Scripture Twisting

[Navidad]

I have been surprised and a bit disappointed in the amount of what is known as scripture twisting lately on the forum. Verses are thrown out evidentially without reference to their context, the meaning of the original words, tenses, other uses of the words in other places (in and out of scripture), to whom the message is given, what kind of literary devices (poetry, apocalyptic, history, parable, metaphorical, etc.) are being used. I have been told by some LDS folks that they don't need to work to "rightly divide the word of truth" or interpret scripture correctly, because they have the Spirit and the prophets to do that for them. Is that a fair interpretation of what I am being told?

In all of the seminaries, institutes, Sunday Schools, etc. that the LDS church provides, is there no training or emphasis on Biblical, or LDS texts interpretation? I once was surprised (and pleased) to hear a talk at a Sunstone conference where the presenter provided a new and different interpretation of D&C 1:30 through the lens of the subjunctive case of that specific verse and other passages around it. Even though his interpretation was not real orthodox from an LDS point of view, he got a rousing ovation when done.

What really, no kidding is the status of the teaching of hermeneutics in the LDS Church context? Is it really as absent as it seems? I apologize if my questions come across as criticism. I don't mean them in that way. I am more flabbergasted lately by the rather random and trivial use of passages at times on this forum to make a point. Thanks and best wishes to all.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

. Is that a fair interpretation of what I am being told?

Yep.

Next question?

Scriptures are not maguc or infallible for us, and we are correctly encouraged to be our own prophets.

Who among other Christians get new scripture twice a year? The mentality is quite different than the entire milieu in which you were raised.

Yes scholars have interesting comments and teachings, but they are not prophets and what THEY believe it says is not relevant to MY life. 

Even the example you give is the interpretation of its author.

Self contradiction.

Like you are saying "New interpretations are "good" for scholars but OUR individual new interpretations are not.

Scripture is what each individual makes it

THAT is what it is for- to stir the heart of all individuals to their own path.

That's what Joseph did.

Book of Abraham was like reading tea leaves; he stared at the squiggles and "translated" the words God gave him- the text was irrelevant 

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

Extrapolating to the Church in general from a few posts on a discussion board seems a bit of a reach, IMO. Surely you are aware of the many competent LDS scholars out there, a very few of which are still regulars here. 

[Dario_M]

Grug does that a lot i find. I find that not okay. It's a trick to manipulate things your way. 

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Verses are thrown out evidentially without reference to their context, the meaning of the original words, tenses, other uses of the words in other places (in and out of scripture), to whom the message is given, what kind of literary devices (poetry, apocalyptic, history, parable, metaphorical, etc.) are being used.

Ironic.

It was Martin Luther and the "reformers" who wanted each individual to read the bible.

Even the Anabaptists wanted folks to be old enough to make their own religious opinions before they were baptized.

So I guess each new Anabaptist had to be a scholar in hermeneutics and know ancient languages?

[Navidad]

54 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Extrapolating to the Church in general from a few posts on a discussion board seems a bit of a reach, IMO. Surely you are aware of the many competent LDS scholars out there, a very few of which are still regulars here. 

Yes, of course. I wasn't generalizing to the church as a whole. I was speaking specifically about my own observations as of late on this forum. I asked questions about the church as a whole, because I do not know the answers. If I knew the answers, it would be disingenuous to ask the questions.

Yes, I am aware of the many competent LDS scholars out there.  I never discounted them in my OP. I also am not trying to single out the LDS with my questions. There are many in all Christian groups who scripture-twist. I am aware of that as well. This is a "Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Group" so I am speaking to a majority LDS audience with my comments and questions. I am not sure that scripture twisting among Anglicans would be appropriate for this forum.

My only other response to your comment about competent LDS scholars is that it is my experience (limited as it is) that they have gotten their highest academic training in and have established themselves in non-LDS academic settings. Of course that is a foregone conclusion since there are very few LDS places for them to obtain or practice their scholarly specialties. It may also reflect that some may not be completely orthodox or orthopraxic (is that a word?) in their LDS worldview. I asked questions (surprised?) about the church as a whole. My flabbergastedness was from what I read on this forum.

[Pyreaux]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have been surprised and a bit disappointed in the amount of what is known as scripture twisting lately on the forum. Verses are thrown out evidentially without reference to their context, the meaning of the original words, tenses, other uses of the words in other places (in and out of scripture), to whom the message is given, what kind of literary devices (poetry, apocalyptic, history, parable, metaphorical, etc.) are being used. I have been told by some LDS folks that they don't need to work to "rightly divide the word of truth" or interpret scripture correctly, because they have the Spirit and the prophets to do that for them. Is that a fair interpretation of what I am being told?

In all of the seminaries, institutes, Sunday Schools, etc. that the LDS church provides, is there no training or emphasis on Biblical, or LDS texts interpretation? I once was surprised (and pleased) to hear a talk at a Sunstone conference where the presenter provided a new and different interpretation of D&C 1:30 through the lens of the subjunctive case of that specific verse and other passages around it. Even though his interpretation was not real orthodox from an LDS point of view, he got a rousing ovation when done.

What really, no kidding is the status of the teaching of hermeneutics in the LDS Church context? Is it really as absent as it seems? I apologize if my questions come across as criticism. I don't mean them in that way. I am more flabbergasted lately by the rather random and trivial use of passages at times on this forum to make a point. Thanks and best wishes to all.

This certainly condemns me, I will reference scriptures to prove Royal Cult ideas that aren't widely understood. I'll have alternative or ancient points of view. 

Others learn and use proof texts that never get exegeted. The only context is the doctrine that informs the verse rather than the verse informing the doctrine. Fortunatelly the doctrine is so close to ancient thinking it often works out well, as if they had eexegeted it. Its amost cheating to geet told the answer without having done the work, and only the apologists among us really digging into it and still go toe-to-toe with the best of them. 

 

[Navidad]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ironic.

It was Martin Luther and the "reformers" who wanted each individual to read the bible.

Even the Anabaptists wanted folks to be old enough to make their own religious opinions before they were baptized.

So I guess each new Anabaptist had to be a scholar in hermeneutics and know ancient languages?

To be baptized???????? Oh and since your bring it up . . . . I would guess there are between 50 and 60 Anabaptist-affiliated institutions of higher education around the world. So, yea in this day there is an emphasis on good training and education. However, I digress. That has nothing to do with my post about scripture twisting on this forum. 😀

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

This certainly condemns me, I will reference scriptures to prove Royal Cult ideas that aren't widely understood. I'll have alternative or ancient points of view. 

Others learn and use proof texts that never get exegeted. The only context is the doctrine that informs the verse rather than the verse informing the doctrine. Fortunatelly the doctrine is so close to ancient thinking it often works out well, as if they had eexegeted it. Its amost cheating to geet told the answer without having done the work, and only the apologists among us really digging into it and still go toe-to-toe with the best of them. 

 

I am certainly not condemning anyone. And I must add that I have no idea what "Royal cult ideas" are? I would like to know. I was a Mason for about six months at one point in my life. A "Royal Cult" sounds like something in Freemasonry. What are royal Cult ideas? As the OP, I give you permission and even am requesting you tell us (me) more. Thanks.

[Pyreaux]

39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am certainly not condemning anyone. And I must add that I have no idea what "Royal cult ideas" are? I would like to know. I was a Mason for about six months at one point in my life. A "Royal Cult" sounds like something in Freemasonry. What are royal Cult ideas? As the OP, I give you permission and even am requesting you tell us (me) more. Thanks.

The Royal Court of Israel had a religious role within the religion, or a "cult"/sect apart from the Levitical Priests (a unnamed sect referred to as the "Deuteronomists") who wrote the histories of the kings without explaining their role. The only information was gleaned from riddling poetry in the Royal Psalms, portraying Christ-like religious roles of the king. Proto-Christianity is seen there and Christ seemed to be a restorer of something ancient more than something entirely new. The ancient Jews were never a monolithic group, some seem Christian-like. The field really took hold after discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ugaritic texts, questioning orthodoxy of modern Jews and their clear anti-Christian coverups to hide Christianity's ancient origin.

Example: I'll reference a Messianic Psalm, as about the role of Davidic Kings, and its only about Christ because he is a Davidic King. Fully aware other people read it as only as a prophecy of Christ, a "Melchizedek" priest (Psa 110:4), a "son" of God (Psa 2:7).

It finds a place in Mormon beliefs of a Christianity before Christianity.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

Next question?

Scriptures are not maguc or infallible for us, and we are correctly encouraged to be our own prophets.

Accoringtothe LDS paradigm.  A very minority view in the milieu of Christian thought and teachings.

 

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who among other Christians get new scripture twice a year?

Most Christians do not view the church as a Christian church.  So is it really the position of the church that general conference talks are scripture?  Seems like most apologists run away from such a position.

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

The mentality is quite different than the entire milieu in which you were raised.

Yes?  So?

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes scholars have interesting comments and teachings, but they are not prophets and what THEY believe it says is not relevant to MY life. 

It is certainly questionable whether the LDS leaders are prophets at least in the way the word is understood.  Their track record sure does not seem to give much weight to it.

 

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Even the example you give is the interpretation of its author.

Self contradiction.

Like you are saying "New interpretations are "good" for scholars but OUR individual new interpretations are not.

Scripture is what each individual makes it

Such a nice open ended approach. I like it. It means we can determine our own best truth right?

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT is what it is for- to stir the heart of all individuals to their own path.

That's what Joseph did.

Book of Abraham was like reading tea leaves; he stared at the squiggles and "translated" the words God gave him- the text was irrelevant 

 

Many Christian believe they do not need a prophet.  Jesus was the final prophet/great High Priest.  Believers have the holy ghost and don't need a prophet.  But they don't believe the scriptures are open for private interpretation either.

[Pyreaux]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Most Christians do not view the church as a Christian church.  So is it really the position of the church that general conference talks are scripture?  Seems like most apologists run away from such a position.

Except for the one talk chosen as the First Presidency Message. It has been reviewed by the First Presidency for doctrinal correctness.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Accoringtothe LDS paradigm.  A very minority view in the milieu of Christian thought and teachings.

 

 

Most Christians do not view the church as a Christian church.  So is it really the position of the church that general conference talks are scripture?  Seems like most apologists run away from such a position.

 

Yes?  So?

 

It is certainly questionable whether the LDS leaders are prophets at least in the way the word is understood.  Their track record sure does not seem to give much weight to it.

 

 

Such a nice open ended approach. I like it. It means we can determine our own best truth right?

Many Christian believe they do not need a prophet.  Jesus was the final prophet/great High Priest.  Believers have the holy ghost and don't need a prophet.  But they don't believe the scriptures are open for private interpretation either.

Uh huh.

Of course you MUST follow your heart. Always.

"Yes, so?"

Indeed. How may times do we have to repeat this?

I think you think that growing up LDS is child abuse.

I am so sorry. I can't fix that for you.

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have been surprised and a bit disappointed in the amount of what is known as scripture twisting lately on the forum. Verses are thrown out evidentially without reference to their context, the meaning of the original words, tenses, other uses of the words in other places (in and out of scripture), to whom the message is given, what kind of literary devices (poetry, apocalyptic, history, parable, metaphorical, etc.) are being used. I have been told by some LDS folks that they don't need to work to "rightly divide the word of truth" or interpret scripture correctly, because they have the Spirit and the prophets to do that for them. Is that a fair interpretation of what I am being told?

In all of the seminaries, institutes, Sunday Schools, etc. that the LDS church provides, is there no training or emphasis on Biblical, or LDS texts interpretation? I once was surprised (and pleased) to hear a talk at a Sunstone conference where the presenter provided a new and different interpretation of D&C 1:30 through the lens of the subjunctive case of that specific verse and other passages around it. Even though his interpretation was not real orthodox from an LDS point of view, he got a rousing ovation when done.

What really, no kidding is the status of the teaching of hermeneutics in the LDS Church context? Is it really as absent as it seems? I apologize if my questions come across as criticism. I don't mean them in that way. I am more flabbergasted lately by the rather random and trivial use of passages at times on this forum to make a point. Thanks and best wishes to all.

Give an example.

[mfbukowski]

Error 

Edited April 1, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have been surprised and a bit disappointed in the amount of what is known as scripture twisting lately on the forum

Can you please provide some specific examples of the “scripture twisting” that you have observed on this forum lately?

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have been told by some LDS folks that they don't need to work to "rightly divide the word of truth" or interpret scripture correctly, because they have the Spirit and the prophets to do that for them.

I agree with mfbukowski in that I find your opening post to be rather ironic.  And I'm not saying you are wrong in your view of LDS folks and their usage of scripture on this board (I don't know what exactly you have in mind), but I think it's kind of funny that you use scripture here in a way that I think is exactly the same thing that you are criticizing.  (And please don't misinterpret my response here in any condemning sort of way, because I really do appreciate your viewpoint on this message board.  We need people like you to help keep us in line ).

I've done some studying of what it means to "rightly divide the word of truth", mainly because I've encountered a few odd Christian sects that misinterpret the verse (2 Tim 2:15) to mean that scripture should be split apart or divided in such a way that some of it isn't applicable to Gentile Christians.  They claim that since Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles then only his writings are applicable to Gentile Christians and everything else in the Bible (including the four gospels) aren't applicable to them since those were all written to the Jews, and therefore they can dismiss all the verses that talk about the need for obedience and works and the "gospel of the kingdom" (etc. etc.  I could go on, but yeah, it's strange, and I was astounded at such doctrines - I think I have saved a few Youtube videos where this interpretation is promoted if anyone wants some entertainment).  

The Greek word translated as "rightly dividing" in that verse is orthotomeo.  The definition of this word from Bauer, Walter. A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. (page 580) is as follows:   "plainly means 'cut a path in a straight direction' or 'cut a road across country (that is forested or otherwise difficult to pass through) in a straight direction', so that the traveler may go directly to his destination."  Also:  "guide the word of truth along a straight path (like a road that goes straight to its goal), without being turned aside by wordy debates or impious talk. 2 Ti 2:15.  For such mngs. as teach the word aright, expound it soundly, shape rightly, and preach fearlessly, s. M-M. *"

The Greek word orthotomeo is also found in the Greek Septuagint in Proverbs 3:6, where it is used for the "he shall direct thy paths" part of the verse:  "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths [orthotomeo]."  Also in Proverbs 11:5, "The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way [orthotomeo]: but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness." 

I do agree that it's important to "study to show thyself approved unto God", but I think that means to study the scriptures often and carefully.  That can't possibly mean that we need to study hermeneutics anymore than Paul meant for Timothy to get formal training in scripture hermeneutics.  The verse in context says:

"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [orthotomeo] the word of truth.  But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."  (2 Timothy 2:14-16).

These verses may apply to many of our conversations on this message board, but probably not in the way you intended.  But I don't think the "rightly dividing the word of truth" part of the verse is trying to say that we need to be interpreting things exactly right, but rather that we need to use scripture wisely and directly to teach the word of truth.  I also don't find anything there that would exclude being led by the Spirit in those teachings.

[3DOP]

11 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I agree with mfbukowski in that I find your opening post to be rather ironic.  And I'm not saying you are wrong in your view of LDS folks and their usage of scripture on this board (I don't know what exactly you have in mind), but I think it's kind of funny that you use scripture here in a way that I think is exactly the same thing that you are criticizing.  (And please don't misinterpret my response here in any condemning sort of way, because I really do appreciate your viewpoint on this message board.  We need people like you to help keep us in line ).

I've done some studying of what it means to "rightly divide the word of truth", mainly because I've encountered a few odd Christian sects that misinterpret the verse (2 Tim 2:15) to mean that scripture should be split apart or divided in such a way that some of it isn't applicable to Gentile Christians.  They claim that since Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles then only his writings are applicable to Gentile Christians and everything else in the Bible (including the four gospels) aren't applicable to them since those were all written to the Jews, and therefore they can dismiss all the verses that talk about the need for obedience and works and the "gospel of the kingdom" (etc. etc.  I could go on, but yeah, it's strange, and I was astounded at such doctrines - I think I have saved a few Youtube videos where this interpretation is promoted if anyone wants some entertainment).  

