The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[webbles]

39 minutes ago, Ranch2727 said:

Ok not sure about that but ok, as far as Christian’s and the priesthood I cannot agree with that. No nondenominational church that I’ve attended believes in the priesthood being transferable.   
Hebrews 7:24 He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.    
Greek word is aparabatos not transferable.  That’s what Christian’s believe and practice literally.

Yes, that's the same thing I said.  Christians no longer follow the old testament requirements of being a priest.

[InCognitus]

38 minutes ago, Ranch2727 said:

Ok not sure about that but ok, as far as Christian’s and the priesthood I cannot agree with that. No nondenominational church that I’ve attended believes in the priesthood being transferable.   
Hebrews 7:24 He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.    
Greek word is aparabatos not transferable.  That’s what Christian’s believe and practice literally.

"Not transferable" is an incorrect (and made up) meaning of aparabatos.  Here's the definition of that word from the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, by Walter Bauer, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, p. 80..  I don't know of any place this is online, so this is a scan:

To translate some of what it says above, it is saying here that in Hebrews 7:24 it is usually interpreted without a successor.  But this meaning is found nowhere else.   Aparabatos rather has the sense permanent, unchangeable (Stoic. II 266; 293; Plut, Mor. 410F; 745D; Epict. 2, 15, 1, Ench. 51, 2: Herm. Wr. 494, 26 Sc.; Philo. Act. M. 112; Jos., Ant. 18, 266, C. Ap. 2,293; PRyl. 65, 18 [I BC]; PLond. 1015, 12).

In the Liddell-Scott Lexicon of the Greek Language we find the following for "aparabatos" (this definition is online here) :

ἀπαρά-βα^τος , ον,

A.unalterable, “εἱρμὸς αἰτιῶν” Stoic.2.266; ἐπιπλοκή, of causation, Chrysipp.ib.293; “τάξις” Plu.2.410f; “ἡ τῆς κινήσεως ἰδέα” Ocell.1.15; infallible, “προρρήσεις” Iamb.VP28.135, cf. Philum.Ven. 4.14; also of persons, Cat.Cod.Astr.8(4).215. Adv. -τως Chrysippsipp.Stoic.2.279.

2. inviolable, “κύρια καὶ ἀ.” PRyl.65.18 (i B.C.), cf. PGrenf.1.60.7 (vi A.D.).

3. permanent, perpetual, “ἱερωσύνη” Ep.Hebr.7.24.

3. Act., not transgressing, J.AJ18.8.2; “ἀ. τῶν καθηκόντων” Hierocl.in CA10p.435M. Adv. “-τως” Arr.Epict.2.15.1.

As you can see above, the idea that aparabatos means "intransferable" does not come from the word use itself, but comes rather from a late Protestant interpretation implanted upon the passage in question.  Instead, aparabatos means "unalterable", "infallible", "inviolable", "not transgressing", even "permanent", and "perpetual", which is to say that the Melchizedek priesthood itself does not change, and this does not mean that it cannot be transmitted to others.  The interpretation that aparabatos means "intransferable" comes from the Protestant doctrinal bias to remove priesthood authority as a requirement for ministry in Christ's church, since the Protestants could claim no such authority in separating themselves from the Catholic church.  Thus, this interpretation is one of preconceived necessity, and not something the word or text actually says.

In opposition to the Protestant interpretation of this verse, there are other New Testament passages which suggest that others received this priesthood in the church.  

The word "Melchizedek" is derived from the Hebrew "melek", which means "king" or "royal", and the Hebrew "tsedeq" which means "right" or "righteousness".  Therefore, Melchizedek literally means "king of right" or "king of righteousness" or "royal righteousness".  The implication is that this priesthood has royal attributes and is of a godly nature.  Thus, it should not be surprising to find references to this priesthood using the same terms.

