Relationship with Heavenly Parents

[rodheadlee]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why was it okay then and not now?

Um, don't they still do that in Saudia Arabia? 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Because God said so and he makes the rules. 

Then I have to agree with bluebell and say there is nothing more to be discussed with you on this subject. Your paradigm about the Old Testament appears to not allow my own paradigm to be seen as reasonable Imo while you spend your time defending God and the prophets against nonexistent attacks. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Um, don't they still do that in Saudia Arabia? 

He appears to think it is not okay now (“During Old Testament times, yes”) though from what he said, but perhaps MacGyver can comment if he believes stoning is acceptable in the 21st century…at least the first couple of decades. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[Freedom]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then I have to agree with bluebell and say there is nothing more to be discussed with you on this subject. Your paradigm about the Old Testament appears to not allow my own paradigm to be seen as reasonable Imo while you spend your time defending God and the prophets against nonexistent attacks. 

perhaps he is a biblical inerrantist and presumes that the scriptures are perfect any indication otherwise is to be ignored or reinterpreted? 

[rodheadlee]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

He appears to think it is not okay now (“During Old Testament times, yes”) though from what he said, but perhaps MacGyver can comment if he believes stoning is acceptable in the 21st century…at least the first couple of decades. 

I guess my point is that it is still acceptable in some societies. It is never acceptable in my opinion. If you kill someone, they can't repent, among other reasons. Just let them go is best.

[MacGyver]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then I have to agree with bluebell and say there is nothing more to be discussed with you on this subject. Your paradigm about the Old Testament appears to not allow my own paradigm to be seen as reasonable Imo while you spend your time defending God and the prophets against nonexistent attacks. 

Well Bluebell has flat out said that she thinks the prophets in the Bible were sexist and that their sexist bias influenced their interactions with God and you also said that the prophets didn't record many stories about women or gave them much of a voice, so I don't think I'm defending the prophets against "nonexistent attacks."

If your point wasn't to accuse the prophets of being sexist towards women, why were you only talking about the prophets and made no mention of the possibility of later scribes meddling with the text until just now?

[sunstoned]

9 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Well Bluebell has flat out said that she thinks the prophets in the Bible were sexist and that their sexist bias influenced their interactions with God and you also said that the prophets didn't record many stories about women or gave them much of a voice, so I don't think I'm defending the prophets against "nonexistent attacks."

If your point wasn't to accuse the prophets of being sexist towards women, why were you only talking about the prophets and made no mention of the possibility of later scribes meddling with the text until just now?

If that is what Bluebell and Calm said, then they are spot on.   A literal reading of the OT makes God out to be a real jerk. Starting with geocide and working down from there.  I tend to believe that much of the OT was written by and changed by uninspired men using their version of God to justify their terrible behavior.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

perhaps he is a biblical inerrantist and presumes that the scriptures are perfect any indication otherwise is to be ignored or reinterpreted? 

I have been assuming he is a Latter-day Saint the way he talks about prophets. Perhaps he isn’t?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I guess my point is that it is still acceptable in some societies. It is never acceptable in my opinion. If you kill someone, they can't repent, among other reasons. Just let them go is best.

I find stoning to be torture. If one Is going to execute someone as punishment or to stop a threat, there are better ways. 
 

I wonder if the law required the stones not be big enough to kill outright as it does apparently in countries now ( https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/08/how-does-stoning-work-in-iran.html )

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[MacGyver]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have been assuming he is a Latter-day Saint the way he talks about prophets. Perhaps he isn’t?

I'm an active believing Latter-day Saint. I don't believe in Biblical inerrancy. I believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.

Joseph Smith was commanded by God to do a new translation of the Bible and restore what was lost and correct errors. He made many revisions and additions. I consider what he didn't revise to be accurate and reliable. 

That doesn't mean there aren't still mistakes here and there, particularly in how the King James Version renders the original Hebrew and Greek texts. But I don't believe that there are all these huge problems in the Bible, where unauthorized scribes took the types of liberties you and others are suggesting. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

consider what he didn't revise to be accurate and reliable. 

So you consider the Song of Solomon to be completely inspired?

Quote

But I don't believe that there are all these huge problems in the Bible, where unauthorized scribes took the types of liberties you and others are suggesting. 

You believe Joseph restored all that was plain and precious and took out anything added that was significant then?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[MacGyver]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you consider the Song of Solomon to be completely inspired?

Joseph Smith said it wasn't inspired, so no.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You believe Joseph restored all that was plain and precious 

No, I don't believe Joseph restored all that was plain and precious, but he restored a lot of it.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

and took out anything added that was significant then?

I don't believe he left the kinds of things you are suggesting uncorrected. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Joseph Smith said it wasn't inspired, so no.

No, I don't believe Joseph restored all that was plain and precious, but he restored a lot of it.

I don't believe he left the kinds of things you are suggesting uncorrected. 

He left the Song of Solomon.

