Scripture Twisting

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I like to listen to Christian talk radio stations when I'm out in my car.  Since moving from Arizona to Utah, I've been listening to AM 820, "Truth Network", and I've found it interesting.  I've heard some really good sermons preached and good biblical discussions on that station.  But I also hear other things that sound like they are going off the rails a bit.  I also find it interesting that there is a big awareness of "Mormonism" for some of the locally based sermons and studies broadcast on that station.  Some of it is overt (like Bill McKeever's "Viewpoint on Mormonism"), and some of it is much more subtle.  

Yesterday as I was running errands I was listening to that station at sometime between noon and 12:30 PM, and there were two men having a Bible discussion on the topic of baptism.  It was a fascinating topic.  I have tried to look up who the two men are that were having the discussion, but the station's program information for that time yesterday doesn't seem to coincide with what I heard.  And I wish I had recorded it because I would like to have their exact words.  So I'm going on memory here. 

Toward the end of their discussion they said they needed to talk about baptism for the dead as it is found in 1 Corinthians 15:29 since it's a topic that comes up a lot in Utah (of course).  I was really disappointed with their discussion of that topic because they used an argument that I've heard many times before (including in books published by critics), but it really fits the "scripture twisting" topic of this thread.  We should never approach scripture with the intent of interpreting it in such a way that it would push back against something we see as heretical.  And that's certainly what these two men seemed to be doing.  We need to let the context speak for itself and think things through logically.

First, they pointed out "This verse (1 Corinthians 15:29) is the only place in the New Testament where baptism for the dead is mentioned" (as if that alone should make us question it).  Then they used what I call the "they" argument:  Paul said, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"  The man explaining the verse on the radio show said that Paul was obviously referring to a non-Christian group because he used the word "they" in the verse.  He continued to explain, Paul didn't say "we baptize for the dead", so baptism for the dead is not a Christian practice.  Paul was referring to a non-Christian group that used ritual washings for the dead and they believed in the resurrection.  So Paul is saying that if those people believe in the resurrection, why don't you?

On the surface this argument may seem satisfactory to some people, but not if you really think about it.  Why would Paul use a false practice by a non-Christian group as a reason to believe in the resurrection?  Where is the logic in that?  First of all, why would a non-Christian belief in a resurrection from the dead be comparable to Christian belief in the resurrection?  Second of all, if that non-Christian group could be wrong about their false practice (i.e. baptism for the dead in this case) then why should we trust their belief in the resurrection?   

Another problem with their interpretation is with their assumption that the word "they" must be referring to a non-Christian group, especially given the fact that Paul uses the word "they" in application to a specific group of Christians just six verses earlier in the same chapter:  "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming". (1 Corinthians 15:23)  

Furthermore, making this a non-Christian practice just doesn't fit the flow of Paul's argument for belief in the resurrection.  Paul asks two questions as compelling reasons to believe in the resurrection, i.e "why do they baptize for the dead if the dead don't rise at all?" (verse 29) and "why stand we in jeopardy every hour"? (verse 30).  This is personal to Paul, and it makes no sense that he would bring a non-Christian group into the argument.

Obviously I approach this verse from a Latter-day Saint point of view, but even if I try to view this verse as objectively as possible, I can't find any way to justify this particular argument used by these two men against the Latter-day Saint interpretation of the verse.  I can only view their approach as scripture twisting, and solely for the purpose of putting down the Latter-day Saint view.

I think I can appreciate where you're coming from here. When somebody, usually a fundamentalist, starts in on Rev. 17 and how it refers to the Catholic Church as Babylon's strumpet, I feel the scripture twisting pretty strongly.

I'm just an amateur who loves and studies the Bible, but I think that 1 Corinthians 15:29 has significant unknowns. I've read respectable commentators who saw the influence of Egyptian belief on this practice. I've also read respectable commentators who believe it was a limited practice amongst some early Christians, with some evidence that those who were seeking baptism, but who died before baptism, had a baptism performed on their behalf.

There is always the issue of a young church figuring out its beliefs and practices, gradually, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Here are a couple of Catholic commentaries on 1 Corinthians 15:29. You might notice that the words and tone allow for the possibility that the persons performing baptisms for the dead were believers in Christ:

Quote

 

This passage continues to baffle interpreters, since neither the form nor the meaning of this practice is familiar to us today. Perhaps living believers were receiving baptism for the sake of deceased persons, hoping its benefits would accrue to them in the afterlife (cf. 2 Mac 12:39–45). Another possibility, suggested by the verses that follow (1 Cor 15:30–34), is that Paul is talking about people who endure a baptism of suffering for the sake of others who are physically or spiritually dead (Mk 10:38; Lk 12:50). Either way, Paul reasons that such baptisms are pointless apart from belief in a future resurrection.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 307.

 

Quote

 

15:29. Verses 23–28 were a type of aside, dealing with Christ as Redeemer. St Paul now returns to the main theme of the chapter. He makes reference to a strange custom which implicitly indicates belief in resurrection. No other source provides information about this custom and therefore it is not possible to say exactly what it involved. Probably some Corinthian Christians baptized their children in the name of Christian relatives in the hope that these relatives might also receive a share in resurrection in Christ. The Apostle is neither approving or condemning this custom; he is simply saying that it demonstrates Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead.

Saint Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians, The Navarre Bible (Dublin; New York: Four Courts Press; Scepter Publishers, 2005), 115.

 

 

 

[InCognitus]

38 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I think I can appreciate where you're coming from here. When somebody, usually a fundamentalist, starts in on Rev. 17 and how it refers to the Catholic Church as Babylon's strumpet, I feel the scripture twisting pretty strongly.

I'm just an amateur who loves and studies the Bible, but I think that 1 Corinthians 15:29 has significant unknowns. I've read respectable commentators who saw the influence of Egyptian belief on this practice. I've also read respectable commentators who believe it was a limited practice amongst some early Christians, with some evidence that those who were seeking baptism, but who died before baptism, had a baptism performed on their behalf.

There is always the issue of a young church figuring out its beliefs and practices, gradually, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Here are a couple of Catholic commentaries on 1 Corinthians 15:29. You might notice that the words and tone allow for the possibility that the persons performing baptisms for the dead were believers in Christ:

Yes, that was part of my frustration with the interpretation put forth by the two men on the radio show. I know that 1 Corinthians 15:29 raises a lot of questions, and most commentaries on the passage don't know exactly what to do with it (it is indeed "baffling" without more information).  But the serious commentaries have better alternative possible explanations than what was provided on the show, and most commentaries will at least allow for the possibility of a practice of proxy baptism (like the two that you quoted).  But of course the two people on the radio show couldn't admit to that, because they were in Utah and for them to give any credibility at all to the Latter-day Saint interpretation would be out of the question    But that's just unscholarly and a flat out bad Bible interpretation, and it sets a bad example for their listeners in my opinion.

It just illustrates the danger of forcing an interpretation upon a passage of scripture just because it goes contrary to how someone of another faith interprets the verse.

Edited April 16, 2023 by InCognitus

[Navidad]

Thanks for the good posts. I think it is important to emphasize, which I think most here would agree with that just because someone interprets a scripture in a way that is different than you would, that doesn't mean or indicate he or she is twisting scripture. I know we have been posting mostly about twisting the Bible. I am curious about how often my LDS friends believe the LDS scriptures get twisted, especially by other  church members. If I interpret D&C 1:30 differently than you 1. do I even have a right in your mind as a non-member to be interpreting it? 2. If I interpret D&C 1:30 differently than how the LDS Church interprets it, am I scripture twisting? Or D&C 132, or ?????  Inquiring minds need to know.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Inquiring minds need to know.

Edit: I apologize for my sarcasm

Edited April 17, 2023 by mfbukowski
I have an anger problem

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am curious about how often my LDS friends believe the LDS scriptures get twisted, especially by other  church members

Edit: I apologize for my sarcasm

 

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

. If I interpret D&C 1:30 differently than you 1. do I even have a right in your mind as a non-member to be interpreting it?

Edit: I apologize for my sarcasm

Edited April 17, 2023 by mfbukowski
I have an anger problem

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

2. If I interpret D&C 1:30 differently than how the LDS Church interprets it, am I scripture twisting? Or D&C 132, or ?????

Edit: I apologize for my sarcasm

Edited April 17, 2023 by mfbukowski
I have an anger problem

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Edit: I apologize for my sarcasm

Well, I never saw your sarcasm. I really was being genuine in my questions. I wish I could convince you to believe that. My questions must have irritated you for you to be sarcastic. I apologize if my questions irritated you. I have wanted to start a new thread today. I hope it doesn't irritate you too. . . . well on second thought, I may just forget it. It isn't that important to risk upsetting you. Best wishes.

[InCognitus]

On 4/16/2023 at 8:19 PM, Navidad said:

I know we have been posting mostly about twisting the Bible. I am curious about how often my LDS friends believe the LDS scriptures get twisted, especially by other  church members.

In my experience, most members of the church approach the scriptures with the mindset of "what can I learn from the scriptures", or "what will God lead me to do through my reading of the scriptures today", and it is not "what can I prove to someone else from the scriptures".  It is the latter approach that might lead to scripture twisting.  And what we can learn from the scriptures, or what will God lead and inspire us to do through the scriptures doesn't really depend on whether we are using proper hermeneutics or not, does it?

On 4/16/2023 at 8:19 PM, Navidad said:

If I interpret D&C 1:30 differently than you

Then, you're wrong  

On 4/16/2023 at 8:19 PM, Navidad said:

1. do I even have a right in your mind as a non-member to be interpreting it?

Sure, why not?  Do you have a right to interpret the Jewish Hebrew scriptures?  Most Christians assume they do.  But we should also try to understand them in the context of its people and history and as the scriptures might be applied when further information is given.

On 4/16/2023 at 8:19 PM, Navidad said:

2. If I interpret D&C 1:30 differently than how the LDS Church interprets it, am I scripture twisting?

As you said in your post, just because someone interprets a verse differently than I do it doesn't mean the other person (or myself) is scripture twisting.  

As for what I think of Doctrine and Covenants section 1, it was given in 1831 at a time when the church was just beginning to come forth upon the earth.  In that section the Lord was speaking in a tentative manner about the potential of his church and what it would become as long as the saints were faithful.  It is in that context that verse 30 says that Joseph Smith "might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased".  At that point in time it had not arrived.  But now it has been realized, it is after the foundation of the church has been laid and it is beginning to fulfill the prophecies spoken about it, things are different now. 

Since the church has now been brought out of obscurity and out of darkness, I don't see any problem with the idea of "declaring" that the church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" now, even though the text of section 1 was tentative.  I don't see that as scripture twisting, as it is a fulfillment of the potential that was wished for in section 1. 

But I think there are some clear examples of scripture twisting available, like the two I mentioned earlier in the thread (the group that uses "rightly dividing the word" as a prooftext for ignoring of all the Bible except for the writings of Paul, and the "they" interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29).  I can think of others, as well.  (Like the group that teaches that the "apostasia" ("falling away") of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the rapture, that's another good example).  

Edited April 18, 2023 by InCognitus

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/16/2023 at 10:19 PM, Navidad said:

If I interpret D&C 1:30 differently than you 1. do I even have a right in your mind as a non-member to be interpreting it? 2. If I interpret D&C 1:30 differently than how the LDS Church interprets it, am I scripture twisting? Or D&C 132, or ?????  Inquiring minds need to know.

Why would you need to interpret LDS scripture?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why would you need to interpret LDS scripture?

Exactly!  And how did WE get accused of twisting OUR own doctine in the first place, because we are ignorant of hermeneutics?

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[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. 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.

Underlining added.

No need for sarcasm. Just correction.

Even Jesus flipped some tables 

Edited April 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly!  And how did WE get accused of twisting in the first place?

I think Navidad is thinking specifically about D&C 1:30, since "the only true and living church" verse was spoken about in the subjunctive case in section 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants.  I think he thinks it's "scripture twisting" to "declare" today that the church is "the only true and living church" when it was stated tentatively in that section.  

But Navidad no doubt will speak for himself and will let me know if I'm Navidad twisting.

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

In my experience, most members of the church approach the scriptures with the mindset of "what can I learn from the scriptures", or "what will God lead me to do through my reading of the scriptures today", and it is not "what can I prove to someone else from the scriptures".  It is the latter approach that might lead to scripture twisting.  And what we can learn from the scriptures, or what will God lead and inspire us to do through the scriptures doesn't really depend on whether we are using proper hermeneutics or not, does it?

Then, you're wrong  

Sure, why not?  Do you have a right to interpret the Jewish Hebrew scriptures?  Most Christians assume they do.  But we should also try to understand them in the context of its people and history and as the scriptures might be applied when further information is given.

As you said in your post, just because someone interprets a verse differently than I do it doesn't mean the other person (or myself) is scripture twisting.  

As for what I think of Doctrine and Covenants section 1, it was given in 1831 at a time when the church was just beginning to come forth upon the earth.  In that section the Lord was speaking in a tentative manner about the potential of his church and what it would become as long as the saints were faithful.  It is in that context that verse 30 says that Joseph Smith "might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased".  At that point in time it had not arrived.  But now it has been realized, it is after the foundation of the church has been laid and it is beginning to fulfill the prophecies spoken about it, things are different now. 

Since the church has now been brought out of obscurity and out of darkness, I don't see any problem with the idea of "declaring" that the church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" now, even though the text of section 1 was tentative.  I don't see that as scripture twisting, as it is a fulfillment of the potential that was wished for in section 1. 

But I think there are some clear examples of scripture twisting available, like the two I mentioned earlier in the thread (the group that uses "rightly dividing the word" as a prooftext for ignoring of all the Bible except for the writings of Paul, and the "they" interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29).  I can think of others, as well.  (Like the group that teaches that the "apostasia" ("falling away") of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the rapture, that's another good example).  

The restored Church of Jesus Christ was officially organized on April 6, 1830. The church that came into existence that day was not some sort of “tentative’ church waiting to be born, but the actual true Church of Jesus Christ. At the very moment the official process of church organization was completed, it already had a prophet and first elder, who constituted a first presidency standing at its head. The church also had the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, which gave the members the power to baptize for the remission sins, admit new members to the rolls of the church, and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The newly formed Church also had the Book of Mormon, and by March of 1831 there were already 49 Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants and the great revelation of the Book of Moses. The church thereafter also met every Sabbath day to administer the emblems of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, enabling the members to renew their baptismal covenants. Missionary work, in fulfillment of the Lord’s great commission, was also already in full swing. The church was also receiving a great continual outpouring of divine revelation to guide its divine destiny forward.To say that this dynamic, heavenly empowered organization was some sort of “tentative” church that was awaiting the day of Lord’s full acknowledgment that it was his one true and living church is off the mark.

President Nelson has oft repeated that the restoration of the Church is still ongoing and there is still much to come and be added before the church will be fully organized according to the fulness of the Lord’s design. Does this mean that the church as it exists today is still in a “tentative” and is still awaiting the Lord’s fully acknowledgment that it is the only true and living church? Of course not! To insist otherwise is somewhat like saying no one can be considered a true Christian until he’s a resurrected and fully exalted king and priest enthroned in the celestial kingdom. And just because the church wasn’t as fully organized in March of 1831 as it is today doesn’t mean it wasn’t organized and empowered enough to rightly be called the one true church of Christ.

The wording of the verse itself belies the suggestion that the Lord wasn’t acknowledging that the church wasn’t already the only true and living church…

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness , the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.

Note how the Lord doesn’t say, “with which I WILL BE well pleased,” Rather, by saying ‘I am’ he is testifying that he’s well pleased in the present. Further clarification comes with the fact that he was, in the present tense, speaking of the church collectively and not necessarily to all the individual members who would be hearing or reading his words for the first time in March of 1831.

Edited April 18, 2023 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think Navidad is thinking specifically about D&C 1:30, since "the only true and living church" verse was spoken about in the subjunctive case in section 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants.  I think he thinks it's "scripture twisting" to "declare" today that the church is "the only true and living church" when it was stated tentatively in that section.  

But Navidad no doubt will speak for himself and will let me know if I'm Navidad twisting.

It IS an interesting way to see it, yes, of course, but ONE interpretation by ONE individual, while many interpretations see similar phraseology clearly stating, contrary to the implied subtlety of 1:30, that other churches are an "abomination" makes one wonder who is twisting what.

I am not happy with our current mass interpretation of 1:30 but it clearly has been seen that way for 200 years.  Joseph was not infallible.

Just the notion that there EXISTS a "correct" interpretation of anything lingusitic denies the whole point of hermeneutics, and smacks of fundamentalism and sola scriptura, to me.

It's not Habermas, or Wittgenstein, I can tell you that

Edited April 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The restored Church of Jesus Christ was officially organized on April 6, 1830. The church that came into existence that day was not some sort of “tentative’ church waiting to be born, but the actual true Church of Jesus Christ. At the very moment the official process of church organization was completed, it already had a prophet and first elder, who constituted a first presidency standing at its head. The church also had the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, which gave the members the power to baptize for the remission sins, admit new members to the rolls of the church, and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The newly formed Church also had the Book of Mormon, and by March of 1831 there were already 49 Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants and the great revelation of the Book of Moses. The church thereafter also met every Sabbath day to administer the emblems of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, enabling the members to renew their baptismal covenants. Missionary work, in fulfillment of the Lord’s great commission, was also already in full swing. The church was also receiving a great continual outpouring of divine revelation to guide its divine destiny forward.To say that this dynamic, heavenly empowered organization was some sort of “tentative” church that was awaiting the day of Lord’s full acknowledgment that it was his one true and living church is off the mark.

President Nelson has oft repeated that the restoration of the Church is still ongoing and there is still much to come and be added before the church will be fully organized according to the fulness of the Lord’s design. Does this mean that the church as it exists today is still in a “tentative” and is still awaiting the Lord’s fully acknowledgment that it is the only true and living church? Of course not! To insist otherwise is somewhat like saying no one can be considered a true Christian until he’s a resurrected and fully exalted king and priest enthroned in the celestial kingdom. And just because the church wasn’t as fully organized in March of 1831 as it is today doesn’t mean it wasn’t organized and empowered enough to rightly be called the one true church of Christ.

The wording of the verse itself belies the suggestion that the Lord wasn’t acknowledging that the church wasn’t already the only true and living church…

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness , the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.

Note how the Lord doesn’t say, “with which I WILL BE well pleased,” Rather, by saying ‘I am’ he is testifying that he’s well pleased in the present. Further clarification comes with the fact that he was, in the present tense, speaking of the church collectively and not necessarily to all the individual members who would be hearing or reading his words for the first time in March of 1831.

I understand what you are saying, and I also agree that the Lord was saying that he was "well pleased" in the present tense.  But the many essentials of the restored church hadn't even occurred at that point.  This revelation was in 1831, and the priesthood keys were not even committed to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple until April, 1836.  Baptism for the dead wasn't restored until 1840.  The endowment wasn't given until 1842.  It was a church in progress in 1831, but also one that was the true and living church.  And as you noted, the restoration is STILL ongoing.  The church is a living body.  

I don't disagree with your point at all, I was simply saying where I think Navidad is coming from on this question.  I don't think the way you portray it above is scripture twisting, but I suspect that Navidad may think it is that way.  (But I also know he has problems with the exclusive claims of the church, so we can't really help him there ).   I'm pretty sure I know which Sunstone presentation Navidad was talking about in his opening post, and the person who gave the presentation used the word "twisting" in his presentation.  I disagree with that view.

[teddyaware]

On 4/18/2023 at 4:07 PM, InCognitus said:

I understand what you are saying, and I also agree that the Lord was saying that he was "well pleased" in the present tense.  But the many essentials of the restored church hadn't even occurred at that point.  This revelation was in 1831, and the priesthood keys were not even committed to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple until April, 1836.  Baptism for the dead wasn't restored until 1840.  The endowment wasn't given until 1842.  It was a church in progress in 1831, but also one that was the true and living church.  And as you noted, the restoration is STILL ongoing.  The church is a living body.  

I don't disagree with your point at all, I was simply saying where I think Navidad is coming from on this question.  I don't think the way you portray it above is scripture twisting, but I suspect that Navidad may think it is that way.  (But I also know he has problems with the exclusive claims of the church, so we can't really help him there ).   I'm pretty sure I know which Sunstone presentation Navidad was talking about in his opening post, and the person who gave the presentation used the word "twisting" in his presentation.  I disagree with that view.

Surprise, surprise, surprise! Who’da thought that one of the presenters at a Sunstone conference would accuse their own (sorta) church of twisting scripture?

[mfbukowski]

On 4/18/2023 at 1:07 PM, InCognitus said:

I'm pretty sure I know which Sunstone presentation Navidad was talking about in his opening post, and the person who gave the presentation used the word "twisting" in his presentation.  I disagree with that view.

So tell us, we look it up, and discuss it, instead of speculating. What's the Great Secret? Navidad's fear of conflict which he only can create?

Nobody else has that monopoly

You can assert anything that no one ever said that way.

It promotes twisting rather than relieving it.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So tell us, we look it up, and discuss it, instead of speculating. What's the Great Secret? Navidad's fear of conflict which he only can create?

Nobody else has that monopoly

You can assert anything that no one ever said that way.

It promotes twisting rather than relieving it.

I wasn't trying to hide anything, I was hoping that Navidad would discuss it further, or put up the presentation.  

It has to be this presentation dated January 1, 2019:  The Only True and Living Church – A Case of Mood Confusion, by Dr. McKay Lyman Platt.

"A subjunctive statement in the Lord’s voice about the “only true and living church” (D&C 1:30) has been widely misunderstood as a statement of fact. Statements made as hopes or possibilities can be misunderstood as declarations. Mood confusion occurs when a statement made in one mood is understood to have been made in another mood and causes us to misunderstand God’s meaning and to misquote God. A basic understanding of the subjunctive mood can prevent us from mistaking an invitation from God for a divine endorsement of our present state before him."

[Hamilton Porter]

On 4/16/2023 at 6:23 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've also read respectable commentators who believe it was a limited practice amongst some early Christians, with some evidence that those who were seeking baptism, but who died before baptism, had a baptism performed on their behalf.

This.

It was for people who've already become Christian but died or were physically unable to receive baptism.

St. Augustine laid down death as the deadline for salvation. It continues on for 500 more years in the Eastern church before they ended it as well.

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I wasn't trying to hide anything, I was hoping that Navidad would discuss it further, or put up the presentation.  

It has to be this presentation dated January 1, 2019:  The Only True and Living Church – A Case of Mood Confusion, by Dr. McKay Lyman Platt.

"A subjunctive statement in the Lord’s voice about the “only true and living church” (D&C 1:30) has been widely misunderstood as a statement of fact. Statements made as hopes or possibilities can be misunderstood as declarations. Mood confusion occurs when a statement made in one mood is understood to have been made in another mood and causes us to misunderstand God’s meaning and to misquote God. A basic understanding of the subjunctive mood can prevent us from mistaking an invitation from God for a divine endorsement of our present state before him."

Thanks very much- obviously it's the "correct" choice.

Sorry the grump came out.

NOW we have something to talk about !

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/2/2023 at 5:05 AM, 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." ...

Hmmm.  I have the first of those two books.  I have not examined it in detail, and, frankly, it has been a while since I looked at it, and, having recently moved, I'm not sure where, exactly, it is in my [too vast] library, but I'm not sure how it could be an example of the phenomenon to which you refer, because to the best of my knowledge [and I'm sure you will be glad to enlighten me where needed enlightenment is lacking] it contains no "quotes from the speeches of church leaders [sic]."

Please provide at least one example where GATWOI quotes at least one "church leader [who] ... ma[kes] reference to or quote[s] passages of scripture as [an] example[ ] of how authorities have interpreted scripture."

Mere "scripture twisting"?  Why should we stop at twisting a scripture [or, for that matter, at twisting a whole fistful of them!] when we can "twist" entire books by claiming that they have content they don't!     By the way, I know you don't spend much time hereabouts.  So consider this an official CFR.*  Under the rules of the forum, you must provide at least one example to support your claim or you must retract it.

_____________

*CFR = "Call For References"

 

[Navidad]

On 5/20/2023 at 7:12 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.  I have the first of those two books.  I have not examined it in detail, and, frankly, it has been a while since I looked at it, and, having recently moved, I'm not sure where, exactly, it is in my [too vast] library, but I'm not sure how it could be an example of the phenomenon to which you refer, because to the best of my knowledge [and I'm sure you will be glad to enlighten me where needed enlightenment is lacking] it contains no "quotes from the speeches of church leaders [sic]."

Please provide at least one example where GATWOI quotes at least one "church leader [who] ... ma[kes] reference to or quote[s] passages of scripture as [an] example[ ] of how authorities have interpreted scripture."

Mere "scripture twisting"?  Why should we stop at twisting a scripture [or, for that matter, at twisting a whole fistful of them!] when we can "twist" entire books by claiming that they have content they don't!     By the way, I know you don't spend much time hereabouts.  So consider this an official CFR.*  Under the rules of the forum, you must provide at least one example to support your claim or you must retract it.

_____________

*CFR = "Call For References"

 

Wow, I always thought it was a "Call For Repentance!" 😃

[Kenngo1969]

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Wow, I always thought it was a "Call For Repentance!" 😃

Well, we all could use those from time to time, I'm sure.  As I tell myself often, "If the glass slipper fits, Princess ..."    For what it's worth, I did manage to locate, pull out, and thumb through GATWOI, and Mr. Thompson is mistaken as to its contents: As near as I can tell, it contains no "quotes from Church leaders" whatsoever.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Kenngo1969