Disbelieving the Scriptures.

[TruthSeekerToo]

No worries.

Neither. We lean to the prophets to interpret it for us, and search for ourselves. The prophets have clearly laid down the current law of the tithe: 10% of our annual increase. We see this explained in D&C 119, verse 4. Verse 3 indicates that the previous two verses were to continue:

"For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church."

Let's break that down a little bit. I would prefer someone more knowledgeable in history give you a more detailed account, but I will give the bare-bones as I remember it:

"Building of mine house"- Building of the Nauvoo temple. That has been accomplished.

"Laying the foundation of Zion"- I'm hazy as to the exact meaning of this, as I am not a prophet. I assume this is referring to the establishment of the Saints in the Salt Lake Valley- where the Church had a secluded place of its own, where it would be insulated from the evil men who want to use mobocracy to tear it down. There can, of course, be other answers. It's important to remember that the word 'Zion', when the Lord uses it, means more than just the actual location of the future city of Zion, in Missouri.

"for the debts of the Presidency of my Church"- In the "good old days", the Church had to borrow money for its various needs. Circa 1900 the Church was under a crushing amount of debt, but under the encouragement and admonishment of Lorenzo Snow, the Church members gave enough to pull the Church out of debt. Ever since then, it has stayed in the black.

If we use the above interpretation- which is highly plausible- coupled with the simple fact that the prophets are inspired and that the Lord leads this Church, we can be assured that we are currently living under the lesser law of the tithe- therefore, the requirements of living the Law of Consecration are not expected of us at this time.

Historically speaking:

*Mine house-refers to the temple to be built in Missouri. This revelation was given to the saints before Nauvoo was settled. It was given at Far West, MO in 1838. Here is a picture of the temple site.

It refers to the temple in Zion, based on the fact the tithe begins with the "saints IN Zion." I agree that Zion is the pure in heart, but here it is speaking of the "land of Zion."

*Foundation of Zion-Well, Salt Lake City isn't Zion and never has been. Again, this is referring to Missouri. Zion is to begin there and spread out from there. See D&C 57

Zion shall not be moved from her place even though we are in a scattered state. See D&C 101:17 and D&C 97:19

As an interesting side note: if the saints had been obedient they would not have had to leave Nauvoo. The whole section is very good. Specific to this topic 45-48.

D&C 124:45

And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.

*Very true that the church and it's presidency is no longer in debt. Quite the opposite.

Anyway, that is my understanding of the history surrounding these passages.

[Snow]

This is false by definition, and thus absurd.

Untrue - God, by definition, need not be just or good. The Christian notion of God generally includes the traits of goodness and justice but there could be a power supernatural deity that was not good or just.

No one (no thinking person, anyway) has ever claimed that God ordered murder.

Have you not read the account of Nephi and Laban?

Nephi, upon instruction, chopped of Laban's head.

Defintion:

murder: to kill brutally or inhumanly. murder - definition of murder by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Please provide scriptural examples of God ordering rape.

In this passage, God (supposedly) instructs his followers to take over a city and if the city does not resist, God's followers are to enslave the inhabitants. If the inhabitants refuse takeover, the men are to be killed and the women are to be taken as booty so that God's followers might enjoy them.

Deuteronomy 20:10-17

"When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its male to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemy, which the Lord God has given to you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. In the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."

Interestingly in this passage God (supposedly) instructs that men and non-virgin women are to be killed:

Numbers 31:17

[Moses said to them] "... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him..."

A few thoughts I find relevant to your original post:

Something that is "true" is "straight"; that is, it points us toward God. The scriptures are "true" in that sense. They are also "true" in the sense that they are a (reasonably) faithful record of God's dealings with his people.

Insisting that the scriptures abide by 21st-century standards of scholarship is unreasonable and ultimately futile.

I have no idea what that means. The cases that I mentioned are not related to any 21st century scholarship - they are simply scriptures that many people reject.

Studying scriptures is much different from doing aerobics. Studying scriptures can give us a window into the mind of God. Taking a combative approach to scripture study largely negates the benefit they provide.

Ah - says you. Message boards, this one included are often focused on proving another person wrong by appeals to scriptures - that is, someone tries to prove another wrong by virtue of their supposed superior knowledge of scripture or history, etc. Most or just not as transparent of aggressive about it. LDS Seminary regularly promotes the competitive nature of study through scripture chases.

[Snow]

Maxel,

I am not ignoring you. Yours are often long posts to get through... I get to it soon.

[a-train]

Its probably already been said, but the JST of 1 Cor. 14:34 changes "speak" to "rule" and Hebrews 7:3 says: "For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually."

