But :) . . . note that the “way way worse than” passage you are referring to in the text is referring to her sisters, not mother.

You read that as “true and then some,” but I think in context, it is showing the proverb to be wrong. Not “mother=daughter” but “mother>daughter.” The > doesn’t mean = and then some. The > means that = is the wrong description of the relationship.

But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I agreed with your reading that Ezekiel agrees with the proverb “and then some”. I still have a problem with the idea of taking a proverb about a symbolic mother’s example of symbolic prostitution and using it as an example of a literal mother’s example of righteous living. It’s just too far divorced from the canonical usage of the text. There are plenty of other stories about righteous mothers that can be used without wresting.

Rob, the problem is that the prophet Ezekiel doesn’t use the proverb–he quotes other people using it and concludes that they are wrong.

“Ezekiel said that this proverb was wrong . . .”

Where does Ezekiel conclude the parable was wrong? I don’t read it that he was disapproving of the use of the parable at all; rather, I read Ezekiel as quoting the proverb in support of his indictment of Jerusalem, essentially saying that she has followed in the footsteps of her mother, the Hittites (part of the pre-Israelite population of ill repute). He then goes on to say that she not only followed her sisters, Samaria and Sodom, in their abominations, but that she eventually surpassed them. I don’t take that part as saying “and thus we see that the proverb was wrong” (especially since he is now talking about Jerusalem’s sisters, not mother); rather, I think it is saying “it is true and then some.”

Prooftexting and quoting passages out of context can certainly have its issues, but I’m not sure that this case is as egregious as you are making it out to be. This is the only source of the proverb; proverbs can be used in many contexts, and it doesn’t have to be limited to the exact way in which Ezekiel is using it (as an indictment against Jerusalem). Just like the similar and familiar proverb, “like father, like son,” it can be used both positively and negatively.

Is that right or healthy? When and how? And if it can be so dangerous with the law, then why not the moral law in scripture? You can argue modern revelation as a basis to proof-text, just as lawyers argue modern context overrides historical precedent.

Words matter. Context matters. History matters. And the only moral and rational way to alter the words, the context, and the history, is to know them in their original setting so you know what you are changing, what you are gaining, and what you are loosing.

If you forced me to use this passage in this lesson, the best I could do in contextualizing it would be something like this: “Ezekiel said that this proverb was wrong, but do you think it could be true in other situations?” That’s kind of a weird teaching approach though–like quoting Korihor and asking if what he said might fly in some other context.

The only problem was, “peculiar” is an archaism in that passage and doesn’t mean weird or strange at all. So although we sometimes like to relish in our weirdness as scriptural, the passage means to talk about something else entirely, as I explain in this old blog post:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/07/17/a-peculiar-people/

All it would have taken would be for a curriculum writer to check a non-KJV modern English translation to figure this out, but no, we can’t allow that…

I think it possible to wield the passage in its context, by the way. Simply put, hijack the correlation.

Gloss it carefully with that 90s-era missionary contextualization technique, and draw the focus narrowly: “The prophet Ezekiel used a proverb in one of his condemnations of Israel’s sinful behavior in chapter 16, warning them that if they regarded neighboring kingdoms as an example to them, they would reap the problems of those kingdoms along with the things they thought were attractive. He wrote: ‘Behold, every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee, saying, As is the mother, so is her daughter.’ What do you think he meant by that? Is the proverb applicable today?”

And then off the discussion can go, right?

That’s not to deny that we shouldn’t also look at scripture in context but it’s really a tool. Along those lines this remains my favorite talk on the subject.

Of course I have no idea how Joseph translated the plates, let alone how the Urim and Thumim works (or the rock in the hat). An IPhone accesses an online database that helps translate, but the help tools are entirely didactic and pedantic. I should imagine that the tools given Joseph were not that, as he had to struggle with the translation using imaginative and intuitive leaps. Indeed, it appears no else could translate the plates, and if it was simple IPhone technology, you would think that anyone would be able to translate.

Perhaps I should have said he could not have translated the Plates with an IPhone mentality. The IPhone exists within a much wider cognitive culture that truly is post-literate. With digital information most people surf instead of ponder, click instead of consider, multi-task instead of critically analyze. Audio-visual stimuli activate different parts of the brain and structure thinking differently than a fully literate interaction. In other words, our information medium has consequences, and the digital medium has yet to reveal all of its children. (For more information you can read some Postman, McLuhan, Carr, Ong, etc; look them up on Amazon or I can give specific references if interested.)

People can of course read the entire text on their screens. It’s just that few actually do. Reading has always been an arduous affair, and by no means biologically programmed into the psyche. Studies show that most people do not read another book after high school or undergrad. The Church itself is producing more videos than books to update their approach. One of the great traditions of Mormonism has been its strong emphasis on scripture study. In the past this was a fully literate process. One had to tangle with an archaic text and analyze it. A literate approach produces literate commentaries, and Mormonism produced Jesus the Christ and Mormon Doctrine as a way to interpret these archaic texts. While not a fan of either of these books, it does show considerable reading and thinking on the behalf of those authors. Today’s manuals are a completely different animal, they are bullet-pointed, thematic, and cursory. They lend themselves to proof-texting, and especially electronic proof-texting, which is the worst of both worlds.

The thing is, they need not do this. A rough outline of a lesson allows for an instructor to prepare wide and deep if needed. The problem is, at least in my neck of the woods (Utah County), most instructors either cannot probe wide and deep, or worse, are not allowed to. In multiple wards I have heard the formal and approved approach is to stick strictly to the manual, do not deviate from it, and that the purpose of Sunday School is not historical research or learning but feeling the spirit. In other words, these loose outlines and sporadic scripture citations of the manuals are being followed as if they are scriptures themselves. It is bizarre and strange, and produces, oft times, underwhelming if not spiritually sterilizing results. What irony.

Well, I suppose we have always struggled teaching the scriptures in some way to a population who really does not read them. There are some who do, and some who take passion in their study (Julie and Ben, for example, and probably lots of people on this board.) The passion of reading will always be opposed to the plethora of correlated bullet-points and proof-texts. As a result, there will be many more posts like this one….