With this in mind, 1 Peter 2:9 should provide sufficient evidence that some of the saints to whom Peter was writing were holders of the Melchizedek priesthood:  "But ye are a chosen generation a royal priesthood"  The apostle John also told the saints in the seven churches of Asia to whom he was writing that Jesus Christ had made them "kings and priests unto God" (Revelation 1:6; 5:10).  

And if that is not enough, there is ample historical evidence to show that the Protestant interpretation of the priesthood was a 16th century creation and this understanding did not exist in the early church, because that can easily be documented from the writings of the early Christians.
 

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, Ranch2727 said:

Ok not sure about that but ok, as far as Christian’s and the priesthood I cannot agree with that. No nondenominational church that I’ve attended believes in the priesthood being transferable.   
Hebrews 7:24 He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.    
Greek word is aparabatos not transferable.  That’s what Christian’s believe and practice literally.

Again you are incorrect because you apparently don’t know the the scriptures very well and focus only on the portions that seem to back up your preconceived notions.

From the Book of Revelation we learn that the Church members on earth during the Apostolic period testified that God had made them priests.

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1)

We next learn that the redeemed in heaven also testify that they hold the priesthood, and that it is by virtue of that priesthood authority that they will reign on earth after it’s glorification..

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.(Revelation 5)

And we also learn that those who held the priesthood in heaven prior to the resurrection will continue to hold it after the resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20)

From the above, it’s more than apparent that the priesthood these Christians hold is the Melchizedek priesthood because they abide priests continually both on earth in mortality, after death but prior to the resurrection and again after the resurrection, and also because it’s a royal priesthood that makes them kings like unto King Melchizedek.

 

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by teddyaware

[Ranch2727]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Again you are incorrect because you apparently don’t know the the scripture very well and focus only on the portions that seem to back up your preconceived notions.

From the Book of Revelation we learn that the Church members on earth during the Apostolic period testified that God had made them priests.

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1)

We next learn that the redeemed in heaven also testify that they hold the priesthood, and that it is by virtue of that priesthood authority that they will reign on earth after it’s glorification..

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.(Revelation 5)

And we also learn that those who held the priesthood in heaven prior to the resurrection will continue to hold it after the resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20)

From the above, it’s more than apparent that the priesthood these Christians hold is the Melchizedek priesthood because they abide priests continually both on earth in mortality, after death but prior to the resurrection and again after the resurrection, and also because it’s a royal priesthood that makes them kings like unto King Melchizedek.

 

 

Again you are making it fit your beliefs, you needed to have the correct blood line to even have the priesthood and not all can hold it. You had to be around 30 years old, off hand I don’t remember the exact age.  You all hand it out willy nilly to 23 year old boys.  You will see when you pass and meet Jesus, you will say hello I hold the priesthood, Jesus is going to say “I don’t know you” again by your works (there’s that word again) you will not please Him.  So again I need to refer that you’re following I different Jesus than me. So I will take my Jesus and his grace and you will endure to the end.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Ranch2727 said:

Again you are making it fit your beliefs, you needed to have the correct blood line to even have the priesthood and not all can hold it. You had to be around 30 years old, off hand I don’t remember the exact age.  You all hand it out willy nilly to 23 year old boys.  You will see when you pass and meet Jesus, you will say hello I hold the priesthood, Jesus is going to say “I don’t know you” again by your works (there’s that word again) you will not please Him.  So again I need to refer that you’re following I different Jesus than me. So I will take my Jesus and his grace and you will endure to the end.

On what points (belief's, practices) would you say that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the same Jesus as you do?

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, Ranch2727 said:

you needed to have the correct blood line to even have the priesthood and not all can hold it.

I've pointed this out to you before (here), and asked this same question previously (here), but I don't think you ever answered it:

If the Levitical priesthood is only for a certain blood line in the New Covenant, then why does God say he will work among the Gentiles in the last days and “take of them for priests and for Levites” (Isa 66:19-21)?  That is for the Aaronic priesthood.  The Melchizedek priesthood was not by blood line.

