (specifically you to name one) who have stated they don't understand, and those who specifically mentioned mormons. And yes, I don't know how to spell canon or whatever.
posted
Okay, if there's something that's only directed to and is basically only discussed among LDS, OSC created a whole site just for that purpose. They aren't new protocols, they just haven't been brought up for a while. There's an area called Gospel Discussion (I think) that would be perfect for a dissemination of Revelation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes its difficult to determine what is for "Mormon eyes only" and "open discussion" here at Hatrack. I should have said "because of Mormons," rather than "toward Mormons" in my explanation.
posted
Actually, given the very different outlook on revelation between LDS and Catholicism (for example), I find the Mormon-specific outlook on the canon interesting and fitting for this thread. If it went 2 pages of people disputing some obscure point made by JS, I might get bored. But general introduction to a particular denomination's view on the canon is perfectly suitable here to me.
Dagonee Edit: Kat, I do appreciate you taking the views into account from the recent threads and posting the reminder. It's just that this interests me greatly.
posted
The Song of Solomon is a prophetic portrayal of God/Christ's courtship of His church, through the ages and to the day of Judgment (Marriage). That is why it is in the Bible.
Jesus told several parables employing the metaphor of marriage, and introduced each one by saying, "the kingdom of heaven is like..." The marriage in those parables is the judgment, when Christ receives His kingdom. (Note the examination scene in Matthew 22:11-13.)
The Apostle Paul portrayed the church as the wife of Christ in Ephesians 5:25-27. In Revelation an angel called the Holy City, New Jerusalem, "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Revelation 21:9). John likened the sight of the New Jerusalem as it came down out of heaven onto the earth as being "adorned like a bride for her husband" (Revelation 21:2) The New Jerusalem, of course, is where Christ's people dwell.
The same theme is throughout the Old Testament, as well. For example Isaiah 62:5 (NKJV): "For as a young man marries a virgin, So shall your sons marry you [Zion]; And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So shall your God rejoice over you."
[ June 23, 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering what Joseph Smith understood about Canon (ALL canon is open canon, ready for interpretation and reinterpretation in several competing, although equally relavant, forms). I would say he didn't think the Songs of Solomon were of re-interpretive value. In other words, for him the book was of dead rather than living significants.
quote:The Song of Solomon is a prophetic portrayal of God/Christ's courtship of His church, through the ages and to the day of Judgment (Marriage). That is why it is in the Bible.
I'd always heard that as a sort of forced explanation to try and explain it. Personally, I don't buy it. Some great poetry, but I think pulling it to be a prophetic allegory of Christ and his church is stretching - especially when those in the NT who made those specific claims concerning Christ and his Church didn't even quote the SofS in support for it.
**
And I think he parenthesis of adding why LDS should have a 'greater understanding' of their church's understanding of a particular biblical book according to THEIR Canon was a perfectly fine parenthetical that was relevent to the discussion.
posted
Bob, now Dana knows your plan for the nupitual night!
Loose lips, man, loose lips....
I think that a complete breakdown of Relivations might be a little much for me, but I do find the LDS perspective interesting in biblical matters, probably because I don't know much about the LDS cannon.
Just remember that there is a fine line between discussing this sort of thing and preaching it to "unbelievers", if you know what I mean. Catholics (at least some of them) do it too....as a matter of fact, most branches of religion do at times. I like to hear other religious views, but I ahte being preached at....and even I have trouble distinguising between them at times.
posted
While I think cannon is important, I don't think it really applies to the subject. At least what the subject is supposed to be. What does cannon have to do with revelation? Cannon and revelation are two seperate, although related issues. Let's leave cannon issues for another thread. Cannon cannon cannon.
I think the Song of Solomon was put in there because Solomon was all like "Hey, put my poetry in, dangit! I'm the frickin king of Israel!" and then all the scribes were like "Okay, *mutter* you perverted son of an Amalakite *mutter*" and Soloman was like, "What!?" and they were like, "nothing, Solly" and Solomon was like "I told you not to call me Solly!" and they said "Right, sorry Solly."
FOR THE LOVE THAT IS HOLY, UNHOLY, SACRED, UNSACRED, AND COMPLETELY IN BETWEEN, IT IS SPELLED canon. ONE "N." ONE.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Buy, doesn't take much to set her off, huh? One day she gets holy-roller, and the next she is a spelling nazi.... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pachelbel's Canon, while truly one fine piece of music, has possibly the most boring cello part in the history of the world. Seriously, the tedium is unbearable. Luckily, it's so easy that you can just turn your brain off and leave your cello on automatic.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Pachelbel's Canon, while truly one fine piece of music, has possibly the most boring cello part in the history of the world."
This always drove me NUTS. My high school orchestra played Pachelbel's Canon every Christmas, and I -- as first cello -- often got called upon to play in roving quartets around town that ALSO insisted on playing Pachelbel's Canon. And I don't think it's possible to explain to someone the complete, mind-numbing -- perhaps even literally agonizing -- tedium of the cello part without showing them the sheet music. As I recall, it consists of eight measures of whole notes with a "Repeat: 87" across the top.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard a 5 piece flute arrangement of that while in high school, and it was amazing.
Then on the day of one of the major performances, one of the girls playing it got really hurt (or sick, I don't remember), and they asked me to play it with them. I was first chair flute, and had my own solo to consider, so I wasn't sure if I could do it.
They gave me the cello part.
I played it without sheet music, half an hour after I had seen it for the first time.
posted
Tom! You're a fellow cellist? I had no idea. Right on, man.
Yeah, your memory is correct. The whole cello part consists of exactly eight whole notes, repeated ad nauseum.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must confess that, at times, in attempts to relieve the tedium, I hammed up my part quite a bit. It may be that no one has ever played the same eight whole notes with as much passionate conviction, vibrato, and expressions of fierce constipation as I have. At one point, during my last Christmas concert, I lifted my cello into the air during the final crescendo to lend a certain atmosphere of exuberance.
I suspect it would have been my last Christmas concert regardless of whether or not I successfully graduated.
posted
One of my favorite memories is of a road trip to Seattle. We got the cheap seats for the symphony, and went dressed in our embarassed road clothes. We got a lot of smiles, though - something about a crowd of good-looking college students choosing to spend it at the symphony. OUr seat were on the front row, and there was a cellist soloing that night. We were so close we could see him sweat, and he smiled at us after the encore. Great night. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
They aren't new protocols, they just haven't been brought up for a while. There's an area called Gospel Discussion (I think) that would be perfect for a dissemination of Revelation.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
