Sunday School Teacher Arrested on Molestation Charges (police say he molesting a 12-year-old boy)

Context is everything!

You keep demonstrating context is something you don't understand.

Here's a little example on context:

Grig and restornu were walking down a country road together. Restornu sees something is troubling Grig and asks: "What's on your mind."

Grig replies: "You know that pit pull dog I have?" "Yes, I remember that dog", restornu asks, what's his name?" "Scripter" Grig says, "you see, he attacked my neighbor and now scripter must be destroyed."

"I'm sorry to hear that. Who's going to destroy your dog?" restornu asked. "I am" says Grig, "I'm going to put a bullet between scripters eyes".

The two friends keep walking down the country road not saying another word for some time.

That night, restornu logs onto FreeRepublic and posts an article in this thread stating:

Grig says "scripter must be destroyed" and that he's "going to put a bullet between scripters eyes."

You would of course be guilty of pulling Grig's comments out of context as Grig's words have nothing to do with me on FreeRepublic. In the same way, you cannot rip James 1:5 or any other verse out of its context and use it to bolster an idea that has nothing to do with the original context.

Hermeneutics is much more involved than describing the obvious glaring error above, and among other things, including mannerisms, is the method of studying the Bible in its historical, cultural, linguistic and grammatical context.

Run to the one true God as fast as you can.

"What's truly sad is that's all you see. "

What I see is what you have posted. Instead of acting like Al Gore with all the moaning and groaning, try presenting an agument for your side of it.

"He can tell you what words meant in their context, which, sadly, is something Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses don't understand "

It is still his OPINON what the intended meaning is. Knowing the language and culture doesn't equal understanding the intended message.

You and I both are fluent in english (in spite of my horrible spelling) yet we don't always understand eachother exactly from the get-go. We have the advantage of being able to ask for claification, or re-explain to create that understanding (somewhat). We both live in the same 'context' of this society and have every advantage possilbe to be able to understand eachother, yet it still takes a lot of going back and forth to get understanding.

Given that, you expect me to trust some guy to correctly understand what the intended meaning of every Biblical verse is, when that person is so far removed in time and space from when it was written, and who says he has no means to contact the author for clarification, and who doesn't have the original manuscripts, and who probably didn't grow up speaking the exact same language, etc. etc.? Sorry, I don't buy it. There is value in such study for sure, but to invest your whole faith in it as you do is to trust in the arm of flesh and make God into a book.

And if the bible is self interpreting, why do I need a Hebrew scholar to tell me what it means? Again you are just saying that since I disagree with you, that is proof that I am wrong.

"And it's a lot more than just his opinion and it's a lot more than just one scholar."

So what, do scholars get to gather and vote on what is true? Does the majority opinon make it so? It is not all scholars and there is more than just one scholar who disagrees with your view.

If you were go back to the time of Christ and put your trust in those scholars you would have rejected the savior! Why put your trust in them now? I will take God's answers to my prayers as truth, even if all the world is against it.

"While Adonai means Lord (not LORD), El Shaddai does not, not even close."

Right. I was going by memory and made a mistake. El Shaddai is a Hebrew title meaning 'God Almighty', it can be used to refer to any or all of the three members of the Godhead.

"we can't really agree because it's a different Jesus."

Really? I'm talking about the Jesus in the New Testement, you know, born of a virgin, turned water to wine, walked on water, raised the dead, made the blind see, died for our sins, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven etc. etc.

Now there are some differences in our teachings ABOUT that same Jesus, but it is the same Jesus and to say otherwise is nothing more than a tool some use to create bigotry. Some people belive Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the USA is a criminal and traitor, others think he was a fantastic patriot, but they are both different views of the SAME Bill Clinton.

"And that's where Mormonism fails miserably on hermeneutics,"

I disagree with your assesment, but even so, what need is there for hermeneutics when God can reveal the truth of the intended meaning directly to a person? Do you think that after seeing Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ standing beside eachother, you could convince Joseph (or any of the ones in the Bible who saw the same thing) that they are not two persons by arguing about the wording of some passage?

Hermeneutics is just the crutch that an apostate christianity leans on because they have cut themselves off from revelation. And you still haven't even tried to tell me where the Bible say to let the Bible interpret itself.

"Argh! There you go again. Where does it say the above? James 1:5! And what is the context? Trials!"

