This episode will share some listener commentary/interpretations of the story told in episode 1. If you haven’t listened to the first episode, feel free to go back and listen. If you enjoyed hearing fellow listeners’ commentaries and would like me to continue with commentary episodes like this, please leave a comment below or e-mail me at [email protected].
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
It was very powerful to hear my comment read audibly, I wonder if this was because I’m more of an audible person. It felt as if my comment had a lot more weight when you pronounced it either because I’m placing more validity in others than myself or perhaps in the way you might have edit my commentary to sound more like the way I intended it.
This can start to be a real cool exercise. I wonder if we can do one episode for the Dream of Lehi with how we once understood this parable and how we might be understanding it now. As a convert I totally related the Church to the Tree of Life, now that my perspectives are more nuanced I would have to reinterpret that dream to match the reality I know project according to my present perspectives.
Great start, the commentary was much better than expected and allowed for a more 360* analysis of the parable or story presented.
I’m glad that you enjoyed it and thank you for your interpretation of the story. I like your idea of re-hashing some of the stories in the scriptures. I will look more into that. Thanks for the suggestion.
Johnathan
On the Renlund dinghy and wack-a-mole talk: As an older church member, born and bred, and also an active but truth seeking and in many peoples eyes a bit fringe member I found the Renlund talk the worst, most offensive talk I have ever heard.
I had delayed listening to it, and had listened to the Corbridge talk before going back to this one. The Renlund talk knocked the Corbridge one out of bottom place.
In the Corbridge talk I, the truth seeker/doubter, was told that I was an antagonist and put in the same sin category as pornography. The Renlund talk has me now being a “snake oil salesman, mocker, indolent, double minded child, captive by the devil, evil, of the devil, lazy, unworthily partaking of the sacrament, perpetual doubter, and spiritually bankrupt.” Wow! I am going to hell!
As one who with an open mind who has (truly) read every JS paper produced by the church, listened to hundreds of different speakers and points of view from both apologists and truth seekers, I am not so much offended as bemused by this talk. And, I don’t know any other way to say this, but the talk was seriously ignorant and arrogant. Are these talks vetted?
The fishing boat “parable”, in my opinion, and I think you and Bill Reel and RFM a great job with this, highlighted the internal challenges in the church rather than discrediting the doubter.
Having had experience with boats and fishing, I know that there are things that every fisherman is very aware of:
1. Your boat is always in the best repair possible. You never know when you are going to hit rough seas and need your boat to be in top condition to keep you from getting injured and getting your home alive. Even more important when your boat is in shark infested waters!
2. You never let go of the tiller – there is always control over the engine and rudder. If you let go of the tiller what happens? The boat goes in circles.
3. Deaf fishermen always have hearing aids. In the darkness hearing becomes critical. Having come in to port after dark across dangerous bars I know, as all good fisherman do, that your ability to hear is essential. You must pick up on any change of wind, wave direction, waves crashing…
4. Flies, rotting fish, stale water and crackers. Not on my boat or any true fisherman’s boat. Things that may make you ill have no place. Food is always fresh, cleanliness is paramount. Slippery decks cause injury and death.
5. When there is a crisis at sea and a distress call goes out, there is a simple rule of the sea that is immediately invoked. Help comes from every possible direction. Everyone searches until all hope is lost. The rescuers are often in specially built rescue boats, or specialised aircraft but often just regular boats change the direction they are going and go searching. Even cruise liners turn around, and there is never a cost to those rescued.
It is a great parable but in a far different way than how the Renlunds’ interpreted it. There is certainly a message here but it is totally opposite to what they are delivering, and it is arguably a truer message. The boat has sadly been allowed to get into a state of disrepair, it has sometimes been allowed to go in circles or wander off course. The good food is not longer healthy but is indeed stale to the point where it could make you ill. The decks need washing as they have become slippery and dangerous.
The boat desperately needs to be drydocked for a few days, the barnacles need to be scrubbed off (de-fouled), the dents need to be filled, the paint needs to be rubbed down – in this case back to bare wood – reprimed and repainted, the decks need to be scrubbed and cleaned, the food and water needs to be restocked, the motor which appears to blow a lot of smoke needs to reconditioned, the fisherman needs new boots – clothes – hearing aid. The fisherman must know that with a boat in this state no-one is going to want to come on board, and even worse he probably is not going to catch any fish (if the boat is in this condition what are his nets and lines like?)
Ask a fisherman “how often do you clean your boat?” they will answer – “every time it is used”.
The good fisherman knows that they must put their boat into drydock at least every second season, that equipment must be in good repair – otherwise you risk drowning and death.
This is great little parable, but it teaches a lesson opposite to that told by the Renlunds.
And on a final note: Roger Federer recently slipped from 2 to number 6 on the world men’s tennis rankings.
Thank you for your insight. You are correct in that this story is a different approach to the Renlund’s story though I wouldn’t say it is the opposite. I would rather see it as a more complete or genuine approach to doubt. But this is just my opinion.