Scripture Twisting

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am very interested in that discipline (interpretation

I've heard it said this since Biblical studies is very secular, most evangelicals study peripheral topics like "History of Biblical interpretation" instead.

Mormons get their PhDs in Northwest Semitics (Hebrew, Ugaritica, Aramaic) a lot.

[Steve Thompson]

By "twisting" are you referring to proof-texting?  There's a tradition in LDS publishing of collecting quotes from the speeches of church leaders in which they have made reference to or quoted passages of scripture as examples of how authorities have interpreted scripture.  I'm thinking of Monte Nyman's "Great are the words of Isaiah" and "Great are the words of Jeremiah."   Going back a bit, I believe Roy Doxey published a 4 vol. commentary on the D&C which consisted mostly of examples of how particular passages had been used in general authority speeches. Legrand Richards' old missionary tract,  A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, is replete with using OT and NT quotes as proof texts to "prove" the truth of the Restoration.  

Of, course, such proof texting has a long and distinguished pedigree.  The DSS folks engaged in the practice repeatedly, as did the gospel authors (especially Matthew) in an attempt to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.  

And then there's the passage where Nephi, I believe, said "we did liken the scriptures unto ourselves...." 

Attempting to read scripture in its ancient context (and there's always a debate on exactly what that context was) takes lots of training and experience, which few people have the time, opportunity or desire to engage in.  

So I would say that the "twisting" you refer to is a feature, not a bug, of most religious people's understanding and use of scripture.

If I've understood your question.  If not, then ignore my post.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

That is a very good start!

How can you know what that is?
I can look at similar writings by the same writer. I can analyze his style and use of words. I can try and understand to whom he is writing and why.

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

I am not sure what you are saying here. Sorry.

Why question needlessly exactly what the words say?

That is what hermeneutics does! You do it with philosophy, I do it with hermeneutics. I think there is a need to understand the Scripture as closely as possible over distance and time.  I don't view it as needlessly done.

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.

I agree. My goal is perhaps to attempt to find the "most correct," the "closest" by a careful study of all that can be studied, sprinkled with prayer.

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

It isn't a problem. It is a challenge. It will never be 100% accurate; but it doesn't have to be 60% incorrect because we didn't do our homework.

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

I agree. I believe in one of my posts I said I was looking forward to asking Peter about his use of a hapaxlogomene in his second epistle!

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

No disagreement here. Again my goal is aligned with "close" and then humbly suggest I might be wrong! But all of that after careful, sincere study!

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

It doesn't need to be a guess and it isn't a certainty!

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

No I'm not. I like archery and horseshoes. I like to get close! I could never hope for more!

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

That is where prayer and revelation come in to study!

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

We can get closest when we work and study hardest!

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

Not at all! The best I can hope for is provisional certitude. I am content with that! I have never tried to reply to a thread like this, line by line! Isn't that the LDS way to do it! I hope my interjecting of comments is an appropriate way to reply. Thanks for your reply and good spirit.

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I've heard it said this since Biblical studies is very secular, most evangelicals study peripheral topics like "History of Biblical interpretation" instead.

Mormons get their PhDs in Northwest Semitics (Hebrew, Ugaritica, Aramaic) a lot.

I don't know most Evangelicals, but I am one and I certainly do not reject formal academic Biblical studies as something to be avoided at all. When done with intellectual and academic rigor, It certainly and of necessity incorporates secular (non-faith based) techniques, methods, and goals. I know hundreds of Evangelical scholars; none of whom shy away from secular methodologies whether physicians, agronomists, historians, students of ancient languages, or students of Chinese orthography. Whoever you have heard this from is incorrect . . . they probably conflate Evangelicalism as a subject of study with Evangelism. Peripheral usually describes something seen by someone as not very important or heavyweight. That is a distancing, and diminishing mechanism. 

I would be surprised if representatives of any religious group  "get their PhDs in Northwest Semitics (Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramiac) A LOT! I would guess (without data in hand) that a handful of Mormons, just like a handful of Methodists, just like a handful of Anglicans, or a handful of Evangelicals get their PhD in Northwest or Southwest Semitics. I would be surprised if there are more than a couple of hundred of people of any or no faith alive at any one time in the world with a PhD in Northwest Semitics. We need all we can get, but I don't think all gathered together in one place in the world would fill a typical LDS chapel!

Are you suggesting that the "History of Biblical Interpretation" is a less than rigorous field of study? You must really look down on me for pursuing the same in the "Religious History of Mexico!" 🤠

Edited April 2, 2023 by Navidad

[Pyreaux]

Hard to distinguish personal bias and personal inspiration. Certainly, using words on scriptures like "fairness", or "incomprehension" seems not about spiritual insight but a reasoning tactic. Employed by atheists to reject scripture and sometimes LDS to twist scripture, conforming it to feelings. Scriptures can only be ultimately spiritually interpreted (2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:14-15). Perhaps, Prophet A interpreted it with the Spirit, while LDS member B may have a solid spiritual witness of Prophet A himself, but only a poorly reasoned interpretation of the verse the prophet interpreted, maybe compared to their non-LDS peers on this forum, so even with a true basis for faith in a verse's interpretation, it seems built on a twisted interpretation or just a lousy explanation.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Are you suggesting that the "History of Biblical Interpretation" is a less than rigorous field of study? You must really look down on me for pursuing the same in the "Religious History of Mexico!" 🤠

I meant peripheral to Biblical studies. Northwest Semitics is peripheral too. LDS are interested in Ugaritic for theological reasons, hence a lot of Northwest Semitics PhD.

BYU 's ancient scripture department is larger than those at most schools, and most have PhDs in fields peripheral to Biblical studies (and some in Biblical studies proper).

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

8 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I've heard it said this since Biblical studies is very secular, most evangelicals study peripheral topics like "History of Biblical interpretation" instead.

Mormons get their PhDs in Northwest Semitics (Hebrew, Ugaritica, Aramaic) a lot.

I don't know most Evangelicals, but I am one and I certainly do not reject formal academic Biblical studies as something to be avoided at all.

Of course not. I wasn't suggesting. But you'll see that those who do, like John Walton or Peter Enns or Michael Heiser, talk very differently than your pastor.

By evangelical I mostly mean Protestants who believe in Biblical inerrancy.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Steve Thompson said:

By "twisting" are you referring to proof-texting?  There's a tradition in LDS publishing of collecting quotes from the speeches of church leaders in which they have made reference to or quoted passages of scripture as examples of how authorities have interpreted scripture.  I'm thinking of Monte Nyman's "Great are the words of Isaiah" and "Great are the words of Jeremiah."   Going back a bit, I believe Roy Doxey published a 4 vol. commentary on the D&C which consisted mostly of examples of how particular passages had been used in general authority speeches. Legrand Richards' old missionary tract,  A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, is replete with using OT and NT quotes as proof texts to "prove" the truth of the Restoration.  

Of, course, such proof texting has a long and distinguished pedigree.  The DSS folks engaged in the practice repeatedly, as did the gospel authors (especially Matthew) in an attempt to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.  

And then there's the passage where Nephi, I believe, said "we did liken the scriptures unto ourselves...." 

Attempting to read scripture in its ancient context (and there's always a debate on exactly what that context was) takes lots of training and experience, which few people have the time, opportunity or desire to engage in.  

So I would say that the "twisting" you refer to is a feature, not a bug, of most religious people's understanding and use of scripture.

If I've understood your question.  If not, then ignore my post.

First, if you are the Steve Thompson I am thinking of, I enjoy your writing and in-depth knowledge. Thanks for your response to my initial statement in this thread. Certainly proof-texting is a component of what has been called "scripture twisting." There are other aspects as well such as disregarding context, time, place, culture, and likely intent of those who wrote. I see proof-texting as a form of eisegesis very different from the practice of exegesis. One reads into instead of however uncertainly, extrapolating from. There is certainly a long history of this less-than-optimal form of Biblical interpretation. Of course I also disagree with those who insert other cultures and meanings into Olmec statuary to demonstrate their theory about the origins of that mysterious interim culture.

I probably only differ with your conclusion in that I see such distortions as both a feature and a bug of most religious people' understanding and use of scripture. The fact that it exists and perhaps even is common, doesn't diminish a desire or even a "need" to lessen it wherever possible, especially when used to diminish the ubiquitous "other." After all, both of the Mexican Cristiadas (1920s and 1930s) were religious conflicts. No they weren't  . . . yes they were . . . no they weren't! And on and on. This is the joy and challenge of historical studies, whether Mexican, Mesoamerican, Egyptian, or Neo-Assyrian (my cousin's passion). Thanks for the references. I look forward to reading as many of them as I can find. Best wishes.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh huh.

Of course you MUST follow your heart. Always.

I try to do that.

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Yes, so?"

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

What you seem to not understand is I have not yet found your paradigm compelling. Sorry. I try. I will continue to try.

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

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

No I really don't. A lot of good came for  my activity in the Church.  A lot negative as well. It is a balance but likely long term I have been better off for it.

[Navidad]

44 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I meant peripheral to Biblical studies. Northwest Semitics is peripheral too. Biblical studies too. LDS are interested in Ugaritic for theological reasons, hence a lot of Northwest Semitics PhD.

BYU 's ancient scripture department is larger than those at most schools, and most have PhDs in fields peripheral to Biblical studies (and some in Biblical studies proper).

Of course not. I wasn't suggesting. But you'll see that those who do, like John Walton or Peter Enns or Michael Heiser, talk very differently than your pastor.

By evangelical I mostly mean Protestants who believe in Biblical inerrancy.

Perhaps I would suggest that Evangelicalism is a broad and diverse community. I would guess they are mostly Protestants, but they certainly don't exclude non-Protestants like Anabaptists, Pentecostals, and other restorationist groups who don't identify as Protestant. I also see a growing Catholic Evangelical wing. Biblical inerrancy? That is a term that is defined differently by many. Add infallible and the waters get more muddy! Peter Enns' definition would be different from that of John Walton. Of course they differ in their placement on the Evangelical spectrum/continuum. Depending on the subject under discussion, I am on vastly different ends of the continuum as well and I am just one person! Oh . . . my pastor right now is an LDS bishop! best wishes!

Edited April 2, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

58 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Hard to distinguish personal bias and personal inspiration. Certainly, using words on scriptures like "fairness", or "incomprehension" seems not about spiritual insight but a reasoning tactic. Employed by atheists to reject scripture and sometimes LDS to twist scripture, conforming it to feelings. Scriptures can only be ultimately spiritually interpreted (2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:14-15). Perhaps, Prophet A interpreted it with the Spirit, while LDS member B may have a solid spiritual witness of Prophet A himself, but only a poorly reasoned interpretation of the verse the prophet interpreted, maybe compared to their non-LDS peers on this forum, so even with a true basis for faith in a verse's interpretation, it seems built on a twisted interpretation or just a lousy explanation.

As always . . . well said!

 

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I try to do that.

What you seem to not understand is I have not yet found your paradigm compelling. Sorry. I try. I will continue to try.

No I really don't. A lot of good came for  my activity in the Church.  A lot negative as well. It is a balance but likely long term I have been better off for it.

You are far kinder than I am, thanks.

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

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!

The Latter-day Saints aren't dispensationalists in the sense that 3DOP is saying.  We believe there are dispensations of the gospel but we mean that there "are time periods in which the Lord has at least one authorized servant on the earth who bears the holy priesthood and the keys, and who has a divine commission to dispense the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth." (See Gospel Topics - Dispensations).  

There's an article on the Ligonier Ministries website that explains dispensationalism in the way that 3DOP is saying, and the difference between dispensationalism and the Latter-day Saint view of dispensations should hopefully be clear:

Quote

Dispensationalist theology is perhaps best known for its distinctive eschatological doctrines, particularly the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. According to this doctrine, this present church age will be followed by a seven-year period of tribulation. Before the tribulation begins (thus “pre-tribulation”), the church will be caught up to heaven where believers will be with Christ until the second coming, which occurs at the end of the tribulation. At that time, they will return with Christ, who will then inaugurate His millennial kingdom (dispensationalists are thus also premillennialists).

Although dispensationalism is best known for its eschatological doctrines, at its heart is the distinction between Israel and the church. Every other distinctively dispensationalist doctrine rests on this idea. What this distinction means for dispensationalists is that there are two peoples of God. Israel is one of these and consists of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The church is the other, and it consists of all those and only those (whether Jew or gentile) who are saved between the Day of Pentecost and the rapture. Part of the reason for the pre-tribulation rapture is to remove the church from earth so that God can begin dealing with national Israel again.

Dispensationalism differs from Reformed covenant theology in a number of ways, but the most significant is this idea of two peoples of God. Covenant theology affirms that there is one people of God and thus continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament. Covenant theology is not, as some dispensationalists assert, “replacement theology” because in covenant theology, the church is not technically replacing Israel. The church is the organic continuation of the Old Testament people of God. (For a helpful introduction to covenant theology, see Stephen Myers’ God to Us.) The oneness of the people of God is evident by an examination of several New Testament texts.

The Christian groups I was talking about in my post (the people that were misinterpreting 2 Tim 2:15 so that they could make most of the Bible not applicable to them) may be feeding off of dispensationalist theology, but they go way beyond that and aren't quite the same as what is being described in the Ligonier article.  They take Paul literally when he uses the phrase "my gospel" in a few places (i.e. Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 2:8), and they literally understand Jesus and the other apostles to be teaching a different gospel than what Paul taught.  It's a rather creative exploitation of a few odd phrases in scripture, but it doesn't work with scripture as a whole (and even in Paul's writings taken alone their reasoning falls apart in my opinion).  But taking "rightly dividing the word" out of 2 Timothy 2:15 to mean that scripture should be divided up to exclude certain gospel teachings is at the core of it.

Edited April 2, 2023 by InCognitus

[Navidad]

16 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The Latter-day Saints aren't dispensationalists in the sense that 3DOP is saying.  We believe there are dispensations of the gospel but we mean that "are time periods in which the Lord has at least one authorized servant on the earth who bears the holy priesthood and the keys, and who has a divine commission to dispense the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth." (See Gospel Topics - Dispensations).  

There's an article on the Ligonier Ministries website that explains dispensationalism in the way that 3DOP is saying, and the difference between dispensationalism and the Latter-day Saint view of dispensations should hopefully be clear:

The Christian groups I was talking about in my post (the people that were misinterpreting 2 Tim 2:15 so that they could make most of the Bible not applicable to them) may be feeding off of dispensationalist theology, but they go way beyond that and aren't quite the same as what is being described in the Ligonier article.  They take Paul literally when he uses the phrase "my gospel" in a few places (i.e. Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 2:8), and they literally understand Jesus and the other apostles to be teaching a different gospel than what Paul taught.  It's a rather creative exploitation of a few odd phrases in scripture, but it doesn't work with scripture as a whole (and even in Paul's writings taken alone their reasoning falls apart in my opinion).  But taking "rightly dividing the word" out of 2 Timothy 2:15 to mean that scripture should be divided up to exclude certain gospel teachings is at the core of it.

The RC Sproul (Ligonier) definition of dispensationalism is what I grew up in. Mennonites historically resisted that interpretation until the mid fifties when a popular Philly radio preacher began teaching it. My father was a great proponent of it. Thanks for the LDS definition. That helps me a lot. I seems that everything for my LDS friends comes back to the priesthood, authority and the keys. As you might guess that is much too exclusive for me. I could never (as far as I know now) get my head around that, just like I couldn't get my head around the fundamentalist definition of dispensationalism either. Sproul was a covenant guy. Very popular Evangelical teacher. He was one of the leading founders of the PCA, the Presbyterian Church in America of which that Nashville Christian School was a part. I believe their name was Covenant Christian School.

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

The RC Sproul (Ligonier) definition of dispensationalism is what I grew up in. Mennonites historically resisted that interpretation until the mid fifties when a popular Philly radio preacher began teaching it. My father was a great proponent of it. Thanks for the LDS definition. That helps me a lot. I seems that everything for my LDS friends comes back to the priesthood, authority and the keys. As you might guess that is much too exclusive for me. I could never (as far as I know now) get my head around that, just like I couldn't get my head around the fundamentalist definition of dispensationalism either. Sproul was a covenant guy. Very popular Evangelical teacher. He was one of the leading founders of the PCA, the Presbyterian Church in America of which that Nashville Christian School was a part. I believe their name was Covenant Christian School.

I think those words are worth adopting, I think some Protestants are being too tumid to pick them up. You may describe yourself as "'born again", as a son of God, you follow Christ through the veil and drawing nigh unto God (just like a High Priest goes into a Holy of Holies), you joined a "royal priesthood", an heir to the "keys of David". Bite the bullet, call the Renaissance a new dispensation of the Invisible Church and wield the Priesthood of All Believers.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

If we keep defunding the humanities the whole problem might take care of itself.

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I seems that everything for my LDS friends comes back to the priesthood, authority and the keys. As you might guess that is much too exclusive for me.

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

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!

This might not be the right thread to ask this, but can I ask you a few question about your beliefs?

What is your view on the following and its relevancy in Christianity today?

1. The Abrahamic Covenant
2. The Gathering of Israel and/or the place that Israel plays in God's plan
3. The need for baptism (is it required for salvation or not?)
4. Your understanding of what is the New Covenant

Also, what is your belief about how God handles all the people that have been born on the earth that have died without ever hearing the gospel?   

I promise these aren't trick questions, but in my mind they are related to the issue of exclusivity that you mention above.

[JustAnAustralian]

I don't really have anything to add except that I was reminded of this classic Dilbert.

 

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

This might not be the right thread to ask this, but can I ask you a few question about your beliefs?

What is your view on the following and its relevancy in Christianity today?

1. The Abrahamic Covenant
2. The Gathering of Israel and/or the place that Israel plays in God's plan
3. The need for baptism (is it required for salvation or not?)
4. Your understanding of what is the New Covenant

Also, what is your belief about how God handles all the people that have been born on the earth that have died without ever hearing the gospel?   

I promise these aren't trick questions, but in my mind they are related to the issue of exclusivity that you mention above.

Hi: I try to share the specifics of my beliefs only in answering questions so that folks here don’t believe I am trying to proselytize. In the context of your questions, I am happy to reply to the best of my knowledge, beliefs, and abilities.

 

 

1. Those who have never heard: I believe that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one will come to the Father but by Him. I also have perfect (complete) confidence in His ability to judge humanity based on His perfect (complete) blend of mercy and righteousness. On that judgment day He will be the prefect gatekeeper – literally no will come to the Father but by His (Christ’s) judgment. I believe He will judge using the criteria He decides to use – engaging justice, mercy, and righteousness mingled with an understanding of the light – the general revelation folks have experienced. I don’t believe that on that day, whenever it will be, that Christ will be different than when He was on earth. He constantly disappointed the hierarchy of Judaism with this non-judgmental ways. I guess I seem  Him on judgment day in the same way. I believe in a wideness in His mercy. Ever since way back in Ex 33:19 God has reserved the right to be gracious and to have compassion on whomever He will. God’s ability to balance righteousness with mercy is not a linear equation, it is systemic in His nature. Interestingly, that same passage is then quoted in Romans 9 by Paul.

 

 

2. The New Covenant is the New Testament is found in I Cor. 11 and Luke 22. It is the New Testament or Covenant in Christ’s broken body and blood. It is that Covenant we principally remember at Sacrament, Eucharist, Communion, the Lords Supper, whatever one chooses to call it. Like all covenants it is an if-then agreement. I John 1:9 says it perfectly (completely) If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to declare us cleansed. It is predicted in the OT; comes to pass in the NT; and is in force today. It is the covenant of grace. It is not a cheap grace. It is grace that comes at a price and (see 1.) with a perfect balance of mercy and righteousness.

 

 

3. The need for baptism. I believe there is a need for someone to be baptized, but not a salvific need. I believe in baptism as testimony and witness to those observing of the new testament (covenant) as active in their lives. When I baptized someone, it was not because I had the authority from God to participate in their salvation in any way. My authority to do that act came from the elders of my church, believing that I had enough experience and wisdom to only baptize those who I believe had truly believed prior to the baptism and who were genuine and ready in their desire to testify to that by submitting to the waters of baptism. Every once in a while I had to say “not yet” to someone who requested it. Just a bit more teaching. . . just a bit more knowledge of the importance and awareness of the “need” of confession of a changed life before the gathered believers.

4 & 5. I save these for last because I cannot speak to one without the other. I do believe some form of the imagery of apostasy occurred in Israel that is described, together with its result in Ezekiel. Whether literal or allegorical, Ezekiel tells us how the visible/physical presence of God left the temple and the earth. (Ezekiel 10). It is a vivid description, whether literal or in a vision/dream, or as a metaphor or allegory, I do not know. But it effectively describes the withdrawal of the physical visible expression of God from earth. Paul in Romans 11 talks about the “partial hardening” of Israel. Whether literal or allegorical, that condition lasted until Christ’s birth, a child of the Jewish nation, when once again the physical visible God was on earth, literally coming by way of a descendant of Abraham. Judaism by and large had abandoned the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and focused on living out the law. Yet, God sent His Son via birth into Judaism. In my mind, that is significant.

Romans 9:31 brings the reader into the then current day. Israel had not done well. Romans 10 talks about the present time. Romans 10:9, 10 makes it clear that all are in the same boat – the boat named “The New Covenant.” In this time, all are the same before God. Christ provided a new Covenant that is available to all and necessary for all, Jew and Gentile.

It appears in Romans 11 that the future state of Israel is portrayed as a time when some amazing events will occur. I don’t have any beliefs about what they will be and exactly how they will work. It appears that in some way “all” (see verse 32) Israel will be shown mercy. I don’t know what either “all” or “Israel” means in the context of the passages. There are many varying interpretations; some believe Israel in that context refers to Christians – the new Israel. People love to speculate on such things and put all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together without the photo on top of the box. I don’t. I have enough trouble living my own life and following the New Covenant that has been offered to me. I believe that as the Jews of old and today, we have all experienced a “partial hardening.” I am trying hard to defrost and become mostly softer via the grace of God.

I know this isn’t a detailed plan of world events into eternity like my father would have provided you. I am simply grateful for the chance today to live another day in the covenant of God’s grace, a grace I will never merit (be worthy), but God in His wisdom has seen to endow me with it. I am grateful for that.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Navidad

[3DOP]

On 4/2/2023 at 2:41 AM, Navidad said:

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!

Navidad...hi. 

I am saying that in my opinion dispensationalism and it's less common cousin, called hyper-dispensationalism by its opponents is a clever and successful error.

It is very useful for those who wish to maintain once saved/always saved by faith alone. The irony is that they accept the point of view which says that the Old Testament as well the Epistle of James and other books, teach salvation by faith and works. But these books are for a different age, not the current "Church age". 

I never taught it. I only studied it and had respect for it, as I still do. The biggest doctrinal change for me came when I began to see how it might be possible that the promises to Zion in the Old Testament are references to Christ's Church. That took us into a look at the Reformed Calvinist churches, Presbyterians, LDS, Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic claims.

When InCog made that post I was thinking he had come across the hypers, who sometimes narrow Church age revelation to the prison epistles. If the Church's Tradition taught it, I would believe it.

But it is a novelty, and I reject it because one would look in vain for its beginnings for about the first 90% of the period that has elapsed since Pentecost.

(I hope you don't have to read this too many times!)

Thanks,

Rory

P.S.: Emphatic no. I was not taught about this for good or ill at Hyles-Anderson. I knew nothing of it coming out of college. As you might know, the emphasis there was much more on the need for practical ministry instruction than on theology.

 

[3DOP]

On 4/2/2023 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

The Latter-day Saints aren't dispensationalists in the sense that 3DOP is saying.  We believe there are dispensations of the gospel but we mean that there "are time periods in which the Lord has at least one authorized servant on the earth who bears the holy priesthood and the keys, and who has a divine commission to dispense the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth." (See Gospel Topics - Dispensations).  

There's an article on the Ligonier Ministries website that explains dispensationalism in the way that 3DOP is saying, and the difference between dispensationalism and the Latter-day Saint view of dispensations should hopefully be clear:

The Christian groups I was talking about in my post (the people that were misinterpreting 2 Tim 2:15 so that they could make most of the Bible not applicable to them) may be feeding off of dispensationalist theology, but they go way beyond that and aren't quite the same as what is being described in the Ligonier article.  They take Paul literally when he uses the phrase "my gospel" in a few places (i.e. Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 2:8), and they literally understand Jesus and the other apostles to be teaching a different gospel than what Paul taught.  It's a rather creative exploitation of a few odd phrases in scripture, but it doesn't work with scripture as a whole (and even in Paul's writings taken alone their reasoning falls apart in my opinion).  But taking "rightly dividing the word" out of 2 Timothy 2:15 to mean that scripture should be divided up to exclude certain gospel teachings is at the core of it.

Yes. Believing in dispensations does not mean believing in the teaching that is identified as dispensationalism. My first acquaintance with dispensationalism came from the founder of Pensacola Bible Institute, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, who was more known for his views about the King James Bible. That was my original interest. But he was also approaching a very strong dispensationalism. As I recall, he got rid of the letter of James too. But I soon found that you could go much farther and deeper with it if you wanted. 

Thanks for memory lane. It is a blip on my radar from the late 80's. Don't be surprised that very few are familiar with hyper-dispensationalism. It appealed to people who were struggling with a way to eliminate "inconvenient" Scriptures. It could be a relief to say to a Latter-day Saint, Catholic, or orthodox Anglican that yes, you are right, it is difficult to understand James to be teaching sola fide (faith alone salvation). Like I said to Navidad, I never taught it, but I gave it a hard look for a brief time. I understand the appeal of it to thoughtful sola fideists very well.

Edited April 4, 2023 by 3DOP

[Hamilton Porter]

I met some dude on my mission who said James shouldn't be in the Bible because it was written much later.

[smac97]

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, Navidad said:

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

Could you provide some examples of instances of "scripture twisting" you have seen here?

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, 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.

Isn't that a pretty common thing, particularly in informal online discussions?  See, e.g., here (me responding to a comment by Stemelbow) :

Quote

Quote

It's certainly understandable that one who views the BoM as scripture, accepts that men make mistakes and likely made mistakes in putting together the work, are also unwilling to accept that those mistakes can be meaningful to teaching or doctrine.  It's quite an assumption to make. 

I agree.  I'm not really a fan of declaring anything, other than Jesus Christ, to be perfect.  The doctrines of the Church are overwhelmingly good and beautiful and praiseworthy, but I'm not sure we have a complete and pristine understanding of them.  

• "For now we see through a glass, darkly..."  (1 Cor. 13:12)
• "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  (D&C 50:24)
• "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (AoF 1:9)

We still have a long way to go.  We still have a lot to learn.

I assume you are okay with the foregoing citations, even though I did not reference their context, or possible translation issues, or their type of literary device, etc.

I am not denying that people can misuse, through decontextualization and other means, passages of scripture.  We are warned against such things in 1 Pet 1:20 ("no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"), 2 Pet 3:14, 16 ("Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace ... {Paul's writing 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"), Alma 13:20 ("Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction"), Alma 41:1 ("And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing"), D&C 10:63 ("And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them"), and so on.

If this has become a systemic issue on this forum, I think we ought to address it.

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, 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. Is that a fair interpretation of what I am being told?

I'd like to see the discussion to understand the context, but "interpret{ing} scripture correctly" is an important business, and one that may sometimes need to include all available resources, including translation helps, learned commentaries, etc., as well as "the Spirit and the prophets."

Two examples come to mind:

2 Nephi 2:23 ("For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.")

What does "after all we can do" mean in this context?  I think some, perhaps many, Latter-day Saints have construed this passage as meaning, that "grace is offered to us only chronologically after we have completed doing all we can do."  For some, this has resulted in misunderstandings, discouragement and skewed perspectives on our relationship with Jesus Christ.  BOMC has a good rundown:

Quote

Nephi’s statement “it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23) has been the source of much discussion among Latter-day Saints. BYU Professor Stephen Robinson explained, “At first glance at this scripture, we might think that grace is offered to us only chronologically after we have completed doing all we can do, but this is demonstrably false.”1

LDS biblical scholar Joseph Spencer has insightfully suggested that in order to understand Nephi’s meaning in this verse, it is important to note that Nephi appears to be borrowing his ideas from his brother, Jacob.2 Just before his inclusion of a block of quotes from Isaiah, Nephi inserted into his record a speech Jacob gave to the Nephites (2 Nephi 6–10). Jacob had explained that “after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved” (2 Nephi 10:24).

These teachings on grace from Jacob and Nephi are worded similarly. The comparable phrases both begin with the preposition “after,” and state that it is by the grace of God that people are saved. It is notable that both passages also mention the idea of being “reconciled to God.” However, in Jacob’s statement, he strongly emphasizes that it is only through grace that we are saved.

The similarity between these passages suggests that Nephi was repeating Jacob’s thoughts on God’s grace as a closing statement to the block of Isaiah passages. Furthermore, Benjamin Spackman, an LDS scholar, argued that comparing these two passages implies that Nephi’s clause “after all we can do” parallels Jacob’s phrase “after ye are reconciled unto to God.” The comparison suggests that being reconciled unto God is all we can do.3 This conclusion is supported by other passages in the Book of Mormon which use the phrase “all we can do.” For example, in Alma 24:11 the king of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, after their conversion, claimed that “it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain.”4

Also consider this passage from Alma 39:

Quote

1 And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother, his faithfulness, and his diligence in keeping the commandments of God? Behold, has he not set a good example for thee?
2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.
3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.
4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.
5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

What is the predicate of "these things" in verse 5?  Is it a straightforward reference to "unchastity" (this seems to be the prevailing view)?  Many General Authorities and church-published materials have, over the years, specifically invoked this passage in the specific context of the Law of Chastity:

Elder Boyd K. Packer, 2006 Ensign: "Alma told his son that the devil had led him away (see Alma 39:11). Unchastity is 'most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost' (Alma 39:5)."

March 2014 New Era: 

Quote

Have you ever felt like your sins are so great that you can’t be forgiven? You’re not alone. Think about Corianton, the son of Alma the Younger who left his missionary work to chase after Isabel, a harlot in the land of Sidon. Not only did Corianton “forsake the ministry,” but the sin he engaged in—breaking the law of chastity—was “an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost.”

But that wasn’t the end of it. Because of what Corianton did, many of the Zoramites refused to believe the teachings of his father, the prophet.

February 2002 New Era (Elder Bruce C. Hafen) :

Quote

The other side of this coin, of course, is represented by what Alma told his wayward son, Corianton, who had gone after the Lamanite harlot Isabel. He said to his son: “Know ye not, … that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5).

Eternal Marriage Student Manual (quoting Pres. Ezra T. Benson) :

Quote

On the other hand, when we obey the law of chastity and keep ourselves morally clean, we will experience the blessings of increased love and peace, greater trust and respect for our marital partners, deeper commitment to each other, and, therefore, a deep and significant sense of joy and happiness.

We must not be misled into thinking these sins are minor, or that consequences are not that serious. One of the most sobering statements about being unchaste is that of Alma to his son Corianton: “Know ye not, my son,” he said, “that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5; emphasis added). Very few of us will ever be guilty of murder or of the sin against the Holy Ghost. But the law of chastity is frequently broken, and yet it stands next to these other sins in seriousness in the eyes of the Lord.

Gospel Principles Manual, Chapter 39 ("The Law of Chastity") :

Quote

The prophet Alma grieved because one of his sons had broken the law of chastity. Alma said to his son Corianton, “Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5). Unchastity is next to murder in seriousness.

And on and on.

I think this narrow interpretation has had an unfortunate effect on some, who feel that their sexual sin has rendered them effectively irredeemable. 

But is this interpretation correct?  Might this passage be referring to more than sexual transgression?  From BOMC:

Quote

Certainly all sexual transgressions are serious matters that should be entirely avoided and quickly repented of if committed, and indeed some sexual sins are more serious than others.3 Reading Alma 39 more closely reveals some additional insights regarding Corianton’s behaviors that intensify Alma’s teachings to his son concerning sexual misconduct.

 

As pointed out by Michael R. Ash and B. W. Jorgensen, for instance, it appears Corianton’s sin was more than just sexual immorality.4 They argue that Corianton’s sin was a composite of several elements, specifically sexual immorality by a priesthood leader that caused him to abandon his ministry and therefore neglect the spiritual needs of his flock, thereby leading them into apostasy. In effect, Corianton metaphorically “murdered” the testimonies of those he was commissioned to bring unto Christ when he was lured away by Isabel (cf. Alma 36:14).

This understanding of Corianton’s particular situation is strengthened by of the fact that in Alma 39:5, Alma speaks of “these things” (plural) being “an abomination in the sight of the Lord.” Apparently “these things” included not only Corianton committing sexual sin, but purposefully neglecting “the ministry wherewith [he] wast entrusted” (v. 4). Perhaps, then, “the more serious infraction was the resulting spiritual damage inflicted upon others who had witnessed Corianton’s sinful actions.”5

If Corianton’s only sin was committing sexually immoral acts, then it’s curious why Alma did not focus on that in the rest of the chapter. Instead of warning against sexual immorality, the remainder of Alma 39 focuses on such topics as “a description of the unpardonable sin—to knowingly deny the Holy Ghost.”6

"{I}nterpret{ing} scripture correctly" is an important matter, and one that requires real effort on the part of the individual.

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, Navidad said:

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 think there is less emphasis on scriptural commentaries and translations as compared to other Christian groups.

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, Navidad said:

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.

Could you provide a reference?

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, Navidad said:

What really, no kidding is the status of the teaching of hermeneutics in the LDS Church context?

Not much of an emphasis.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9). This is to say that while there is much we do not yet know, the truths and doctrine we have received have come and will continue to come by divine revelation. In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.

There are some few substantive doctrinal issues that merit a more refined exegesis and explanation by General Authorities (see the above two examples), but I think most doctrinal issues are either of marginal significance, or else have been clarified by modern revelation through living prophets and apostles, or some combination of these.

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, Navidad said:

Is it really as absent as it seems?

I think most Christians aren't really doing a lot of in-depth stuff with, as Elder Christofferson noted, "biblical hermeneutics and exegesis."  If and when the Brethren are shown to have "wrested" scriptures, I think we ought to evaluate such things.  I am not persuaded that this is a systemic issue, though.

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, Navidad said:

I apologize if my questions come across as criticism. I don't mean them in that way.

No worries.  Your questions are reasonable, and you have a deep reservoir of good will on this board.  

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, Navidad said:

I am more flabbergasted lately by the rather random and trivial use of passages at times on this forum to make a point.

I'd like to see examples of these troubling usages.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide some examples of instances of "scripture twisting" you have seen here?

Isn't that a pretty common thing, particularly in informal online discussions?  See, e.g., here (me responding to a comment by Stemelbow) :

I assume you are okay with the foregoing citations, even though I did not reference their context, or possible translation issues, or their type of literary device, etc.

I am not denying that people can misuse, through decontextualization and other means, passages of scripture.  We are warned against such things in 1 Pet 1:20 ("no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"), 2 Pet 3:14, 16 ("Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace ... {Paul's writing 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"), Alma 13:20 ("Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction"), Alma 41:1 ("And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing"), D&C 10:63 ("And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them"), and so on.

If this has become a systemic issue on this forum, I think we ought to address it.

I'd like to see the discussion to understand the context, but "interpret{ing} scripture correctly" is an important business, and one that may sometimes need to include all available resources, including translation helps, learned commentaries, etc., as well as "the Spirit and the prophets."

Two examples come to mind:

2 Nephi 2:23 ("For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.")

What does "after all we can do" mean in this context?  I think some, perhaps many, Latter-day Saints have construed this passage as meaning, that "grace is offered to us only chronologically after we have completed doing all we can do."  For some, this has resulted in misunderstandings, discouragement and skewed perspectives on our relationship with Jesus Christ.  BOMC has a good rundown:

Also consider this passage from Alma 39:

What is the predicate of "these things" in verse 5?  Is it a straightforward reference to "unchastity" (this seems to be the prevailing view)?  Many General Authorities and church-published materials have, over the years, specifically invoked this passage in the specific context of the Law of Chastity:

Elder Boyd K. Packer, 2006 Ensign: "Alma told his son that the devil had led him away (see Alma 39:11). Unchastity is 'most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost' (Alma 39:5)."

March 2014 New Era: 

February 2002 New Era (Elder Bruce C. Hafen) :

Eternal Marriage Student Manual (quoting Pres. Ezra T. Benson) :

Gospel Principles Manual, Chapter 39 ("The Law of Chastity") :

And on and on.

I think this narrow interpretation has had an unfortunate effect on some, who feel that their sexual sin has rendered them effectively irredeemable. 

But is this interpretation correct?  Might this passage be referring to more than sexual transgression?  From BOMC:

"{I}nterpret{ing} scripture correctly" is an important matter, and one that requires real effort on the part of the individual.

I think there is less emphasis on scriptural commentaries and translations as compared to other Christian groups.

Could you provide a reference?

Not much of an emphasis.  See, e.g., here:

There are some few substantive doctrinal issues that merit a more refined exegesis and explanation by General Authorities (see the above two examples), but I think most doctrinal issues are either of marginal significance, or else have been clarified by modern revelation through living prophets and apostles, or some combination of these.

I think most Christians aren't really doing a lot of in-depth stuff with, as Elder Christofferson noted, "biblical hermeneutics and exegesis."  If and when the Brethren are shown to have "wrested" scriptures, I think we ought to evaluate such things.  I am not persuaded that this is a systemic issue, though.

No worries.  Your questions are reasonable, and you have a deep reservoir of good will on this board.  

I'd like to see examples of these troubling usages.

Thanks,

-Smac

I replied to another post about examples; it probably was not satisfactory or sufficient. If I provide actual examples then I am naming names and I don't want to do that. That would create dissension. I don't want to be the cause of that. As I reflect, I probably just should have asked about hermeneutics in the LDS church without pointing out my concerns. Our Catholic friends do really well at fitting in and I am trying to learn from them.

I appreciate that I have a reservoir of good will, because I often worry about asking questions. I think that is because my observation (again) is that those who ask questions might tend to be seen as making statements in question form to veil what in reality is their criticism. I don't do that. I probably have my own blind spots, but I ask questions when I don't know the answers or don't understand previous answers. I once asked you if you knew that your great grandfather's gravestone here in the colonies had the wrong date on it for his death. I hesitated to do ask that, but your response was warm and appreciative. I appreciated that. Anyway, thanks for your kind and thorough reply. My best wishes.

[Islander]

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, 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?
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.

I argued precisely that same point some months back and you have to read the responses.

 

In short, disdain for the scriptures is on the LDS DNA. Joseph introduced the idea that the Bible was not reliable and it has gone down hill from there. I argued until I turned green (I"m black by te way) that we can't just interpret scripture as we see fit, feel like or believe. God gave a message for a reason to a specific purpose with a specific meaning for THEM who heard it, to comprehend and understand. So the scripture mean what God intended it to mean and that will emain even if I didn't exist. Because if scripture means anything I want and different things to different people than it could mean anything or nothing at all. We then look for a fit between Giod's word and counsel and our current situation given what God had to say in the scripture. but it is not up to me to twist the original/intended/purposeful/clear meaning and decide that it means X based on my own personal/private interpretation.

 

The closest we get to LDS exegesis is "Mormon Doctrine" by B. R McConkie but the text has been disavowed as of late and it is no longer offered by the Church's book stores and it is no longer mentioned. "Seventy's Course on Theology by B.H Roberts is till available at Deseret's.

 

Good luck on changing people's minds n the subject.

On 4/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, 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.

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Islander

[mfbukowski]

On 4/3/2023 at 11:30 AM, Navidad said:

Hi: I try to share the specifics of my beliefs only in answering questions so that folks here don’t believe I am trying to proselytize.

You don't have to worry about that.