Verses 2-4 are about trials, it is only an assumption of yours that verse 5 is a continuation of that thought. Do you think they never move from one topic to another within a chapter or something?

Even going by your limits on the context for the verse, it still holds true to what I said. Is it not a trial to lack the wisdom to know which religous opinion is correct? Of course it is, and James tells us that the proper course of action is to ASK GOD. If you want to claim to be so wise that you don't have that trial and don't need to ask Him, fine. I'm not ashamed to consider myself as someone who needs to rely on God.

"But then to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, context is, unfortunately as you just demonstrated, an unknown concept."

Humility seems an unknown concept to you, for you seem to think that disagreement alone proves me wrong. I disagree with your view of what the context is, that is not the same thing as ignoring context.

"You can't remove the words we were discussing from the culture."

You are the one who brought up each word we were discussing without including the culture. All I've done is answered your questions about what or who those words can refer to.

"It wasn't my accusation"

In post 209 you bring the accusation up. Either you think the accusation is valid, making it your accusation in the process, or you must admit that you fling out accusations you don't really belive are valid as long as they make us sound really bad. Take your pick.

"I provided links from Mormon sites..."

LOL! Not only do you mistake Joseph Smith for and his nephew Joseph F. Smith, but you can't tell a Mormon web site from an anti-mormon web site! I also dealt with the 'evidences' on that page you linked to.

"Then you don't understand hermeneutics, context and the importance of understanding the culture of the times. "

No, I just don't agree with your opinon of the context and meaning and all the underlying assumptions used in the hermeneutics you subscibe to, just as scholars often disagree over those things. Somehow I suspect you have really not looked much at anything by LDS Hebrew scholars.

"The phrase Context is everything will probably be on my tombstone. "

So, in the context here, I take it your total avoidence of discussing John 20:17 indicates you really don't have an answer to my question, and that you can't show me where in the Bible say to let the Bible interpret itself.

"And why do you prefer a subjective method of understanding the Bible"

Is revelation subjective in your view?

"hermeneutics is a method of studying the Bible where the historical, grammatical, interpretive method of understanding what the Bible says and taking into account the historical and cultural meaning of a saying or word and its linguistic significance in order to interpret it correctly. "

LOL! It is a method of studying the Bible where the historical, grammatical, interpretive method of understanding what the Bible says and taking into account the historical and cultural meaning of a saying or word and its linguistic significance in the HOPE that doing so will interpret it correctly.

Men can still error and disagree when using hermeneutics.

"Context is everything!"

Sounds like context is your god.

And how do you know when you have a correct idea of what the context is? Do you think a flawed idea of the context will still give a correct interpetation every time? Do you really think that a person's personal beliefs will not have any effect on how they view the context?

A Catholic will see the meaning in context as supporting the Catholic view, likewise for other faiths. In the end, any interpetation by men, is an OPINION of man NO MATTER WHAT METHOD IS USED TO GET TO THAT CONCLUSION. The only ones who can definitively say what the correct interpetation is are God and the original author. Everything else is tea-leaf reading dressed up like knowledge.

"Here's a little example on context: "

We are well aware of what context is, anti-mormons love to take statments by our leaders out of context to distort the meaning. Your whole issue with the JoD is a perfect example of that. None of the quotes you gave, in the context of LDS history, culture etc., establish the JoD as cannon, yet you INSIST on ignoring that and cling to a false context since it fits so well with your pre-concieved notions about us.

Therein lies the folly of hermeneutics, men assuming they know the context to start with when they do not.

Knowing the language and culture doesn't equal understanding the intended message.

Studying the language, culture, mannerisms, historical and grammatical linguistic issues goes a very long way to understanding the text as it was orginally written; especially when compared to someone who relies on subjective methods as those involved with Mormonism have so aptly demonstrated.

Given that, you expect me to trust some guy to correctly understand what the intended meaning of every Biblical verse is, when that person is so far removed in time and space...

You have just given very good reasons for studying everything we can about the Bible, and whaddya know, it's what we call hermeneutics.

And if the bible is self interpreting, why do I need a Hebrew scholar to tell me what it means? Again you are just saying that since I disagree with you, that is proof that I am wrong.

Well, since you probably went to school somewhere at sometime, you had to learn from someone who's given a lot of time and thought into their profession. Then again, you missed the point and I'm not sure that will make any sense to you.