[Calm]

Quote

Both Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern laws used capital punishment for violation of chastity. In both, the location of the crime was crucial in determining the severity of the punishment. Middle Assyrian laws distinguished between rape that occurred either in the open country, at night in the street, in a granary, or at a city festival. Similar distinctions are found in Deuteronomy 22. In this case, the city or the field were the noted locations. Location appears to help establish the punishment for the woman, but not the man; for in either case he was condemned to death. If the act occurred in the field, presumably a place where if she called for help she would not be heard, the woman was not to be punished (Deut. 22:23–26). It is clear from the codes that rape was a serious offense in both Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern laws. The laws of Eshnunna called for capital punishment for a man if he abducted and raped a woman, but no punishment for the woman is indicated (LE 26). The woman’s innocence was also honored in the Code of Hammurabi. The rape of a betrothed virgin brought the death penalty for the man, but the woman was to go free (CH 130). These codes are the same as in Hebrew law, as noted in Deuteronomy 22:25–26.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=studiaantiqua

[MacGyver]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

He left the Song of Solomon

No, he didn't. In the JST, the Song of Solomon was removed. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

No, he didn't. In the JST, the Song of Solomon was removed. 

Call for reference please. (in case you don’t know what this means, you need to provide documentation for your claim or retract it, board rule)

PS:  if it is the note he wrote saying it was not inspired, how does that remove it from the canon?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Also, what makes you think the JST was sufficiently finished and that Joseph wouldn’t do major further revisions (I am assuming this is what you mean, if not, please clarify)

See page 256, the quoted part that has “President Young spoke of the new translation and said it was not complete”.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1462&context=byusq

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 12/17/2021 at 10:15 AM, rongo said:

I do think that we have many theological questions that aren't answered that the key-holders could inquire and receive revelation on (God-willing), but we as an institutional church haven't actively sought this at the top for some time now.

How would you know that?

What keys did Joseph have to have the first vision?

We can get revelation ourselves and don't need keyholders for that

 

[MacGyver]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Call for reference please. (in case you don’t know what this means, you need to provide documentation for your claim or retract it, board rule)

PS:  if it is the note he wrote saying it was not inspired, how does that remove it from the canon?

The Song of Solomon wasn't included in the Inspired Version (JST).

You'll notice it's not there.

https://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Nowhere in this post did you provide any revealed information about Heavenly Mother. You only provided revealed information about Heavenly Father and then used logic to assume that this information very likely also applies to Heavenly Mother. 

And yet you claim that what Hinckley and I said about having almost no revealed knowledge of Heavenly Mother is absurd, unorthodox, willfully ignorant, and offensive. 

Your accustion against me is absurd and offensive.

That was my question, what do we know about Heavenly Father. Then I'd show you what we know about Heavenly Mother. And yes, we are allowed to use reason, common sense, and logic to supplement the revelations of Heaven. We set them aside when revelations contradict our rationales, but we are otherwise fully expected to use them. And even better, we can receive personal inspiration and revelation to supplement, correct, refine, add to our investigations of the divine (albeit only for our benefit). I suppose getting you to say, we don't know anything about Heavenly Mother but we very likely know all kinds of stuff about her will have to suffice.

Nonetheless, you seem to have your hands full with a different line of conversation. I shan't press the matter any further. Go in peace. Have a great holiday!



PS: I don't fault Pres. Hinckley for making an imprecise, off-the-cuff statement during an interview with a public figure. He's not infallible. The body of statements from the other prophets and revelators show a very clear pattern.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Nofear

[MacGyver]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Also, what makes you think the JST was sufficiently finished and that Joseph wouldn’t do major further revisions (I am assuming this is what you mean, if not, please clarify)

Joseph Smith said it was finished and planned to publish it.

[O]n 2 July 1833, in a letter to the brethren in Zion, the Prophet wrote that “we are exceedingly fatigued, owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father.” (History of the Church, 1:368.) The words “Finished on the 2nd day of July 1833” also occur in bold handwriting on the JST manuscript at the conclusion of the book of Malachi.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/01/joseph-smiths-efforts-to-publish-his-bible-translation?lang=eng

Now, that doesn't mean the Lord wouldn't have revealed more plain and precious things that were missing at some future date, but in my opinion when Joseph Smith said it was finished, that means it was free from major doctrinal errors and reliable.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

The Song of Solomon wasn't included in the Inspired Version (JST).

You'll notice it's not there.

https://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm

So you accept the Community of Christ’s canon?

[Calm]

Quote

We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet, before his death, had spoken to him about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fullness at the time of which we write.[3]

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smith's_translation_of_the_Bible_ever_completed%3F

[MacGyver]

17 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I suppose getting you to say, we don't know anything about Heavenly Mother but we very likely know all kinds of stuff about her will have to suffice.

Yeah, that's all you're going to get out of me. 🙂

19 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Have a great holiday!

And a merry and Christmas and happy New Year to you, too. 

[MacGyver]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you accept the Community of Christ’s canon?

I accept the JST and therefore reject the Song of Solomon because Joseph Smith marked it as uninspired in the translation God commanded him to do.