Jump to content

Perspective


Recommended Posts

I don't have a problem with people who interpret the gospel different than I do.

Where does the myth that everyone in a ward or EQ or RS must agree on a specific limited interpretation of the gospel topic being introduced?

People who reply to others and say "that's what I take issue with," I don't get their comments.

You take issue with someone interpreting something differently than you do? despite their different upbringing, history, etc?

Seems odd

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I don't have a problem with people who interpret the gospel different than I do.

Where does the myth that everyone in a ward or EQ or RS must agree on a specific limited interpretation of the gospel topic being introduced?

People who reply to others and say "that's what I take issue with," I don't get their comments.

You take issue with someone interpreting something differently than you do? despite their different upbringing, history, etc?

Seems odd

Can you be more specific, with examples?

I'm not sure if you're referring to things like literal/non-literal interpretation (global/local/figurative Flood, etc.), Word of Wisdom interpretation, or exactly what.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
17 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I don't have a problem with people who interpret the gospel different than I do.

Where does the myth that everyone in a ward or EQ or RS must agree on a specific limited interpretation of the gospel topic being introduced?

People who reply to others and say "that's what I take issue with," I don't get their comments.

You take issue with someone interpreting something differently than you do? despite their different upbringing, history, etc?

Seems odd

I don't have a problem with people who interpret scripture "different" than I do, either.  There are often multiple correct interpretations of scripture.  I just don't like it when people interpret scripture incorrectly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
33 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I don't have a problem with people who interpret the gospel different than I do.

Where does the myth that everyone in a ward or EQ or RS must agree on a specific limited interpretation of the gospel topic being introduced?

People who reply to others and say "that's what I take issue with," I don't get their comments.

You take issue with someone interpreting something differently than you do? despite their different upbringing, history, etc?

Seems odd

In 3 Nephi 11:28, the Lords says, “And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine…” Disputation concerning doctrine is a distinctly different method for discovering and establishing truth from revelation a) because it operates on human genius alone; and b) it is contentious by nature.

While it is most commonly understood to be an early and medieval Christian invention where the approach was formalized among religious educators, it does have its roots in ancient Greece, and I take Elijah’s contest with the priests of Baal to be an early form it. I mention this because I take issue ;) with the idea that the Book of Mormon is a pious fraud constructed in the 16th - 19th century.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Where does the myth that everyone in a ward or EQ or RS must agree on a specific limited interpretation of the gospel topic being introduced?

Never heard of it. Though have seen members who expect everyone to accept their interpretation as the one and only...usually based on the authority of the church leader they are interpreting, though they usually say they are just sharing his ideas rather than seeing it as sharing their own....so it amounts to the same thing (everyone must agree) the for them. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In 3 Nephi 11:28, the Lords says, “And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine…” Disputation concerning doctrine is a distinctly different method for discovering and establishing truth from revelation a) because it operates on human genius alone; and b) it is contentious by nature.

While it is most commonly understood to be an early and medieval Christian invention where the approach was formalized among religious educators, it does have its roots in ancient Greece, and I take Elijah’s contest with the priests of Baal to be an early form it. I mention this because I take issue ;) with the idea that the Book of Mormon is a pious fraud constructed in the 16th - 19th century.

 

Another instance where scripture was and still is interpreted incorrectly. 

The correct interpretation should be "should be no" rather than "shall be no" because obviously often there are disputations and our Lord would not have said "shall be no" while knowing there would be.

Link to post
1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I don't have a problem with people who interpret the gospel different than I do.

Where does the myth that everyone in a ward or EQ or RS must agree on a specific limited interpretation of the gospel topic being introduced?

People who reply to others and say "that's what I take issue with," I don't get their comments.

You take issue with someone interpreting something differently than you do? despite their different upbringing, history, etc?

Seems odd

In my opinion it's a fine line.  As Joseph taught a man isn't bad because he errs in doctrine and people should be able to worship however they wish.  We shouldn't take issue with different perspectives.

But at the same time I think there is an accountability to stand for truth.  Allowing someone to promote false doctrine wherever and whenever they want doesn't seem wise either.  We should take issue with false doctrine.

We try to find the middle ground.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Another instance where scripture was and still is interpreted incorrectly. 

The correct interpretation should be "should be no" rather than "shall be no" because obviously often there are disputations and our Lord would not have said "shall be no" while knowing there would be.

Maybe He was looking speaking to the day when they cease!

Link to post
21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Another instance where scripture was and still is interpreted incorrectly. 

The correct interpretation should be "should be no" rather than "shall be no" because obviously often there are disputations and our Lord would not have said "shall be no" while knowing there would be.

Those blasted seer stones!

Link to post
23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Another instance where scripture was and still is interpreted incorrectly. 

