catastrophe, eucatastrophe, and a little parable

Over on his blog, Ebenezer presents a post on judging catastrophe and eucatastrophe as an answer to Brother Deneyer's comments about following spiritual promptings into catastrophe. (Eucatastrophe is a joyful antithesis of catastrophe, the term was coined by J.R.R. Tolkien, see this page for more details.)

I think Ebenezer is dead on. We often forget that God has a different perspective than our own, "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord" (Isaiah 55:8). A couple of years ago, I had an experience that became a parable in our family (we collect a lot of these, I don't know why.)

As a family, we were staying in a hotel on a Sunday. As we were trying to get ready for church, my daughter couldn't find her dress shoes. She and I were standing on opposite ends of a largish closet. We had both partially opened the sliding door from our end (creating an open space, then the overlapping doors, then another open space) and were looking into the closet when she asked if I knew where her shoes were. I glanced down at the floor of the closet and saw them sitting there.

When I told her where they were, she said she couldn't see them. I told her just to trust me and reach into the closet. I had a perspective that let me see the shoes that she couldn't. As we drove to church, we talked about what had happened and realized that it was a nice little illustration of how we sometimes need to let go of our point of view and trust the Lord to achieve the end He has in mind.

A walk through the Bloggernacle

I'm reading some additional blogs these days, and thought they would be worth sharing with those of you who haven't seen them yet.

Ebenezer Orthodoxy

a bird's eye view

To Speak of Many Things

Nine Moons

I hope you enjoy them as much as I have been.

-pate

A new stake presidency, part 0 -- the prelude

We're supposed to have a general authority at our Stake conference next month. Because our stake presidency has been serving in their positions for quite a while, this led to the recurring rumour that the stake presidency would be reorgainized. It got bad enough that people were approaching members of the presidency to ask them to confirm the rumours. It seems that they've decided to clarify things. We've been asked to tell all of the families we're assigned to Home Teach that the presidency will be reorganized, and to ask them all to come to conference to be part of the occasion.

I'll be sorry to see the current presidency disbanded. They're all great men, and have done a wonderful job in their callings. I have faith that the new presidency will be every bit as inspired (and inspiring). Succession happens, I can deal with that.

I'm saddened that we (as a stake, as a people ...) are so prone to speculating over who will fill new positions that the rumour mill kicked into high enough gear that the current presidency felt a need to counteract it by announcing the upcoming change.

But the kicker, at least to me, is that we care so little about stake conference (or general conference for that matter) that we need to tell people that there's a special occasion so that they'll come. It almost seems that some people feel conference is a week off from church.

Lehi's Dream and the Parable of the Sower

Over on Meg's Book of Mormon Thoughts, she talks about Lehi's Dream in her Aug 22nd post. In it, she talks about the four groups of people from that vision.

I enjoy the resonance between this vision and the Savior's Parable of the Sower. Both discuss the same four kinds of people:

1) Those that hear the message, but don't do anything about it. In the parable, they are desribed as falling by the wayside and being eaten by fowls. In Lehi's dream, he says that multitudes felt their way toward the great and spacious building (apparently ignoring the rod and the path to the tree altogether.)

2) Those that hear the message and start to obey, but fall away quickly. The Savior says that these fell into stony places and sprung up, but having no root withered in the sun. In the dream, these would be those that started along the path to the tree but lost their way in the mist.

3) Those that hear and accept the message, but are lost to the world. The parable describes these as falling among thorns which choked them. In Lehi's dream, these are the multitude who make it to the tree and partake of the fruit only to hear the scoffing of those in the great and spacious building and become ashamed, falling away.

4) The last group are those that hear and accept the message and then endure to the end. The Savior describes them as falling into good soil and bringing forth good fruit. Lehi says that "other multitudes" pressed forward, holding to the rod, and partook of the fruit of the tree.

A timeline for Alma(1) and Alma(2)

The following is a rough timeline for the lives of Alma the Elder and Alma the Younger. Some of the dates are approximations based on other events, some are guesses from clues in the Book of Mormon. I'd love to hear what people think.

Without further ado, the timeline:

