LDS Freedom Forum

shadow wrote:

Stahura wrote:

shadow wrote: "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" . So here The Lord is admitting that what He tells one Prophet can be different AND contrary to what He tells another Prophet.

I don't think that this applies to interpretation of scriptures though. The meaning of the word of God doesn't change. If one prophet gives a different interpretation of a scripture than a previous prophet, God didn't revoke anything. One, or both of the prophets gave their own interpretation.

It applies to commands.. like "take more wives" and then later " don't take more wives"
"This race cannot have the priesthood" and then later " This race can now have priesthood"
"You shall take the church to China" " Thou shalt not go to China but stay where you are"

I'll keep my mouth shut on my opinion about those particular examples

Does it make sense? No? yes??

So if the scriptures say "Thou shalt not go to China" and then later another Prophet says "China has opened and we'll take the church there", do you suppose some would say "This Prophets words are contrary to the scriptures"? I say yes.

Yes some would say that. I don't think that particular command is contrary though? Because it's a command that God revoked, not just some new doctrine that the prophet is claiming to have received that goes against what God said in the past

Stahura wrote: I'm not saying the prophet needs to be cut off. In no way am I saying our current leaders teach inccorect things today or that they need to be cut off

I'm only responding to something "Ebenezer" said that sounds very incorrect to me.. I only used these quotes to show "Ebenezer" that we do indeed need to review their words and that they need to match the scriptures, otherwise we lay them aside.

As far as cutting off the prophet goes..Many General Authorities have been "cut off"(Excommunicated). The second quote starts by saying "Any man" I don't believe that this excludes anybody. Again, they aren't exempt from these things just because they have a high calling. Pretend that Thomas Monson teaches exactly what Denver Snuffer does, word for word( HE WON"T DO THIS, THIS IS JUST A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE) then he would need to receive the same treatment that Denver Snuffer did, and be excommunicated. Why would he receive any other punishment? His high calling doesn't make him exempt. In fact, where more is given, more is required, and greater the condemnation.

Yes we Set aside what they say that are contrary to the spirit and the scriptures, agreed.

My purpose in putting this post isn't to condemn any leaders or say they teach things incorrectly. The purpose of this OP is ONLY to show that we do need to review and compare their teachings with the books of scripture that we have. No man is exempt from this. Even Thomas Monson's words can be laid aside if they don't match up with what the scriptures teach.

Does that make sense?

Thanks for that clarification.

Stahura wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote: Can they both be right?

If 2 individuals contradict each other, they cannot both be right. That's not possible.
Either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong.

"By proving contraries the truth is made manifest." Joseph Smith

brlenox wrote:

Stahura wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote: Can they both be right?

If 2 individuals contradict each other, they cannot both be right. That's not possible.
Either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong.

"By proving contraries the truth is made manifest." Joseph Smith

where did you find that quote?? I like it!

I always get a little scared when I see that you quoted me. I'm expecting to be corrected somewhere haha!

Stahura wrote:

brlenox wrote:

Stahura wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote: Can they both be right?

If 2 individuals contradict each other, they cannot both be right. That's not possible.
Either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong.

"By proving contraries the truth is made manifest." Joseph Smith

where did you find that quote?? I like it!

I always get a little scared when I see that you quoted me. I'm expecting to be corrected somewhere haha!

Although all is not gold that shines, any more than every religious creed is [not] sanctioned with the so eternally sure word of prophecy, satisfying all doubt with 'Thus saith the Lord'; yet, 'by proving contraries,' truth is made manifest,' and a wise man can search out 'old paths, wherein righteous men held communion with Jehovah, and were exalted through obedience. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 6: 428.) It is from a letter Joseph sent to a Mr Rupp who was writing a book describing various religions.

This quote is one of my "standards" for study. When you were considering upon the two quotes that on the surface appear in opposition, you found it necessary to pass a judgment of one right one wrong. My technique is based on this quote and observation of Joseph's. I place the quotes on opposites ends of a figurative line and then I research all scriptures, quotes of general authorities and I collect the ones that compliment various degrees of similar intent and place them in proximity by degrees to the polar ends and I try to connect them with other points of truth. I ponder and by the time I have completed my research I am exceptionally well informed on several levels. I know who the witnesses are, I understand multiple levels of implications on the topic and as the spirit lifts my understanding I begin to understand the heart of the person who made the comments or wrote the scriptures etc. that I have researched. This can take two days, four weeks, and in many cases it has taken 7 to 15 years for certain subjects. However, because I refuse to judge the speakers until I understand their hearts and minds I have found out of 50 plus times where it appeared that they were opposites and one must be wrong and the other right that it has never occurred that one was wrong in these kinds of situations - it was only that I did not understand enough.