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, Ranch2727 said:

Again you are making it fit your beliefs, you needed to have the correct blood line to even have the priesthood and not all can hold it. You had to be around 30 years old, off hand I don’t remember the exact age.  You all hand it out willy nilly to 23 year old boys.  You will see when you pass and meet Jesus, you will say hello I hold the priesthood, Jesus is going to say “I don’t know you” again by your works (there’s that word again) you will not please Him.  So again I need to refer that you’re following I different Jesus than me. So I will take my Jesus and his grace and you will endure to the end.

Why would Jesus say "I don't know you"?  You said that "Everyone that believes in Jesus and confesses it they ARE SAVED."  Since all members of the church do that already, aren't we all saved?

[teddyaware]

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

I've pointed this out to you before (here), and asked this same question previously (here), but I don't think you ever answered it:

If the Levitical priesthood is only for a certain blood line in the New Covenant, then why does God say he will work among the Gentiles in the last days and “take of them for priests and for Levites” (Isa 66:19-21)?  That is for the Aaronic priesthood.  The Melchizedek priesthood was not by blood line.

It’s a waste of time. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Ranch2727 said:

Again you are making it fit your beliefs, you needed to have the correct blood line to even have the priesthood and not all can hold it. You had to be around 30 years old, off hand I don’t remember the exact age.  You all hand it out willy nilly to 23 year old boys.  You will see when you pass and meet Jesus, you will say hello I hold the priesthood, Jesus is going to say “I don’t know you” again by your works (there’s that word again) you will not please Him.  So again I need to refer that you’re following I different Jesus than me. So I will take my Jesus and his grace and you will endure to the 

Not that I expect the following words of Jesus Christ will have any effect on you, but for what it’s worth here it goes…
13 BUT HE THAT SHALL ENDURE TO THE END, THE SAME SHALL BE SAVED. (Matthew 24)

Edited July 31, 2022 by teddyaware

[Saint Bonaventure]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Is there an easy answer to why modern scripture might not be able to have the same rules applied to it?  If the Teaching Authority of the Church were to change their minds about the canon being closed (as opposed to revelation still being open), would that be enough to open the canon back up?

What if a text that had been referenced in the New Testament, but lost was found and proven authentic?***

(Assuming here it is more than just an issue of time or respect for early church fathers who wrote about scripture or tradition.)

***wiki lists the below as referenced in the NT, but missing. Would any of these be considered?  Perhaps the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans since Paul instructs “read the epistle”?

I'm having so many thoughts regarding your questions. I'll try to pull them together:

