[Maxel]

This seems to be descending into a mud-flinging contest...

It would be more fair if we all admitted that we do not (indeed, cannot) read the Bible solely in a sense of 'strict interpretation', as the very idea of interpretation is to use one's prior knowledge and assumptions to process new data and reach an outcome based on said data. I've come to the conclusion that traditional Christians base their prior knowledge and assumptions in traditional Christianity (which is in turn based on the Creeds), and Mormons base their prior knowledge and assumptions in the ideas of continuing revelation and living Priesthood authority. The idea of a 'strict interpretation' is somewhat perplexing; one can strictly adhere to a previous interpretation, or one can strictly adhere to an interpretation of a certain type (literal, metaphorical, etc.), but one cannot have just a 'strict interpretation' of anything.

Until such (or similar) grounds are reached, any discussion about what the Bible 'really' teaches will be one giant exercise in talking past each other, which inevitably ends in a contentious war of words.

So, I ask you LittleNipper, where do you get your prior assumptions from? Do you hold to the traditional Creeds, another philosophy, do you attempt to reinterpret the Bible according to your own knowledge and power, or do you draw prior assumptions and knowledge from another source?

Out of fairness, I ask you the same thing, Islander, although I think I already know the answer; we're both Mormon after all and we seem to agree that our prior assumptions come from the established doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which includes continuing revelation, etc. I don't pretend to speak for you, however, and open the floor to you and LittleNipper.