Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Interpreting God


Recommended Posts

It has been some time since I have had any type of presence on any type of social media platform. But I had a question a couple of days ago and I popped in here to see if the topic had been discussed. The question had to do with COVID, vaccines, and brazen serpents.

I never got around to spending any time on that question because I got sidetracked by the title of a thread that questioned the placement of a comma. (Since I had another comma question myself, I took the opportunity to start a short thread.)  I looked at a couple of other threads this morning and I noticed something. Folks are spending a lot of energy arguing about the meanings and origin of words. I am looking specifically at the threads on damnation and Mahonri Moriancumer

First, I recommend everyone here take a break from this board and re-read (or read) Paul and Mormon on charity. See 1 Corinthians 13 and Moroni 7.

Last, read Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12.

God defines words and uses them in the manner in the scriptures as seems good to Him. Our challenge is to read the scriptures in the same spirit in which the were (a) transmitted, and (b) received. We arrive there through pondering and prayer. And we need to remember that scriptures can have dual meanings. (They are simply marvelous.)

Let, me offer an example, not for discussion but illustration. 

Isaiah 4:1 reads, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”

When I was teaching Old Testament in Gospel Doctrine some years ago, I was pondering on this verse and what it could mean. The obvious answer for many Latter-day Saints is that it is a reference to polygamy. The LDS scholars who edited the footnotes and references write that this will be “because to the scarcity of men due to wars.” The Lord offered me an alternative interpretation.

The women are the Christian churches of today. The one man is Jesus Christ. The food and apparel are the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel. 

Have a wonderful, blessed and charitable New Year. God is sovereign!

Edited by Mark Beesley
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

It has been some time since I have had any type of presence on any type of social media platform. But I had a question a couple of days ago and I popped in here to see if the topic had been discussed. The question had to do with COVID, vaccines, and brazen serpents.

I never got around to spending any time on that question because I got sidetracked by the title of a thread that questioned the placement of a comma. (Since I had another comma question myself, I took the opportunity to start a short thread.)  I looked at a couple of other threads this morning and I noticed something. Folks are spending a lot of energy arguing about the meanings and origin of words. I am looking specifically at the threads on damnation and Mahonri Moriancumer

First, I recommend everyone here take a break from this board and re-read (or read) Paul and Mormon on charity. See 1 Corinthians 13 and Moroni 7.

Last, read Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12.

God defines words and uses them in the manner in the scriptures as seems good to Him. Our challenge is to read the scriptures in the same spirit in which the were (a) transmitted, and (b) received. We arrive there through pondering and prayer. And we need to remember that scriptures can have dual meanings. (They are simply marvelous.)

Let, me offer an example, not for discussion but illustration. 

Isaiah 4:1 reads, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”

When I was teaching Old Testament in Gospel Doctrine some years ago, I was pondering on this verse and what it could mean. The obvious answer for many Latter-day Saints is that it is a reference to polygamy. The LDS scholars who edited the footnotes and references write that this will be “because to the scarcity of men due to wars.” The Lord offered me an alternative interpretation.

The women are the Christian churches of today. The one man is Jesus Christ. The food and apparel are the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel. 

Have a wonderful, blessed and charitable New Year. God is sovereign!

Only 7 out of how many hundreds of so-called Christian churches of today will say that to Jesus?  Wow.  What is to happen to all of the rest of the so-called Christian churches of today?  And do you think Jesus will marry those 7 women/churches ??"?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Only 7 out of how many hundreds of so-called Christian churches of today will say that to Jesus?  Wow.  What is to happen to all of the rest of the so-called Christian churches of today?  And do you think Jesus will marry those 7 women/churches ??"?

When Peter asked Christ if 7 was the number of times he had to forgive his brother’s trespass against him, Christ relied, not 7 times but 70 times 7. The number is illustrative, not an absolute. That is most certainly the case in Isaiah. Indeed, if one wants to reject the interpretation I described above, and adopt a literal reading of the verse, it makes no sense, unless of course one believes that there will be one man who will have seven women proposing marriage. If one such singular event were worthy of prophetic mention, surely the succeeding verses would be in some way expansive of the theme, but instead verses 2 and 3, indeed the entire chapter, make more sense as expansive of the churches theme introduced above.

The verses may have a dual meaning that does relate to polygamous marriages, but I don’t have any additional insight as to that particular theme. 
 

Seek charity.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

It has been some time since I have had any type of presence on any type of social media platform. But I had a question a couple of days ago and I popped in here to see if the topic had been discussed. The question had to do with COVID, vaccines, and brazen serpents.

I never got around to spending any time on that question because I got sidetracked by the title of a thread that questioned the placement of a comma. (Since I had another comma question myself, I took the opportunity to start a short thread.)  I looked at a couple of other threads this morning and I noticed something. Folks are spending a lot of energy arguing about the meanings and origin of words. I am looking specifically at the threads on damnation and Mahonri Moriancumer

First, I recommend everyone here take a break from this board and re-read (or read) Paul and Mormon on charity. See 1 Corinthians 13 and Moroni 7.

Last, read Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12.

God defines words and uses them in the manner in the scriptures as seems good to Him. Our challenge is to read the scriptures in the same spirit in which the were (a) transmitted, and (b) received. We arrive there through pondering and prayer. And we need to remember that scriptures can have dual meanings. (They are simply marvelous.)

Let, me offer an example, not for discussion but illustration. 

Isaiah 4:1 reads, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”

When I was teaching Old Testament in Gospel Doctrine some years ago, I was pondering on this verse and what it could mean. The obvious answer for many Latter-day Saints is that it is a reference to polygamy. The LDS scholars who edited the footnotes and references write that this will be “because to the scarcity of men due to wars.” The Lord offered me an alternative interpretation.

The women are the Christian churches of today. The one man is Jesus Christ. The food and apparel are the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel. 

Have a wonderful, blessed and charitable New Year. God is sovereign!

Well since it was the Lord himself who gave you the alternate interpretation, I would dare say his interpretation must the correct one. 

Link to comment
On 12/29/2020 at 4:17 PM, Mark Beesley said:

When Peter asked Christ if 7 was the number of times he had to forgive his brother’s trespass against him, Christ relied, not 7 times but 70 times 7. The number is illustrative, not an absolute. That is most certainly the case in Isaiah. Indeed, if one wants to reject the interpretation I described above, and adopt a literal reading of the verse, it makes no sense, unless of course one believes that there will be one man who will have seven women proposing marriage. If one such singular event were worthy of prophetic mention, surely the succeeding verses would be in some way expansive of the theme, but instead verses 2 and 3, indeed the entire chapter, make more sense as expansive of the churches theme introduced above.

The verses may have a dual meaning that does relate to polygamous marriages, but I don’t have any additional insight as to that particular theme. 
 

Seek charity.

or perhaps the verses referenced in Isaiah already occurred. 7 is certainly a symbolic number but would have to provide some evidence other than a personal impression to link this verse to churches. 

Link to comment

My feeling it that it is more accurate to link these verses to the previous previous verses which refer to the daughters of zion. I do not believe these verses have anything to do with polygamy, that is forcing a 19th century practice onto an ancient text. the passage is speaking about the iniquity of the covenant people and their eventual destruction an exile into Assyria. The allegory in chapter 5 ties it together. 

Link to comment
On 12/29/2020 at 8:50 AM, Mark Beesley said:

It has been some time since I have had any type of presence on any type of social media platform. But I had a question a couple of days ago and I popped in here to see if the topic had been discussed. The question had to do with COVID, vaccines, and brazen serpents.

I never got around to spending any time on that question because I got sidetracked by the title of a thread that questioned the placement of a comma. (Since I had another comma question myself, I took the opportunity to start a short thread.)  I looked at a couple of other threads this morning and I noticed something. Folks are spending a lot of energy arguing about the meanings and origin of words. I am looking specifically at the threads on damnation and Mahonri Moriancumer

First, I recommend everyone here take a break from this board and re-read (or read) Paul and Mormon on charity. See 1 Corinthians 13 and Moroni 7.

Last, read Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12.

God defines words and uses them in the manner in the scriptures as seems good to Him. Our challenge is to read the scriptures in the same spirit in which the were (a) transmitted, and (b) received. We arrive there through pondering and prayer. And we need to remember that scriptures can have dual meanings. (They are simply marvelous.)

Let, me offer an example, not for discussion but illustration. 

Isaiah 4:1 reads, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”

When I was teaching Old Testament in Gospel Doctrine some years ago, I was pondering on this verse and what it could mean. The obvious answer for many Latter-day Saints is that it is a reference to polygamy. The LDS scholars who edited the footnotes and references write that this will be “because to the scarcity of men due to wars.” The Lord offered me an alternative interpretation.

The women are the Christian churches of today. The one man is Jesus Christ. The food and apparel are the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel. 

Have a wonderful, blessed and charitable New Year. God is sovereign!

Ludlow and T. Ball (as well as other non-LDS scholars) render an interpretation of Isaiah 4 in the larger context of the book, which is the proper way to interpret scripture. Not just the narrow scope of the text/passage but the context of the chapter and book it self. Linking the reference to 7 women to plural marriage there has been a "historical" error perpetuated by poor understanding of the scripture. Reading something else there is just bad theology that could not be supported in any way. "Spiritualizing' scripture is rather a frequent error committed by many (even within the Church) that is seldom corrected in public. You would be reading something into the passage that is not there not was it intended by the Lord.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...