The Greek word translated as "rightly dividing" in that verse is orthotomeo.  The definition of this word from Bauer, Walter. A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. (page 580) is as follows:   "plainly means 'cut a path in a straight direction' or 'cut a road across country (that is forested or otherwise difficult to pass through) in a straight direction', so that the traveler may go directly to his destination."  Also:  "guide the word of truth along a straight path (like a road that goes straight to its goal), without being turned aside by wordy debates or impious talk. 2 Ti 2:15.  For such mngs. as teach the word aright, expound it soundly, shape rightly, and preach fearlessly, s. M-M. *"

The Greek word orthotomeo is also found in the Greek Septuagint in Proverbs 3:6, where it is used for the "he shall direct thy paths" part of the verse:  "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths [orthotomeo]."  Also in Proverbs 11:5, "The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way [orthotomeo]: but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness." 

I do agree that it's important to "study to show thyself approved unto God", but I think that means to study the scriptures often and carefully.  That can't possibly mean that we need to study hermeneutics anymore than Paul meant for Timothy to get formal training in scripture hermeneutics.  The verse in context says:

"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [orthotomeo] the word of truth.  But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."  (2 Timothy 2:14-16).

These verses may apply to many of our conversations on this message board, but probably not in the way you intended.  But I don't think the "rightly dividing the word of truth" part of the verse is trying to say that we need to be interpreting things exactly right, but rather that we need to use scripture wisely and directly to teach the word of truth.  I also don't find anything there that would exclude being led by the Spirit in those teachings.

Oh goodness InCog, you have been introduced to dispensationalism, and even what moderate dispensationalists call hyper- dispensationalism.

It is very clever. It can make sense of a lot of problems. For instance, the epistle of St. James is interpreted without any gymnastics of the mind when it says "faith without works is dead", but guess what? That is for a different dispensation. Note that the letter is written to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad". This means it is for the Jewish people after the Rapture, during the "Great Tribulation".

I do not hold it up for ridicule at all. I think it is a brilliant error, and an example of how the Scriptures alone can never be an arbiter of doctrinal controversy. No successful error makes use of stupid ways of interpreting Scripture.

 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I also don't find anything there that would exclude being led by the Spirit in those teachings.

I agree 100%. Seeking the Spirit in one's understanding of the Scripture is essential and foundational. But then there is also that pesky word "study." It applies hard work, diligence, effort. It probably has its root in the word foot and implies sitting at the teacher's feet. Spending time with a strong effort. The study of Scripture is all of that - with plenty of time for prayer, seeking wisdom. Paul, in several places makes it evident that he wants his disciples to pursue "sound" doctrine. Not just doctrine. Nor doctrine that is according to our own desires. I would love it if the Scripture always supported my thinking, ideas, and yes, desires. But it doesn't. So weeding out those desires for what I wish it would say is hard work. Studying is hard work. Take care and thanks for the tone of your reply. I appreciate it when folks don't mount the bulwarks.

[Pyreaux]

So does the twisting effect come from LDS who filters their understanding of scriptures with appeals to personal values, thinking and desires, instead of allowing it to be what it is?

If we can't get you to drop some names and instances, I'll have to manufacture possible working examples. So, say for example: The scriptural dichotomy of Heaven and Hell in which LDS may twist texts because of their personal notions of "fairness" rather than accepting a more ordinary or simple interpretation.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Give an example.

Your request is a fair one. I have spent several hours thinking about it prior to responding. I want to respond to it fairly, but not in a way that is perceived as an invitation to a duel or to mount the bulwarks and defend. That was not my intent. In fact, my intent however poorly worded was to find out more about LDS teachings and practices in the interpretation of Scripture, even in a formal use of the word “interpretation” as in hermeneutics.

I am very interested in that discipline (interpretation). Whether I am interpreting Spanish, Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, daily news reports, or comments about CRT, I am interested in all of it. The longer I live in Mexico, the more I am interested in correctly interpreting. There is so much that goes into that, beyond the use of this word or that.

I don’t want to answer your question with specific examples from specific posts. That won’t go well for a variety of reasons. Perhaps I can offer some generalizations regarding my observations and clearly identify them as that and nothing more. I cannot say my observations are “right,” “exact,” or even “correct.” But I must own them at the same time.

In that context, I believe I see instances when folks ignore the context, the audience of a passage, and then attach it to something the passage never intended or foreshadowed. For example, I see this done in discussions about “gathering,” about “the church,” “the gospel,” and “unbelievers.” I observe generalizations generated from apocalyptic or prophetic literature. I think I observe some tendencies to read into passages meaning that confirm apriori beliefs. I believe I read a tendency to put “my truth” into a passage and then declare it as “thee truth, since I "found" it in Scripture. I think I observe a general “go away closer” view of the Bible. It is quoted when it is read to support a particular doctrine, yet somehow is less than the other three specifically LDS works, and even less than General Conference talks in value and as “scripture.” I admit that in that observation I am reflecting on my observations of six years of Sunday School and EQ lessons as presented in one ward. I also sense that on this forum.

My observation is that the Bible is sometimes thought of as I am sometimes thought of here on the forum and in the ward. I am “Brother Other.” The Bible is the ”other Scripture.” Doesn't the fact that the Bible uses one word overwhelmingly for the English word “truth” give us a hint that we would be better off if we knew what that word is and what it means? Ditto for the word “perfect” and so on. Somehow the difference between a perfect participle and the present tense just isn’t seen as important, even though it completely changes the meaning of a text. Is that important? Well, sometimes! Other times? Not so much. That is why study is important to try and understand the difference.

I don’t know if these examples will satisfy your request; hopefully it may satisfice it. I just don’t want to offend any one person or cause a mounting of the ramparts. This is after all a dialogue board not a confrontation or single someone out board. I can’t be any more specific than I am being in this reply. I will say however, that the majority of my intent in starting this thread was to inquire after how the LDS church handles the interpretation of whatever it believes to be Scripture. I tried to posit those questions by offering my observations. Perhaps that was a mistake since I am an inside outsider – perhaps one perceived as being lukewarm at best, or someone you all should keep your children away from – an unbeliever who will lead you into all kinds of error! Take care . . . grace . . . and peace.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Oh goodness InCog, you have been introduced to dispensationalism, and even what moderate dispensationalists call hyper- dispensationalism.

It is very clever. It can make sense of a lot of problems. For instance, the epistle of St. James is interpreted without any gymnastics of the mind when it says "faith without works is dead", but guess what? That is for a different dispensation. Note that the letter is written to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad". This means it is for the Jewish people after the Rapture, during the "Great Tribulation".

I do not hold it up for ridicule at all. I think it is a brilliant error, and an example of how the Scriptures alone can never be an arbiter of doctrinal controversy. No successful error makes use of stupid ways of interpreting Scripture.

 

Hi my friend: I have read this post a dozen times trying to understand (correctly interpret 🙃) what you are saying. Aren't members of the LDS church dispensationalists? It sure seems so to me. Weren't you a dispensationalist in your former experience? I grew up in Darbyism, but never heard the interpretation of James you mentioned. Wasn't that your belief in your former life? Are you now saying that a dispensational approach is stupid? I have migrated to a stronger affiliation with a covenant view of time. That is why I get sometimes tickled and sometimes irritated when my LDS friends say I can't have covenants! I would bet that somewhere in our respective closets tucked away we both still have one of those beautifully colored charts that explained all of time and the universe in pastel colors and lines! I probably still have a Scofield Bible tucked away somewhere in a box. Take care!

Edited April 2, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

duplicate post

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Navidad
duplicate

[Navidad]

35 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

So does the twisting effect come from LDS who filters their understanding of scriptures with appeals to personal values, thinking and desires, instead of allowing it to be what it is?

If we can't get you to drop some names and instances, I'll have to manufacture possible working examples. So, say for example: The scriptural dichotomy of Heaven and Hell in which LDS may twist texts because of their personal notions of "fairness" rather than accepting a more ordinary or simple interpretation.

I am not comfortable in singling out LDS, except in the context of this forum. Lots of folks, including me twist Scriptures at times. I like your idea of allowing it to be what it is. That will preach!

Your description of the scriptural dichotomy of Heaven and Hell is itself an interpretation, is it not? After all the Bible does use four different words (Hebrew - sheol, gehenna), and (Greek - hades, and tartarosas)-one time as a verb in II Peter 2:4) that are translated in different passages and contexts as Hell, but have radically different meanings and implications. Three are nouns and one is a verb. That fascinates me! Why would Peter use a different word - one that is only used once in the New Testament, but often in Hellenic literature to refer to the bad Titans being thrown there? I want to ask him that some day! There are also several words for the heavens.

Having said that, I think your illustration of the impact of a "fairness doctrine" instead of an ordinary or simple interpretation will preach! That is a great example of an apriori-type value or belief that we may read into passages. Hermeneutics was my favorite of all my systematic theology classes. It is the foundational cornerstone of sound doctrine - in my interpretation! Ha! It is also the enemy of dogma. . . . my least favorite type of doctrine because it leads to duty. Duty too often leads to damage. Take care!

Edited April 2, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Your request is a fair one. I have spent several hours thinking about it prior to responding. I want to respond to it fairly, but not in a way that is perceived as an invitation to a duel or to mount the bulwarks and defend. That was not my intent. In fact, my intent however poorly worded was to find out more about LDS teachings and practices in the interpretation of Scripture, even in a formal use of the word “interpretation” as in hermeneutics.

I am very interested in that discipline (interpretation). Whether I am interpreting Spanish, Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, daily news reports, or comments about CRT, I am interested in all of it. The longer I live in Mexico, the more I am interested in correctly interpreting. There is so much that goes into that, beyond the use of this word or that.

I don’t want to answer your question with specific examples from specific posts. That won’t go well for a variety of reasons. Perhaps I can offer some generalizations regarding my observations and clearly identify them as that and nothing more. I cannot say my observations are “right,” “exact,” or even “correct.” But I must own them at the same time.

In that context, I believe I see instances when folks ignore the context, the audience of a passage, and then attach it to something the passage never intended or foreshadowed. For example, I see this done in discussions about “gathering,” about “the church,” “the gospel,” and “unbelievers.” I observe generalizations generated from apocalyptic or prophetic literature. I think I observe some tendencies to read into passages meaning that confirm apriori beliefs. I believe I read a tendency to put “my truth” into a passage and then declare it as “thee truth, since I "found" it in Scripture. I think I observe a general “go away closer” view of the Bible. It is quoted when it is read to support a particular doctrine, yet somehow is less than the other three specifically LDS works, and even less than General Conference talks in value and as “scripture.” I admit that in that observation I am reflecting on my observations of six years of Sunday School and EQ lessons as presented in one ward. I also sense that on this forum.

My observation is that the Bible is sometimes thought of as I am sometimes thought of here on the forum and in the ward. I am “Brother Other.” The Bible is the ”other Scripture.” Doesn't the fact that the Bible uses one word overwhelmingly for the English word “truth” give us a hint that we would be better off if we knew what that word is and what it means? Ditto for the word “perfect” and so on. Somehow the difference between a perfect participle and the present tense just isn’t seen as important, even though it completely changes the meaning of a text. Is that important? Well, sometimes! Other times? Not so much. That is why study is important to try and understand the difference.

I don’t know if these examples will satisfy your request; hopefully it may satisfice it. I just don’t want to offend any one person or cause a mounting of the ramparts. This is after all a dialogue board not a confrontation or single someone out board. I can’t be any more specific than I am being in this reply. I will say however, that the majority of my intent in starting this thread was to inquire after how the LDS church handles the interpretation of whatever it believes to be Scripture. I tried to posit those questions by offering my observations. Perhaps that was a mistake since I am an inside outsider – perhaps one perceived as being lukewarm at best, or someone you all should keep your children away from – an unbeliever who will lead you into all kinds of error! Take care . . . grace . . . and peace.

 

What exactly is a "correct" interpretation?  The author's intention?

How can you know what that is?

He/she wrote something- someone would have to ASSUME he made an error in writing to even TRY to "interpret" what was said!

Why question needlessly exactly what the words say?

But if there are several meanings possible you could NEVER find which one is a "correct" interpretation of an author who lived a thousand years ago.

The assumption that one CAN define what a "CORRECT" interpretation might be is the problem.

So you could see two, 3, or 17 possible interpretations and cannot EVER decide which is "correctly" the author's intention, unless you ask.

The "CORRECT" interpretation is  impossible to know unless you discuss the author's intentions with the author!

Without that, it is anybody's guess; the word "correct" in that context because undefinable.

You are assuming a 1 to 1 perfect correspondence between the author's mind and yours is possible.

It's not possible when a conversation about the meaning is not possible.

There is no possible standard to define what is "correct"

It seems you are seeing it from a fundamentalist perspective while such a standard is not possible