E4, P. 318: “Before the General Call to the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ ceased in 1881, the persons that we call ‘Youthful Worthies’ did not exist as individuals of a class; but since that time they have been, and now are coming as such into existence, and are showing evidence of existence as such.”
Some brethren misread “individuals of a class” in the reference above, saying that it shows a class from 1881. But in the complex sentence, it actually shows the correct view of individuals from 1881 and a class later. “Individuals of a class” is used quite frequently in literature to talk about similar individuals (plural), not a class (singular). A good example of this is from the University of Notre Dame about dialectics: “Lastly, the universal may express what is found in one or many individuals of a class, or even perhaps in all of them, yet in such a way that it could be absent without the individuals' ceasing to be of the same nature.”
Looking at the above E4 reference, it is easy to prove that Bro. Johnson was referring to the individuals with the subject “persons” in the independent clause and the plural pronoun “they” in the dependent clause. Towards the end of the sentence, Bro. Johnson says that these individuals are now appearing as a class with the use of “as such.”
It makes sense when we play it out: “but since that time [1881] they [these individuals] have been [in existence], and now [in the Epiphany] are coming as such [a class] into existence, and are showing evidence of existence as such [a class].”
2 comments:
Very, very clear. If you misread this reference, you might think that there were individuals of this class prior to 1881, but when you look at it closely and understand English grammatical structure, it is very clear. Unfortunately, most Americans are losing understanding of English grammatical structure, and of course, over time, structual usage changes in the vernacular anyway. That's why, if you read English text from hundreds of years ago, you would not understand it. With this reference, if you are confused by it, you only need go back to the other references in E4, or the forward or title of the book itself, to clarify what Bro. Johnson meant here.
Instead, we have the brethren using this one reference to create some mythology that Bro. Johnson actually had two views on one subject. Clearly, in reference after reference, Bro. Johnson did not have two views. This is where a "spirit of a sound mind" has you analyze why this doesn't SEEM to fit with the rest of the book, forward, and title. A "spirit of a sound mind" would not have the person running off to create new doctrine (and calling it an additional view) that goes against other important types & anti-types, the tabernacle picture, scripture, God's plan, the idea of who had spirit begettal & when, etc. Thank you for making this so very clear. Being able to easily harmonize this one reference with the rest of E4 is why the brethren who see this error refuse to say the Epiphany Messenger had two views on a foundational truth of the Epiphany.
E 4, page 318 par. 2 certainly has been twisted by those that have the new view of 1878 as the developing of the Youthful Worthies as individuals and 1881 for the developing of them as a class. Those that have tried to introduce this thought have gone as far as to say "can't you read" so I guess I can't read because after looking at this finished product of the entire chapter 5 "THE YOUTHFUL WORTHIES" the date 1878 is never mentioned. So as a further examination of this so often site page I looked at the Berean questions for par. 2 on bottom of page 358 and the top of 359 and no where in any of the answers for these questions could I find the answers that would agree with this new view.
I guess that I am unable to read between the lines and get this "present view."
Post a Comment