Scripture Twisting

[mfbukowski]

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

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

Priesthood keys of a bishop. Same thing.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/1/2023 at 8:12 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.

But of course, you know the correct interpretation.

Cool.  Now you have priesthood keys AND the correct interpretations!  The true church has finally arrived on earth!

[Navidad]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But of course, you know the correct interpretation.

Cool.  Now you have priesthood keys AND the correct interpretations!  The true church has finally arrived on earth!

You forgot the emojis to let me know if you are being serious or not! 😀 Oh and one more thing - I never said my interpretations were correct; I just said I own them - they are indeed mine! íNo más No menos!

[mfbukowski]

On 4/1/2023 at 8:12 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.

That last sentence should have stopped at the word "Spirit".

This forum would not exist if we were all "following the prophets"; we would have no agency if we were all slaves to their words.

Both you and I have the same ability to ask God what the truth is for us, therefore there is no basis for the assumption that a single "untwisted" version even exists.

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited April 6, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

You forgot the emojis to let me know if you are being serious or not! 😀 Oh and one more thing - I never said my interpretations were correct; I just said I own them - they are indeed mine! íNo más No menos!

IF YOUR interpretations are ALSO incorrect you are contributing to the problem, so the whole thread is usless.

No emojis because I am serious.

So where is the logical flaw in my thinking?

Who is "twisting" anything if you are including yourself?

"If something cannot be said clearly, one should pass over it in silence"- Wittgenstein 

https://wiki.c2.com/?LittleWittgensteinQuote

Edited April 5, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Grug the Neanderthal]

On 4/2/2023 at 12:24 AM, Navidad said:

On 4/1/2023 at 12:08 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Give an example.

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.”

Oh come on Navidad, don’t be shy. Please share with us some specific examples of the “scripture twisting" you are referring to when it comes to “gathering,” “the church,” "the gospel,” and "unbelievers.” 

You obviously have some specific examples in mind. Rather than speaking in generalities, please provide some examples so we know what you are talking about. Which scriptures do you believe are being taken out of context and twisted in regards to these topics? 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Benjamin McGuire]

I have been watching this thread, and figured maybe it was time to put in my two cents -

We have a lot of problems with the idea of interpretation. I prefer to use the models produced by narrative theory. Among these problems is the fact that when we talk about the intention of scripture, it isn't simply a matter of what a text means but an issue of what a text means to whom. Authors don't just write what they intend, they write to a specific audience (that can be defined by a lot of things) and audiences understand the intentions of an author in part by creating a mental construct of the author (just as the author created a mental construct of what their audience would be like when they wrote). With this perspective, we are limited in how we can understand a text by the degree to which we can emulate the audience that the author was writing to.

The Book of Mormon deals with this issue in several ways. The most relevant discussions come from Nephi who explains that the only way to make scripture useful to us (as the reader) is to read with the spirit and to liken the scriptures unto ourselves. He illustrates what he means by this in the text. But one of the key discussions occurs when he explains that his descendants couldn't read Isaiah the way that Isaiah intended his writings to be read because they didn't have the context that Isaiah's intended audience would have had:

Quote

I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. … but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about. (2 Nephi 25:6–7)

and:

Quote

Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews. (2 Nephi 25:1)

So how would Nephi prepare his descendants to understand Isaiah? Obviously you would teach them what you know. But Nephi believes that this knowledge didn't help the Jews come to a better knowledge of God, and so he doesn't teach them:

Quote

For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; … But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews. (2 Nephi 25:2, 6)

And instead, Nephi moves ahead with his ideas of likening the scriptures and reading with the spirit.

What does this mean? On one level, it means that Nephi doesn't believe that there is a necessarily correct interpretation for everyone. He believes that the best interpretation for someone is the one that they develop as they read with the Spirit and read in the context of their own experience. Early on, Navidad wrote this:

On 4/1/2023 at 11:12 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.