Beyond this, I'm not sure I understand this thread.

-a-train

Edited April 28, 2009 by a-train

[Vort]

Untrue - God, by definition, need not be just or good. The Christian notion of God generally includes the traits of goodness and justice but there could be a power supernatural deity that was not good or just.

But we are not talking about any old "supernatural deity". In point of fact, we are talking exactly about "the Christian notion of God" -- specifically, the LDS notion of God. God's actions are good by defintion; thus, God cannot "murder".

No one (no thinking person, anyway) has ever claimed that God ordered murder.

Have you not read the account of Nephi and Laban?

Indeed I have. Refer to my previous response to help you out of this conundrum.

Nephi, upon instruction, chopped of Laban's head.

Defintion:

murder: to kill brutally or inhumanly. murder - definition of murder by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Let that be a lesson to you: Always choose your sources carefully. I would say that thefreedictionary.com is not a particularly reliable source. A much more common, and I daresay more widely accepted, definition of murder can be found at the Merriam-Webster website:

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

Since God is the author of law, it is impossible for him to do anything "unlawful", including commanding a "murder".

Please provide scriptural examples of God ordering rape.

In this passage, God (supposedly) instructs his followers to take over a city and if the city does not resist, God's followers are to enslave the inhabitants. If the inhabitants refuse takeover, the men are to be killed and the women are to be taken as booty so that God's followers might enjoy them.

Deuteronomy 20:10-17

"When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its male to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemy, which the Lord God has given to you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. In the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."

I'm not seeing anything there about rape.

Interestingly in this passage God (supposedly) instructs that men and non-virgin women are to be killed:

Numbers 31:17

[Moses said to them] "... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him..."

Still not seeing anything about rape.

I have no idea what that means. The cases that I mentioned are not related to any 21st century scholarship - they are simply scriptures that many people reject.

You claimed (if I remember correctly -- I'm sure you'll correct me if I am mistaken) that, in order to keep scripture study interesting to you, you like to challenge people on meanings of scriptures you don't understand or reject. I was merely pointing out that the scriptures have been preserved for us to teach us the nature of God and our relationship with him, but if you take ancient literature written for a certain culture and impose your modern biases and interpretations on it, you will almost surely miss the lessons the text is trying to preserve for you.

Ah - says you. Message boards, this one included are often focused on proving another person wrong by appeals to scriptures - that is, someone tries to prove another wrong by virtue of their supposed superior knowledge of scripture or history, etc. Most or just not as transparent of aggressive about it.

I'm not understanding you. So what? Are you saying that because message boards encourage scripture battles and bashing, therefore that's the best way to study scriptures? What a novel idea, one that I reject out of hand as illogical and counterproductive.

LDS Seminary regularly promotes the competitive nature of study through scripture chases.

Clearly, you have no understanding of the ends of seminary scripture chases. It most certainly is not intended to "[promote] the competitive nature of study". It is to provide a method of entertainment to young men and women not yet mature enough to enjoy scripture study for its own benefits, allowing them to have fun while giving them a first exposure to the scriptures. It is assumed (or at least hoped) that most of them will go on to develop deeper and more mature senses, find a true love for the scriptures, feast thereon, and outgrow the need to be entertained by external competitions or other such frivolities when studying the scriptures.

In judo, the teacher will often play "judo games" with the younger children. This allows the kids to learn some of the principles of off-balancing, footwork, balance, groundwork, and other basics of judo in an environment they find fun. Significantly, the teacher never plays "judo games" with the older children and adults; it is assumed that they are studying and practicing judo for the joy of the sport itself. Ironically, the "judo games" themselves can promote bad habits that, if followed, make it difficult to succeed in judo, so they are only used sparingly and judiciously.

I think scripture study is similar. Yes, some of us may play "scripture games", but surely any spiritually mature person will not depend upon such things to motivate scripture study, seeing that they often work at cross purposes to the real end of "feasting upon the word".

[Snow]

But we are not talking about any old "supernatural deity". In point of fact, we are talking exactly about "the Christian notion of God" -- specifically, the LDS notion of God. God's actions are good by defintion; thus, God cannot "murder".

1. Thank you for making the point of why some people do not believe certain scriptures - because those scriptures portray a God in a way that defies their understanding of God.

2. You claimed that it was the definition of God, not the Christian notion of God.

Indeed I have. Refer to my previous response to help you out of this conundrum.

You aren't making sense. I read your post and responded to it. If you have something else to say then say it.