Really? I'm talking about the Jesus in the New Testement, you know, born of a virgin, turned water to wine, walked on water, raised the dead, made the blind see, died for our sins, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven ...

...is a glorified man. You forgot the key difference which is why we can't agree. Funny you should forget to list it.

Now there are some differences in our teachings ABOUT that same Jesus, but it is the same Jesus and to say otherwise is nothing more than a tool some use to create bigotry.

Nice try. No, it is indeed not the same Jesus. In true Christianity neither Jesus or God are a glorified man.

Verses 2-4 are about trials, it is only an assumption of yours that verse 5 is a continuation of that thought.

Listen to yourself! Sheesh.

A quick look at the chapter breaks the first 18 verses down into the following:

Opening statements, v 1
Trials, Temptatations, v 2-18
- Testing of faith, v 2-12
- Source of temptation, v 13-18

Note verse 12:

Blessed is the man wo perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

Whoops. Trials are still the topic at verse 12 and everything in between fits the context of trials. I agree with the context and you don't despite your attempts to say you do. You need to read a book or 10 on hermeneutics - maybe it'll sink in.

If we were to use the Grig method of hermenteutics we'd have verses 2-4 on trials, verses 5-8 on whatever subjective thought anyone wants to use the verses for, verses 9 on taking pride on a high position of humble circumstances, but definitely not trials because that's not what the context is about, verses 10-11 on taking pride on a low position of riches, but definitely not trials because that's not what the context is about, verse 12 about trials again.

No thanks. I'll stick with proper hermeneutics so I don't fall for anything that chooses to twist the context.

Do you think they never move from one topic to another within a chapter or something?

Nice try. They could move from topic to topic, but to remain readable and consistent with everything we know about the culture of the time, writers group their thoughts together and change topics when they're done with a given topic, such as the break at verse 13 and again at 19. It's called context and unfortunately you keep failing to show you understand it.

but you can't tell a Mormon web site from an anti-mormon web site

Again, nice try. That was a Mormon site with a Mormon author of that site discussing Mormon doctrine. Just because it wasn't an official Mormon site doesn't mean it's an anti-Mormon site. As I said, nice try.

I just don't agree with your opinon of the context and meaning and all the underlying assumptions used in the hermeneutics you subscibe to...

I've demonstrated the hermeneuitics I subscribe to, which are normal methods used to study just about anything, not just the Bible. What are the hermeneutics you subscribe to?

So, in the context here, I take it your total avoidence of discussing John 20:17 indicates you really don't have an answer to my question, and that you can't show me where in the Bible say to let the Bible interpret itself.

Now you're being disengenuous. Not only did I answer your question on John 20:17 but you responded to that answer. As far as using the Bible to interpret itself, that's a concept used not just with the Bible. I realize this is challenging your worldview and you can't quite see it, but please keep trying.

We are well aware of what context is

If you were you wouldn't make blunders such as quoting James 1:5 out of context to support your subjective thinking.

Sounds like context is your god.

Nice.

And how do you know when you have a correct idea of what the context is?

Most folks at least try to understand the context. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't bother because it creates too many theological issues.

...anti-mormons love to take statments by our leaders out of context to distort the meaning. Your whole issue with the JoD is a perfect example of that. None of the quotes you gave, in the context of LDS history, culture etc., establish the JoD as cannon, yet you INSIST on ignoring that and cling to a false context since it fits so well with your pre-concieved notions about us.

Not just me. Mormons are saying the same thing, you just dismiss it and say they're wrong. Well, what Mormons should we believe? I mean, they all listen to "God" and get their understanding from him. Perhaps this "God" isn't really who Mormons think he is.

In summary of James and trials we have the following

Blessed is the man: This is the reason for the pure joy in 1:2. Believe that you are blessed, truly blessed in reality, in spite of any suffering or trial.
who perseveres: James repeats the theme of perseverance in 1:3-4. You are blessed if you continue trusting and obeying as "a servant of God" in spite of trials.
under trial: This includes the trials of many kinds recognized in 1:2 and illustrated in 1:5-11.

The context is obvious for any objective reader. And that little demonstration is part of proper hermeneutics.