Nephi provides us with something interesting here too - that the Spirit is far more important than the prophets in this regard - this is from my paper that I linked above:

Quote

 

The narrative unit in which this vision occurs begins with Lehi’s having a dream and sharing it with his family.25 Following that dream, two responses are presented. One is the response of Nephi and the other comes from his brothers Laman and Lemuel. The first is given in this way:

Quote

For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot. And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou? And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw. And the Spirit said unto me: … wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired. (1 Nephi 11:1–6)

Laman’s and Lemuel’s approach is portrayed in this way:

Quote

And it came to pass that I [Nephi] beheld my brethren, and they were disputing one with another concerning the things which my father had spoken unto them. … I spake unto my brethren, desiring to know of them the cause of their disputations. And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive tree, and also concerning the Gentiles. And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us. (1 Nephi 15:2, 6–9)

The two approaches deal with discovering meaning in the vision. In the first potential response to the vision, Nephi goes to the source and asks to receive this vision for himself. Laman and Lemuel on the other hand take a more traditional approach and argue with each other over what the vision that their father had described meant. After the failure of the second approach, a third is offered, with Nephi (who has now seen the vision and can be considered its oracle) explaining it to his brothers. ...

Quote

And they said unto me: What meaneth the river of water which our father saw? And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water. (1 Nephi 15:26–27)

True to the words of the Spirit, Nephi is shown the same thing that his father saw. But, as Nephi tells us with his pervasive language of looking and seeing, the vision is something that is experienced. Lehi missed some details of the vision that Nephi saw because he was paying attention elsewhere. Lehi then (apparently) could not answer Laman and Lemuel’s question about the river. What Nephi does not tell us explicitly is that while his mind was swallowed up looking at the river of filthy water, he inevitably missed some details that his father saw.

On some level, because we are all unique individuals, the revelation of God that comes to us is also unique. The same vision is understood differently here, but it applies to the reading of texts. We all come to the text with a unique set of experiences - and when we liken the text to ourselves, and/or read the text with the Spirit, the text also becomes unique to us. This is true even of the Book of Mormon in translation. There is an interesting comment that Brigham Young made about contexts and the translation of the Book of Mormon in a sermon he gave in 1862:

Quote

When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. … Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.

All of this calls into question the idea of a correct interpretation that is applicable to everyone all the time. And, it is this perspective that creates within Mormonism the resistance to a formal hermeneutic or a systematic theology.

There is another issue that we deal with here. It should be clear from the comments above that I find many different potential meanings to a text. Some of the potential meanings can be understood as having more value or less value. I suggested that the meaning we get when reading with the Spirit is more valuable than other meanings, including those that a modern prophet might provide. Others may feel that this is wrong - that the prophet's interpretation should be given more weight. The fact that we can value the different possible meanings means that we can place them into a hierarchy of sorts. Within other traditions, a great deal of value is put on the intentions of the author (especially when that author is viewed as God). I am not interested in passing judgment on the way that people value the different meanings - other than to make a comment about the idea of twisting scriptures. In my view for this thread, twisting scriptures occurs when we use meanings inconsistently with our hierarchy of values. On the one hand, this occurs when we take one type of interpretation and claim that it is something else - that is, we interpret a text through our own experiences and understanding and then pretend that this interpretation is exactly what the original author intended - and more to the point, that it should be applicable to everyone else. This is a twisting of scripture. It also occurs when we interpret a text specifically to score a point in an argument. When our objective isn't to understand the text but to use it as a blunt instrument in debate, such readings rarely (if ever) align with our hierarchy of values.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/6/2023 at 12:02 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

figured maybe it was time to put in my two cents -

Spelling error.

It is correctly spelled "true sense".

Please do not make this error again.

 

 

😉

[teddyaware]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:01 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Oh come on Navidad, don’t be shy. Please share with us some specific examples of the “scripture twisting" you are referring to when it comes to “gathering,” “the church,” "the gospel,” and "unbelievers.” 

You obviously have some specific examples in mind. Rather than speaking in generalities, please provide some examples so we know what you are talking about. Which scriptures do you believe are being taken out of context and twisted in regards to these topics? 

I find it strange that someone wants to have a discussion in which the participants must first accept as a given the premise that Latter-Day Saints carelessly twist the scriptures to suit their own purposes, but the discussion is supposed to move forward in a meaningful and informative manner without providing specific examples of the claimed scripture twisting because providing examples will only serve to muddy the rhetorical waters. I’m imagining a prosecuting attorney saying, “Your honor, in this case there’s no need for the prosecution to provide specific evidentiary examples of the defendant’s criminality because all a jury member needs to do is look at him to know he’s a crook.”

Edited April 8, 2023 by teddyaware

[Navidad]

On 4/6/2023 at 12:02 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am not interested in passing judgment on the way that people value the different meanings - other than to make a comment about the idea of twisting scriptures. In my view for this thread, twisting scriptures occurs when we use meanings inconsistently with our hierarchy of values. On the one hand, this occurs when we take one type of interpretation and claim that it is something else - that is, we interpret a text through our own experiences and understanding and then pretend that this interpretation is exactly what the original author intended - and more to the point, that it should be applicable to everyone else. This is a twisting of scripture. It also occurs when we interpret a text specifically to score a point in an argument. When our objective isn't to understand the text but to use it as a blunt instrument in debate, such readings rarely (if ever) align with our hierarchy of values.

I agree with you completely. I acknowledge that I do it. . . . I did so in my opening thread. My observation is more about the fact that no one, in response to this thread has agreed that they do it as well, which I interpret is at least a significant part of your point. It seems that my LDS friends want to consider me a "prosecuting attorney" because that is how they look at my comments. When have I ever posted an interpretation of a passage on this forum and had a faithful LDS reply "That might be possible." I don't want my interpretation to be used as a blunt instrument in debate. I would like it to be considered as reasoned as possible. Yet, it seems that any interpretation that might be offered that is not in consonance with an LDS interpretation is already assumed to be incorrect.

That is the essence of scripture twisting - ignoring all aspects of a text that are not in consonance with "approved" interpretation no matter the logic, reasoning, study, or possible accuracy behind a different perspective. Folks here seem to want me to name names so they can assure me I am wrong. The essence of twisting scripture is to say "There is one meaning for this Scripture and it is mine!" It may be argued that the Spirit leads to differing conclusions, but when it gets right down to it, only the LDS have the "correct" one. That is not my viewpoint. Never has been. I think what would be more helpful would be a conversation about how we each arrive at our individual interpretation so that we can honor and respect each other's interpretation without making it wrong.

Sometimes I go to great length to explain how I arrive at my understanding of a text - like I did with the passage on keys and sealing. I spent a lot of time on sharing that. What did I get back? Crickets! The silence led me to believe that my interpretation was not worth considering because the matter is already settled and there can be no other valid interpretation other than that of the LDS church. One more "only." That is the essence of Scripture twisting.

I don't mean to twist your reply. That is what I read into it. Others will read something else and only you will know truly what you meant.

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I find it strange that someone wants to have a discussion in which the participants must first accept as a given the premise that Latter-Day Saints carelessly twist the scriptures to suit their own purposes, but the discussion is supposed to move forward in a meaningful and informative manner without providing specific examples of the claimed scripture twisting because providing examples will only serve to muddy the rhetorical waters. I’m imagining a prosecuting attorney saying, “Your honor, in this case there’s no need for the prosecution to provide specific evidentiary examples of the defendant’s criminality because all a jury member needs to do is look at him to know he’s a crook.”

I find it strange that someone interprets my opening thread as that of a "prosecuting attorney" and that I view you all as defendants and your actions as criminality! Please read my reply to Benjamin. I have said on multiple occasions so far in this thread that I was making an "observation" not an "accusation." Let me offer you another observation. When a non-LDS Christian makes an observation about the something seen in some LDS church members that is less-than sterling, it is often seen as that of a "prosecuting attorney," not as that of an informed observer. It is not about the specific validity of one interpretation about a specific passage, that was not my intent on starting this thread, in fact I deliberately did not mention any one interpretation of one passage or any one's interpretation as the problem because then it devolves into a discussion about that one passage or person. I don't want to debate interpretations about specific passages or people as much as I want to discuss ways to interpret Scripture that involve study and hard work. Hours on a verse.