I can tell by the understanding I gain when individuals are very immature in their understandings because they speak to points of understanding instead of a full spectrum of understanding. We tend to see the law of opposition as embracing opposites in the form of black / white, light/dark and so on however, what I have learned from applying this quote is that even in something such as the concept of light there is one side that is the point of the most brilliant light conceivable but when the full spectrum of light is embraced it composes dark though it is simply all light collectively gathered (hence why the electromagnetic spectrum is mostly dark though it is a measurement of light). However, this dark visually perceived is not the same as its opposite of dark which is the absence of all light.

When people condemn Nephi for killing Laban it is beyond clear they do not understand this principle. They have adopted the one scriptural statement that thou shalt not kill but they have never considered Nephi's story in light of Exodus 12:12-14 which perfectly overlays the narrative and not only exonerates Nephi but requires his obedience or he is judged unworthy.

You will see this all of the time in Gospel Doctrine lessons where one person wants to argue thou shalt not judge and another wants to defend judgment as appropriate. It becomes difficult to deal with for most people because they are two sides of a true principle and both may be right or both maybe wrong. however, when you take the time to marry the two contraries in your personal understanding it becomes easy to teach correct principles because as the instructor you understand the entire spectrum that relates to the proper application of one or the other. etc... I'm just trying to get you to see what I have learned about the meaning of this quote, because if you take the time to research it you may find those hyper-intellectuals who will analyze to a point of no value when really it is one of the most remarkable statements ever made and pure inspiration and brilliance. However, until you use it it never takes on its full potential of clarity.

brlenox wrote:
Although all is not gold that shines, any more than every religious creed is [not] sanctioned with the so eternally sure word of prophecy, satisfying all doubt with 'Thus saith the Lord'; yet, 'by proving contraries,' truth is made manifest,' and a wise man can search out 'old paths, wherein righteous men held communion with Jehovah, and were exalted through obedience. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 6: 428.) It is from a letter Joseph sent to a Mr Rupp who was writing a book describing various religions.

This quote is one of my "standards" for study. When you were considering upon the two quotes that on the surface appear in opposition, you found it necessary to pass a judgment of one right one wrong. My technique is based on this quote and observation of Joseph's. I place the quotes on opposites ends of a figurative line and then I research all scriptures, quotes of general authorities and I collect the ones that compliment various degrees of similar intent and place them in proximity by degrees to the polar ends and I try to connect them with other points of truth. I ponder and by the time I have completed my research I am exceptionally well informed on several levels. I know who the witnesses are, I understand multiple levels of implications on the topic and as the spirit lifts my understanding I begin to understand the heart of the person who made the comments or wrote the scriptures etc. that I have researched. This can take two days, four weeks, and in many cases it has taken 7 to 15 years for certain subjects. However, because I refuse to judge the speakers until I understand their hearts and minds I have found out of 50 plus times where it appeared that they were opposites and one must be wrong and the other right that it has never occurred that one was wrong in these kinds of situations - it was only that I did not understand enough.

I can tell by the understanding I gain when individuals are very immature in their understandings because they speak to points of understanding instead of a full spectrum of understanding. We tend to see the law of opposition as embracing opposites in the form of black / white, light/dark and so on however, what I have learned from applying this quote is that even in something such as the concept of light there is one side that is the point of the most brilliant light conceivable but when the full spectrum of light is embraced it composes dark though it is simply all light collectively gathered (hence why the electromagnetic spectrum is mostly dark though it is a measurement of light). However, this dark visually perceived is not the same as its opposite of dark which is the absence of all light.

When people condemn Nephi for killing Laban it is beyond clear they do not understand this principle. They have adopted the one scriptural statement that thou shalt not kill but they have never considered Nephi's story in light of Exodus 12:12-14 which perfectly overlays the narrative and not only exonerates Nephi but requires his obedience or he is judged unworthy.

You will see this all of the time in Gospel Doctrine lessons where one person wants to argue thou shalt not judge and another wants to defend judgment as appropriate. It becomes difficult to deal with for most people because they are two sides of a true principle and both may be right or both maybe wrong. however, when you take the time to marry the two contraries in your personal understanding it becomes easy to teach correct principles because as the instructor you understand the entire spectrum that relates to the proper application of one or the other. etc... I'm just trying to get you to see what I have learned about the meaning of this quote, because if you take the time to research it you may find those hyper-intellectuals who will analyze to a point of no value when really it is one of the most remarkable statements ever made and pure inspiration and brilliance. However, until you use it it never takes on its full potential of clarity.

This quote is so large and has so many profound statements I'm not sure how to respond.

I really like that quote because it appeals to my mind that thinks very logically. If 2 people contradict each other, either 1 is wrong and the other is is right, or they are both wrong. The method you explained to find the truth in between a contradiction is something that will most definately help me. Thank you. I have had the same experience but on a much smaller scale, as I'm sure you've been studying things for a while longer than I have I appreciate your wisdom.

brlenox wrote:Although all is not gold that shines, any more than every religious creed is [not] sanctioned with the so eternally sure word of prophecy, satisfying all doubt with 'Thus saith the Lord'; yet, 'by proving contraries,' truth is made manifest,' and a wise man can search out 'old paths, wherein righteous men held communion with Jehovah, and were exalted through obedience. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 6: 428.) It is from a letter Joseph sent to a Mr Rupp who was writing a book describing various religions.

This quote is one of my "standards" for study. When you were considering upon the two quotes that on the surface appear in opposition, you found it necessary to pass a judgment of one right one wrong. My technique is based on this quote and observation of Joseph's. I place the quotes on opposites ends of a figurative line and then I research all scriptures, quotes of general authorities and I collect the ones that compliment various degrees of similar intent and place them in proximity by degrees to the polar ends and I try to connect them with other points of truth. I ponder and by the time I have completed my research I am exceptionally well informed on several levels. I know who the witnesses are, I understand multiple levels of implications on the topic and as the spirit lifts my understanding I begin to understand the heart of the person who made the comments or wrote the scriptures etc. that I have researched. This can take two days, four weeks, and in many cases it has taken 7 to 15 years for certain subjects. However, because I refuse to judge the speakers until I understand their hearts and minds I have found out of 50 plus times where it appeared that they were opposites and one must be wrong and the other right that it has never occurred that one was wrong in these kinds of situations - it was only that I did not understand enough.

I can tell by the understanding I gain when individuals are very immature in their understandings because they speak to points of understanding instead of a full spectrum of understanding. We tend to see the law of opposition as embracing opposites in the form of black / white, light/dark and so on however, what I have learned from applying this quote is that even in something such as the concept of light there is one side that is the point of the most brilliant light conceivable but when the full spectrum of light is embraced it composes dark though it is simply all light collectively gathered (hence why the electromagnetic spectrum is mostly dark though it is a measurement of light). However, this dark visually perceived is not the same as its opposite of dark which is the absence of all light.

When people condemn Nephi for killing Laban it is beyond clear they do not understand this principle. They have adopted the one scriptural statement that thou shalt not kill but they have never considered Nephi's story in light of Exodus 12:12-14 which perfectly overlays the narrative and not only exonerates Nephi but requires his obedience or he is judged unworthy.

You will see this all of the time in Gospel Doctrine lessons where one person wants to argue thou shalt not judge and another wants to defend judgment as appropriate. It becomes difficult to deal with for most people because they are two sides of a true principle and both may be right or both maybe wrong. however, when you take the time to marry the two contraries in your personal understanding it becomes easy to teach correct principles because as the instructor you understand the entire spectrum that relates to the proper application of one or the other. etc... I'm just trying to get you to see what I have learned about the meaning of this quote, because if you take the time to research it you may find those hyper-intellectuals who will analyze to a point of no value when really it is one of the most remarkable statements ever made and pure inspiration and brilliance. However, until you use it it never takes on its full potential of clarity.

Did you get the reference right? I've read your thoughts on the Nephi/Laban story before and it doesn't seem that Exodus 12:12-14 is the right reference:

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

I have to admit, I don't see much point in comparing the church leaders words to the scriptures because scriptures can be interpreted so differently that you can justify almost anything by them. Joseph Smith found this to be a problem and so have I. I've seen people take a verse that says exactly opposite of the point they are trying to make and they still manage to use it to support their position, at least in their own eyes.

I have several times invited people on this forum and off to pray about the words of the church leaders and the scriptures. There was a period of time that all I did was study general conference talks. I would read something, think I understood it, and then pray about it and reread it and find my understanding expanded considerably. There is a benefit to praying about things beyond just knowing whether they are true or not. Your mind can be expanded and you can gain light and understanding from the Lord.

Jezebel wrote:
Did you get the reference right? I've read your thoughts on the Nephi/Laban story before and it doesn't seem that Exodus 12:12-14 is the right reference:

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

Oh my!!!! the travesty of it all. You are absolutely right. It appears I inverted two numbers....Here is the actual quote.

Exodus 21:12-14
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

Thank you very much for correcting my oversight.

Jezebel wrote:I have to admit, I don't see much point in comparing the church leaders words to the scriptures because scriptures can be interpreted so differently that you can justify almost anything by them. Joseph Smith found this to be a problem and so have I. I've seen people take a verse that says exactly opposite of the point they are trying to make and they still manage to use it to support their position, at least in their own eyes.

I have several times invited people on this forum and off to pray about the words of the church leaders and the scriptures. There was a period of time that all I did was study general conference talks. I would read something, think I understood it, and then pray about it and reread it and find my understanding expanded considerably. There is a benefit to praying about things beyond just knowing whether they are true or not. Your mind can be expanded and you can gain light and understanding from the Lord.

Frankly, this is a traggic perspective in my mind. Mostly it is the result of the westernized thinking that a verse has one meaning and once we think we have "the meaning" everyone else is wrong. However, the Jews, the people who received and wrote much of scripture, never had such a limiting perspective.

Nonetheless, they had a methodology for weeding out errant interpretations as well, that for the most part is lost upon those with western academic training.

Some of my favorite study points are to observe when Joseph Smith takes a verse and explains it and how often it is no where near what I would have seen from a verse on my own. However, I enjoy the process of working on it until I can see as he saw. I think we should be much more generous and charitable in our evaluations of those who often are light years ahead of ourselves in spiritual understanding and simply try to see the message as they intended it. There is no question in my mind that the leaders know the gospel and its message - I do not expect them to make mistakes but do expect that I will have to ponder and pray to gain their understanding.

brlenox wrote:

Jezebel wrote:I have to admit, I don't see much point in comparing the church leaders words to the scriptures because scriptures can be interpreted so differently that you can justify almost anything by them. Joseph Smith found this to be a problem and so have I. I've seen people take a verse that says exactly opposite of the point they are trying to make and they still manage to use it to support their position, at least in their own eyes.

I have several times invited people on this forum and off to pray about the words of the church leaders and the scriptures. There was a period of time that all I did was study general conference talks. I would read something, think I understood it, and then pray about it and reread it and find my understanding expanded considerably. There is a benefit to praying about things beyond just knowing whether they are true or not. Your mind can be expanded and you can gain light and understanding from the Lord.

Frankly, this is a traggic perspective in my mind. Mostly it is the result of the westernized thinking that a verse has one meaning and once we think we have "the meaning" everyone else is wrong. However, the Jews, the people who received and wrote much of scripture, never had such a limiting perspective.

Nonetheless, they had a methodology for weeding out errant interpretations as well, that for the most part is lost upon those with western academic training.

Some of my favorite study points are to observe when Joseph Smith takes a verse and explains it and how often it is no where near what I would have seen from a verse on my own. However, I enjoy the process of working on it until I can see as he saw. I think we should be much more generous and charitable in our evaluations of those who often are light years ahead of ourselves in spiritual understanding and simply try to see the message as they intended it. There is no question in my mind that the leaders know the gospel and its message - I do not expect them to make mistakes but do expect that I will have to ponder and pray to gain their understanding.

I actually don't believe that once I have "the meaning" that everyone else is wrong. I am completely open to the possibility that I've gotten the wrong thing through the Spirit or that there is more than one interpretation.

As I reread my comment I feel I ought to correct myself. There is a point in comparing the church leaders words to scriptures. It's just not the point I think the OP was making. I don't think we need to discount their words if we feel that the scriptures disagree with them. While I encourage a spiritual approach, or rather a Spirit-led approach, I otherwise agree with the process you described previously. Accept both as true, keep your mind open, take in all the facts, and allow yourself to be opened up to ideas that you never even would have considered before.