Date	Event
173 BC	Alma(1) born in Nephi-Lehi
151 BC	Mosiah(2) born in Zarahemla
150-148 BC	Abinadi teaches in Lehi-Nephi, and is martyred
145-120 BC	Alma(1) leads people in Helam
147 BC	Alma(1) teaches at the Waters of Mormon
c. 130 BC	Alma(2) born in Helam (see Alma 5:5)
124 BC	Mosiah(2) begins to reign
120 BC	Mosiah(2) authorizes Alma(1) to organize the church
100 - 92 BC	conversion of Alma(2)
91 BC	Alma(1) dies at 82 years old, Alma(2) becomes the High Priest Mosiah(2) dies at 63 years old, Alma(2) becomes Chief Judge
87 BC	Alma(2) wounded in battle
86-85 BC	Alma(2) baptizes thousands
83 BC	Alma(2) gives up judgement seat Alma(2) preaches in Zarahemla and Gideon
82 BC	Alma(2) preaches in Melek and Ammoniha (with Amulek)
81 BC	Prison in Amonihah cast down Alma(2) and Amulek preach in Sidon and return to Zarahemla
81-77 BC	Alma(2) reunited with Sons of Mosiah
74 BC	Alma(2) gives "Oh that I were an Angel" sermon Dispute with Korihor Alma(2) leads mission to Antionum (Zoramites) with sons Shiblon and Corianton
73 BC	Alma(2) instructs Helaman(1), Shiblon, and Corianton Alma(2) teaches Helaman(1) again Alma(2) is translated Helaman(1) becomes High Priest

A nice post in a nice series from meridian magazine

I've noticed that Meridian Magazine seems to have a bad reputation among some of the bloggernacle as being too "molly-mormon". While I don't like everything they've published, I do enjoy some of their articles.

I've enjoyed Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin's articles in Ideas & Society for quite a while. Their recent piece on Najaf is a good example. It provides a brief, "tour stop"-like introduction to why Najaf is important in Shi'ite (and Sunni) Islam. There was enough meat to make it fun for me to read, but approachable enough for me to point it out to my teenager. The only thing I'd like to see is a pointer to further information.

Thanks for the work Brothers Peterson and Hamblin.

Modern Patrilogia

Hall described 4 key characteristics of the Fathers; 1) their antiquity, 2) the holiness (or zealousness) of their life, 3) their orthodoxy, and 4) ecclesiastical approval of their teachings. With the exception of the first point, I think these also apply quite well to our latter-day prophets and apostles.

In fact, their proximity to us even brings an added benefit. While they might not provide the same kind of insights into the scriptures that the early fathers do, their modern focus can apply more directly to our own light. Our shared context can also make their exigesis more approachable to us.

Over the next couple of weeks I'll try to post some entries about conference talks from the past.

Looking at patterns in the Book of Mormon

Over on Mormanity in Jeff's post on Alma 36 and chiasmus (see also his follow-up) I asked about finding a community for discussing potential chiasms. In one of my comments, I promised to post something, and here it is.

In Alma 26:6-8 there are what I think are some interesting parallelistic patterns, an extended parallel, a simple parallel, and a chiasm. Here's my attempt at laying them out:

A   Yea, they shall not be beaten down by the
    storm at the last day;
B   yea, neither shall they be harrowed up by
     the whirlwinds;
          but when the storm cometh
 C   they shall be gathered together in
      their place,
A   that the storm cannot penetrate to
    them;
B   yea, neither shall they be driven with
     fierce winds
 C   whithersoever the enemy listeth to
      carry them.

   But behold,
a   they are in the hands of the Lord of the
    harvest, and
a   they are his;


A   and he will raise them up at the last day.
B   Blessed be the name of our God;
 C   let us sing to his praise, yea,
 C   let us give thanks
B   to his holy name,
A   for he doth work righteousness forever.

So, what do you think?

Oh That I Were Quoted in Context

Alma 29:1

O THAT I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people!

This scripture is quoted frequently by members of the LDS church to help instill a desire to do missionary work. It seems to capture the drive to bear testimony and share the gospel very well. For me though, it has begun to take on a second meaning -- a warning about taking scriptures out of context.

In Alma 29, Alma the Younger begins with this heartfelt exclamation, but over the next few verses repents and recants his wish (see vv 3, 6-7, and 8).

In fact, Alma 29 becomes a great example of how seeing hebreaisms can help clarify scriptures. Alma 29 is composed of two large chiasms (vv1-7 and 8-17) which encapsulate at least 6 smaller parallel patterns (vv 2, 4-5, 9, 9-10, 11-13, and 15-16) (See Donald Parry. TheBook of Mormon Text Reformatted According to Parallelistic Patterns. 1992. pp 260-1.) Looked at through this view, you can still see the powerful message about missionary work as well as awarning against aspiring to roles outside your stewardship -- and the desire to pull a verse out of context is harder to justify.

The Pivot Pattern, and a mental lightbulb

I'm not done putting my thoughts about Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers into a readable state, but I thought I'd better try to get a couple of more things written in the meantime.

While reading Jeff Lindsay'spage on "Bicola, Tricola, Paired Tricola, and Isaiah Variants in 2 Nephi 12 of the Book of Mormon: Authentic Hebrew Poetry?", I got interested in Bicola and Tricola. I went hunting and found The Pivot Pattern in Biblical Hebrew as another reference. It wasn't about the same thing. Rather, a specific kind of tricola in which the 2nd colon "belongs semantically to the first and third cola alike." (Wilfred G. E. Watson) -- for example:

   Hearken unto the voice of my cry,
          my King, and my God,
       for unto the will I pray.

