"But the Wedding is Coming Up...!"...LDS Video of a Bishop's Interview

[mfbukowski]

On 12/21/2017 at 12:16 PM, rongo said:

What are you talking about here? Are you insinuating that men regularly get slaps on the wrist, while women regularly are saddled with restrictions and delays?

That hasn't been my experience. Most of the people on my repentance process docket (needing a disciplinary council to consider reinstatement or rebaptism) have been and are men. Almost all men, with a few exceptions. 

Not to mention that the ramifications are more serious for men- as  a returned missionary his disciplinary council, if held, would be at a stake level with the full High Council involved, instead of just the Bishopric of the ward, for a woman in the same situation.

[Exiled]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

If she had gone for the identical interview, but for her personal endowment without announcing it to anyone, how would the bishop's response be any different...yet no one would be the least aware of the denial of the recommend unless she told them she had planned to get her endowment and then told them it was delayed.  Publicity is a side effect of the wedding being delayed, not the temple recommend being denied.  That can take place and probably does most of the time with no publicity whatsoever.

It would have been the same for her if she had the interview prior to the time of choosing the wedding date.

But it is for a wedding and that is the point of the video: to be aware of this scenario and to avoid it lest one has to pass through the gauntlent of public shame like our tragic heroine did.  Of course her beau stayed true so all ended well for her.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/21/2017 at 12:52 PM, Duncan said:

I don't want to say the word s*x! exactley, she doesn't appear to have been exed or disfellowshipped which usually happens when someone goes all the way

Not in my experience.  

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not in my experience.  

to quote Pam Beesley from the Office, "apparently it's an epidemic"

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think you are trying too hard to find something against my position that maybe the punishment the bishop gave didn't fit properly with what the young lady did. Of course everyone is still responsible for their own actions including the bishop and the church that supports the punishment scenario. It just seems the publicity was too much here.

Well, most people do not have theirs sins made into church videos but this was a special case.

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, churchistrue said:

It doesn't reflect entitlement to me. It reflects courage and desire to repent that she confessed at all. 

I'm certainly not setting myself up as any kind of a paragon here, much less as a paragon of ... [Cough-cough] ... virtue ... [Cough-cough]  , but I have found that the times I have been most in need of repentance have been the times I have been most willing to do whatever it took to set myself right again before the Lord and before His Church, and that has meant doing whatever a bishop has counseled me to do.

[Exiled]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, most people do not have theirs sins made into church videos but this was a special case.

Is this a true story or based on one? Please explain.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Is this a true story or based on one? Please explain.

It was a candid camera thing.

 

Actually I was joking. People are so busy fretting about a fictional person I was suggesting she must be real.

[rongo]

15 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t know where I ever said anything of the kind.

You don't know? Your whole point in your initial post was to complain that *any* restrictions or requirements were applied after she confessed. You are one of the ones who felt that the bishop should have cleared her for her sealing because she had confessed.

But, it seems you feel a repentant sinner must suffer after coming to your office. My question is ‘why?’

We don't desire that people suffer one iota beyond what they must. People suffer anyway for their sins, even if ---- and sometimes because ---- we seek to artificially minimize or reduce it. There are people suffering today because they were dealt with too leniently by their leaders; the leniency actually doesn't reduce the suffering. It kicks it down the road where it can be even worse.

Why does sin cause suffering? That is a fundamental part of our mortal probation, and it is an immutable, eternal law. The consequences of sin are suffering, whether we try to reduce it or not. The only cure is the atonement, and in the Church, the Lord has directed that applying the atonement require loss of membership, restrictions, long waits (minimum of 1-5 years, for certain things), etc. for certain things. This is directed by the Lord himself (unless people don't really believe that), and for serious sins, he himself indicates that merely being very sorry for the sins isn't enough, and doesn't magically go away because of the atonement because someone has confessed. Excommunication, disfellowshipment, formal/informal probation, etc. are and have been part of the Church and how the atonement is applied for serious sins whenever God has had a priesthood directed people.

Sometimes, the suffering has been done...the godly sorrow has been felt. That is why they are there. We are taught Christ suffered for our sins...so that we don’t have to.

D&C 19 refers to the spirit world and hereafter. We cannot escape the consequences of sin on earth by design (that's a major part of the reason we're here). Even when we are very sorry and have confessed, we will still suffer until we are healed. That doesn't have anything to do with meanness; it is the nature of things. I have seen where people have been sent on their way how you and others are advocating here, and it causes suffering and anguish for them later.

Confession is one of the last steps in the repentance process, but some seem to think it is the first.

Where are you getting your timeline from? For serious sins, it is the beginning of a long road. That's pretty obvious in a church with excommunication, disfellowshipment, and formal/informal probation. Otherwise, these measures wouldn't be part of the repentance process.

[rongo]

15 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Come on...you've been in a ward long enough to know, everyone will know or "assume" they know why the wedding is delayed. 

Shakespeare: "Cowards die many times before their deaths. The brave taste of death but once." (Julius Caesar).

Much of the time, we create our own problems by "borrowing trouble" and making it worse by anticipation (Jesus also taught "Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof;" i.e., actual problems we will face will be sufficient without worrying about it before it happens). This is true in spades with worries about what people will think when we don't take the sacrament, have to decline to give a prayer, have to cancel or postpone the sealing, etc. 

Obviously, if a sealing is cancelled, then people know in general terms that something happened to postpone it. But look at our own families and extended families and circle of friends. We all know (and know very well) very good people we look up to who have been through this, and this makes our culture more empathetic and supportive when this happens than people assume will be the case.  It is stewing in borrowed embarrassment that makes it worse. 

It doesn't get more public than a bishop not taking the sacrament, and that has happened to me twice in eight years. Not something serious that would be cause for removal, but I didn't feel worthy to take it at that time (even though I had repented through prayer; I just wanted a little more time to be right with God). I worried about it, too, but actually no one noticed. While deacons do notice that sometimes people don't take the sacrament, this helps them to learn (along with what their parents and leaders teach them) that the sacrament is to be taken seriously and thoughtfully, and that there will be times when we (hopefully all of us) don't take it. 

I'll give you a situation that is arguably worse than a postponed sealing. I was released as a bishop after over five years of serving, and we moved to a different ward (same stake). After only a year and a half, my wife and I were stunned when I was called again to be a bishop. The bishop (who had only been in for a year and a half) needed to be released quickly, and the stake president had gotten an emergency authorization from the First Presidency by phone (normally, bishops being approved takes a month or two). The stake president was *very* concerned about the impact this would have on the ward (a ward we were pretty new to), and we talked about it. This was Saturday, and the release and call would be the next day (I retained the two counselors, both outstanding men, but they still needed to be interviewed and called). The bishop had asked if he could speak to the ward, and the stake president asked what I thought (his disciplinary council was set for the following Sunday), and I told him I think that would be a good thing. The stake president suggested before the sacrament so he wasn't released yet, but I recommended it be after the bomb was dropped. He wouldn't technically be under restrictions yet until the following week. People wondered what was going on, with all the stake priesthood and auxiliary officers in our ward, and you could hear speculation and wonderment. After the sacrament, when the business was conducted, audible gasps could be heard in the congregation. The bishop did an outstanding job. The stake president had asked me if we should limit what he said, but I told him to let him say whatever he wanted however he wanted to. I don't remember exactly how he explained it, but he did it in such a way that most people didn't know why this had happened (obviously, some could read between the lines based on the situation). What blew me away was that in the intervening months, lots of people talked about how his workload probably made it so he needed to be released so he could be with his family more. That was the takeaway impression for most. Most people simply assumed the best. For months after, the stake president kept following up to see if there were major concerns from the fallout, but there were none whatsoever. I was also concerned and apprehensive, but in hindsight, God took care of us.

I think this is a big lesson for those who are mortified about what people will think if a sealing has to be postponed or cancelled. Many of us are incurable optimists who go out of our way to assume the best. Most of us know good people we look up to who had to wait to be sealed (some of us here are even in this boat), and we are understanding based on our family and friend connections. The bottom line is that the temple is worth approaching the right way. Lying or cutting corners (what churchistrue called "being stupid with the bishop) to illegitimately get there should be a ludicrous thought in the Church: what possible blessings can we hope to get from the temple by lying in the interview? That shows that the only consideration for such people is how things appear socially. They can't actually believe that they can slip one past God, can they? 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Exiled said:

No comparison at all?  Won't all the temple guests know about the temple wedding delays and rumors will probably abound as to why?  Like the unwanted publicity in the scarlet letter, the public punishment the bishop causes seems a little over the top.  Sure, the girl in the church video presumably won't have to wear a letter "A" on her dress (I guess they didn't write that part into the script ) ..... but she is publicly shamed .... the video shows her storming off from a meeting with her friends and one could presume that was part of the public punishment and the public shaming.

Now, of course the puritans were over the top and I am related to one of the people involved in the salem witch trials as are a lot of people, but the public shaming aspect of wearing the scarlet letter is part of the church video scenario, else why deny the recommend if not to lend a little publicity to the transgression/repentance process.  Some might say the public part is the purpose of generating the godly sorrow the bishop wanted to stimulate in our tragic heroine.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."  None of that need have been public in any way, and that was not the intention of the young woman (whom you incorrectly call "the girl") or of her bishop.  Any public shaming was a consequence of her failure to put first things first.  One does not first schedule a wedding and then go to the bishop with a request for a temple recommend.  That is exactly backwards, and she is clearly living in lala land.

The LDS rule is that private sin remains private, while public sin takes on another character entirely -- so far as disciplinary courts are concerned.  As a common judge in Israel, the bishop must decide what is appropriate.  Can he make a mistake?  Certainly.  Have standards changed over the years?  Yes they have, and bishops are far more likely to go easy on sexual sin today than 50 years ago, but they cannot ignore it, and they must act in accordance with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  There was a time when some well-meaning Brethren equated sexual sin with murder, but that made little sense, and has been abandoned.

[ksfisher]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I don't think anyone really knows how tough it is to be in that chair unless you have been there, not even Bishopric couselors.

The most soul searching, penetrating question I’ve ever been asked, on Sunday when the bishop was on vacation, was “what would you do if you were bishop.”  When put that way, however, the descision was clear.

[rchorse]

As another former bishop, I just want to add a +1 to what rongo is saying. I've seen far more spiritual and personal damage done from giving people a pass and kicking the can down the road than I have from following the disciplinary process outlined in the scriptures and the handbook. Several people I worked with were not been able to move on with their lives and had carried guilt for years and years, even after confessing to a bishop, because their issues had not been dealt with adequately. I'm sure there are some bishops that are too strict, but in my experience the larger problem is bishops and stake presidents who are too scared to use church discipline where appropriate.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. I did have a couple cases where confession ended up being the last or next to last step in the process. One of these was a person who had very clearly repented. We held a disciplinary council, the result was no action, and the person received a temple recommend a week or two after the council. But that was one or two cases of dozens that I dealt with. 

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There was a time when some well-meaning Brethren equated sexual sin with murder, but that made little sense, and has been abandoned.

Really?

Quote

Why do you think fornication and adultery are placed next to murder in seriousness?

"Lesson 96: Alma 39," 2017 Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual (2017)

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by Thinking

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/21/2017 at 11:21 AM, cinepro said:

With the recent hubbub regarding Bishop's interviews, this video on the Church website takes on new importance. And it's got Aaron Eckhart!

It's about 10 minutes long, but the most important part is the interview from about 1:00 - 5:00. 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-2350-godly-sorrow-leads-to-repentance?lang=eng

Honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the Bishop on this one.

