When Conscience Conflicts with Prophetic Teachings

[Grug the Neanderthal]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

I find it interesting that we have plain according to the Lamb (1 Nephi 13:29), which is understood by the unreceptive (2 Nephi 1:26) and the righteous alike (2 Nephi 9:47) because “the Lord doeth nothing save it be plain unto men (2 Nephi 26:33).” Yet, “men will not understand great knowledge when given them in plainness (2 Nephi 32:7).”

Great scriptures. While not everything is plain in the scriptures, many things are. Yet "men will not understand great knowledge when given them in plainness." It's not that the teachings aren’t plain, it’s that people choose not to accept or understand the plain teachings for various reasons. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Okay, let’s ditch the shorthand and use the scriptural phrase: 

What's confusing about the "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth?"

Is this the one and “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth”?  Or the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord am well pleased”?

It sounds to me like there could be other true and living churches with which the lord is pleased, but only one with which he is well pleased.

Also, what is your definition of “true”?  I guarantee you are going to find endless disagreement on that.  I dare you to start a thread asking what does “true” mean in context of that scripture.

You are going to run into the same diversity of interpretation and understanding if you ask, what does “living” mean in the context of that scripture.  

Speaking and agreeing with the same words, doesn’t mean we understand and perceive them the same.  Perspectivism makes them relative.

Edited February 13, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is this the one and “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth”?  Or the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord am well pleased”?

It sounds to me like there could be other true and living churches with which the lord is pleased, but only one with which he is well pleased.

Let’s compare this to JS History 1:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

This was in 1820, then 10 years later the Church of Christ was organized and established.

D&C 20

1 The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April—

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Let’s compare this to JS History 1:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

This was in 1820, then 10 years later the Church of Christ was organized and established.

D&C 20

1 The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April—

Oh good, more words that need to be interpreted - that solves everything! 

They were "all" wrong?  Or only the local ones that Joseph knew about?  "Wrong" in what way?  They didn't teach any truth?  They weren't right for anybody to draw them closer to God?  Or were they wrong for Joseph Smith because he had a mission?   "all" professors of other religions hearts were far from God?  They were all just paying him lip service?  Hmmm...  I wonder why our prophets speak so highly of many influential and righteous movements and leaders and priests like William Tyndale (also a literal "professor") which paved the way for the restoration in restoring light and knowledge.  

Their creeds are an "abomination"?  That's a loaded word that can be interpreted many different ways.  Is the profession of belief of every individual creed an abomination, or is it the idea of creedal observance in general that is an abomination? 

Quote

 In the first few centuries, Christian statements of belief remained largely unobjectionable from a Latter-day Saint point of view.

 it is unlikely that the Lord had any particular creed in mind when he spoke of them and their adherents as abominations of corruption. Thus, Latter-day Saints should not take issue so much with any single creed as with the whole concatenation of creedal formulations in general.

https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/all-their-creeds-were-abomination

Interesting!  More potential nuance from faithful latter-day saints on what is so black and white and one sidededly plain and easy, even for a child to understand. 

Faithful latter-day saints don't all see it the same:

Quote

What, then, was the intent of the crucial phrase: “the only true and living church with which I the Lord am well pleased”? To assume  that the assertion needs no interpretation is precarious for reasons beyond those already mentioned.

https://faithmatters.org/the-only-true-and-living-church/

I noticed that you ignored any attempt to explain how "true" and "living" is so obvious and plain where no possible nuance or interpretations are possible. 

Your superficial black and white treatment of scripture is less than inspiring. 

Lets see how deep of a hole you can dig yourself in by adding more corrupted human language (which are simply symbols that we give relative meaning to and require interpretation) to the mix to "clarify" things. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by pogi

[Navidad]

On 2/11/2023 at 9:14 AM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, the only other conclusion is not that they have an IQ less than that of a child. Again they could simply be blinded by their own desires, false teachings of others, or even just misconceptions of reality. 

Another possibility is that they just haven’t studied the scriptures enough and don’t actually know all of the teachings on a particular subject, and then reach incorrect conclusions based on partial information. 