"Studying the language, culture, mannerisms, historical and grammatical linguistic issues goes a very long way to understanding the text as it was orginally written"

It is usefull, but even IF you have the original text (we don't have any orginals in this case) then it STILL has it's limits.

"especially when compared to someone who relies on subjective methods "

So revelation is subjective to you and should not be relied upon. I guess Peter was wrong to let the gospel go to all the gentiles because of a subjective experience. A person who must have objective proof of everything is at best a doubting Thomas, and at worst a sign seeker.

"You have just given very good reasons for studying everything we can about the Bible"

Of course studying the Bible is a good thing, we just finished the OT in our Sunday School course and for 2003 it will be the NT. I don't see any reason however to take men's opinons as if they were scripture.

"Well, since you probably went to school somewhere at sometime, you had to learn from someone who's given a lot of time and thought into their profession."

Yes, but they never claimed the textbook was self interpreting, if it was, they would be out of a job.

"You forgot the key difference which is why we can't agree. Funny you should forget to list it. "

Like I said before, those difference are about the SAME Christ. If you thought he had blue eyes and I though he had brown, it would not be two different Christ's, but two opinons about the same Christ.

"In true Christianity neither Jesus or God are a glorified man. "

Who on earth gets to decide what 'true Christianity' is? You? If you want to say that in orthodox Christianity neither Jesus or God are a glorified man, then I would agree, but I consider orthodox christianity to be wrong. Here is another link for you to ignore: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#diff

"A quick look at the chapter breaks the first 18 verses down into the following:"

That's how you break it down, I would do so differently. 5-8 very clearly talk about recieving personal guidance from God. Certainly something very usefull in times of trial and temptation, but nothing in the text limits this exclusivly to that. It clearly illustrates that God can and will take an active role in guiding his children, and shows that personal revelation is both christian and biblical. It means what it says, and whatever verses come before or after don't effect it's meaning.

"I'll stick with proper hermeneutics so I don't fall for anything that chooses to twist the context. "

Oh, the irony.

"writers group their thoughts together and change topics when they're done with a given topic"

Writers have their own style of expressing themselves, and such gross over-generalization is not justified.

"That was a Mormon site with a Mormon author"

Sigh. Read the introduction again, the author of lds-mormon.com is an EX-Mormon who freely admits his bias against our teachings. Not a Mormon site, not a Mormon author. And you want me to trust you as my guide to understand the Bible?

"Not only did I answer your question on John 20:17 but you responded to that answer."

Really? You never said what Father, what God, Jehovah was refering to in that verse, you only said "John 20:17 must be read with Isaiah 43:10-13, Isaiah 46:9-10 and all the other references to God." A non-answer.

"As far as using the Bible to interpret itself, that's a concept used not just with the Bible."

So, where does the Bible advocate it? It clearly advocates seeking wisdom from God (in more places than just James 1:5) but where does it advocate what you say?

You'll have lots of time to figure out how to duck these questions, I have company coming over tonight and must go now.

"Most folks at least try to understand the context. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't bother because it creates too many theological issues. "

LOL, This is from the manual used in our teacher development course. Most all members will wind up going through this course if they are called to teach any class

Lesson 12
Teaching from the Scriptures
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/teaching%20and%20leadership.htm/teaching%20no%20greater%20call.htm/b%20basic%20principles%20of%20gospel%20teaching%20teach%20the%20doctrine.htm/12%20teaching%20from%20the%20scriptures.htm

...Provide Context
The setting or background of a scripture passage is called the context. Learners will better understand what is happening or being said in a scripture passage when they know its context.

To begin looking for context, ask the following questions:

• Who is speaking?

• Whom is that person speaking to?

• What is he or she speaking about?

• What is he or she responding to?

• Why is he or she saying this?

For example, Luke 15:11-32 contains the Savior’s parable of the prodigal son. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that he gained an understanding of this parable by looking to its context:

“I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable? … While Jesus was teaching the people, all the publicans and sinners drew near to hear Him; ‘and the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.’ This is the keyword which unlocks the parable of the prodigal son. It was given to answer the murmurings and questions of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who were querying, finding fault, and saying, ‘How is it that this man as great as He pretends to be, eats with publicans and sinners?’ ” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 276-77).

As the Prophet Joseph pointed out, the context of the parable of the prodigal son starts in Luke 15:1-2, several verses before the parable begins. One way to find the context is to read the verses before and after the passage you are studying.