(Psalm 5:2)

I was pretty excited as I read the paper, and went to look at the examples that they listed. Then, I hit a problem:

citation	example translation	KJV translation
Joel 4:20 (Joel 3:20)	So Judah forever is inhabited and Jerusalem from generation to generation.	But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation.
Genesis 4:24	If seven times Cain is avenged then Lamech seventy-seven	If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold

The pivot pattern shows up well in a very literal translations, but not so well in the KJV. This presents a problem, the Book of Mormon is closer in style to the KJV than the literal translations used in the paper. So it looks like I'm going to need to try to get a bette rhandle on deconstructing the Book of Mormon text to get at the original (Hebrew) structure to see the pivot patterns that I believe are there.

Any thoughts?

Really Understanding the Scriptures

When I wrote "Scriptural exegesis can really only be performed by individuals in a ministerial role -- anyone else lacks the context to really understand how the scriptures should apply to our lives." in Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, I had misremembered Hall's comments and inadvertently combined two points. He didn't claim that the fathers believed that you must be a practicing minister to be a successful exegete, but that you needed to be a practicing Christian and that their ministerial role added a dimension of practicality to their understanding of the scriptures. Neither of these ideas is new. In them, I hear echoes from conference talks and lesson manuals.

Developing a love of the scriptures should be more than an act of Christian duty, is should be a Christian activity (as opposed to an academic exercise). The scriptures were written under the influenceof the Holy Ghost and are more effectively read under the same influence. Prayer, pondering, keeping the commandments, and living up to the covenants we've entered into keep us attuned to the voice of the Spirit and will help open our minds to the scriptures.

Serving in a ministerial capacity helps focus our attention in scripture study on those practical matters pertaining to our stewardship. Our service provides a laboratory for working out the real world application of the lessons we learn. The insights that we gain as we pray, ponder, and study the scriptures, while seeking the Lord's help in our callings, will cast new light on the scriptures. (I see this as one of the blessings of magnifying a calling.)

Listening to the music of the Scriptures

One of the points that really struck me about the description of the fathers in Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers was the idea that they read the scriptures differently than we do. Christopher Hall (the author) presents threereasons:

• The first is that the fathers operated in a very different milieu than we do.
  
• The second has to do with their temporal proximity to the scriptures (Hall calls it 'Hermeneutical Proximity')
  
• The third is that the scriptures were a large part of their personal and communal lives.
  

The idea that the culture we live in serves as a lens for our study of the scriptures makes sense. Our day to day concerns flavor the questions we bring to our reading. Our preconceptions color the answers we find.
Their temporal proximity to the scriptures provides the fathers with access to a number of clues that we lack. For example, Hall points to the intertextual links between different books in the scriptures -- links that we might miss. He points out Matthew 5:5, which several of the father's connect with Moses (and in the case of Theodoret Numbers12:3) as a case in point.
The deep inclusion of the scriptures in early fathers' lives came about through several means. Many of the fathers expected that a reader wanting to understand the scriptures would read them frequently and intensely, even several hours a day. The stories and songs in the scriptures formed a part of community life, Hall compares their role to that of music today. Finally, educational models of the day focused on memorization, giving the father's anadmirable well from which to draw as they read.
How does all of this affect me? Well, first, I can read the fathers -- reading their exegesis can give me the opportunity to see through a different lens, gaining insights that I might have missed on my own. Next, I can try to apply their tools to my own scripture study -- trying to avoid applying my cultural preconceptions to the scriptures; developing an understanding of the the textual methods of the day; and immersing myself in the scriptures through reading alone, as a family, and through listening to the scriptures being read or sung.

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

I've just checked out Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers from my local library (again). I really enjoyed the book the first time around, but recently, I've started thinking about some of the themes in it and how they apply to my feelings about Mormonism. I wanted to reread the book to refresh my understanding of three points in particular:

• (from the book) Scriptural exegesis can really only be performed by individuals in a ministerial role -- anyone else lacks the context to really understand how the scriptures should apply to our lives.
  
  
• (from the book) Early christians interacted differently with the scriptures than modern christians do, because they read (and sang) them communally.
  
  
• (from the book) There is a real benefit to modern christians who will make the effort to read the patrilogia. The insights of these men might challenge modern assumptions, but can also shed light on the scriptures because of their proximity to them.
  
  
• (a personal take) Conference talks (especially those by Apostles) are similar in many ways to the patrilogia. Do I spend enough time studying them (especially those that pre-date my membership in the Church)?
  
  

Hopefully as I spend some time re-reading, I can put my thoughts about the above into bloggable shape.