It does seem that what you are saying is that anyone who interprets the Scriptures differently than you do is "less than" you.
Let's see . . . according to your post I quoted that those who disagree with you on interpretation of scripture do so because: 1. they are blinded by their own desires; 2. they are blinded by false teachings of others; 3. they are blinded by their misconceptions of reality; 4. They haven't studied the scriptures enough; 5 They don't actually know all of the teachings on a particular subject and reach incorrect conclusions based on partial information. Wow! Nothing redemptive in that reply! What about your own blind spots? Your own degree of study, especially of interpretations different from your own. Your own lack of knowing "all the teachings on a particular subject?" Don't we all have cracks in our understandings? You included? I know I do. Might any of those enter in to differences in interpretation? Take care. . . just my thoughts.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Is this the one and “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth”?  Or the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord am well pleased”?

It sounds to me like there could be other true and living churches with which the lord is pleased, but only one with which he is well pleased.

Also, what is your definition of “true”?  I guarantee you are going to find endless disagreement on that.  I dare you to start a thread asking what does “true” mean in context of that scripture.

You are going to run into the same diversity of interpretation and understanding if you ask, what does “living” mean in the context of that scripture.  

Speaking and agreeing with the same words, doesn’t mean we understand and perceive them the same.  Perspectivism makes them relative.

You forgot one thing . . . that verse speaks to the "church collectively, not individually." The author confirms this in the next verse. Therefore my interpretation is correct that it is speaking of the worldwide community of Christians in the world - the only collective church. It can't be speaking only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because that is an individual church. Its as plain as day! The author was referring to the fact that the true and living church that is well pleasing to Christ is the collective body of believers in the world regardless of institutional (individual church ) affiliation. Ok, now that we have settled that, what's next? 🙃😀

Edited February 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Benjamin McGuire]

As a side note ...

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1 The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April—

The fascinating thing about this verse is that it isn't a part of the revelation. It was added by John Whitmer as a descriptive header, and was later was incorporated into the text as part of the revelation (evidence for this comes in the Joseph Smith Paper project - from the 1831 BCR).

This only makes sense, of course, since why would God say to Joseph Smith "our Lord." The issue over this verse as unrevealed is usually raised only with respect to the problematic claim that this verse provides a revelatory basis for setting April 6th as the birth date of Jesus.

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You forgot one thing . . . that verse speaks to the "church collectively, not individually." The author confirms this in the next verse. Therefore my interpretation is correct that it is speaking of the worldwide community of Christians in the world - the only collective church. It can't be speaking only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because that is an individual church. Its as plain as day! The author was referring to the fact that the true and living church that is well pleasing to Christ is the collective body of believers in the world regardless of institutional (individual church ) affiliation. Ok, now that we have settled that, what's next? 🙃😀

Yes, thank you for showing another layer of potential interpretation. 

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, thank you for showing another layer of potential interpretation. 

I hope it came across that I was speaking tongue in cheek. I have a provisional certainty that nothing is ever really settled with any certainty! Take care.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Oh good, more words that need to be interpreted - that solves everything!

No, not really. Words mean what they mean. But if you really find the plain words in the scriptures so confusing, I suggest reading the dozens, if not hundreds, of statements by apostles that explain it over and over again. Basically, the primitive church went in to complete apostasy, lost all authority, and was rejected as Christ's church. The true church was not found anywhere upon the earth. Through the prophet Joseph Smith, God restored his authority to men on earth once more and reestablished his only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, namely The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I noticed that you ignored any attempt to explain how "true" and "living" is so obvious and plain where no possible nuance or interpretations are possible.

I didn't "ignore any attempt to explain" anything, (whatever that even means). I would just rather focus on one or two things at time so the conversation can stay focused. Plus I think you're just trying to undermine scriptures as a guidebook and source of plain and concrete truth from God. I consider this to be very insincere. So I don't really feel inclined to waste a lot of time addressing each of your tangents, which I believe are mostly just smoke and mirrors intended to cause a distraction. 

In any event. The words "true" and "living" are easily explainable. Let's just look at their meanings.

true=not false

living=not dead

Therefore God declared the church he restored through the prophet Joseph Smith, and later named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the only church that isn't false and isn't dead on the entire face of the earth. It is the only church that he claims as his. It is the only church that has any authority from him to perform his ordinances and preach his everlasting gospel to the ends of the earth. Christ told Joseph Smith that all other Christian churches "draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” 

There's also this description of the state of the world and sectarian Christianity prior to the calling of Joseph Smith and the restoration of the gospel:

13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

As a side note ...

The fascinating thing about this verse is that it isn't a part of the revelation. It was added by John Whitmer as a descriptive header, and was later was incorporated into the text as part of the revelation (evidence for this comes in the Joseph Smith Paper project - from the 1831 BCR).

This only makes sense, of course, since why would God say to Joseph Smith "our Lord." The issue over this verse as unrevealed is usually raised only with respect to the problematic claim that this verse provides a revelatory basis for setting April 6th as the birth date of Jesus.

Yes, you're right, this verse isn't part of the revelation. But these verses, which mean the same thing, are revelation:

1 Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,
2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.
3 Which church was organized and established in the year of your Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April. 

D&C 21

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

It does seem that what you are saying is that anyone who interprets the Scriptures differently than you do is "less than" you.
Let's see . . . according to your post I quoted that those who disagree with you on interpretation of scripture do so because: 1. they are blinded by their own desires; 2. they are blinded by false teachings of others; 3. they are blinded by their misconceptions of reality; 4. They haven't studied the scriptures enough; 5 They don't actually know all of the teachings on a particular subject and reach incorrect conclusions based on partial information. Wow! Nothing redemptive in that reply! What about your own blind spots? Your own degree of study, especially of interpretations different from your own. Your own lack of knowing "all the teachings on a particular subject?" Don't we all have cracks in our understandings? You included? I know I do. Might any of those enter in to differences in interpretation? Take care. . . just my thoughts.

I'm sorry that you found my words to be offensive, but I never said anything about people who disagree with my "interpretation of scripture" being less than me. My whole point is that there are things many things in the scriptures that are so plain that a child can understand them. They don't need any interpretation. They are plain and clear. Unfortunately many people twist the plain words in the scriptures for various reasons, including the one's I mentioned. I don't claim to be infallible and immune to this. But I know that what I said about the plain language in the scriptures is true and am willing to die on that hill. 

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I'm sorry that you found my words to be offensive, but I never said anything about people who disagree with my "interpretation of scripture" being less than me. My whole point is that there are things many things in the scriptures that are so plain that a child can understand them. They don't need any interpretation. They are plain and clear. Unfortunately many people twist the plain words in the scriptures for various reasons, including the one's I mentioned. I don't claim to be infallible and immune to this. But I know that what I said about the plain language in the scriptures is true and am willing to die on that hill. 

Good morning. Not to worry . . . your words did not offend me. In fact, I agree there are many simple and plain truths in the Scriptures. I disagree that they don't need interpretation. I also disagree that those who interpret a particular passage differently from me do so out of some fault, lack, incompleteness,or nefariousness on their part. Having said that let me change the subject:

Today is February 14, 2023. It is Valentines Day. On this day I want to state in plain and simple terms the following: My wife is the best wife and mother in the world. I can prove that via many deeds and words of hers over fifty-three years of marriage.  My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. My wife is the most Godly and spiritually minded woman on earth. She is the only woman  completely pleasing to me. I am blessed above any other man for having her beside me as my wife.

That was as plain, clear, and simple as I can make it. Is my statement true or is it false? Is it correct or is it wrong? Does it need interpretation?

If you disagree with me and believe the same about your spouse, are you twisting my plain words? If you believe the same about your spouse are you "blinded" by your love, therefore your conclusions are false and wrong? Is my statement partial, because I haven't met every other woman in the world, therefore my conclusion is incorrect? Perhaps its not as plain, clear, and simple as any one of us might conclude! Blessings on this special day of celebrating those we love!

[Grug the Neanderthal]

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Today is February 14, 2023. It is Valentines Day. On this day I want to state in plain and simple terms the following: My wife is the best wife and mother in the world. I can prove that via many deeds and words of hers over fifty-three years of marriage.  My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. My wife is the most Godly and spiritually minded woman on earth. She is the only woman  completely pleasing to me. I am blessed above any other man for having her beside me as my wife.

That was as plain, clear, and simple as I can make it. Is my statement true or is it false? Is it correct or is it wrong? Does it need interpretation?

This is a statement of opinion. The only part of this statement that I would consider to be fact is where you said "She is the only woman  completely pleasing to me." The rest is your way of expressing this. From your perspective what you say is true (you're not lying), but it's not universally true. Many men would disagree with you and say that this applies to their own wives or that there is no one women who is the singular best wife and mother in the world. 

But, I'm happy that you feel this way about your wife and that you have such a happy marriage. 

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, not really. Words mean what they mean.

They have objective meaning or subjective meaning?  I am left to interpret what I think you mean. 

Who would be a good authority to ask about scriptural interpretation and meaning?  Let's see what our own Dan McClellan (Biblical scholar and scripture translation supervisor for the Church) has to say about words and meaning:

Quote

Words objectively do not have meaning.