To me the most important parts are the mother saying “I love you” and the reconciliation with the fiancé at the end, knowing that what she had experienced was for the greater good of all of them.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

"We are punished by our sins, if not for them" Pres. packer, Oct. 1995 GC

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

 

lots of good counsel in there

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

As another former bishop, I just want to add a +1 to what rongo is saying. I've seen far more spiritual and personal damage done from giving people a pass and kicking the can down the road than I have from following the disciplinary process outlined in the scriptures and the handbook. Several people I worked with were not been able to move on with their lives and had carried guilt for years and years, even after confessing to a bishop, because their issues had not been dealt with adequately. I'm sure there are some bishops that are too strict, but in my experience the larger problem is bishops and stake presidents who are too scared to use church discipline where appropriate.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. I did have a couple cases where confession ended up being the last or next to last step in the process. One of these was a person who had very clearly repented. We held a disciplinary council, the result was no action, and the person received a temple recommend a week or two after the council. But that was one or two cases of dozens that I dealt with. 

I wonder though how much of this is healthy godly guilt motivating us to repent and come closer to God and how much is imposed on ourselves because of our misunderstanding about sin, punishment, and the Atonement.

Just because we believe we need to be punished doesn't mean that Christ sees us as needing to be punished.  Punishment may still be a necessary part of our repentance, but it might need to be because we place the need on ourselves, not because it is an actual part of the required process.

" Some Mormons suffer emotionally and spiritually because they have appropriated far too much Protestant thought and language, say Terryl and Fiona Givens, authors of the new book "The Christ Who Heals: How God Restored the Truth That Saves Us" (Deseret Book).

That language traps some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into feeling unworthy, incapable and overwhelmed, they say.

"Perfection is horrifying to Mormons," Fiona Givens said in a recent interview, "and it's based on a mistranslation. The Greek refers to 'wholeness,' to being 'entire.' We are carrying the traditions of the fathers to a degree that we are a wounded people."

"'Be ye therefore perfect' is not a commandment or imperative," her husband added. "It means, 'You will be whole.'""

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694251/The-Christ-Who-Heals-authors-say-Mormonism-restores-Christ-to-full-splendor-as-healer-of.html

If we really trusted Christ to heal us, how much punishment would be needed, if any?

Edited December 23, 2017 by Calm

[Exiled]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder though how much of this is healthy godly guilt motivating us to repent and come closer to God and how much is imposed on ourselves because of our misunderstanding about sin, punishment, and the Atonement.

Just because we believe we need to be punished doesn't mean that Christ sees us as needing to be punished.  Punishment may still be a necessary part of our repentance, but it might need to be because we place the need on ourselves, not because it is an actual part of the required process.

" Some Mormons suffer emotionally and spiritually because they have appropriated far too much Protestant thought and language, say Terryl and Fiona Givens, authors of the new book "The Christ Who Heals: How God Restored the Truth That Saves Us" (Deseret Book).

That language traps some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into feeling unworthy, incapable and overwhelmed, they say.

"Perfection is horrifying to Mormons," Fiona Givens said in a recent interview, "and it's based on a mistranslation. The Greek refers to 'wholeness,' to being 'entire.' We are carrying the traditions of the fathers to a degree that we are a wounded people."

"'Be ye therefore perfect' is not a commandment or imperative," her husband added. "It means, 'You will be whole.'""

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694251/The-Christ-Who-Heals-authors-say-Mormonism-restores-Christ-to-full-splendor-as-healer-of.html

If we really trusted Christ to heal us, how much punishment would be needed, if any?

Do you think the mere fact of having a "be ye therefore perfect" commandment adds to the problem?  I would think this is why the Givens seem to want to change the definition of the phrase.  My sense is that having the perfection goal is like having the outrageous goals often found in the business world, that cannot be met ever, and just lead to low moral when not met month after month.  Perhaps it is a case of realistic expectations?

[rchorse]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder though how much of this is healthy godly guilt motivating us to repent and come closer to God and how much is imposed on ourselves because of our misunderstanding about sin, punishment, and the Atonement.

Just because we believe we need to be punished doesn't mean that Christ sees us as needing to be punished.  Punishment may still be a necessary part of our repentance, but it might need to be because we place the need on ourselves, not because it is an actual part of the required process.

" Some Mormons suffer emotionally and spiritually because they have appropriated far too much Protestant thought and language, say Terryl and Fiona Givens, authors of the new book "The Christ Who Heals: How God Restored the Truth That Saves Us" (Deseret Book).

That language traps some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into feeling unworthy, incapable and overwhelmed, they say.

"Perfection is horrifying to Mormons," Fiona Givens said in a recent interview, "and it's based on a mistranslation. The Greek refers to 'wholeness,' to being 'entire.' We are carrying the traditions of the fathers to a degree that we are a wounded people."

"'Be ye therefore perfect' is not a commandment or imperative," her husband added. "It means, 'You will be whole.'""

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694251/The-Christ-Who-Heals-authors-say-Mormonism-restores-Christ-to-full-splendor-as-healer-of.html

If we really trusted Christ to heal us, how much punishment would be needed, if any?

Punishment is a word commonly used to describe church discipline, but I don't think it fits that well. It's not about ensuring that the transgressor has suffered adequately. In my experience, church discipline is less about punishment and more about not doing further spiritual harm by participating in ordinances unworthily. I really believe that each time someone, for example, takes the sacrament unworthily it does real spiritual damage. I'm not sure how else to interpret 3 Nephi 18:29 (For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul). If that is the case, then is it really punishment to forbid the ordinances until the repentance process is complete?

I'm sure that we get it wrong sometimes due to "our misunderstanding about sin, punishment, and the Atonement", as you said. You and the Givens both make good points here. I know I made mistakes in my imperfect attempts to do my duty. But overall I have found the church disciplinary process, when necessary, to be a powerful tool for the healing of the Atonement to be applied.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Do you think the mere fact of having a "be ye therefore perfect" commandment adds to the problem?  I would think this is why the Givens seem to want to change the definition of the phrase.  My sense is that having the perfection goal is like having the outrageous goals often found in the business world, that cannot be met ever, and just lead to low moral when not met month after month.  Perhaps it is a case of realistic expectations?

You didn't read the article, did you?  Or maybe you just didn't register all you were reading.

Misinterpretations of the scripture can cause problems.  The scripture itself is a glorious promise.

I think the Givens want to remove the cultural baggage Protestant converts brought with them as well as members who have borrowed Protestant ideas rather than depending on Restorationist doctrine, not change the actual definition.

""'Be ye therefore perfect' is not a commandment or imperative," her husband added. "It means, 'You will be whole.'""

Edited December 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, rchorse said:

Punishment is a word commonly used to describe church discipline, but I don't think it fits that well. It's not about ensuring that the transgressor has suffered adequately. In my experience, church discipline is less about punishment and more about not doing further spiritual harm by participating in ordinances unworthily. I really believe that each time someone, for example, takes the sacrament unworthily it does real spiritual damage. I'm not sure how else to interpret 3 Nephi 18:29 (For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul). If that is the case, then is it really punishment to forbid the ordinances until the repentance process is complete?

I'm sure that we get it wrong sometimes due to "our misunderstanding about sin, punishment, and the Atonement", as you said. You and the Givens both make good points here. I know I made mistakes in my imperfect attempts to do my duty. But overall I have found the church disciplinary process, when necessary, to be a powerful tool for the healing of the Atonement to be applied.

 

I dislike the use of the term "punishment" myself.  I prefer "getting ourselves right before the Lord" and that takes work, even if all it might be it is resisting the natural man in ourselves that doesn't want to trust and let go and put ourselves in God's hands.

[bsjkki]

Two quotes: 

“Most of what I have said here has been addressed to persons who think that repentance is easy. At the opposite extreme are those who think that repentance is too hard. Those souls are so tenderhearted and conscientious that they see sin everywhere in their own lives, and they despair of ever being able to be clean. A call for repentance that is clear enough and loud enough to encourage reformation for the lax can produce paralyzing discouragement for the conscientious. This is a common problem. We address a diverse audience each time we speak, and we are never free from the reality that a doctrinal underdose for some is an overdose for others.”https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/07/sin-and-suffering?lang=eng&_r=1

“President Spencer W. Kimball, who served with President Smith as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said, “Many times we have said that since the Twelve will be judges of Israel, any of us would be happy to fall into his hands, for his judgment would be kind, merciful, just, and holy.”⁶ When President Smith ordained bishops, he often counseled: “Remember, everyone has weaknesses, and there are at least two sides to every story. If you err in judgment, be sure you err on the side of love and mercy.”⁷https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-5-faith-and-repentance?lang=eng

Being a discerning Bishop is difficult and knowing the heart of someone sitting in front of you is very hard. I have seen people repent and come out of a Bishops office renewed in their faith with hope and increased faith in Christ. I have also witnessed, rocks and weights being added to an already heavy load and a complete crumbling under the weight of the despair.

There is never a one sized fits all approach to sin and repentance. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

Really?

Quote

Why do you think fornication and adultery are placed next to murder in seriousness?

"Lesson 96: Alma 39," 2017 Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual (2017)

 

Yes, really.  Read Alma 39:5:  It does not say that sexual sin is the same as murder, but emphasizes that it is very serious.  Alma uses hyperbole to accentuate his point, but anyone familiar with the Scriptures knows very well that the punishment for fornication is just never the same as that for murder.  Not even close.  Then too, it makes a great deal of difference whether the violation was by someone who holds the priesthood and has made temple covenants (Law of Chastity).  One has only to compare the short entries at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/murder?lang=eng&letter=M  (murder), and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/fornication?lang=eng  (fornication) to see the stark difference.

Moreover, equating fornication with murder can make true repentance seem impossible and completely demoralize someone who is young and stupid, thus guaranteeing that they will give up on the Gospel.  The same thing happens when smoking or drinking are made out to be so horrendous as sins that there is no hope for repentance.  We need to get a grip on reality, and understand that some sins are more grievous than others.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You didn't read the article, did you?  Or maybe you just didn't register all you were reading.

Misinterpretations of the scripture can cause problems.  The scripture itself is a glorious promise.

I think the Givens want to remove the cultural baggage Protestant converts brought with them as well as members who have borrowed Protestant ideas rather than depending on Restorationist doctrine, not change the actual definition.

""'Be ye therefore perfect' is not a commandment or imperative," her husband added. "It means, 'You will be whole.'""

Is there a difference between "misinterpret" and "define incorrectly" in this context?  What if I said to you that I think the phrase "be ye therefore perfect" should be defined as "you will be whole?"  Would it be just to derisively dismiss my definition and say that I should use interpret instead of define?

The first part of the definition of both "define" and "interpret" are essentially the same thing:

define: a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of

• whatever defines us as human

interpret:  to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

 

• interpret dreams

• needed help interpreting the results

I don't see the difference in this context, other than being accused of changing the definition of words has a lot of baggage in some circles.

 

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Is there a difference between "misinterpret" and "define incorrectly" in this context?  What if I said to you that I think the phrase "be ye therefore perfect" should be defined as "you will be whole?"  Would it be just to derisively dismiss my definition and say that I should use interpret instead of define?

The first part of the definition of both "define" and "interpret" are essentially the same thing:

define: a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of

• whatever defines us as human

interpret:  to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

 

• interpret dreams

• needed help interpreting the results

I don't see the difference in this context, other than being accused of changing the definition of words has a lot of baggage in some circles.

 

You misunderstand my point.  The Givens are not changing the definition because they are pointing out the original one.  That was the only issue I cared about.  

The actual definition of a word if we are trying to find out what it was meant to say by the authors comes from the original context, misinterpretations are redefinitions, incorrect ones...the Givens in appealing to the original language and context are giving the original definition, not changing it.

Those who offer different definitions are misinterpreting the language.

Language and definitions change all the time.  I have no problem with that as long as the changed definition is not imposed on the original authors ' intent, but recognized for what it is...a change.  And if one says appealing to the original definition is the change, that would be incorrect.  It is the new definition that is the change, which is in this case the Protestant interpretation.

LDS change definitions quite a bit, sometimes this is recognized, sometimes not.  Most of the time I don't have a problem with recognized change as .I see it as a form of likening the scriptures to ourselves.  If we insist it means more than that though, we may be saddling ourselves with unnecessary problems and conflict with others.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Calm