This approach is helpful even when the speaker in a scripture passage is responding not just to people but to the important events of the day. An example of this is summarized at the beginning of “The Power of the Word” (page 50). When we understand who the Zoramites were, the awful spiritual state they were in, and the threat they presented to the Nephites, we can better understand the importance of Alma’s statement that he and his brethren should “try the virtue of the word of God” in their effort to turn the Zoramites from their ways (Alma 31:5).

Sometimes it is also helpful to study the political, social, or economic history of the times in which a scripture was given. For example, to gain an understanding of the Lord’s comfort and promises in Doctrine and Covenants D&C 121 and D&C 122, it is helpful to know about the afflictions the Saints were suffering in Missouri at that time and the conditions the Prophet Joseph and his companions endured in Liberty Jail. To increase our understanding of the epistles of Paul, we can benefit from a basic knowledge of the area in which he traveled and the condition of the branches of the Church to which he wrote. The Bible Dictionary can be an excellent source for this and other background information on passages in the Bible.

And another false accusation by scripter goes down in flames.

And another false accusation by scripter goes down in flames.

In a pigs eye! Whatever that means. Hey, thanks for the exchange - I've got company myself that's an hour late. Happy New Year!

It is usefull, but even IF you have the original text (we don't have any orginals in this case) then it STILL has it's limits.

The Bible should be treated no differently than any other book when studied. And while we don't have originals, we do have thousands of copies with a very small margin of differences. So much so that if we were to find the same number of copies of any other book so close in copies, it could be said that we have the original writings. You may disagree and that's fine, but the Bible should be treated no differently than any other book in this regard, and facts are facts.

Yes, but they never claimed the textbook was self interpreting, if it was, they would be out of a job.

You keep missing the point so I'll try to rephrase it as I started above. The Bible should be treated no differently than any other book.

Like I said before, those difference are about the SAME Christ. If you thought he had blue eyes and I though he had brown, it would not be two different Christ's, but two opinons about the same Christ.

There's no way we're talking about the same Jesus. Getting Mormons to admit this is difficult because of the ramifications, yet some Mormons eventually do admit the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of Mormonism are completely different.

Who on earth gets to decide what 'true Christianity' is?

Studying the Bible using proper hermeneutical methods would be a good place to start.

That's how you break it down, I would do so differently.

What method of hermeneutics do you use?

It means what it says, and whatever verses come before or after don't effect it's meaning.

I wish you could hear yourself. That's about as subjective as subjective gets.

Writers have their own style of expressing themselves, and such gross over-generalization is not justified.

If you want to call a basic literary device about the first century writers a gross over-generalization, there's little I can help you with. You can read anything into the text by using your methods. What method of hermeneutics do you use?

Sigh. Read the introduction again, the author of lds-mormon.com is an EX-Mormon who freely admits his bias against our teachings. Not a Mormon site, not a Mormon author. And you want me to trust you as my guide to understand the Bible?

Whoops. You're right. I was getting that site confused with another. Sorry about that. And no, I do not want you to trust me as your guide to understanding the Bible. I don't want you to trust any one person as doing so would be a huge mistake. I would enjoy nothing more than to have you read as wide a diversity as possible.

You never said what Father, what God, Jehovah was refering to in that verse, you only said "John 20:17 must be read with Isaiah 43:10-13, Isaiah 46:9-10 and all the other references to God." A non-answer.

My response was most definitely not a "non-answer," but it appears you think theology should hinge on one verse. To answer your question about just one verse would require a very very long response bringing everything about the issue into the study. And that's why I answered as I did. I'm not kidding about this. I could write pages and pages about this one issue alone but with what you've demonstrated here, that would be a huge waste of my time because you'd dismiss context after context using subjective methods of study.

Regarding using the Bible to interpret itself:

So, where does the Bible advocate it?

The Bible should be treated no differently than any other book in this regard. I hope you get it this time

It clearly advocates seeking wisdom from God (in more places than just James 1:5)...

If the Bible clearly does this, where, and what is the context?

Regarding context and Mormons:

This is from the manual used in our teacher development course. Most all members will wind up going through this course if they are called to teach any class

Perhaps I could have better worded my statement that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't "bother because it creates too many theological issues."

