Differing interpretations of Bible teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter teancum79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Its a lot of bother to go track someone down and make them change their book. And without proof how to make them do it. Now it is likely that many people had views that today would be called raciest. As would most people who fought to free the slaves. The time when a statement is made is very vital. That black people would someday run for president was probably not thought of by Lincon or many early civil rights activities. So finding views that today would be seen as bad and segregationist back 150+ years would have been the rebels leading the charge to help the slaves.
Not untrue, but when one speaks with the authority of God’s prophet, ones words become more critical, and more critically studied. God never hated black people. The same cannot be said for Mister Young et al.
Way back when in the D&C there is a bit about obeying the law which we take fairly seriously. Having a practice made illegal was a factor in the decision of plural marriage. As far as the Priesthood I’ve not read anything from inside the church to support a connection to the civiel rights movement. For a group that was way ahead on tobacco being bad to get get years behind on civil rights does not add up for me.

Bible prophets did change things at times. Some practiced plural marriage. Joshua commanded the slaughter of entire cites after Moses said “thou shalt not kill”. These changes like many other though are consistent to some basic ideas. When king Saul came back from a war where he was told to kill everything and he saved a bunch he was told that obedience is better than sacrifice.
If God says to do things different than he said before that’s his call to make. My parent used to tell me to not play with matches. Latter at specific times I was told to start a fire and at other to put one out. I was always obeying the rules. Sometimes a specific action different from the norm must be taken.
AH, but the word for Kill that Moses used was best translated as commit cold blooded murder outside of war.

I agree about the tobacco/civil rights issue. IT does seem strange

Anyway, how about this assertion: So, where we are is that LDS Prophets can change things, even though Biblical ones never did, including Jesus who was more than a prophet, you have to trust the Holy Spirit that is enough, and that as time goes on, the doctrines can change.
 
Not untrue, but when one speaks with the authority of God’s prophet, ones words become more critical, and more critically studied. God never hated black people. The same cannot be said for Mister Young et al.

AH, but the word for Kill that Moses used was best translated as commit cold blooded murder outside of war.

I agree about the tobacco/civil rights issue. IT does seem strange

Anyway, how about this assertion: So, where we are is that LDS Prophets can change things, even though Biblical ones never did, including Jesus who was more than a prophet, you have to trust the Holy Spirit that is enough, and that as time goes on, the doctrines can change.
Its a bit of perspective. I see tons of small changes throughout the Bible. The same in modern times. We do rely on the Holy Spirit a great deal to help us know what is right. When ever there is a change in church policy or leadership many members head home get on their knees and pray to know if what they have been told is right.

I’ve not see anything to support that Brigham Young hated people of any race. By todays standards he would not be the most enlightened guy ,but Joshua would be a war criminal. Odds are BY never knew a whole lot of black people in a positive way that would open the door to be chummy.
 
Its a bit of perspective. I see tons of small changes throughout the Bible. The same in modern times. We do rely on the Holy Spirit a great deal to help us know what is right. When ever there is a change in church policy or leadership many members head home get on their knees and pray to know if what they have been told is right.

I’ve not see anything to support that Brigham Young hated people of any race. By todays standards he would not be the most enlightened guy ,but Joshua would be a war criminal. Odds are BY never knew a whole lot of black people in a positive way that would open the door to be chummy.
I am not discussing chummy. That would have been inconceivable, to a large degree impossible. It would not be unheard of for a minister of God not to call those with dark skin “black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” Even if he was just reflecting the times, which to some degree he was, why did he ban blacks from the priesthood and why did it last until 1978? That is the question that we must ask ourselvs. But for now, let us set aside the racist issue.

One point only. Would you agree that the LDS position is that there is continual revelation. Some of this may counter that which was revealed before.
 
I am not discussing chummy. That would have been inconceivable, to a large degree impossible. It would not be unheard of for a minister of God not to call those with dark skin “black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” Even if he was just reflecting the times, which to some degree he was, why did he ban blacks from the priesthood and why did it last until 1978? That is the question that we must ask ourselvs. But for now, let us set aside the racist issue.