He continues that all words and linguistic expressions need to be interpreted.

Quote

words do not have meaning, they are just conventionalized indices for meaning that index unique and subjective suites of meanings for every mind that interprets them.

For his full treatment on the subject see:

https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2020/04/25/no-words-do-not-have-meaning/

15 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

In any event. The words "true" and "living" are easily explainable. Let's just look at their meanings.

true=not false

living=not dead

 As a medical professional I have never heard that definition of "living"  in any biology or medical course that I have taken.   

By this poor attempt to define by negation one must conclude that rocks are living, because they are not dead.  To be dead, one would first have to be alive. 

Biologists can't even agree on what "living" or "life" even means.   As a previous hospice nurse, there are similar troubles in defining death.   And that is just considering biological connotations of these words, but of course, there are other connotations of living and dead that must be interpreted too.  

If living = not dead, then what does dead mean?  Please don't get all circular on me. 

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by pogi

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

From your perspective what you say is true (you're not lying), but it's not universally true. Many men would disagree with you and say that this applies to their own wives or that there is no one women who is the singular best wife and mother in the world. 

Ditto! So it is with both your and my interpretation of Scripture. So it is with our respective truths about the gospel and the church (collectively and individually). Take care and best wishes.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

They have objective meaning or subjective meaning?  I am left to interpret what I think you mean.

Words have definitions that define what they mean. 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Who would be a good authority to ask about scriptural interpretation and meaning?

Prophets, seers, and revelators, whose calling it is to do this.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Let's see what our own Dan McClellan (Biblical scholar and scripture translation supervisor for the Church) has to say

What did the Savior say about the relying on the opinions of doctor, scholars, and lawyers of the scriptures like Dan McClellan? 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

As a medical professional I have never heard that definition of "living"  in any biology or medical course that I have taken.   

By this poor attempt to define by negation one must conclude that rocks are living, because they are not dead.  To be dead, one would first have to be alive. 

Biologists can't even agree on what "living" or "life" even means.   As a previous hospice nurse, there are similar troubles in defining death.   And that is just considering biological connotations of these words, but of course, there are other connotations of living and dead that must be interpreted too.  

The context of D&C 1:30 has nothing to do with biology. And please look up the definition of the word dead. Something does not have to be previously alive to be considered dead. But in the case of sectarian Christianity, the primitive church of Christ was once alive, but was dead long before Joseph Smith entered th grove in the Spring of 1820.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

So it is with both your and my interpretation of Scripture. So it is with our respective truths about the gospel and the church (collectively and individually).

If we interpret scripture incorrectly then we don't know the truth about the gospel and the church, but if we understand the actual meaning and truth then we do. If "our respective truths" are convinced that we are right or that truth is subjective, then this blinds us to the actual truth of things as they are. And this is a bad place to be. 

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

D&C 93

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If we interpret scripture incorrectly then we don't know the truth about the gospel and the church, but if we understand the actual meaning and truth then we do. If "our respective truths" are convinced that we are right or that truth is subjective, then this blinds us to the actual truth of things as they are. And this is a bad place to be. 

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

D&C 93

I think it is possible to misinterpret scripture while maintaining a testimony of the restoration (based in a testimony of Jesus Christ), spiritual gifts and discernment, and/or the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. The knowledge in D&C 93:24-25 comes from many places and is typically expressed through our actions as an amalgamated awareness or understanding. Our knowledge can still be imperfect but enough to stay on the right path, or (hopefully not) to justify our drift away from the gospel and the Church. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by CV75

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Words have definitions that define what they mean. 

So words give words meaning?  Seems kind of circular.  How did the first word get its meaning?   How did people communicate before dictionaries?  Different dictionaries use different definitions.  Which dictionary is the ultimate authority and how was that decided?  Is there some objective measure to decide which definition is objectively true and which ones are objectively false?   How is this objectivity measured in a way that does not relying on subjective perceptions of the word as it is used by other humans?  How do you remove human bias and subjective perception to get to the objective meaning?  

What do words only have one sense of meaning?  You seem to be describing denotative meaning.  But you are ignoring the other elements of meaning associated with words including contextual meaning (pragmatics) and individual meaning (connotative meaning).  That leaves me to interpret what you mean by the very word "meaning".  

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Prophets, seers, and revelators, whose calling it is to do this.