Let that be a lesson to you: Always choose your sources carefully. I would say that thefreedictionary.com is not a particularly reliable source. A much more common, and I daresay more widely accepted, definition of murder can be found at the Merriam-Webster website:

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

Since God is the author of law, it is impossible for him to do anything "unlawful", including commanding a "murder".

Are you for real - or an adult? You are trying to tell me since the MW dictionary says one thing, then dictionaries that say other things are in error? Gee what bolt of logic brought that to mind?

I am reading now from the Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus... the definitive source of English words and one of the greatest works of scholarship in all history - synonyms for murder include slaughter or butchery.

... and btw, it's not the freedictionary.com dictionary. It's the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language published by Houghton Miffin.

I'm not seeing anything there about rape.

Still not seeing anything about rape.

I supopse that your point is since YOU say you don't see anything about rape that taking women (whose husbands have just been slaughtered - butchered - murdered) as booty to enjoy as spoils, then it does not mean rape. As if your stated failure to see means anything.

You claimed (if I remember correctly -- I'm sure you'll correct me if I am mistaken) that, in order to keep scripture study interesting to you, you like to challenge people on meanings of scriptures you don't understand or reject. I was merely pointing out that the scriptures have been preserved for us to teach us the nature of God and our relationship with him, but if you take ancient literature written for a certain culture and impose your modern biases and interpretations on it, you will almost surely miss the lessons the text is trying to preserve for you.

And here I suppose you think that I need a lecture on hermeneutics and exegesis. Pray tell what qualifies you to school me on the topic?

... and btw, what has that got to do with the topic of this thread and why some people do not believe certain scriptures?

I'm not understanding you. So what? Are you saying that because message boards encourage scripture battles and bashing, therefore that's the best way to study scriptures? What a novel idea, one that I reject out of hand as illogical and counterproductive.

1. You know full well that I didn't say that it was the best way. I guess you labor under the misconception and your logical errors are so subtle that they won't be noticed. News flash - they aren't. They're clumsy.

2. Who cares what you reject? I don't take lesson of logic from people that employ fallacies in the same paragraph that them claim illogic - or claim that since the MW dictionary says one thing about a word that other dictionaries that say others thing are in error.

Clearly, you have no understanding of the ends of seminary scripture chases. It most certainly is not intended to "[promote] the competitive nature of study". It is to provide a method of entertainment to young men and women not yet mature enough to enjoy scripture study for its own benefits, allowing them to have fun while giving them a first exposure to the scriptures. It is assumed (or at least hoped) that most of them will go on to develop deeper and more mature senses, find a true love for the scriptures, feast thereon, and outgrow the need to be entertained by external competitions or other such frivolities when studying the scriptures.

In judo, the teacher will often play "judo games" with the younger children. This allows the kids to learn some of the principles of off-balancing, footwork, balance, groundwork, and other basics of judo in an environment they find fun. Significantly, the teacher never plays "judo games" with the older children and adults; it is assumed that they are studying and practicing judo for the joy of the sport itself. Ironically, the "judo games" themselves can promote bad habits that, if followed, make it difficult to succeed in judo, so they are only used sparingly and judiciously.

I think scripture study is similar. Yes, some of us may play "scripture games", but surely any spiritually mature person will not depend upon such things to motivate scripture study, seeing that they often work at cross purposes to the real end of "feasting upon the word".

Let me know when you are done pontificating won't you...

Edited April 28, 2009 by Snow

[JohnnyRudick]

I think it is, yes, specifically the case. Some authors of ancient scripture considered women to be inferior.... not Paul however, despite what some of his epistles say... but that is a topic of a future thread.

Not inferior.

You know how we say the Temple is not "secret" it is "sacred".

Well, Women are not inferior in Paul's point of view.

No matter what "some scholars" may swear to you.

Women and men have their place in the hierarchy of heaven.

God the Angels man and women.

Not inferior any more then a lieutenant is inferior to a captain.

For some reason long hair is a badge of honor for a woman to wear but a shame for a man to wear.

Man is to have nothing over his head between him and God.

A Woman comes to the man to get what God has given to the family.

She must wear a covering over her hair to signify that she believes this.

If she reveals her hair she puts the angels to shame because of her uncovered glory.

You know, women covered their long hair daily in public as with a sacred garment to show that they were either betrothed or married up til the mid 1800s.

Men needed no covering as there was no one on earth that they would bow to but God.

But today with Equal rights and all. . .

Bro. Rudick

[FunkyTown]

Originally posted by Snow

Blah blah blah, some arrogant crap that I didn't bother reading.

Does anybody seriously still pay any attention to this guy? I haven't yet read anything that wasn't arrogant, illogical and confrontational. Do a search on his posts and see if anything hasn't descended to him feeling attacked when someone disagrees with him. I can assume based on other posts that this is no different. I'd just recommend ignoring him and having conversations with normal people.

[Jamie123]

Not inferior.

Well, Women are not inferior in Paul's point of view.

No matter what "some scholars" may swear to you.

Women and men have their place in the hierarchy of heaven.

God the Angels man and women.

Not inferior any more then a lieutenant is inferior to a captain.

I think it depends what you mean by "inferior". That word comes from the Latin inferus = below, beneath. A lieutenant is "below" a captain in the army hierarchy and in that sense is inferior (though he may be a bright upcoming officer destined to be a general, while the captain is an old lag who has never shown any special talent).

However we also use the word figuratively to mean "of lesser quality" in which sense women are definitely NOT inferior to men!

[JohnnyRudick]

I think it depends what you mean by "inferior". . . However we also use the word figuratively to mean "of lesser quality" in which sense women are definitely NOT inferior to men!

That is the way I see it used most often and I do not believe Paul believed that way when I read all his writings that have been canonized.

Bro. Rudick

[Hemidakota]

This was my point on what President Lee stated. Paul was a Apostle but was not Prophet. What is the difference between Apostle Paul and Apostle Packer? Nothing. The only exception is, his letters was accepted as scriptures [canonize] by the earlier apostates members and pagans who sought for a universal church in unifying the people of the empire. There were other Apostles and Seventies at that time who writings were not canonized or even considered being canonized for myriads of reasons.

To add, we are missing prophets [classic example of two mentioned in the Book of Mormon - Zenos and Zenoc] since the time of Adam who revelations and writings are not included within the scriptures.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Vort]

Does anybody seriously still pay any attention to this guy? I haven't yet read anything that wasn't arrogant, illogical and confrontational. Do a search on his posts and see if anything hasn't descended to him feeling attacked when someone disagrees with him. I can assume based on other posts that this is no different. I'd just recommend ignoring him and having conversations with normal people.

Unfortunately, I must agree. Snow is not interested in conversation or even debate, only confrontation.

[JohnnyRudick]

This was my point on what President Lee stated. Paul was a Apostle but was not Prophet. What is the difference between Apostle Paul and Apostle Packer? Nothing. The only exception is, his letters was accepted as scriptures [canonize] by the earlier apostates members and pagans who sought for a universal church in unifying the people of the empire. There were other Apostles and Seventies at that time who writings were not canonized or even considered being canonized for myriads of reasons.

To add, we are missing prophets [classic example of two mentioned in the Book of Mormon - Zenos and Zenoc] since the time of Adam who revelations and writings are not included within the scriptures.

Actually these letters of Paul we have today in the Bible are the surviving letters through time chosen to be most used for edification by the Christians in hiding from that church that sought dominion over all the earth.

Satan made counterfeit copies of these letters and salted them down through history through Jerome Latin Vulgate, The Jesuit Bible of 1582 Dewey, on to the perversions of Wescott and Hort to this day.

These letters have been crafted through out history by wicked men to make a bad mirror image of the letters which survived sampled in the Erasmus collection, the TR.

I believe God has through out history raised up men to preserve His words given to prophets and apostles so that wa can see if we look who the deliberate distorter s of His words are.

Paul was later a Prophet to the Gentile people.

Preaching a dispensation God gave Paul taking the Church a new direction for that particular time to preserve His words apart from what was to become the world Church.

Bro. Rudick

Edited April 28, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling

[Hemidakota]

Peter was still the Prophet of the Church when both men were in Rome. He never obtain the Prophet due to death after Peter, where James was next in line for the session.

[TruthSeekerToo]

No- the point of this thread was to find scriptures that I (and/or the community at large) dismiss as uninspired, etc. You can find the history of what sparked this in the thread I linked in my first post.

Ahhh, I see where I had the disconnect. I believe the scriptures are inspired by God. They say what he wants them to say. I guess that is why I misunderstood. I thought it was about disbelieving that the written word means what it says. I just wanted to demonstrate that everyone does the same thing I do, which apperantly was not the thrust of this thread. Ooops.

That is why I think the example of Jesus saying to hate is so perfect.

Like you, when God says to hate people I know to dig for deeper meaning. I do this with or without footnotes, so that might be different than others.

Likewise, when God says (or is attributed as saying) to kill people I know to dig deeper. I know that God does not ask us to literally do anything in opposition to the Light of Christ.

Whenever something in the scriptures is in opposition to the Light of Christ I dig deeper. There are many scriptures which say that God won't ask us to do anything bad. He also warns of people who call good bad and bad good.

He also has warned us that he will send a delusion and allow us to believe a lie. So the scriptures can also testify of the lies that we believe.

Isa. 66: 4

4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

2 Thes. 2: 11

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

I absolutely know that the scriptures say what they are supposed to say. It is up to us to learn the actual message.

[Maxel]

Ahhh, I see where I had the disconnect. I believe the scriptures are inspired by God. They say what he wants them to say. I guess that is why I misunderstood. I thought it was about disbelieving that the written word means what it says. I just wanted to demonstrate that everyone does the same thing I do, which apperantly was not the thrust of this thread. Ooops.

No worries. I misunderstood your position as well. I think, in light of this, we can lay down our discussion with a simple agreement. I appreciate the information about the Missouri Temple- like I said, history is NOT my strong point (which is saying quite a bit, because I'm horrible at math too). Edited April 28, 2009 by Maxel

[Hemidakota]

Life is like FUZZY LOGIC at times....http://i.azjmp.com/0SbSY

[TruthSeekerToo]

No worries. I misunderstood your position as well. I think, in light of this, we can lay down our discussion with a simple agreement. I appreciate the information about the Missouri Temple- like I said, history is NOT my strong point (which is saying quite a bit, because I'm horrible at math too).

Yes, I am glad we can both see the others position.

I am in love with history and my pioneer heritage. So, that is one of my stronger points. Although the more I learn the less I know.

[JohnnyRudick]

Peter was still the Prophet of the Church when both men were in Rome. He never obtain the Prophet due to death after Peter, where James was next in line for the session.

Two Prophets

Peter was sent to the Jews and Paul to bring in the Gentiles.

And when was Peter in Rome?

According to who's tradition?

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .He never obtain the Prophet due to death after Peter, where James was next in line for the session.

James was next in session but Paul was sent.

Happens sometimes.

Bro. Rudick

[Snow]

Does anybody seriously still pay any attention to this guy? I haven't yet read anything that wasn't arrogant, illogical and confrontational. Do a search on his posts and see if anything hasn't descended to him feeling attacked when someone disagrees with him. I can assume based on other posts that this is no different. I'd just recommend ignoring him and having conversations with normal people.

Still smarting from the last time you were spanked?

[Snow]

This was my point on what President Lee stated. Paul was a Apostle but was not Prophet. What is the difference between Apostle Paul and Apostle Packer? Nothing. The only exception is, his letters was accepted as scriptures [canonize] by the earlier apostates members and pagans who sought for a universal church in unifying the people of the empire. There were other Apostles and Seventies at that time who writings were not canonized or even considered being canonized for myriads of reasons.

To add, we are missing prophets [classic example of two mentioned in the Book of Mormon - Zenos and Zenoc] since the time of Adam who revelations and writings are not included within the scriptures.

That is incorrect. Apostles are commissioned by God and sustained as "prophets, seers, and revelators."

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Prophets, Seers, and Revelators

[Snow]

Unfortunately, I must agree. Snow is not interested in conversation or even debate, only confrontation.

... and that would be completely wrong - not that I would expect you to know, but I respond very well to a superior argument and a sizable portion of what I understand of Church history and the gospel was learned right here at this message board from people that had superior understandings compared to mine and who, by virtue of their knowledge and wisdom, caused me to rethink my positions and improve my understanding.

As you can imagine, however, I (anyone) cannot be persuaded by logic so faulty as... since you found a definition or a word in one dictionary, therefore other definitions in other dictionaries must be in error.

BTW... it is with mild amusement that I see you and Funkytown and Connie falling all over yourselves trying to agree with each other and give thanks to one another in your mutual disparagement of me. More power to you.

[FunkyTown]

Unfortunately, I must agree. Snow is not interested in conversation or even debate, only confrontation.

Hahah. Yeah. I don't even bother reading his posts any more. He's a troll. Just pay no attention to him. The more you do, the more you feed in to his obsession to argue on the 'net. And so, I offer this piece of advice:

Don't feed the trolls.

[Snow]

Hahah. Yeah. I don't even bother reading his posts any more. He's a troll. Just pay no attention to him. The more you do, the more you feed in to his obsession to argue on the 'net. And so, I offer this piece of advice:

Don't feed the trolls.

But of course we both know that is untrue. You quoted me in a post (Post 82 on this thread) less than 24 hours before your last post about me. Did you stop reading me in the past 5 minutes?

Just an hour ago you went out of your way to talk about me. Looks like you are obsessed. I hope you don't turn out to be another stalker.