Christians, Don’t Misuse Revelation 22:18

116 Responses to Christians, Don’t Misuse Revelation 22:18

1. Enki says:

   March 10, 2009 at 9:43 pm

   Ralph,
   Thank you for your input, thats very interesting. One would have to be very, very well versed in scripture to pick those out, or go to skeptic/critic webpage to find those. Or go ask Raph! Thank you Ralph!
2. Enki says:

   March 10, 2009 at 9:53 pm

   Fof,
   You said that the BOM says “they are their own judges”. I think that you mean its a concept, does the book actually say that in so many words? Or do you have to piece together a lot of statements from the BOM to come up with that?

   “There are eternal laws that are not changeable. If I jump off a building, the law of gravity results in my fall to the earth. Similarly there is eternal moral and spiritual law that is just as demanding. It is this law to which we are subject. ”

   Eternal unchanging laws might be a teaching of christianity and mormonism, but just because its written down somewhere doesn’t make it true. If you watch documentaries on PBS about physics its pretty mind blowing, what seemed like such an unchanging law…changes, or is it just our knowledge of it thats changed? You don’t necessarily need god, satan or angels to have the concept of moral and spiritual laws which are demanding. The jain concept of karma is a great example, but I think that is another topic altogether. So if its entirely up to natural moral laws, why would you need god?
3. Ralph says:

   March 10, 2009 at 10:09 pm

   For those who do not agree with the concept of God giving us ‘free agency’, here is a quote from a Baptist pastor about the tragic shooting of his companion in Illanois on Sunday.

   “Our great God is not surprised by this, or anything,” Nate Adams, executive director of the Illinois Baptist State Association, said in a statement. “That he allows evil and free will to have their way in tragedies like this is a mystery in many ways. But we know we can trust him no matter what, and draw close to him in any circumstances.”

   (emphasis mine)

   So there are some Christians out there who believe the God has given us our free will, besides the LDS.
4. Enki says:

   March 10, 2009 at 11:52 pm

   Amanda,
   The LDS church fully knows what prop 8 limits. It limits the legal recognition of same sex marriage. Some churches perform such marriages, so this conflicts with article of faith 11, “We …allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Joseph Smith had some disagreements with the Shaker community, and issued D&C 49. That was totally within the churches power to write a document and advance a dialog with the shakers. That didn’t violate article 11. The LDS church could very easily produce a document and cannonize it concerning same sex marriage.

   Comments about ‘eternal damnation’ were made on ‘heavenly hells, and hellish heavens’ which was quite extensive. Who is a heretic reguarding these doctrines? Only the reader can decide. The word constitution is used in a variety of contexts. North Korea has a constitution, yet most americans probably wouldn’t consider that democratic. Real minorities? Religious minorities aren’t really real if they aren’t associated with a particular race or ethnicity. Wikipedia has a commentary about ‘tyrant’ its not always negative, and can be applied to good or bad leaders.
5. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

   March 11, 2009 at 5:16 am

   Amanda wrote “You hold Joseph Smith to an impossible standard–the same standard contemporaries of Isaiah, Moses, Paul (as a priesthood holder) and Abraham applied.”

   My first encounter with Joseph Smith was through the six Mormons who made up the remainder of the small company I was working with for a while. My reaction was “these are nice guys, let’s give their prophet a fair go”. If he was sent by God, then I should listen.

   So I read up on the subject, and I asked my colleagues. However, the door slammed firmly shut when I found out about Joseph’s “wives”. As I understand it, the Biblical pattern is that when a person encounters God, he or she is driven away from sin (for example, see Isaiah’s reaction in Isaiah 6:5). So, many of the prominent characters of the Bible start of in sin, but their trajectory after meeting with God is towards righteousness.

   Joseph Smith, by contrast, meets God as a teenager and multiplies his adulteries into his adult life at an exponential rate (yes, I do mean adultery in the usual sense of the word; many of his “wives” were simultaneously married to other men).

   If Joseph did meet God, then it does not appear to have done him any good. Do you really expect me to trust him to show me some secret way to meet with God? I’d rather trust the Mafia show me how fill in my tax returns!
6. mrgermit says:

   March 11, 2009 at 7:20 am

   Amanda: I”ll accept that my interpretation is a “guess” , but no more so than any man or woman walking on the planet, including, you, and including Mr.Monson. If I’m “guessing” then so are they, and so are you. If you want to characterize all human interpretation as “guesses”, then in that sense, mine would be also.

   Peace and rest on all who love the shpherd of souls
   GERMIT

   ps: any higher realm of “interpretaton” given to Mr. or Mrs. special is self-congratulation. at least that’s the way I see it.

   Gundek:
   then Mormons should not misuse James 1:5

   thanks for that: this is the most horribly misquoted verse in the history of man
7. faithoffathers says:

   March 11, 2009 at 11:27 am

   Gundeck and Germit,

   How do mormons mis-interpret James 1:5?

   fof
8. mrgermit says:

   March 11, 2009 at 1:57 pm

   FoF: very good question, let me work up an answer that looks at the context of the epistle. I’ll have something posted by tomorrow evening.

   Hope you and yours are doing well
   GERmIT
9. gundeck says:

   March 11, 2009 at 2:38 pm

   James 1:5 is often used to persuade people to pray about the truthfulness of the BoM. In its context James 1:5 has nothing to do with asking about the truthfulness of Scripture or revelation.
10. gundeck says:

    March 11, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Ralph,

    I am not going to parse a statement of a Pastor, trying to explain the existence of evil in the world concerning this horrendous and sinful tragedy, to debate free will. You win.
11. Amanda says:

    March 11, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Sorry, Linda and others…for as much news as I watch, you’d think I’d get that kind of information accurate! Illinois, sorry!

    Enki,

    you said:
    The LDS church fully knows what prop 8 limits. It limits the legal recognition of same sex marriage. Some churches perform such marriages, so this conflicts with article of faith 11, “We …allow all men the same privilege…”

    As far as I know, prop 8 does not disallow the privilege of ‘marriage’ to anyone! ANYONE can marry under the law. No to prop8-ers really wanted to invent privileges that have never civilly existed in this country before recent legalization’s in MA and VT (and am I missing any?). It is perfectly legitimate to reject the redefining of institutions that the government regulates for the safety of children. CA said ‘no’ to social experimentation—very wise. CA voted for Prop 8, not the LDS church.

    “Wikipedia has a commentary about ‘tyrant’ its not always negative, and can be applied to good or bad leaders. ”

    If a ruler/leader in ANY capacity tried to FORCE people to be ‘good’…it would still be wrong! Agency is a virtue and principle…Tyrant’s do not uphold this virtue–which is where the term retains relevancy–not in other personal aspects of an individuals life (which may not be void of all virtues–just the virtue that eradicates tyrannical rule: agency). It seems that website you quoted propagated the message that we ought to eradicate dissenters from minority opinion! Basically, if the minority disagrees with the majority–the majority is inherently wrong. Democracy does not guarantee equality in every aspect of life–it only guarantees you have a voice in the process–and generally maintain the right to govern yourself if it does not infringe on others’ rights. If you are expecting perfection in government, you aren’t going to get it–as long as men are at the helm (‘men’ used in the biblical non-feminist form:).

    MrGermit,

    How are you this fine evening? I found your last post a bit confusing. you said,

    ” I”ll accept that my interpretation is a “guess” , but no more so than any man or woman walking on the planet, including, you, and including Mr.Monson. If I’m “guessing” then so are they, and so are you. If you want to characterize all human interpretation as “guesses”, then in that sense, mine would be also.”

    Then you immediately scold Ralph for interpreting James 1:5 incorrectly! Whether he is or not, it certainly flies in the face of what you claim is your philosophical approach to scripture.

    I do not believe that God leaves it up to His children to GUESS on matters of spirituality and Eternal life! If you are wrong about LDS ‘guessing’ we need to be baptized by Christs’ priesthood authority–that has significant consequences!

    President Monson to you is simply ‘guessing’–yet many on here would suggest that he is misleading LDS on a path to hell–do you believe this? I feel it is necessary that you separate your personal beliefs from the majority of ev’s on this point..if you are to maintain your statement about how we are all just ‘guessing’.

    You seem to be honestly approaching the subject–and in that regard, I do not find it hard to believe that you would feel this whole organized religion thing is a matter of ‘guessing’…because honestly, that’s been true since the NT apostles died! However, I must disagree that President Monson ‘guesses’…certainly you can assume so–but that is not what the restored gospel claims. ‘Guesses’ are not worthy of my undivided attention when I attend church/conference and other forums where the prophets message is heard. The restored gospel claims LITERAL authority from Christ and claims to be gathering Israel under His direction. That’s an extremely serious claim to make…certainly far from the benign concept of ‘guessing’.
12. Amanda says:

    March 11, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    By the way:

    IS anyone else OUTRAGED by what Connecticut tried to do to the Catholic church??? IT’s ABSOLUTE INSANITY!!!!!!!! Can I get a witness?

    We really ought to be discussing these matters because they effect ALL of us and our right to freely worship! If any of you are not abreast of this situation, you can read about it here:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52A7EQ20090311
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

    Thankfully they have abandoned it for a time…but this is not going away anytime soon. We should all be vigilant in these matters.
13. mrgermit says:

    March 11, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    Amanda: thanks for the reply.

    You and I would agree that GOD has not left us to just guess in regards to matters so important to our salvation and our souls. What I was responding to is an approach that puts the prophet’s (or the pope”s….or fill-in-the-blank) approach to scripture on some entirely different level than the rest of humanity. Yes, I would put the scriptural material on a different level, but as to interpretation, Monson, or Amanda, is not categorically a “leg up” on the rest of us. That was my point.

    I believe GOD to be a very able communicator, that’s why HE did such an awesome job with the BIBLE. He knows how to get HIS message across, using ordinary men, and ordinary methods.

    And to be clear: I do NOT hold all interpretations to be equal, that’s a rather absurd position. Some are quite good, some are ….yukkkk. I think that’s kind of self-evident. How to go about getting a correct interpretation probably deserves a thread all its own.

    Again, thanks for the chat.
    Blessings on you and yours.
    MrGermit
14. Enki says:

    March 11, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Amanda,
    About prop 8
    ” It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples’ right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases. The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” wikipedia

    It sounds like it restricts legal recognition of marriage to just opposite sex couples. Isn’t this the whole reason why the LDS president asked members for support in the first place? You said earlier ““No church member was forced to support prop 8. Our leaders asked us to…”
    Mormons have been active participants in the campaign both as volunteers and financial contributors, giving an estimated 43 percent — some $8.4 million — to the Proposition 8 campaign, according to the Web site mormonsfor8.com.

    You say:
    “It is perfectly legitimate to reject the redefining of institutions that the government regulates for the safety of children.”
    yes, Please do elaborate.

    About the tyrant thing, here is what wikipedia says, “The word derives from Latin tyrannus meaning “illegitimate ruler”, and ultimately from Greek τύραννος tyrannos, meaning “sovereign, master”, although the latter was not pejorative and applicable to both good and bad leaders alike.[1][2]”

    Carlton Pearson developed ‘the gospel of inclusion’ because he was concerned about some fundementalist teachings which made god a tyrant, even if he was a ‘good’ tryant. Well, he is rejected as a heretic by evangelicals and fundementalist christians. His teachings have some simliarity to that of the LDS faith, but is quite a bit more inclusive.

    Amanda, I want to quote something from what an LDS church member said about prop 8.
    “My concern is the natural phenomenon that occurs every time a group suffers any kind of persecution. The group, whether pursuing righteous or unrighteous goals tends to get stronger, more focused on their pursuits and further alienated.

    By persecuting the gay/lesbian community we are simply making them stronger and more alienated from us. We are deepening the divide and furthering hard feelings. This is hardly the work of true disciples of Jesus Christ. We are not supposed to alienate them, but to embrace them and love them.

    The way some members and some leaders have handled this issue has been, in my opinion, greatly opposed to how we have been taught to proceed in these cases:

    DC121:
    39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
    40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
    41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
    42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
    43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

    Note: Because I know some of you will argue we are “not persecuting them.” Let me remind you that historically, and for the purposes of the phenomenon described above, persecution is defined by the victims not by the perpetrators.”
15. faithoffathers says:

    March 12, 2009 at 9:48 am

    Gundeck,

    James 1:5 is used most often by LDS in the context of Joseph Smith’s search for truth. It was his reading this verse that led him to pray in an effort to learn which religion was true and which church he should join. I really don’t know how you can claim this verse is abused or mis-interpreted by LDS. Was Joseph not entitiled to interpret this verse the way he did in his search for truth?

    One of the most frequently repeated ideas in the scriptures is: “ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” Are you arguing that this basic idea and promise has nothing to do with finding truth about religion and God?

    The context of James 1:5 is fairly broad. Just before these verses, the tribes of Israel are identified as the recipients of this epistle. It is a letter of encouragement to endure temptation, to be “doers of the word,” to bridle the tongue, and visit the fatherless, etc.

    James 1:5 is about as straight forward a verse as there is in the Bible and communicates a fundamental concept of religion- if you are lost for wisdom and knowledge, ask God and He will give to you if you ask sincerely in faith. The context of the epistle or chapter does not change this in the slightest.

    peace

    fof
16. gundeck says:

    March 12, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    FoF,

    Despite your claim to the contrary this verse like every other verse in the bible has to be read in context. You cannot pick and choose if a verse should be read in context.

    First, like you said, it is Timothy and the tribes of Israel who are identified as the recipients, not unbelievers. Israel is the Church and James is using this reference to remind Jewish Christians of their spiritual heritage as the people of God. Reference to the Dispersion reminds the faithful that they are to be gathered by their Lord Jesus Christ. This letter has a specified audience and unbelievers are not being spoken to. You may disagree about what Israel references but no matter how you view the use of Israel in this passage (although there a plenty of references in the bible that the Church is the true Israel (Romans 4:16-18; 11:17-21; Galatians 3:14; Eph. 2:19; 4:4-6 etc.)), this letter has a specified audience not a general one.

    Second the reference is to wisdom not to knowledge or truth.

    Third and more specifically this is not a general “wisdom” that James is referring to, but wisdom to deal with the and meet the “trials of various kinds” mentioned in James 1:2. When you read this passage in the context of James 1:2-18 you see that the faith of the Church is being tested (James 1:3) and James is calling on the believers to be steadfast (James 1:4). He then goes on and advises the believers to pray for wisdom to deal with these trails and tests of faith (James 1:5). These people already know the truth, they are certainly not being advised to ask for it. James wants them to pray for wisdom, the discernment on how to apply the truth to their present trials.

    When you look at the material that James is covering in James 1:2-18 you can see that this is not an open ended invitation to pray regarding the truth of God’s revelation.

    Reread your references in Matt 7:7-11 and Luke 11:9-13 once again they are not referring to a open ended test of truth or praying to confirm the truthfulness of Scripture or God’s revelation. I am unable to find any reference in the bible that asks someone to pray to see if the Bible is true. If you are looking for a test of truth I would look at 1 John 4:1-6.