It is the prophets job why are they hiring it out to Dan McClellan?  If scriptural words are supposed to have objective meaning, somebody better warn the prophets that Dan is not following any objective means for translation but is instead using subjective interpretation to translate the words.  That is going to screw everything up!  

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What did the Savior say about the relying on the opinions of doctor, scholars, and lawyers of the scriptures like Dan McClellan? 

Again, you better warn the prophets that there is a wolf in their midst in charge of scriptural translations. 

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The context of D&C 1:30 has nothing to do with biology. And please look up the definition of the word dead. Something does not have to be previously alive to be considered dead. But in the case of sectarian Christianity, the primitive church of Christ was once alive, but was dead long before Joseph Smith entered th grove in the Spring of 1820.

I thought definitions give words meaning?   Now context gives words meaning too?  What about connotation?  How does all of that work together objectively without relying on a subjective individual perspective and interpretation? 

#1 meaning of the word dead = "no longer alive".  The other dictionary definitions mean I have to interpret your meaning by relying on context, to decide which definition you are referring to, and which dictionary you are referring to, and then each of those words that were subjectively written by humans must unavoidably pass through the filter of subjective connotation (individual meaning) before I can interpret any sort of meaning for myself.     

[Grug the Neanderthal]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it is the prophets job why are they hiring it out to Dan McClellan?

Have they actually hired Dan to provide official interpretations of what the scriptures mean? And have they stopped telling members what the scriptures mean themselves?

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

you better warn the prophets that there is a wolf in their midst in charge of scriptural translations. 

That’s not my place. 

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Now context gives words meaning too?

Yeah, context matters. Shocker, I know.
 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

but was dead

Wow, I feel very much alive in the Spirit! Nothing dead about my relationship with Christ, the Holy Spirit, or through Christ, the Father! Let me assure you, I am alive and well, whether in an LDS ward, a Pentecostal praise service, or an Anglican church! I even am alive in an Antiochan Orthodox Church where I couldn't understand a word, but felt the Spirit with such strength! You might want to get out a bit and experience worship in other traditions! The Church Triumphant is alive and well! Oh, and that Church includes many LDS folks together with many many many who know nothing about the LDS church!

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Have they actually hired Dan to provide official interpretations of what the scriptures mean? And have they stopped telling members what the scriptures mean themselves?

Translations require interpretations (hence the many different translations of one single language), so yes.  He interprets what the words mean then translates them according to his interpretation - which is entirely subjective as he states.
 

If the words have plain and inherent objective meaning, why do we need prophets to interpret them?

8 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That’s not my place. 

Wow! So you aren’t going to deny that you think he is a spiritual wolf in charge of scriptural translations.

8 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yeah, context matters. Shocker, I know.

So it requires interpretation in the context of  denotative, pragmatic, and connotative meaning.  Why aren’t you answering my questions about how all this falls in place without subjective interpretation.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow, I feel very much alive in the Spirit! Nothing dead about my relationship with Christ, the Holy Spirit, or through Christ, the Father! Let me assure you, I am alive and well, whether in an LDS ward, a Pentecostal praise service, or an Anglican church! I even am alive in an Antiochan Orthodox Church where I couldn't understand a word, but felt the Spirit with such strength! You might want to get out a bit and experience worship in other traditions! The Church Triumphant is alive and well! Oh, and that Church includes many LDS folks together with many many many who know nothing about the LDS church!

While I respect your perspective and experience, I’m going to have to go with what the four standard works say and what Joseph Smith and the other prophets, seers, and revelators have consistently said about the subject. If all of sectarian Christianity is alive and well, then there would have been no need for the restoration of the gospel and authority from the heavens. 

Nothing against your personal perspective and experience, but I maintain that the only church organization that God accepts as his and that has authority from him is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And while there are no doubt many, many good and honorable people in other Christian denominations they aren’t members of Christ's church until they are baptized and confirmed by the those who have authority from God, and the only ones God has authorized to perform these ordinances are LDS priesthood holders. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Translations require interpretations (hence the many different translations of one single language)

We’re not talking about translation from one language to another.

13 hours ago, pogi said:

If the words have plain and inherent objective meaning, why do we need prophets to interpret them?

1) Even though many, many things in the scriptures are plain, people misinterpret them for the reasons I’ve already mentioned 

2) Not everything in the scriptures is plain.

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Why aren’t you answering my questions about how all this falls in place without subjective interpretation.

Again, we’re not talking about translating from one language to another. And as far as subjective interpretation goes, this scripture applies:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.