• The New Testament canon as we know it really goes back to the Council of Rome in 382 B.C., to the commissioning of St. Jerome to produce the Vulgate Bible. The 73 books that Jerome translated into Latin, including the 27 New Testament books, were the expanse of Scripture until the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther objected to the deuterocanonical books (the seven books in the Septuagint that were not in the Masoretic Old Testament) and also objected to the Epistle of James. He kept the seven deuterocanonical books out of his 1522 translation of the Bible. There's a lot more to this--shelves of books--but that's an accurate blurb on this part of the story.
• The Catholic Church officially responded to the Protestant Reformation with the Council of Trent, which had three sessions that stretched from 1545-1563. In the third session of Trent, the 73 books of Scripture were reaffirmed, and very much in response to Martin Luther excluding the seven books. There was also language that reaffirmed the Church's teaching authority regarding the scriptures. These statements were in response to Martin Luther, but probably even more in response to the Munster Rebellion (Anabaptists, cue Navidad), which was thought to have been instigated by the Anabaptist insistence on the primacy of individual interpretation of Scripture. In the sense that Jerome is one bookend of a discussion of canon, The Council of Trent is the other bookend.
• Trent was about not removing books of Scripture, and not having individual interpretation run roughshod. Trent didn't directly address itself to the kind of "What if..." that could be put forward if, for example, the missing Pauline letter to the Corinthians was discovered.  
•  An interesting case is the rediscovery of The Didache, a book that was known in the early Church, was discussed as possibly being Scripture before being rejected, and was lost over the centuries until it was rediscovered in the 1870s. The Didache is dated by scholars between 50 and 150 A.D., and is treasured for the window it gives into the early, perhaps very early, Church. Catholics I know love The Didache--it's commonly used in RCIA (a class for inquirers) and is very, very Catholic. Some theologians and historians have made noise about The Didache and the canon, but I haven't seen those discussions gain traction. 
• If one or more of the works referenced in the New Testament itself were discovered and authenticated, I suspect they would be treated much as The Didache has been--with appreciation but without a need to be considered in terms of all the canon issues. 
• In the early years, many works were excluded from official use for being heretical because they contradicted the known apostolic writings and Sacred Tradition (the apostolic teachings that weren't written, but that were also passed on). Bart Ehrman has sold a lot of books making a fuss over these excluded books, but these books are gnostic, rooted in the Judaizer heresy that Paul condemned, and/or otherwise have the marks of fakery. 
• I don't know of any Catholic theologians or historians who have a notion of 'modern scripture.' I understand that my LDS friends do have such a notion. Moreover, when Latter-day Saints speak of the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly," it will make Catholics and others wonder if LDS folks don't have a unique notion of both scripture and canon. The accounts of Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon are unlike anything I know of in the Bible, or in Catholic prophetic activity. A man translating not through knowledge--like St. Jerome to produce the Vulgate--but through a mystical/spiritual process? That's a mic drop in a theological sense.
• If I put myself in LDS shoes, I can see how the canon discussions could feel like the winners writing history and excluding everyone else.    
• I texted one of my LDS family members about the deuterocanonical books, the seven excluded by Martin Luther and not usually included in Protestant Bibles (there are KJVs with the deuterocanonicals, though). Anyway, he said these books are known in LDS circles as 'The Apocrypha,' and that while they could be read and studied, he doesn't think Latter-day Saints pay them much attention.

I apologize for a bit of a ramble, and very much appreciate your questions and this discussion. I'm learning a lot from you and from others on this enjoyable little site.

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Moreover, when Latter-day Saints speak of the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly," it will make Catholics and others wonder if LDS folks don't have a unique notion of both scripture and canon

While I think there are other aspects (we should tell you about “likening scripture”) that may contribute to a unique view, this condition of “translated correctly” is pretty much only saying our current books of scriptures are not seen as inerrant as they have passed through the error prone hands of men.  Unless Catholics believe there is no error in translation of scripture, that any translation is as accurate in communicating the original thought as another or as good as the original texts, I don’t see that particular condition of cautioning about potential translation error as that novel. 

The same condition would apply to any translation of the Book of Mormon. We have some of the original dictated and publisher manuscripts, so we also know there were errors in dictation, transcribing, and publishing…many of the errors have been corrected, but not all. The original English version of the Book of Mormon also includes a comment from one of the prophets who wrote the scripture that if there are errors, they are the errors of men, not of God; so even the prophets engraving the plates recognized the possibility, really the inevitability of errors in any communication going through men even if the original source is God. 

Boils down to while we believe the word of God as issued from God is inerrant, the Church and the vast majority of Saints do not believe in inerrancy of scriptures. The Spirit is error free, Man—who listens to the Spirit and then tries to communicate their less than perfect understanding of the Spirit’s instruction—is not error free.  God respects our agency, so he does not treat man as God’s puppet and somehow possesses them while they communicate, not even scripture so as to produce error free text. In some ways perfect, inerrant scripture would be nice, but practically speaking it would just push the problem of error to the next step of reception by the reader. 

There are a few Saints I have come across who may believe scripture is inerrant for some reason; there are many, many more who treat it as inerrant even if they tell you they don’t believe it is. Of course, this actually means they are treating their own interpretation as inerrant or their interpretation of an authority’s interpretation.

 

My personal paradigm that should not be applied to the Church or other Saints…

The only time we should treat scripture as inerrant, imo, is when the Spirit confirms the truth of what we understand….but even then that will be that interpretation of the verses and another may interpret the verses differently, so I don’t believe you should ever use an argument based on ‘scriptures don’t lie’ because there is always a chance you or someone else you are using as an authority have misinterpreted them.  But even misinterpretation may lead one to find truth if one depends on the Spirit to confirm what is and isn’t truth.  

For me, the bottom line purpose of scripture is to drive us to ask questions of God, being willing to trust that we will receive them. Scripture are records of God’s past interactions with men and women from the human side of the communication. How God then uses that moment of seeking or questioning to teach us is, of course, fully up to him, so he may take us far afield if needed of the original teaching of the original author who created the scriptural text that a later translation of translations started our seeking.

We need to be careful, therefore, not to confuse our current personal or even communal experience of Scripture with how the ancient communities and individuals first understood and experienced it. Studying the ancient context can help inform us and broaden our minds and spirits so that the Spirit can have more to work with when inspiring. But this is only one tool to increase opportunities for inspiration. We shouldn’t become arrogant in our learning if we study the ancient context for better understanding. Serving our fellowmen in love, worshipping the Lord are even better ways of preparing the soil of our hearts and minds to receive and nurture the good seed and therefore we should look to those who choose to spend their time in service as well as study as our teachers of God’s Word. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

• I texted one of my LDS family members about the deuterocanonical books, the seven excluded by Martin Luther and not usually included in Protestant Bibles (there are KJVs with the deuterocanonicals, though). Anyway, he said these books are known in LDS circles as 'The Apocrypha,' and that while they could be read and studied, he doesn't think Latter-day Saints pay them much attention.

I apologize for a bit of a ramble, and very much appreciate your questions and this discussion. I'm learning a lot from you and from others on this enjoyable little site.

This is a very enjoyable conversation. 
 

Did your relative share with you Joseph Smith was curious about the Apocrypha and we actually have modern scripture about it? It feels almost meta to me for this discussion.  
 

Quote

“Speaking of the Apocrypha the Lord says: ‘There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated.’ (D. & C. 91.)”

 

[Calm]

Quote

I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities, as we have to do with these benighted Lamanites; it would be of no benefit to talk to them as I am now speaking to you. Before you can enter into conversation with them and give them your ideas, you are under the necessity of condescending to their low estate, so far as communication is concerned, in order to exalt them.

 

You have to use the words they use, and address them in a manner to meet their capacities, in order to give them the knowledge you have to bestow. If an angel should come into this congregation, or visit any individual of it, and use the language he uses in heaven, what would we be benefited? Not any, because we could not understand a word he said. When angels come to visit mortals, they have to condescend to and assume, more or less, the condition of mortals, they have to descend to our capacities in order to communicate with us. I make these remarks to show you that the kingdom of heaven is not yet complete upon the earth. Why? Because the people are not  prepared to receive it in its completeness, for they are not complete or perfect themselves.

 

The laws that the Lord has given are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little today and a little tomorrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive; if they do not, they are left in the shade, and the light which the Lord reveals will appear darkness to them, and the kingdom of heaven will travel on and leave them groping. Hence, if we wish to act upon the fulness of the knowledge that the Lord designs to reveal, little by little, to the inhabitants of the earth, we must improve upon every little as it is revealed.

St. Bonaventure, I think you might be interested in this above quote from Brigham Young, our second modern Prophet/President of the Church (pretty sure you know that, but just in case).

PS to others:  I recognize the racism in his comment about the Lamanites. As far as I am concerned, he is simply proving his own point about how all are imperfect.  I want to focus on the issue of how Saints perceive revelation and scripture, so will not respond to any comments about racism in this remark  

Forgot the link…

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/14/16

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

So there is a private discussion elsewhere that is touching on some of the things we are discussing here and a friend said something that was both beautiful and captures, imo, the essence of the Latter-day Saint view on inerrancy or rather the lack of it even in man’s dealings with God.  Sharing here with his permission…

Quote

Now, with this [the BY quote above that I ripped off from him] in mind, we need not (and cannot) be inerrantists or fundamentalists. The scriptures and prophets are like a large choir: You can hear the music by listening to all of them, and if one of them sings a wrong note here or there, if one of  them is off key or takes a breath at the wrong moment, it does not matter, as the choir as a whole produces an incredible musical experience. 

I think this analogy illustrates well why Latter-day Saints should be comfortable with the lack of infallibility in our leaders and in the scriptures.  God is conducting the choir (a mix of skilled and less skilled singers) as a whole to perform his great opus of teachings, but from our mortal point of view it is not a completed recorded work for us we are hearing (we are not listening to just to a record, but a mix of recorded performances from ancient and past modern prophets and leaders coupled with live performances of living prophets and leaders) but a living, ongoing production (we are in essence listening to a live performance of prophets lasting millennia).  God is also instructing each prophet or scribe that contribute to conveying his Word of God in their parts as needed to prevent the music from descending into disharmony even while he is skillful enough to allow for individual variation and even error due to level of understanding, ability, and commitment to listening to the Spirit (following the conductor as well as the score).

A similar analogy….I don’t know if you have read The Silmarillion, but in Tolkien’s creation story Ainulindalë, the act of creation is performed by singing and God (Eru Ilúvatar) has his angels sing a great theme in chorus as he instructs them.  When disharmony creeps in because of pride of some of the angels who wish to perform their own music and throws the great song into chaos, each time God is able to create a higher, more profound theme that takes the discord and folds it into his work.  The resulting composition is revealed to have created MiddleEarth and further singing creates all the creatures on it, Eru giving the creatures self awareness or what we would call Spirit.  I find the story quite profound and insightful.  
Off topic, but great for another thread…Latter-day Saint belief is God through Christ worked with and instructed others of mankind to help in the creation of earth. 

Abraham 3:  

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; 25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them..

 

Also a comment of my friend on revelation and truth…

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ firmly believes that revelation is not closed. We still receive messages and truths from God, both individually and as a church. And while we do have all truth that is necessary for salvation and exaltation today***, this surely does not mean that we have all truth, period. Or that we understand what we have today in a way that may never change. Or that there is nobody but us who has it.

We believe that all truth comes from God. If scientists and researches discover truth, they do not do so on their own, but they all are inspired by God. Albert Einstein purportedly claimed that he didn't need any experiments to validate his theory. Rather, it felt right. And that's enough. This feeling of having achieved truth is from God. We believe that everything that is good ultimately is inspired by God. Not only in science but also in art. And of course in religion. There are truths in other denominations and other religions that we as a church currently do not have yet. God is not limited to communicate with members of the Church. But we as members of the Church are to gather all truth, wherever we find it, as it ultimately belongs to the Church. 

 

***I believe he means here not that we have all the knowledge needed for exaltation ever, but that we have all the knowledge necessary that we need to know in mortality, but I may be reading in my own view into his because we agree on so many other things.  I should ask for clarification.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 7/28/2022 at 2:30 PM, Vanguard said:

If indeed it is sloppy, He has allowed us to make it that way. I agree it's sloppy. ; )

Or there is no god behind it at all.

[Teancum]

On 7/28/2022 at 3:08 PM, Calm said:

Come on, Teancum, you know better than that surely. Our focus is faith without works is dead. We don’t believe works alone save us.

I understand this.  Thus the reason LDS love to ignore Paul's writings on the topic.

[teddyaware]

57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I understand this.  Thus the reason LDS love to ignore Paul's writings on the topic.

And yet there are just as many passages in Paul’s writings, including the one quoted below, that teach doing the will of God is essential to salvation.

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Romans 2)

Even during the days of the Apostolic Church, Paul’s writings on grace were causing certain lazy, weak-minded and unstable individuals to believe all that was needed for a fulness of eternal glory in the afterlife was a mere onetime profession of faith, but the Apostle Peter condemned such faithless, heretical thinking in no uncertain terms.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. (2Peter 3)

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by teddyaware

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

On 7/28/2022 at 1:08 PM, Calm said:

Come on, Teancum, you know better than that surely. Our focus is faith without works is dead. We don’t believe works alone save us.

I understand this.  Thus the reason LDS love to ignore Paul's writings on the topic.

We don't ignore any of Paul's writings, both the grace and the works that Paul writes about.   They have to be taken together.  And his writings are certainly a lot more nuanced and intricate than the Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5-7 sound bytes we often hear from Protestant critics.  Cherry picking passages from his epistles doesn't do him justice.   Below is one of my favorite segments from the end of Galatians (I've shared this before).  Notice his emphasis in the center of this chiasmus:

[Chum]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

While I think there are other aspects (we should tell you about “likening scripture”) that may contribute to a unique view, this condition of “translated correctly” is pretty much only saying our current books of scriptures are not seen as inerrant as they have passed through the error prone hands of men.  Unless Catholics believe there is no error in translation of scripture, that any translation is as accurate in communicating the original thought as another or as good as the original texts, I don’t see that particular condition of cautioning about potential translation error as that novel. 

The same condition would apply to any translation of the Book of Mormon. We have some of the original dictated and publisher manuscripts, so we also know there were errors in dictation, transcribing, and publishing…many of the errors have been corrected, but not all. The original English version of the Book of Mormon also includes a comment from one of the prophets who wrote the scripture that if there are errors, they are the errors of men, not of God; so even the prophets engraving the plates recognized the possibility, really the inevitability of errors in any communication going through men even if the original source is God. 

Boils down to while we believe the word of God as issued from God is inerrant, the Church and the vast majority of Saints do not believe in inerrancy of scriptures. The Spirit is error free, Man—who listens to the Spirit and then tries to communicate their less than perfect understanding of the Spirit’s instruction—is not error free.  God respects our agency, so he does not treat man as God’s puppet and somehow possesses them while they communicate, not even scripture so as to produce error free text. In some ways perfect, inerrant scripture would be nice, but practically speaking it would just push the problem of error to the next step of reception by the reader. 

There are a few Saints I have come across who may believe scripture is inerrant for some reason; there are many, many more who treat it as inerrant even if they tell you they don’t believe it is. Of course, this actually means they are treating their own interpretation as inerrant or their interpretation of an authority’s interpretation.

 

My personal paradigm that should not be applied to the Church or other Saints…

The only time we should treat scripture as inerrant, imo, is when the Spirit confirms the truth of what we understand….but even then that will be that interpretation of the verses and another may interpret the verses differently, so I don’t believe you should ever use an argument based on ‘scriptures don’t lie’ because there is always a chance you or someone else you are using as an authority have misinterpreted them.  But even misinterpretation may lead one to find truth if one depends on the Spirit to confirm what is and isn’t truth.  

For me, the bottom line purpose of scripture is to drive us to ask questions of God, being willing to trust that we will receive them. Scripture are records of God’s past interactions with men and women from the human side of the communication. How God then uses that moment of seeking or questioning to teach us is, of course, fully up to him, so he may take us far afield if needed of the original teaching of the original author who created the scriptural text that a later translation of translations started our seeking.

We need to be careful, therefore, not to confuse our current personal or even communal experience of Scripture with how the ancient communities and individuals first understood and experienced it. Studying the ancient context can help inform us and broaden our minds and spirits so that the Spirit can have more to work with when inspiring. But this is only one tool to increase opportunities for inspiration. We shouldn’t become arrogant in our learning if we study the ancient context for better understanding. Serving our fellowmen in love, worshipping the Lord are even better ways of preparing the soil of our hearts and minds to receive and nurture the good seed and therefore we should look to those who choose to spend their time in service as well as study as our teachers of God’s Word. 

I found this so enticing that my default revulsion to long posts never took hold.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I understand this.  Thus the reason LDS love to ignore Paul's writings on the topic.

Do you mean Paul’s writings in general, in regards to faith and works or just specific to faith or grace?  Because it seems inappropriate to me to only focus on just a few things Paul wrote and ignore others and if we are doing so, we should be corrected (though I prioritize teachings attributed to Christ more than Paul’s to be accurate). Can you demonstrate that certain verses are ignored?  Perhaps they are left out of our manuals?  What verses did you have in mind?  Since I checked the scripture citation index and there are over 3300 references if I estimated correctly to Paul’s writings in General Conference since 1971, you need to narrow it down if you are going show that we ignore Paul in some way.  (I would not be surprised to find in some areas he is not as popular, but ignored seems a stretch to me, so I would like to see what you are referring to).
 

https://scriptures.byu.edu/#::fNYNY7b37e603

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Chum said:

I found this so enticing that my default revulsion to long posts never took hold.

Glad to hear my effort was not in vain. I do need to learn how to express myself with less words, but there is always so much to say if I want to be clear…and interesting ideas that occur to me while writing that seduce me into adding them.  When I start talking, the words come out fast enough they trip over each other and go on forever at times, so I actually manage to edit a lot before it gets submitted in print, but need to do better. I have problems myself with long posts, so I know it is needed. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

And yet there are just as many passages in Paul’s writings, including the one quoted below, that teach doing the will of God is essential to salvation.

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Romans 2)

Even during the days of the Apostolic Church, Paul’s writings on grace were causing certain lazy, weak-minded and unstable individuals to believe all that was needed for a fulness of eternal glory in the afterlife was a mere onetime profession of faith, but the Apostle Peter condemned such faithless, heretical thinking in no uncertain terms.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. (2Peter 3)

 

Proof texting is a wonderful thing.

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

We don't ignore any of Paul's writings, both the grace and the works that Paul writes about.   They have to be taken together.  And his writings are certainly a lot more nuanced and intricate than the Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5-7 sound bytes we often hear from Protestant critics.  Cherry picking passages from his epistles doesn't do him justice.   Below is one of my favorite segments from the end of Galatians (I've shared this before).  Notice his emphasis in the center of this chiasmus:

Tell me, when it is the year to study the NT how much time is given to the Epistles of Paul.  That will prove my point quite well.

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean Paul’s writings in general, in regards to faith and works or just specific to faith or grace?  Because it seems inappropriate to me to only focus on just a few things Paul wrote and ignore others and if we are doing so, we should be corrected (though I prioritize teachings attributed to Christ more than Paul’s to be accurate). Can you demonstrate that certain verses are ignored?  Perhaps they are left out of our manuals?  What verses did you have in mind?  Since I checked the scripture citation index and there are over 3300 references if I estimated correctly to Paul’s writings in General Conference since 1971, you need to narrow it down if you are going show that we ignore Paul in some way.  (I would not be surprised to find in some areas he is not as popular, but ignored seems a stretch to me, so I would like to see what you are referring to).
 

https://scriptures.byu.edu/#::fNYNY7b37e603

As mentioned,, how much time is spent in LDS Gospel Doctrine classes studying the epistles of Paul?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As mentioned,, how much time is spent in LDS Gospel Doctrine classes studying the epistles of Paul?

13 lessons out of 50 if I counted correctly  

31 are devoted to the Gospels and Acts

6 for the rest

Doesn’t seem like we are ignoring Paul when we devote a quarter of the New Testament year to him.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm