Church news reiterates immigration stance

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Senator said:

I agree

Clever....tricky, maybe?

Not really inclined to try to split a hair that allows me to impute malignant behavior to God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really inclined to try to split a hair that allows me to impute malignant behavior to God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ahh,  you assumed a definition of those words that would have me indicting God.  When I reality I meant, Intelligent, Skillful, wise.  See how that works?

Look, I'm not trying to indict God. For God is God and who can accuse him?  My thought exercise was more to the weakness and fallibility of scripture.

And quite off topic.....sorry

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

• Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
• Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"
• Hebrews 6:18: "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:"
• 1 Samuel 15:29: "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent."
• Enos 1:6: "And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away."
• Ether 3:12: "I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie."
• 2 Nephi 9:34: "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell."
• D&C 82:10: "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."

This is a matter of perspective and interpretation.  If you want to accuse God of lying, that is certainly your prerogative.  I do not believe it.  What you are imputing to God may be in line with your perspective, but it is foreign to the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not imputing anything. I’m just reading the words in the page. God openly admits to deception in D&C 19. And Genesis 1-3 in the Garden of Eden God explicitly lies to Adam and Eve about the consequences of eating the fruit. If I tell you I don’t lie, and then my friends tell you I don’t lie, and then I lie to you, I’m still a liar. 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am not imputing anything.

You just presented an analogy comparing God to someone saying "improve yourself or I'll torture you for eternity," and then lying about it.

When I said "God does not lie," you said "Except when he does."

"Impute" = "to attribute or ascribe (something discreditable), as to a person."

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m just reading the words in the page. God openly admits to deception in D&C 19.

He does not.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And Genesis 1-3 in the Garden of Eden God explicitly lies to Adam and Eve about the consequences of eating the fruit.

He does not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Senator said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

 

Quote

“Do this or I’ll leave” is not manipulation from a spouse. Unless the spouse is not being honest. 

Again, I reject the premise.  God is not dishonest.

 

I agree

Clever....tricky, maybe?

 

Not really inclined to try to split a hair that allows me to impute malignant behavior to God.

Ahh,  you assumed a definition of those words that would have me indicting God. 

Well, that is what @SeekingUnderstanding was doing.  And substituting "dishonest" with "tricky" still seems like an imputation of malignant behavior onto God.

41 minutes ago, Senator said:

When I reality I meant, Intelligent, Skillful, wise.  See how that works?

So by "tricky" (as in "given to or characterized by deceitful tricks; crafty; wily") you meant "intelligent, skillful, wise"?

I'll take your word for it, but that's now how it came across.

41 minutes ago, Senator said:

Look, I'm not trying to indict God. For God is God and who can accuse him? 

@SeekingUnderstanding can.  Plenty of people do.

41 minutes ago, Senator said:

My thought exercise was more to the weakness and fallibility of scripture.

As an attorney, I read a lot.  A lot.  When I read a contract or a statute, the first order "rule of construction" is to construe - to interpret - words according to their plain and ordinary meaning.  So when you suggested that God is "tricky," I construed it according to its normative definition and usage, which has pretty solid negative connotations.  I am glad you cleared things up.

41 minutes ago, Senator said:

And quite off topic.....sorry

No worries.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When I read a contract or a statute, the first order "rule of construction" is to construe - to interpret - words according to their plain and ordinary meaning

“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Lie. The only way to read it otherwise is decide ahead of time that God doesn’t lie, and then interpret the words away from their very plain and ordinary meanings. 

[Senator]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll take your word for it, but that's now how it came across.

 

he he, yeesss

I'm just not keen on the idea of God/scripture using word play on us.   I  have PTSD from the last infamous guy that made us doubt what the meaning of is, is .

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

When I read a contract or a statute, the first order "rule of construction" is to construe - to interpret - words according to their plain and ordinary meaning

“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Lie.

Well, that's a matter of interpretation of "in the day" and "you shall die."

Th Church posits that Adam and Eve experienced spiritual separation (spiritual death) from God immediately upon eating the fruit, and that physical death began at that time.

The phrase "in the day that you eat of it" (בְּיוֹם, b’yom) can, it seems, mean "when" rather than a strict 24-hour period. In other words, death (both spiritual and eventual physical) was the consequence of their eating the fruit.

You are, of course, at liberty to both believe that God lied, and to publicly accuse Him of that.  I respectfully disagree.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The only way to read it otherwise is decide ahead of time that God doesn’t lie, and then interpret the words away from their very plain and ordinary meanings. 

Well, no.  Reading scripture translated from a different language and written thousands of years ago, will often involve something more that merely appealing to "very plain and ordinary meanings."

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”  (Luke 2:1.)  Do you believe Caesar was taxing the inhabitants of South America?  The Japanese Archipelago?  The aborigines in what is today Australia?  Is "all the world" necessarily to be literally and unequivocally construed in its "very plain and ordinary meaning"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The phrase "in the day that you eat of it" (בְּיוֹם, b’yom) can, it seems, mean "when" rather than a strict 24-hour period. In other words, death (both spiritual and eventual physical) was the consequence of their eating the fruit.

By apologists trying to make God not lie. 

 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you believe Caesar was taxing the inhabitants of South America?

Simply we should try to understand the plain language according to our best understanding of how the author sees the world. Not how we see it. The author of Genesis 2 didn’t seem to have the same hang up as later generations when it came to deception from deity. The idea of a God that cannot lie came later and is a belief that you superimpose on the text. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

The phrase "in the day that you eat of it" (בְּיוֹם, b’yom) can, it seems, mean "when" rather than a strict 24-hour period. In other words, death (both spiritual and eventual physical) was the consequence of their eating the fruit.

By apologists trying to make God not lie. 

Again, a matter of interpretation.  You are set on accusing God of lying.  You have that right.  I respectfully reject the accusation.  It is anathema to everything the Church teaches about the character of our Heavenly Father.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Do you believe Caesar was taxing the inhabitants of South America?

Simply we should try to understand the plain language according to our best understanding of how the author sees the world. Not how we see it. The author of Genesis 2 didn’t seem to have the same hang up as later generations when it came to deception from deity. The idea of a God that cannot lie came later and is a belief that you superimpose on the text. 

I don't read the Bible in a vacuum.  The scriptures, in their totality, cannot be construed as characterizing God the way you do here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The scriptures, in their totality

Sure, but that requires bringing your modern framework and imposing it on to the text with the understanding that the text cannot contradict the dogma that you bring to it. If we go in with the presupposition that God does not lie, we can twist any scenario to make it so. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure, but that requires bringing your modern framework and imposing it on to the text with the understanding that the text cannot contradict the dogma that you bring to it. If we go in with the presupposition that God does not lie, we can twist any scenario to make it so. 

With the time you spent in the Lord's Church, you should know that we are not a scriptural literalists. So your straw man doesn't work.

How do you know that our "modern framework" isn't exactly what the original writers intended, and modern scriptural literalism that our enemies insist we must adopt isn't the issue?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How do you know that our "modern framework" isn't exactly what the original writers intended

Because it’s probably something they were incapable of imagining…. 

(This depends on what you mean by “modern framework”)

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How do you know that our "modern framework" isn't exactly what the original writers intended, and modern scriptural literalism that our enemies insist we must adopt isn't the issue?

How do you know that they didn’t mean the exact opposite of what they said and we have gotten everything completely wrong?

In a beginning God destroyed the heavens and the earth. Everything after that is a hallucination. The end.

Edited February 21, 2025 by The Nehor

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

How do you know that they didn’t mean the exact opposite of what they said and we have gotten everything completely wrong?

In a beginning God destroyed the heavens and the earth. Everything after that is a hallucination. The end.

Because we have modern prophets called of God to declare the truth.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

With the time you spent in the Lord's Church, you should know that we are not a scriptural literalists. So your straw man doesn't work.

Well that's hard to nail down, but certainly in my experience Latter-day Saints believe in univocality of scripture at least as much as their peers. Look at SMAC's here 

He uses scripture from different authors in various places to show that author in Genesis can't mean that God is lying

12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How do you know that our "modern framework" isn't exactly what the original writers intended, and modern scriptural literalism that our enemies insist we must adopt isn't the issue?

Anything is possible I suppose. A great counter-example though from your tradition is the priesthood ban and the cursing of the lamanites in the book of Mormon. Per the modern church, Brigham's Young's views were greatly influenced by his culture. This led to interpreting scripture to support his views instead of the other way around.  Indeed per this lengthy thread here, the cultural views of the day were imposed on the Book of Mormon, resulting in a legacy of teachings that the Lamanites were cursed with extra melanin and at some point in the future this cursing will be reversed. These views are now apparently rejected. After all, race is a very modern concept that didn't exist in antiquity.

Edited February 21, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Senator]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Because we have modern prophets called of God to declare the truth.

At least they are honestly trying to.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

With the time you spent in the Lord's Church, you should know that we are not a scriptural literalists. So your straw man doesn't work.

Well that's hard to nail down, but certainly in my experience Latter-day Saints believe in univocality of scripture at least as much as their peers. Look at SMAC's here 

He uses scripture from different authors in various places to show that author in Genesis can't mean that God is lying

Well, no.  

First, here I specifically argued against what you are doing, which is insisting on "scriptural literalism":

Quote

Well, that's a matter of interpretation of "in the day" and "you shall die."

Th Church posits that Adam and Eve experienced spiritual separation (spiritual death) from God immediately upon eating the fruit, and that physical death began at that time.

The phrase "in the day that you eat of it" (בְּיוֹם, b’yom) can, it seems, mean "when" rather than a strict 24-hour period. In other words, death (both spiritual and eventual physical) was the consequence of their eating the fruit.

You are, of course, at liberty to both believe that God lied, and to publicly accuse Him of that.  I respectfully disagree.
...

Well, no.  Reading scripture translated from a different language and written thousands of years ago, will often involve something more that merely appealing to "very plain and ordinary meanings."

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”  (Luke 2:1.)  Do you believe Caesar was taxing the inhabitants of South America?  The Japanese Archipelago?  The aborigines in what is today Australia?  Is "all the world" necessarily to be literally and unequivocally construed in its "very plain and ordinary meaning"?

Second, here, I state: "I don't read the Bible in a vacuum.  The scriptures, in their totality, cannot be construed as characterizing God the way you do here."  Please note the "in their totality" bit.  You are prooftexting, that is, "using quotations from a document, either for the purpose of exegesis, or to establish a proposition in eisegesis (introducing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases)."  I am not prooftexting, hence the appeal to multiple other parts of the Bible and other scriptures available to the Latter-day Saints.

Third, I suspect you are attempting to rely on Dan McClellan in your argument, as he spends a lot of time critiquing "univocality," which you reference.  I have previously commented on this in the Latter-day Saint paradigm here:

Quote

Quote

For some reason, he thinks that members of the Church all believe in the univocality of the Bible, something I have never really seen in my life time. 

Yes, that was odd.  Also strange was his claim that the Latter-day Saints base their assessment of the Bible's univocality on the incorporation of JST footnotes into the Church's edition of the KJV.  If anything, I think the JST excerpts make Latter-day Saints less inclined toward univocality, and more inclined toward accommodating a lack of it because, per AoF 1:8: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." 

I also think that some (many? most?) Latter-day Saints might view the concept of "univocality" as an outgrowth of Protestant notions of biblical inerrancy, which notions are incompatible with the 8th Article of Faith.

I also suspect that most Latter-day Saints haven't given much thought to the concept of "univocality," or even haven't even heard of it.  I can locate only a very few references to it in LDS literature (much of it from Dan). 

If, as you say, "Latter-day Saints believe in univocality of scripture at least as much as their peers," I would expect to see it discussed and referenced in Latter-day Saint literature.  And yet as noted above, "I can locate only a very few references to it {univocality in scripture} in LDS literature (much of it from Dan {McClellan}."

Fourth, I think disparate authors writing in disparate sociocultural milieus in different places and in different times and in different languages, are going to have some variation in how they perceive important concepts and communicate them.  Hence the unreasonableness of biblical inerrancy, stringent biblical "univocality," and so on.

Fifth, I believe, as a generalization, that the human authors in scripture were writing under the inspiration of God.  There are exceptions ("Song of Solomon" is not seen by the Church as inspired scripture), and gradations (The Book of Mormon arguably contains elements of ethnocentrism).  However, this does not create a problem for the Latter-day Saints because we are not inerrantists, and instead have a "built-in" assumption that errors can and do exist in scriptural texts:

Quote

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

See also here.

Sixth, owing to the possibility that some "mistakes" can and do exist in the scriptural text, and also that we as individuals and communities can err in our understanding and interpretation and application of the scriptural text, the Latter-day Saints are fortunate to have both an expanded and open canon (The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) and living prophets and apostles to provide ongoing counsel, clarifications, course corrections, etc.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Anything is possible I suppose. A great counter-example though from your tradition is the priesthood ban and the cursing of the lamanites in the book of Mormon. Per the modern church, Brigham's Young's views were greatly influenced by his culture.

Yes.  Just as your views are greatly influenced by your culture.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This led to interpreting scripture to support his views instead of the other way around.  

Yes.  Just as your interpreting scripture to support your accusation that God lies.

Your "Hey, I'm just reading the text as it was written, but you guys are reading it with a bias and slant" schtick doesn't really work.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed per this lengthy thread here, the cultural views of the day were imposed on the Book of Mormon, resulting in a legacy of teachings that the Lamanites were cursed with extra melanin and at some point in the future this cursing will be reversed. These views are now apparently rejected. After all, race is a very modern concept that didn't exist in antiquity.

See also:

Scripture Central: What Does it Mean to be a White and Delightsome People?

Mormonr.org: Racism in the Book of Mormon

FAIR: The Charge of “Racism” in the Book of Mormon

I am grateful to be part of a community that can and does recognize errors in our understanding of things, and that we can and do incorporate course corrections as necessary to address such errors, and that we do so under the ongoing guidance of living prophets and apostles.

I have long appreciated this summary from Joseph Smith:

Quote

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1938], 121).

The Latter-day Saint prophets and apostles have, individually and in some few instances collectively, erred in their understanding of some aspects of scriptural interpretation and applications, in their personal behaviors, and so on.  C'est law vie, as we all do the same thing.  However, the prophets and apostles are still vital guides.  As "special witnesses" of Jesus Christ, they have not erred in testifying of the foregoing "fundamental principles." 

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  

First, here I specifically argued against what you are doing, which is insisting on "scriptural literalism":

Quote

Well, that's a matter of interpretation of "in the day" and "you shall die."

 

And what interpretation did you explicitly reject? The plain reading of the text. That God could lie to serve Their inscrutable purposes. Why did you reject that? Nothing from the author of genesis dictates God cannot lie. That’s a view you brought with you from other authors of the Bible. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And what interpretation did you explicitly reject? The plain reading of the text. That God could lie to serve Their inscrutable purposes. Why did you reject that? Nothing from the author of genesis dictates God cannot lie. That’s a view you brought with you from other authors of the Bible. 

With English there is no such thing as a "plain" reading of a text.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

With English there is no such thing as a "plain" reading of a text.

 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And what interpretation did you explicitly reject? The plain reading of the text.

Well, no.

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That God could lie to serve Their inscrutable purposes.

Nope.  That is your interpretation, and one I do not share.

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why did you reject that?

Because your interpretation is more eisegetical than exegetical, because it masquerades as - in your words - a "plain reading of the text," because it is a hostile and strained and tendentious and decontextualized and isolated reading of the text.  Your interpretation of (or, in Dan McClellan's parlance, your "negotiation with") the text is pretty clearly intended to provoke and offend, not clarify or explain.  I suspect you yourself don't even believe what you are attempting to advance.

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nothing from the author of genesis dictates God cannot lie.

"Nothing from the author of Genesis..."  Rather clunky, that.  

I think Genesis presupposes God's perfection, such that explicitly saying "God cannot lie" would be axiomatic, like declaring that water is wet or circles are round.  

That said, Genesis 18:25 states: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"  From this rhetorical question (attributed to Abraham), I infer that God is perfectly just and cannot act deceitfully.

And then there are the passages outside of Genesis, which I previously noted here, and which you are notably not addressing.

These matters, of course, cannot be forced on you.  If you believe that God exists and that he is a liar, then you certainly have that right.  But to paint your isolated and strained and tendentious interpretation of one line from one chapter from one book from one part of the scriptural canon as "plainly" and "explicitly" depicting God as a liar is unreasonable.  You're just trying to provoke and offend here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 21, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If, as you say, "Latter-day Saints believe in univocality of scripture at least as much as their peers," I would expect to see it discussed and referenced in Latter-day Saint literature.  And yet as noted above, "I can locate only a very few references to it {univocality in scripture} in LDS literature (much of it from Dan {McClellan}."

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And then there are the passages outside of Genesis, which I previously noted here, and which you are notably not addressing.

Pick a side on univocality.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Pick a side on univocality.

Again:

Quote

Also strange was his claim that the Latter-day Saints base their assessment of the Bible's univocality on the incorporation of JST footnotes into the Church's edition of the KJV.  If anything, I think the JST excerpts make Latter-day Saints less inclined toward univocality, and more inclined toward accommodating a lack of it because, per AoF 1:8: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." 

I also think that some (many? most?) Latter-day Saints might view the concept of "univocality" as an outgrowth of Protestant notions of biblical inerrancy, which notions are incompatible with the 8th Article of Faith.

I also suspect that most Latter-day Saints haven't given much thought to the concept of "univocality," or haven't even heard of it.  I can locate only a very few references to it in LDS literature (much of it from Dan). 

If univocality is an outgrowth or response to biblical inerrancy, then applying it to the Latter-day Saint paradigm is akin to trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.  It just doesn't fit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 21, 2025 by smac97

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Well, it sure is a good thing we have Dan around to correct Jewish and Christian scholars and the Lord's prophets.

Whew! The ark feels much more steady now.

Edited February 21, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving