The Most Misinterpreted Scripture

[USNationalist]

Could you be more specific on which verse quoted is misintepreted? Unless you quote the previous message you allude to, there's no telling what you were thinking here.

The verse this whole thread was spawned from.

"Revelation chapter 22 verses 18 to 20:"

[rameumptom]

The verse this whole thread was spawned from.

"Revelation chapter 22 verses 18 to 20:"

Got it. It's just that was several pages ago, and the thread has gone elsewhere. I do agree that Rev 20:18-20 does not apply to the entire bible. A look at what was happening and why John would place a curse is this: Many apostate groups (including the Nicolaitans mentioned in chapters 1-3) were taking apostolic writings and changing them to fit their own teachings, and then publishing them as if from the apostle himself. One way to discourage that was to add a curse at the end of a book, to ensure no tampering occurred. Other early Christians did the same with their writings, as well. However, there is no way it could have included the Bible, since it would not be compiled for several centuries.

second, the curse states that "no man" can add to or take away from the writing. It does not state that God cannot change it. given Joseph Smith's predilection for inspired insight from God, such a change (as in the JST) could be done with God's command.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Interesting how I started this topic and where it has drifted to. Let me add one point. There is no official Latter-Day Saint doctrine on what an intelligence is. It is all speculation as it has not been revealed.

Bottom line with our doctrines is they are either inspired words spoken by the prophets of God, or they are man made doctrines. I have studied and prayed and come to the conclusion that Latter-Day Saint doctrine is truth and we have prophets and seers leading the church according to will of God.

[rameumptom]

The Church's website in the newsroom, under "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" tells us:

* Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

* Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

[WillowTheWhisp]

In that case is Food Storage church doctrine?

How about drinking cola? I know some people insist it's up to the individual and that it isn't forbidden and yet others say that such and such a person said we shouldn't so they don't. Or how about the earrings thing? There are so many things which have been spoken in Conference talks but haven't been incorporated into the standard works.

[rameumptom]

Food storage has been taught in General Conference many times by many leaders. While it isn't a core doctrine, it is an important teaching that Pres Benson said it is as important as being on the ark in Noah's day in the day of the Flood.

You will not see anything in conferences on Coca Cola or other drinks. We are taught to use wisdom and take care of our bodies and health, but the rest is left up to us on how we as individuals will deal with it. Remember, the Word of Wisdom was designed for the "weakest of saints", and adding anything to that would raise the bar on all members, many of which may not be ready for anything greater.

Earrings would not fall under the realm of "doctrine," but under a doctrinal concept of modesty. While given that guidance by Pres Hinckley, I've yet to see anyone kept from being baptized or kept out of the temple for having an earring more than they should. It becomes an issue of another doctrine, as well: follow the prophet. Each of us has to deal with following the prophet, whether it is struggling with tattoos, piercings, sexual addictions, or anything else the prophets have warned us about.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I used to wear 3 pairs of earrings until President Hinckley said to wear only one. I don't see it as being and actual issue of earrings as such but maybe more of being about what matters most the Gospel or a couple of pairs of diamond studs. I don't personally think that earring wearing will prevent someone from gaining salvation but actively deciding to defy the guidance of a prophet of the Lord just might.

I know there are people who attend the temple who have tattoos but it's hard to get them removed, not to mention expensive and mostly I think they are people who had them done before joining the church so it's a good thing that having them doesn't prevent someone being baptised.

[Aelswyth]

Considering John's reference applies to "this book", it's obvious he's referring to the book of Revelation itself, not the entire canon of scripture, which was not even nearly formalized at that time.

Also, if it DID apply to the entire canon of scripture, then the Protestants would be just as guilty, since they quite summarily removed SEVEN Deuterocanonical books plus various parts of other books, all of which can still be found in Catholic Bibles. Obviously the only folks who would have any case here would be the Catholics!

But, since it doesn't refer to the canon but to the book of Revelation, it's really a moot point.