I acknowledge the frustration of the Sunday school in the ward because we never got into the various meanings of a particular passage. We did a whole book or several books in a Sunday! Why, because all we did was provide an overview of the book, with scant mention of all the possible interpretations of the book and its content. I have taken a year of 52 studies to go through the book of Romans with a congregation. Hebrews took a year. When it was all said and done, I hoped I had explained and we had discussed all the widely- held interpretations of a verse or sometimes even a word or phrase - like "true and living." We met for an hour of worship and then an hour of discussion of the content of the sermon (teaching).

On the other hand, the teacher in our ward was always in a hurry to get through the lesson. No time to study a particular verse because there was no time and we had to stay on schedule! I was told "read the gospel manual" or some church-wide website. I acknowledge my frustration in that. I wanted to know what the LDS perspective was, but it wasn't a two sentence statement of fact written in a manual. It was much more than that. I think you probably see the same in me in my many questions and posts here.

Some here assure me that there are as many different interpretations as the Spirit leads there to be. But then, it seems to always come down to a defense of the "Church interpretation" as the correct one. That confuses me. Perhaps that is what the LDS church does? It teaches its folks that there is only one correct interpretation - that of the Church while at the same time saying "allow the Spirit to lead you" but don't let it lead you too far. My interpretation of the keys and sealing in Mark is too far astray, so let's not talk about it! That is the essence of Scripture twisting. I would do the same thing if I insisted that my interpretation is the only correct one. No prosecuting attorney here. I want to hear all the evidence and then decide. That is why I studied hermeneutics and why I am on this forum. I don't want to decide and then study all the evidence, rejecting all that isn't in consonance with my own. That is the essence of scripture twisting. Thanks.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Navidad

[3DOP]

59 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I find it strange that someone interprets my opening thread as that of a "prosecuting attorney" and that I view you all as defendants and your actions as criminality! Please read my reply to Benjamin. I have said on multiple occasions so far in this thread that I was making an "observation" not an "accusation." Let me offer you another observation. When a non-LDS Christian makes an observation about the something seen in some LDS church members that is less-than sterling, it is often seen as that of a "prosecuting attorney," not as that of an informed observer. It is not about the specific validity of one interpretation about a specific passage, that was not my intent on starting this thread, in fact I deliberately did not mention any one interpretation of one passage or any one's interpretation as the problem because then it devolves into a discussion about that one passage or person. I don't want to debate interpretations about specific passages or people as much as I want to discuss ways to interpret Scripture that involve study and hard work. Hours on a verse.

I acknowledge the frustration of the Sunday school in the ward because we never got into the various meanings of a particular passage. We did a whole book or several books in a Sunday! Why, because all we did was provide an overview of the book, with scant mention of all the possible interpretations of the book and its content. I have taken a year of 52 studies to go through the book of Romans with a congregation. Hebrews took a year. When it was all said and done, I hoped I had explained and we had discussed all the widely- held interpretations of a verse or sometimes even a word or phrase - like "true and living." We met for an hour of worship and then an hour of discussion of the content of the sermon (teaching). on the other hand, the teacher in our ward was always in a hurry to get through the lesson. No time to study a particular verse because there was no time and we had to stay on schedule! I was told "read the gospel manual" or some church-wide website. I acknowledge my frustration in that. I wanted to know what the LDS perspective was, but it wasn't a two sentence statement of fact written in a manual. It was much more than that. I think you probably see the same in me in my many questions and posts here.

Some here assure me that there are as many different interpretations as the Spirit leads there to be. But then, it seems to always come down to a defense of the "Church interpretation" as the correct one. That confuses me. Perhaps that is what the LDS church does? It teaches its folks that there is only one correct interpretation - that of the Church while at the same time saying "allow the Spirit to lead you" but don't let it lead you too far. My interpretation of the keys and sealing in Mark is too far astray, so let's not talk about it! That is the essence of Scripture twisting. I would do the same thing if I insisted that my interpretation is the only correct one. No prosecuting attorney here. I want to hear all the evidence and then decide. That is why I studied hermeneutics and why I am on this forum. I don't want to decide and then study all the evidence, rejecting all that isn't in consonance with my own. That is the essence of scripture twisting. Thanks.

Hi Navidad.

You have done well, in my opinion, in refusing to note particular instances of the question you have raised. 

I have been saying for years here that the Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy.

The problem is resolved, for me, in my belief that my task as a believer in God and the Gospel of His Son, is to identify and obey those disciples who "have the rule over me, as they who must give account." (Heb. 13:17)

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have said on multiple occasions so far in this thread that I was making an "observation" not an "accusation."

You made an accusation that you have recently observed multiple instances of scripture twisting on this board and you obviously have specific examples in mind, which you have even alluded to. But you refuse to point to even a single specific example. 

I get that you don’t want to be confrontational. You want to criticize without offending. It’s like when a southerner says something unkind or critical of someone but then follows it up with “bless your heart." But this approach will not lead to a productive discussion. And leaves everyone to scratch their heads wondering if you are referring to them and whether you even have a legitimate concern or are just taking offense to people using the scriptures to support beliefs you find objectionable. 
 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

....but the discussion is supposed to move forward in a meaningful and informative manner without providing specific examples of the claimed scripture twisting because providing examples will only serve to muddy the rhetorical waters.

...AND cause conflict, which is wrong, because Jesus never got mad or corrected anyone! 🧐 

Turn over those tables of the money changers, but do it nicely with a smile!

But saying WE LDS have twisted scripture itself is perfectly fine, because it does NOT stimulate angry feelings, and is simply a friendly reminder. 😇 

 

Yeah right. 😡

Edited April 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I get that you don’t want to be confrontational. You want to criticize without offending. It’s like when a southerner says something unkind or critical of someone but then follows it up with “bless your heart." But this approach will not lead to a productive discussion. And leaves everyone to scratch their heads wondering if you are referring to them and whether you even have a legitimate concern or are just taking offense to people using the scriptures to support beliefs you find objectionable. 

It must be Easter!

Could be the first time I have EVER agreed with you!  😉

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't want to debate interpretations about specific passages or people as much as I want to discuss ways to interpret Scripture that involve study and hard work. Hours on a verse.

Thanks. None of us do that of course.

Thank you sir for your kind "observations"

[MustardSeed]

I’m glad you’re not naming names. If it creates insecurity, then people can choose to change or not to.  I don’t see need for further drama by giving in to the demand you name names. 

[InCognitus]

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m glad you’re not naming names. If it creates insecurity, then people can choose to change or not to.  I don’t see need for further drama by giving in to the demand you name names. 

Self examination is always good when the offending person(s) are not named.  

Except now @Navidad is going to think I'm comparing him to, well, never mind. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m glad you’re not naming names. If it creates insecurity, then people can choose to change or not to.  I don’t see need for further drama by giving in to the demand you name names. 

I don’t think anyone is feeling insecure because of Navidad's accusation. I certainly don’t. But I do find it rather silly that he would make this accusation, but then refuse to provide even a single example of what he’s talking about. To me this suggests that he doesn’t actually have any clear examples of scripture twisting to point to, but just doesn’t like the way people use scriptures to support views that he finds objectionable. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

You made an accusation that you have recently observed multiple instances of scripture twisting on this board and you obviously have specific examples in mind, which you have even alluded to. But you refuse to point to even a single specific example. 

I get that you don’t want to be confrontational. You want to criticize without offending. It’s like when a southerner says something unkind or critical of someone but then follows it up with “bless your heart." But this approach will not lead to a productive discussion. And leaves everyone to scratch their heads wondering if you are referring to them and whether you even have a legitimate concern or are just taking offense to people using the scriptures to support beliefs you find objectionable. 
 

 

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks. None of us do that of course.

Thank you sir for your kind "observations"

Did you even read my replies to Benjamin and Teddy? Just curious? My interpretation of the first line that I quoted is that you are being sarcastic? Is my interpretation correct? If so, then how about discussing with me the way in which you study a verse for hours prior to arriving at an interpretation of its meaning? No sarcasm there. I really want to know. That is why I started this thread. Perhaps just as important do you disagree that there are instances of those on this forum having misused scriptures, from any of the four scriptures to make or validate their position? Was Ahab a figment of my imagination?

[Navidad]

24 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t think anyone is feeling insecure because of Navidad's accusation. I certainly don’t. But I do find it rather silly that he would make this accusation, but then refuse to provide even a single example of what he’s talking about. To me this suggests that he doesn’t actually have any clear examples of scripture twisting to point to, but just doesn’t like the way people use scriptures to support views that he finds objectionable. 

I find your repeated use of the word "accusation" to be objectionable. I just walked back into the house from the funeral of a dear LDS lady who my wife and I loved very much. My wife and I cried with her family and friends. I am not your critic. I am not your accuser. I am not your enemy. Whenever you do something that I find objectionable. I will tell you.

I'll tell you what, I will come and spend hours with you wherever you live if you want to get to know me better as a person, not as a caricature of your view of those who are not LDS. Send me a private message. I travel speaking a lot. Next time I am in your area, I will certainly buy you a meal. Or, I live within minutes of the Mexican Mormon colonies. You are always welcome here in my home.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

24 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Self examination is always good when the offending person(s) are not named.  

Except now @Navidad is going to think I'm comparing him to, well, never mind. 

Yeh, you are right. I have spent six years in an LDS ward and on this forum. I haven't joined the first, nor quit the second. I must be at worst a Judas and at best a "Brother Other, bless your heart" (to quote the philospher Grug)! Boy do you have me pegged! I honestly don't remember saying that I was offended by anyone on this thread (until my most recent reply to Grug).

What I don't understand is why you (used in the collective) just simply don't want to dialogue about how you interpret the scripture? With what tools, methodologies, and means you do that? Why is that subject so out of bounds for you (since we are talking about things that are offensive)?

[Pyreaux]

I think Grug thinks you might be talking about him. Grug even seems uncomfortable with the possibly he isn't the scripture twister you are talking about. 😁

Edited April 8, 2023 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yeh, you are right. I have spent six years in an LDS ward and on this forum. I haven't joined the first, nor quit the second. I must be at worst a Judas and at best a "Brother Other, bless your heart" (to quote the philospher Grug)! Boy do you have me pegged! I honestly don't remember saying that I was offended by anyone on this thread (until my most recent reply to Grug).
 

I apologize, you took this completely differently than what I was thinking  

You were the one saying there has been scripture twisting.  All of us are saying, "Is it I?"  Since you are the one asking the question then that would put you in the position of Christ in the meme I posted (not Judas!)   But you are free to take your pick  

It is "offending" if there has been scripture twisting, and I didn't mean that in the sense that you personally are offended.

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What I don't understand is why you (used in the collective) just simply don't want to dialogue about how you interpret the scripture? With what tools, methodologies, and means you do that? Why is that subject so out of bounds for you (since we are talking about things that are offensive)?

I think we do use every methodology available to us today, and there are so many resources these days, it's awesome.  What I like is that we can use tags and notes on our Gospel Library apps on our phones, and also on the church website.  It helps me keep track of impressions I get, and articles that I like to link to specific verses, and to cross reference them when relevant to do so.

I also have linked all the references from Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament, and vice versa, to help understand how New Testament writers understood and used Old Testament texts, and to alert me when I'm reading an Old Testament verse that is quoted elsewhere.  It's also helpful to see how the Old Testament (and New Testament) quotes itself.