The questions you listed are good basic, very high level questions to ask, something I might ask of my six-year-old, and I'm not trying to slam anything here.

But for serious study you must include the purpose the book was written, language, culture, mannerisms, historical issues of the intended audience along with historical issues of the author, grammatical issues, word studies, and more. Proper study methods state using the entire book you're studying, not just a verse or two. But before you even start, read the entire book of study a few times.

Once you're done with the above, you can slowly move outside the book of study and start to include other books of the Bible and determine word usage elsewhere. Has the author written other books? If so, how does the author use some of the same words, phrases and more in other books?

The above is a great beginning to understanding context.

"such as quoting James 1:5 out of context "

By definition, any quotation separates the quote from the the context it was made in. There is only a problem when that causes the intended meaning of the quotation to be misunderstood. You haven't even give your view of what v5-8 mean as a contrast so it's kinda hard to see what you are complaining about. I'm just saying it means what it says.

"Not just me. Mormons are saying the same thing"

Gosh, you tell me that my saying it isn't cannon doesn't make it so, but you are perfectly willing to take some other person (who you have not identified) saying it is as evidence that it is! Double standard!

I don't know what mistaken member you are refering to either. You have not shown one instance yet of a Mormon claiming it is cannon. You have only given quotations that indicate some members consider it to be of value and then used that as launching point for a huge jump to an unwarrented conclusion. Even the author of the website that hosts the article you linked to, and the article itself admit it is not cannon.

You also totaly ignore the culture and context those remarks were made in which is very hypocritial considering your near worshipfull attitude of hermeneutics. I guess context is everything unless it robs you of a staw man argument against us. Double standards again!

If you walked into any LDS meeting house this Sunday and started asking everyone if the JoD was cannon, I would be VERY surprised if you found anybody who did think that. You can not find one single authoratative statment declaring it to be cannon either.

And I did far more than just state it was not cannon, I presented a detailed explanation and cited the facts of what establishes something as cannon, and how it doesn't meet that standards one bit. You show every sign of having your mind made up and not wanting to be confused by the facts.

"Well, what Mormons should we believe?"

So, does every member of your church understand every doctrine and detail prefectly? Do none of them make errors ever? It's amazing how you can't consider anything other than trusting the word of a mortal. No Mormon would ask you to take their word for it, but to study it out and ask God. The church is true, but no member is perfect.

By definition, any quotation separates the quote from the the context it was made in.

True, but that's not the issue.

There is only a problem when that causes the intended meaning of the quotation to be misunderstood.

No, that's not it either. There is a problem when you use a quote to imply or support something the original text never intended. That's pulling it out of context as demonstrated in my example above.

The only way to properly quote James 1:5 is when you're going through a trial or you're trying to encourage someone who's going through a trial to ask God for wisdom to persevere. Why? So we may be mature and complete, not lacking anything such as wisdom do endure trials.

You haven't even give your view of what v5-8 mean as a contrast so it's kinda hard to see what you are complaining about. I'm just saying it means what it says.

It only means what it says in the proper context. My view should be obvious from things previously said, including the satirical "Grig method of hermeneutics."

But if it's not obvious, here's a refresher with added notes:

James writes to "the twelve tribes" and given the Jewish nature of the letter, the intended audience would be Jewish Christians. In verse 2-3 James said to consider it pure joy when the Jewish Christians faced trials and temptations. The same root word for trials in verse 2 is also used for tempted in verse 13.

Verse 4 tells us the Jewish Christians should be mature and complete, not lacking anything including wisdom, but to get mature and complete, they should persevere through their trials and temptations. If they lacked the wisdom to endure the trial, James instructs them to ask God for the needed wisdom in verse 5.

Verse 6 tells the intended audience to believe and not doubt when they ask for wisdom to endure the trial and verses 7-8 goes on to explain why this is important.

Verses 9-11 list trials of the rich and poor, and yes even the rich have trials, one of which could be losing their wealth (verse 11).

In verse 12 James reminds the Jewish Christians they will be blessed if they persevere under trial.

That's a short view of my position on James 1-12. There is so much more, so many other little nuggets in there that I don't have the time to get into.

"In a pigs eye! Whatever that means"

According to my dictionary of idioms, it means nonsense.

Quite a poor rebuttal. You accused, I disproved. You would look much more reasonable if you could just admit it when you make a mistake.