6 comments for “Stuff Wrong with LDS Writing

  1. Yeah, this one struck me recently. I think it’s insightful to see temple references in texts where we didn’t see them before. +1 for that.

    OTOH, I’m wondering if we just found a scholarly and “shiny” new way to say it’s all metaphorical. Which is, um, no–probably not… seems like sort of a cheat code.

  2. That’s like saying: when everyone is a child of God, no one is a child of God.

    The reality is the temple permeates the scriptures. And so my questions is: what’s not to like about that?

    What’s not to like about everyone being a child of God?

  3. Well, if Jonathan Green agrees with me, I feel better already.

    0t – Yeah, it’s one thing to say “there are some temple resonances here.”

    It’s sort of like the “Planet Narnia” theory in CS Lewis studies. It’s interesting to see the “planetary” resonances Lewis likely worked (consciously or unconsciously) into the Narnia series, but it’s quite another to claim this super deep structure that Lewis not only planned the whole thing out at a deep level, but then basically hid it from everyone and lied about it his entire life, but that this particular critic has figured out the deep, hidden code (that requires ignoring at least half the text of the books and everything Lewis said about writing the books when he was alive) and this is THE MEANING. If that particular critic had just noticed some resonances, it would be one thing. Same here – but then, we’re far too addicted in scholarly circles to all encompassing theories that push the boundaries and change how we view everything.

  4. Jack –

    I don’t like to reply to non sequiturs, but you may not realize you’ve made a major category error.

    If I say “If everything is made of chocolate cake, nothing is made of chocolate cake” it’s because at that point “chocolate cake” has just become some bizarre synonym for “matter” – at which point, there is no need for the term “chocolate cake” because it has ceased to be anything unique or special.

    If I say “if everything is made of matter, nothing is made of matter” I’m just being silly, because of course it’s all matter (at least according to Joseph Smith).

    Same thing here – of course we’re all God’s children. But that’s a baseline fact, like everything being made of matter. A temple text should be something special and set apart, not the baseline fact for every scripture, at which point we don’t need the term “temple text” anymore, because we might as well just say “scripture” and leave it at that.

  5. Ivan,

    I’m not very keen on logic–so you may be right about my having made a category mistake. Even so, I was thinking more in terms of the way latter-day saints believe human beings to belong to a special category. Not everyone outside of the church sees people in that light–but even so, my guess is that those who are unhappy with labelling the scriptures as temple texts do believe that people are special in that way. And so it shouldn’t be a stretch to view the whole of the scriptures belonging to a special category either–even though much of the world doesn’t. But then again that’s easy for me to say because I believe the scriptures (as a whole) to be temple texts. And so, the real question may boil down to definitions, i.e., how do we define a temple text.

Comments are closed.