The correct interpretation should be "should be no" rather than "shall be no" because obviously often there are disputations and our Lord would not have said "shall be no" while knowing there would be.

"Shall" can also be in the form of a command. Pretty much every standing command the Lord has ever given has been disobeyed so the usage stands. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Further proof that our Lord has and often uses his sense of humor.

 What makes you interesting is that I can never tell if you are joking or not. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

 What makes you interesting is that I can never tell if you are joking or not. 

When in doubt, just laugh.  Or just wait to see if more time will help you to sense my sense of humor.

Link to post
On 12/22/2020 at 11:37 AM, nuclearfuels said:

I don't have a problem with people who interpret the gospel different than I do.

Where does the myth that everyone in a ward or EQ or RS must agree on a specific limited interpretation of the gospel topic being introduced?

People who reply to others and say "that's what I take issue with," I don't get their comments.

You take issue with someone interpreting something differently than you do? despite their different upbringing, history, etc?

Seems odd

In a class setting, unless the opinion is in clear contradiction of doctrine, one should never say 'I disagree' or 'you are wrong'. Rather, one should say 'I have a different perspective'. Laypeople disputing the interpretation of scripture is always pointless because none of them are correct. They simply lack the education or training to understand how to interpret anything. It is the man with $100/year in income calling the man with $10/year poor. 

Link to post
On 12/22/2020 at 12:59 PM, bluebell said:

Not for myself but for those who are 1) not actually sure and so might take this person's opinion as gospel fact and 2) now feeling like maybe that pepsi they had yesterday means they really aren't worthy and are becoming anxious and depressed about it.

Plus I’d be wondering whether it was the comment or the caffeine that was making me anxious and depressed. 😳

  • Like 1
Link to post

Having a different of opinion is good.  It allows people to think things through and consider interpretations one might be missing.  The problem comes when one demands others to accept their interpretation.  My problem with the Ordain Women group was not their view that women should be ordained.  It was their desire to force a change through protest and agitation.  The Lord does not work that way.  Change is established by proper channels and methods that don't seek to create division or contention.  That is the ways of man but no the ways of God.  So whether their views were right or wrong, the method used invalidated message.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 12/22/2020 at 3:45 PM, Ahab said:

Another instance where scripture was and still is interpreted incorrectly. 

The correct interpretation should be "should be no" rather than "shall be no" because obviously often there are disputations and our Lord would not have said "shall be no" while knowing there would be.

In this instance, the Lord is not being predictive of something that will happen in the future, as in a prophecy. Rather, the expression “shall be no” is simply one of the ways God expresses himself in the King James translation of the Bible when he gives his people a commandment. The scriptures are replete with many instances of this expression being used in this way. What follows is one example of many...

21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. (Leviticus 22)f

Link to post
On 12/22/2020 at 1:33 PM, Calm said:

usually based on the authority of the church leader they are interpreting,

I wonder if this is a big part of the problem.

Among the most contentious issues that I see are cosmological issues (evolutionism vs. creationism, literal global flood, for example). When authorities Like Joseph Fielding Smith (who called evolution "a gap that cannot be bridged" and Elder McConkie (who called organic evolution one of 7 deadly heresies) declare something incompatible with the gospel, many in the Church perpetuate those claims.

The OP poses an interesting question -- why should we expect everyone in the Church to believe all of the same things? Part of the problem, I think, is that we don't really do a very good job of separating GA opinions from GAs declaring truth. GAs seem to do both without always explicitly declaring when they are speaking opinions and when they are making authoritative declarations. What should we do (or maybe just what should I do) when our (my) opinions run contrary to GA opinions and the GA declares with some certainty that they are not expressing non-binding opinions?

Link to post
On 12/22/2020 at 12:57 PM, Ahab said:

I don't have a problem with people who interpret scripture "different" than I do, either.  There are often multiple correct interpretations of scripture.  I just don't like it when people interpret scripture incorrectly.

In the one hand you say that you "I don't have a problem with people who interpret scripture "different" than I do" Then, on what grounds would you say that a certain "interpretation" is "wrong"? What would be the criteria if multiple interpretations are possible?

There could be multiple "applications" of a passage of scripture where our life's issues mirror that of character or event in the scriptures. The God said, thru His prophet what He intended to say. The scripture means what it means regardless of what we think of believe. Otherwise it means nothing at all. When the Lord says:

"For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked." Alma 34:35

He means just that; if you reject the Gospel when offered and think you can repent at a later date (your death bed, for example), or if you die unexpectedly, there are no second chances. It is utterly too late for you and your destiny is hell. That is what the scripture says and what the Lord intended to say. There can not be any other kind of "private" interpretation. Otherwise people can make it says whatever suits them (and some regrettably do). 

In Mosiah 12 Abinidi chastises the priest of Noah for perverting the "ways of God" (referring to the scriptures. They tried to twist a passage in Isaiah and the prophet reviled them for it: "I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord." Mos 12:26

Link to post
13 hours ago, Islander said:

In the one hand you say that you "I don't have a problem with people who interpret scripture "different" than I do" Then, on what grounds would you say that a certain "interpretation" is "wrong"? What would be the criteria if multiple interpretations are possible?

An interpretation of scripture is correct only if it is correct, but that in no way means there is only one way to correctly interpret scripture.  I'm not recalling any particular scripture that I know has more than one correct interpretation but I know and remember I have seen examples of that.  An incorrect interpretation is simply an incorrect interpretation of scripture, when the interpretation is not in agreement with what the Holy Spirit had in mind when he inspired someone else to write what he wrote.

13 hours ago, Islander said:

There could be multiple "applications" of a passage of scripture where our life's issues mirror that of character or event in the scriptures. The God said, thru His prophet what He intended to say. The scripture means what it means regardless of what we think of believe. Otherwise it means nothing at all. When the Lord says:

"For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked." Alma 34:35

He means just that; if you reject the Gospel when offered and think you can repent at a later date (your death bed, for example), or if you die unexpectedly, there are no second chances. It is utterly too late for you and your destiny is hell. That is what the scripture says and what the Lord intended to say. There can not be any other kind of "private" interpretation. Otherwise people can make it says whatever suits them (and some regrettably do). 

Remember, scripture is that which is written when a holy man (or woman) writes what the Holy Spirit inspires that man (or woman) to write.  Interpreting what the Holy Spirit has inspired is not as simple as simply interpreting the words the man wrote.

For example, nowhere in that scripture you quoted is there the idea that there are no second chances.  The inspired thought is that if there is no repentance, then the final state is to remain wicked.  But that is easily curable by repentance.

13 hours ago, Islander said:

In Mosiah 12 Abinidi chastises the priest of Noah for perverting the "ways of God" (referring to the scriptures. They tried to twist a passage in Isaiah and the prophet reviled them for it: "I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord." Mos 12:26

Right, and we all need to be careful to not make the same mistake ourselves.

Link to post
On 12/31/2020 at 11:37 AM, Ahab said:

An interpretation of scripture is correct only if it is correct, but that in no way means there is only one way to correctly interpret scripture.  I'm not recalling any particular scripture that I know has more than one correct interpretation but I know and remember I have seen examples of that.  An incorrect interpretation is simply an incorrect interpretation of scripture, when the interpretation is not in agreement with what the Holy Spirit had in mind when he inspired someone else to write what he wrote.

Remember, scripture is that which is written when a holy man (or woman) writes what the Holy Spirit inspires that man (or woman) to write.  Interpreting what the Holy Spirit has inspired is not as simple as simply interpreting the words the man wrote.

For example, nowhere in that scripture you quoted is there the idea that there are no second chances.  The inspired thought is that if there is no repentance, then the final state is to remain wicked.  But that is easily curable by repentance.

Right, and we all need to be careful to not make the same mistake ourselves.

But you did not answer the question. You said that "I have no problem with someone that has an interpretation different than mine". You are contradicting yourself in the your answer to my post. There is but ONE interpretation which is what God intended to say and the Spirit inspired the prophet to write. And that is why studying and understanding the scriptures becomes critical. Unfortunately, there many among our very own that do not, thus error is rampant and frequent, right from the pulpit.

 

Link to post
21 hours ago, Islander said:

But you did not answer the question. You said that "I have no problem with someone that has an interpretation different than mine". You are contradicting yourself in the your answer to my post. There is but ONE interpretation which is what God intended to say and the Spirit inspired the prophet to write. And that is why studying and understanding the scriptures becomes critical. Unfortunately, there many among our very own that do not, thus error is rampant and frequent, right from the pulpit.

 

It appears you either didn't understand me or you didn't agree with what I said, so I will now use an example of what I was talking about to see if you will understand my meaning this way.  Here is an example of a scripture with multiple correct interpretations:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What do you think about when you read that scripture?  Is how you interpret that scripture the only correct interpretation and are you sure there isn't more involved than what you think about when you read it?

Who is being referred to here as God?  Is the Who a he or a they? 

In what beginning?  The beginning of what?  The beginning of everything everywhere or did the inspired thought pertain to only the heaven and earth of this planet?

Was there no heaven or earth before that moment?  Or did the creation only involve reorganizing or restructuring the heaven and earth that had already existed before that moment or period of creation?

Do you now see what I mean when I say scripture often has more than only one correct interpretation?  Do you now see that even only one word often has more than one correct interpretation?

How many correct interpretations do you know of for the word God?  Or for the word heaven?  Or for the word earth?  Or for the word love?  Or hungry?  Or inspired?  Or scripture?...

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...