One point only. Would you agree that the LDS position is that there is continual revelation. Some of this may counter that which was revealed before.
To have different instructions for time to time is common. Think about taking a long journey sometimes your directions will say turn right an other times turn left, but different directions does not equal contradictions.

There is contentious revelation in the LDS faith. There is a senior prophet and apostle and his councilors and a quorum of 12.
 
To have different instructions for time to time is common. Think about taking a long journey sometimes your directions will say turn right an other times turn left, but different directions does not equal contradictions.

There is contentious revelation in the LDS faith. There is a senior prophet and apostle and his councilors and a quorum of 12.
OK. NOw I have a frame of reference for you. Naturally, Catholics do not agree with continual public revalation. When the last apostle died, so did all public revelation.

Would it be conceivable that one day a prophet may say that homosexual marrage is allowed in an LDS temple?
 
OK. NOw I have a frame of reference for you. Naturally, Catholics do not agree with continual public revalation. When the last apostle died, so did all public revelation.

Would it be conceivable that one day a prophet may say that homosexual marrage is allowed in an LDS temple?
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

(I added the underlines.)

In theory a large change like that could happen, but given the very clear teaching here (not to mention the bible) I think the odds of it happening are right up there with pigs getting the priesthood.

The church’s position here is quite clear and there are vital doctrine relating to the family that are not changing. Now could some church politics relating to how they help people with same gender attraction change sure. I’d not be too supposed to see church leaders remind the members to not head the saviors advise to let them without sin cast the first stone and to love your neighbor etc.

Doctrines are constant though practices can change a far bit. In the old days people would donate goods to the church animals grain etc. Donations now are pretty much done in some form of money, but the concepts of giving have remained.
 
Doctrines are constant though practices can change a far bit. In the old days people would donate goods to the church animals grain etc. Donations now are pretty much done in some form of money, but the concepts of giving have remained.
But the old doctrine was that Blacks were not allowed by God for the priesthood. 150 years ago, it was unheard of to consider it. 50 years ago, too. 30 years ago, it was changed. There were even scriptural verses used to support it. PLural Marriage was banned as well.

I agree that the LDS, like the Catholic, holds hard to the morality line when it comes to things like family values. I also think that it would never happen. But, with the meathod there, it could. Now, it might be reversed on the next go-round wiht a new prophet, but something big like that could change.

In the Catholic Church, ther is still private revelation, but only binds the one who heard it, assuming that it is truly from God.
 
But the old doctrine was that Blacks were not allowed by God for the priesthood. 150 years ago, it was unheard of to consider it. 50 years ago, too. 30 years ago, it was changed. There were even scriptural verses used to support it. PLural Marriage was banned as well.

I agree that the LDS, like the Catholic, holds hard to the morality line when it comes to things like family values. I also think that it would never happen. But, with the meathod there, it could. Now, it might be reversed on the next go-round wiht a new prophet, but something big like that could change.

In the Catholic Church, ther is still private revelation, but only binds the one who heard it, assuming that it is truly from God.
But again it comes down to differences between doctrine and practice. We have a doctrine that says men are called by God to help run the church. We have the first presidency and the quorum of the 12. between them and the local leaders we have had 2 big changes in “middle management” in the last 15 years or so. The doctrine has not changed.

A doctrine which says God must approve who receives His priesthood does not change when a group who where denied the priesthood for a time are no longer restricted.
 
But again it comes down to differences between doctrine and practice. We have a doctrine that says men are called by God to help run the church. We have the first presidency and the quorum of the 12. between them and the local leaders we have had 2 big changes in “middle management” in the last 15 years or so. The doctrine has not changed.

A doctrine which says God must approve who receives His priesthood does not change when a group who where denied the priesthood for a time are no longer restricted.
Ok. So this is more like the difference between dogma and discipline in the Catholic Church. One can change and the other cannot. Acceptable.

Now, what % of the Bible would you say that the LDS faith has put forth interpretations that must be understood a certain way?
 
Ok. So this is more like the difference between dogma and discipline in the Catholic Church. One can change and the other cannot. Acceptable.

Now, what % of the Bible would you say that the LDS faith has put forth interpretations that must be understood a certain way?
I guess I’m still learn about CC beliefs.

I don’t know a particular %. All that is to be understood of God should be informed by the Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top