Using the D&C to interpret the Bible

[prisonchaplain]

One of our LDS volunteers always likes to give me food for thought. So, this week he showed me D&C 77:1, which said the Sea of Glass (described in the book of Revelation) is the eternal sanctified earth. Now, in the scholarly writings of Protestants and Catholics there are a few different interpretations of that. My question--for LDS there really is no interpretation anymore, is there? If the D&C says it's the earth, then it's the earth. Period. Am I correct?

[Vort]

Revelations, like any profound literature, can have multiple meanings and interpretations. Section 77 does indeed give an important and true interpretation for John's vision, but whether it is the interpretation or merely an interpretation among many, I don't know.

I do know this: John's Apocalypse is like no other book of scripture I have ever seen, LDS or otherwise. Not even Isaiah approaches the LSD*-like gyrations of the book of the Revelation of John. Honestly, if it were not for Joseph Smith affirming that it is a revealed work of great depth, I might just assume it's an account of some bizarre, drug-induced trip.

*As in lysergic acid diethylamide; not a misspelling of LDS, as in Star Trek IV: Save the Whales. :)

[prisonchaplain]

I taught a Sunday School class on Revelation that went three and a half years. Despite its vivid imagery, and some of the presumptiously detailed interpretations out there, it is a fascinating, complex and masterful book. The sheer # of references to various other biblical writings is tremendous. And, read properly, it certainly does reveal Jesus Christ.

[Moksha]

I am uncertain why the Nicaean Council included the Book of Revelations into the Bible.

[prisonchaplain]

I am uncertain why the Nicaean Council included the Book of Revelations into the Bible.

You want me to post my 88 pages of outline notes, so you can be certain?

[Vort]

You want me to post my 88 pages of outline notes, so you can be certain?

I would like that. (Seriously -- no smiley.)

[LDSVALLEY]

I taught a Sunday School class on Revelation that went three and a half years. Despite its vivid imagery, and some of the presumptiously detailed interpretations out there, it is a fascinating, complex and masterful book. The sheer # of references to various other biblical writings is tremendous. And, read properly, it certainly does reveal Jesus Christ.

WOW!!!! I thought our Sunday services lasted forever at 3 hours! :)

[BenRaines]

PC, I am always interested in reading how you interpret things. You seem to have a rather open mind to many of our beliefs or at least not as critical as others. :)

You can email me the outline if you would like.

Ben Raines

[prisonchaplain]

Anyone wanting a copy, just send me an email, and I'll attach those notes.

[Moksha]

Revelations seems like a continual stream of dire mystical predictions. It is rather Quran-like in that it doesn't relate any historical or allegorical stories like the rest of the New Testament.

[BenRaines]

I hate to be a stickler about this folks but it is the "Book of Revelation". No Revelations. One revelation as recorded by John.

Ben Raines

[bytebear]

I was going to say the same thing. You all would lose on Jeopardy.

[Justice]

One of our LDS volunteers always likes to give me food for thought. So, this week he showed me D&C 77:1, which said the Sea of Glass (described in the book of Revelation) is the eternal sanctified earth. Now, in the scholarly writings of Protestants and Catholics there are a few different interpretations of that. My question--for LDS there really is no interpretation anymore, is there? If the D&C says it's the earth, then it's the earth. Period. Am I correct?

I'd say that's correct. If the D&C interprets it as the earth in it's "sanctified, immortal, and eternal state" then that is what the writer of the Bible meant when he wrote it.

I don't really see any wiggle room for LDS, other than possibly interpreting the words.

[Vort]

I hate to be a stickler about this folks but it is the "Book of Revelation". No Revelations. One revelation as recorded by John.

Don't know if you were talking about me or not, but when I said "revelations" in my first post, I was referring to revelations as occurrences, not to the book of the Revelation of John, which I referred to later (also as the Apocalypse).

[Moksha]

i sed Book of Revelations, so thar. i ses Raine(s) on the plains too!

[Moksha]

Don't know if my bias against the Book of Revelation is showing, but it has always seemed to be to be a generator of kookiness and seems to take away from the message of Jesus. Think how much better off the world would have been, not having been introduced to such a hideous phrase as "Whore of Babylon". Look at the hateful theology that has been derived from this phrase.

That said, I can still appreciate the many apocalyptic films such as The Omen series.

[curtishouse]

I hate to be a stickler about this folks but it is the "Book of Revelation". No Revelations. One revelation as recorded by John.

Ben Raines

Thanks for that...That's really one of my pet peeves when somebody calls it the Book of RevelationS...It's one complete Revelation...I don't know why it's so prevalent with people adding the "s" on the end