[Aelswyth]

Earrings would not fall under the realm of "doctrine," but under a doctrinal concept of modesty. While given that guidance by Pres Hinckley, I've yet to see anyone kept from being baptized or kept out of the temple for having an earring more than they should. It becomes an issue of another doctrine, as well: follow the prophet. Each of us has to deal with following the prophet, whether it is struggling with tattoos, piercings, sexual addictions, or anything else the prophets have warned us about.

Whenever I read these things, I always think about them in the context of ethnicity; I mean, what about other cultures with traditions of piercings and tattoos? For example, I have Maori ancestry and am a member of the Ngaapuhi tribe of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Among the Maori tattoos are sacred and an important part of ethnic identity, and also play a major part in recording tribal affiliation, ancestry and personal history. Many other ancient peoples had traditions of tattooing, including the Celts, the Japanese, the Egyptians, and several other Northern European and Middle Eastern peoples. Since it does not seem to be a moral issue, is it fair to say that these ancient traditions should be abandoned because in our culture they are viewed negatively? Since this is supposed to be a global Church, shouldn't there be some leeway when it comes to allowing people to hold onto their cultural and ethnic heritage rather than demanding they adopt American cultural ideals when they join the Church?

[rameumptom]

Whenever I read these things, I always think about them in the context of ethnicity; I mean, what about other cultures with traditions of piercings and tattoos? For example, I have Maori ancestry and am a member of the Ngaapuhi tribe of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Among the Maori tattoos are sacred and an important part of ethnic identity, and also play a major part in recording tribal affiliation, ancestry and personal history. Many other ancient peoples had traditions of tattooing, including the Celts, the Japanese, the Egyptians, and several other Northern European and Middle Eastern peoples. Since it does not seem to be a moral issue, is it fair to say that these ancient traditions should be abandoned because in our culture they are viewed negatively? Since this is supposed to be a global Church, shouldn't there be some leeway when it comes to allowing people to hold onto their cultural and ethnic heritage rather than demanding they adopt American cultural ideals when they join the Church?

The reality is, much of what is taught in General Conference as practice, is focused on where the majority of the members live. The majority are still in America and Europe, and other nations that follow similar practices. There are few Celts alive that still dress as they once did centuries ago. There are few Maori that still dress and live as their ancestors did. I know several Celts and Maori, and you couldn't tell them from their dress, except during traditional ceremonies.

I don't think the GAs would have a problem with someone following their local customs, as long as they fit within the LDS belief system. During the recent worldwide leadership training, Elders Oak and Holland discussed developing an LDS culture for all the members, that fits in with their local cultures. Sometimes there will be conflicts. For example, Arab nations still allow for polygamy, but our LDS culture does not. Some cultures include self-mutilation - we don't allow for it.

So, ear piercing becomes a standard teaching that should apply to most people in most cultures, with perhaps some exceptions. From there, it becomes an issue on how closely we are ready and willing to follow the prophet of God.

[rameumptom]

Considering John's reference applies to "this book", it's obvious he's referring to the book of Revelation itself, not the entire canon of scripture, which was not even nearly formalized at that time.

Also, if it DID apply to the entire canon of scripture, then the Protestants would be just as guilty, since they quite summarily removed SEVEN Deuterocanonical books plus various parts of other books, all of which can still be found in Catholic Bibles. Obviously the only folks who would have any case here would be the Catholics!

But, since it doesn't refer to the canon but to the book of Revelation, it's really a moot point.

John added it as a curse, a common practice in his day, as many pseudo books were created, or actual books were changed to fit a certain version of Christianity (such as Gnosticism). And when we look at which books were used by early Christians, we find the Book of Enoch (quoted 39 times in the NT) and several others that are not now in any Bible. So, even the Catholics would be guilty of John's curse in such an instance.

Finally, when one translates from one language to another, there is much change in symbolism and meaning. What if anytime we make a translation of the Bible, there is something added or taken away from the original meaning? Do we suddenly have to be responsible for such changes, as well?