Interpreting Scripture

[HEthePrimate]

Originally Posted by uniderth

The word of God is consistent. Joseph Smith warned that a way to tell if a message is from God or not is if it contradicts a previous revelation.

Have you read the scriptures lately? They are FAR from consistent!

[HEthePrimate]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

Whether you admit it or not, I daresay your aversion to murder is based on a little more than the plain text of the Bible. The same book that tells us clearly not to kill (or "murder", depending on your interpretation of the Hebrew) has as two of its major heroes, Israelite leaders who ordered mass genocide and justified the practice as a commandment from God.

I'm just glad cobbettj has such an aversion to murder. You'd be surprised how many LDS people I've heard say they would kill an innocent person if God commanded them to!

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by HEthePrimate

I'm just glad cobbettj has such an aversion to murder. You'd be surprised how many LDS people I've heard say they would kill an innocent person if God commanded them to!

That's a whole other discussion, isn't it?! Suffice it to say, I don't know that it would be quite fair to say that such LDS people have no aversion to murder. It's just that they baldly assert that their devotion to God trumps that aversion--which is a jarring and frankly troubling thing to hear in a secular society like ours.

[volgadon]

If the spirit asked you to murder a little girl walking down the road. Would you do it? I wouldnt becouse I know that it is wrong according to Gods word. Hence the scriptures hold higher authority then a spirit or heavenly being.

1 Samuel 15:3. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

[HEthePrimate]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

That's a whole other discussion, isn't it?! Suffice it to say, I don't know that it would be quite fair to say that such LDS people have no aversion to murder. It's just that they baldly assert that their devotion to God trumps that aversion--which is a jarring and frankly troubling thing to hear in a secular society like ours.

Well, it's not jarring and troubling only to secular-minded people, but also to people like me who believe in a God who is good, and recognize that sometimes people think God is telling them to do horrible things, but in reality He's not. It's possible that the 9/11 terrorists sincerely believed they were doing God's will, but that doesn't excuse their wicked actions any more than alleged genocidal actions by the ancient Israelites were excusable.

It's important that we not abdicate personal reponsibility by saying we're "just following orders," and also that we come to know the true character of God so we don't go doing all kinds of crazy things in his name.

[Desertknight]

Originally Posted by HEthePrimate

I have heard more than one LDS person criticize the Catholic Church for not translating the Bible into vernacular languages earlier. They accuse the Catholic clergy of centuries past of controlling what the people believe, and teaching them unscriptural doctrines, by keeping the people from reading the scriptures themselves, and offering only their "official" ecclesiastical interpretation of the scriptures. They talk about how important it is for people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language. To me, that implies allowing people to interpret the scriptures for themselves, and removing a barrier or layer of mediation between the ordinary person and God. It seems to me that the reason for translating the scriptures into the vernacular is so everybody can read them and see for themselves what they say, and have a more personal relationship with the scriptures and with God, rather than relying entirely on the mediation of a priestly caste.

1. That the Catholic Church did not allow, translations of the Bible into vernacular languages earlier, is a myth. One of those many popular myths of many non-Catholics that has no basis in fact....but will never die. The Church has never had a single official translation, but has endorsed and used many in numerous languages. In the West however, Latin is the language of the Church and so most translations were. In the East, Greek is more the standard and still the oldest translation of the whole bible that is still in use, the Septuagint. It has always allowed for translations into the vernacular but you need to keep in mind, until the invention of the printing press, books were extremely rare and of course, until the advent of universal education, the overwhelming majority of people in the West, could not read.

The Bible was printed in translations used by the Catholic Church, in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Armenian, Slav, Arabic, etc., etc., all long before the reformation. Even in the West, there were numerous translations in the vernacular. Remember the famed Gutenberg printing press that finally allowed books for all? The Gutenberg Bible in German? It was Catholic. Printed almost three decades before Martin Luther was even born. Where the truth lay that the "urban legend" gets wrong, is that the Church certainly did ban unauthorised versions of the Bible in Catholic jurisdictions.

2. Your main point though is one of authority. What is true is the heart of the difference between Catholics and Protestants. The central core issue which the "Reformation" was based on was sola scriptura, i.e., that each individual is their own authority in what the Bible says, and therefore, what is truth. The Catholic Church says that the magisterium (teaching authority) authority of the Church is the only legitimate authority for Christians in matters of faith & morals.

3. What I am curious about is what seems to be your assertion that the LDS church is more on the Protestant side of that divide. Are Mormons free to interpret scripture as they wish and remain members of the church in good standing?

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by HEthePrimate

Well, it's not jarring and troubling only to secular-minded people, but also to people like me who believe in a God who is good, and recognize that sometimes people think God is telling them to do horrible things, but in reality He's not.

I agree with you insofar as people often ascribe their actions to divine injunction even when no such injunction has in fact been given.

It's important that we not abdicate personal reponsibility by saying we're "just following orders," and also that we come to know the true character of God so we don't go doing all kinds of crazy things in his name.

I agree. On the other hand, we shouldn't dupe ourselves into believing that God will always think like we do, or that His moral code substantially aligns itself with the prevailing morality of twenty-first century Western culture.

God is bigger than that, and the parts of scripture that rub us the wrong way deserve more than a scoff and a glib "Godwouldneverreallyactthatway".

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

God is bigger than that, and the parts of scripture that rub us the wrong way deserve more than a scoff and a glib "Godwouldneverreallyactthatway".

The problem is that those who accuse "the Old Testament God" of "murder" and other such absurdities will never concede this most obvious point. Like the rest of us, they believe that God is perfectly just; unlike the rest of us, they wilfully cling to the stupidity that teaches that perfect justice is exactly what 21st-century Western society says it is.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by cobbettj

If only the prophet can determine the interpretation of Scripture that teaches us how to discern a false prophet, then how could I ever know that he is a true or false prophet?

Does not "the discerning of spirits" come in to play when a prophet is sustained? I'm no expert on LDS theology and governance, but I understand that when new leadership is approved part of the process is for members to sustain them. If the prophet is sustained, does that not mean that he is supposed to be a true prophet?

Of course any revelation which is contrary to Gods word is not from the Holy Spirit. Paul said that we can trust the gospel over an angel from heaven (Galatians 1:8). The scriptures hold authority over any heavenly being.

If the spirit asked you to murder a little girl walking down the road. Would you do it? I wouldnt becouse I know that it is wrong according to Gods word. Hence the scriptures hold higher authority then a spirit or heavenly being.

I have been told here in the past that current revelation explains previous revelation, and that God's living prophets offer God's latest words and latest explanations of previous revelation. If so, I would think the only definitive way to say that a modern prophet has uttered false prophesy would be through a widespread "discerning of spirits" that the sustained prophet is no longer sustained, and has been seduced by false spirits. I'm guessing this has never happened. On the other hand, what has happened is that modern prophets have discerned that previous revelations have lived out their purpose and were no longer binding on members.

Any LDS posters please correct or better explain what I said above, since it's all based on what I've heard here.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Does not "the discerning of spirits" come in to play when a prophet is sustained? I'm no expert on LDS theology and governance, but I understand that when new leadership is approved part of the process is for members to sustain them. If the prophet is sustained, does that not mean that he is supposed to be a true prophet?

Yes. When a Mormon raises his/her hand to sustain the prophet as such, hopefully they've gotten an individual spiritual confirmation that the prophet really is what he presents himself to be.

And yes, by implication, Mormonism teaches that the prophet enjoys all of the spiritual gifts spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 (specifically, I think the teaching is that a bishop is entitled by his office to use all of these gifts; so it seems logical that someone higher up in the hierarchy would as well).

I have been told here in the past that current revelation explains previous revelation, and that God's living prophets offer God's latest words and latest explanations of previous revelation. If so, I would think the only definitive way to say that a modern prophet has uttered false prophesy would be through a widespread "discerning of spirits" that the sustained prophet is no longer sustained, and has been seduced by false spirits. I'm guessing this has never happened. On the other hand, what has happened is that modern prophets have discerned that previous revelations have lived out their purpose and were no longer binding on members.

I think that's fair to say. From an organizational standpoint, theoretically the Quorum of the 12 has equal authority to the First Presidency. So to overrule a current prophet, theoretically you'd have to have at least seven of the 12 in disagreement with the prophet and even that wouldn't be definitive.

The Quorum has never openly moved against the First Presidency in the Church's history; at least not that I'm aware of. The ongoing dynamic between the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 over the Church's history is an interesting one, and one that generally has played out behind closed doors. I think D. Michael Quinn's Extensions of Power clearly has an axe to grind, but it's nevertheless fascinating reading.