Glenn Beck's coded language may refer to obscure LDS doctrine

[sirkickyass]

Do you have anything credible that suggests the LDS religion member's have different beliefs because there is no professional clergy?

As opposed to your credible "opinion?" That is literally what you've based your statements on.

My opinion is also based on personal observation as well as judgments about the structure of the church. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the method in which Catholics choose their priests (i.e. through a formalized seminary in which the organization trains all of its clergy to teach the same things) is going to lead to greater harmonization than the pretty haphazard way that the LDS church chooses bishops, stake leaders, and other other leaders who are the immediate point of contact. The same is true of all churchs with formalized clergy training.

Obviously I would think that it's more harmonious in terms of its beliefs than some other faiths that are more decentralized than the LDS church like the Independent baptists and such.

 

[Beantown]

Kicky,

Here is what you typed:

Beantown tried to apply it pretty oddly somewhat recently, to argue that members shouldn't be concerned with their leader's spiritual shortcomings.

Either quote me on that or STFU.

Now here is what I typed again:

#1 In the Articles of Faith it says that were are not accountable for "Adams transgressions" this also means we have no part in anybody else's shortcomings or sins. In or outside of the church. I have no judgement or ill feelings towards anyone's problems or weakness's. Only that they can overcome them and better themselves.

See the part where it says " I HAVE". That is me referring to MYSELF not the ARTICLE of FAITH. Learn how to read. Kicky I know your balls are probably in proportion to the rest of your 13 year old physique but seriously grow a pair. Dont put words in my mouth and think you can get away with it.

 

[sirkickyass]

Bean the part of your statement I'm talking about is here:

In the Articles of Faith it says that were are not accountable for "Adams transgressions" this also means we have no part in anybody else's shortcomings or sins. In or outside of the church. I have no judgement or ill feelings towards anyone's problems or weakness's. Only that they can overcome them and better themselves.

That's before the I HAVE and is interpreting the Article of Faith. I'm not putting words in your mouth. That's what you said. The second article of faith is about original sin, not about the judgment of others. Do you seriously deny that?

 

[sirkickyass]

To add (since I'm having problems editing right now for some reason):

I have no particular reason to try to hunt you down four months after the fact Bean and lie about what you wrote. I remembered it because it was such an odd interpretation. And that conversation, where you applied the second article of faith to not judging others, was in the context of a discussion about the moral actions of church leaders generally and Chris Buttars as a bishop specifically. I'm not pulling your words out of context at all. Anyone who wants to look at the thread can judge for themsleves.

 

[Beantown]

Bean the part of your statement I'm talking about is here:



That's before the I HAVE and is interpreting the Article of Faith. I'm not putting words in your mouth. That's what you said. The second article of faith is about original sin, not about the judgment of others. Do you seriously deny that?

In the Articles of Faith it says that were are not accountable for "Adams transgressions" this also means we have no part in anybody else's shortcomings or sins. In or outside of the church. I have no judgement or ill feelings towards anyone's problems or weakness's. Only that they can overcome them and better themselves.

The judgement part is clearly referring to me because it directly comes after "I have". There is no reference to judgement and the 2nd article of faith in that paragraph.

The other bolded part is not only referring to "Adams original sin or transgression" but the other part in the 2nd article:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

Which means if a spiritual leader or even a Prophet falls, it has nothing to do with our own salvation.

 

[NUMBERICA]

You socialists have failed. Beck stands for freedom and free market, something that Americans are only now beginning to remember.

There's a reason why Beck has you liberals shaking in your boots. After November, the funding for your precious socialized health care is gone. The Communist experiment will be over in two more years too, thank goodness.

Beck is a gold mine too, foxnews ain't dropping him anytime soon. He just tells the truth. Freedom is a great thing. If you people don't like him, don't buy his products. Free markets are incredible when we let them be free, which is exactly what Beck advocates. Since when has government ever created jobs or money?

This is literally some of the dumbest crap I've ever seen on this site. Git 'er dun.

 

[franklin]

There are differences in description as to why the Bible is translated "incorrectly." McConkie says that the issue is one of accuracy of translation. Mark Petersen describes the problems as ones caused by deliberate insertions in the text. Joseph Smith describes the problem as transmission errors. These all have different implications about the trustworthiness of the document and these are very high level disputes.

I have the impression that you're combining the difference between precise doctrine and gray area. The above example isn't a very good argument for high variability within the LDS church. The 3 referenced people all allude to issues studied by textual critics. Deliberate insertions could be translation and/or transmission errors. Some translators "clarified" a passage by inserting a word that favored their interpretation. Some transmitters deliberately omitted or added to passages. You're nitpicking if you think this is varying interpretation.

I can see charismatic converts interpreting the "gift of tongues" quite differently. Is it variable interpretation or incorrect interpretation that needs to be fixed?

As far as I know, there isn't much LDS cannon on end-o-days. I'd put that in the "gray area" column. Religions come and gone have speculated heavily here. Rapture and its tribulation variants, preterism with it's variants and opponents, dispensationalism, etc.

I would expect the Roman Catholic Church to have the least variability due to the structured training of clergy. However, internal arguments often request moving back to correct, old catechisms.

LDS instruction comes from manuals. I'd expect much variability in a religion that expects personal study. The basic manual information is the same, but the individual outcome is going to vary based highly on individual effort, and compounded by personal biases (call it the Bircher effect--those people know everything from the start).

 

[C l u t c H 385]

can someone run through the churches position on Prop 8 again?

 

[sirkickyass]

I have the impression that you're combining the difference between precise doctrine and gray area.

I was merely disputing the notion that the Articles of Faith represent some bedrock core of beliefs among church members that doesn't vary and demonstrating my point using some selected articles and differences of opinion.

The above example isn't a very good argument for high variability within the LDS church. The 3 referenced people all allude to issues studied by textual critics. Deliberate insertions could be translation and/or transmission errors. Some translators "clarified" a passage by inserting a word that favored their interpretation. Some transmitters deliberately omitted or added to passages. You're nitpicking if you think this is varying interpretation.

It matters a great deal because a key issue is what segments of the Bible are "fair game" and which ones are in doubt. If the issue is translation or transmission error that that means the actual text is unreliable. If the issue is merely deletions then everything that's left is kosher but there is additional supplemental materials (including but not limited to the possible inclusion of apocrypha). If the issue is additions then the problem then there is no supplemental material allowed per se and the issue is figuring out which parts to excise. Those are significant differences in how to treat inconsistent or questionable text in a core book of the religion and we get differing statements on the issue between prophets and apostles over time. That's not a nitpick, that's a major difference and the differences occur at a high level of the church leadership.

Is it variable interpretation or incorrect interpretation that needs to be fixed?

That's for you all to work out. My point was merely that interpretation of that article of faith varies.

As far as I know, there isn't much LDS cannon on end-o-days. I'd put that in the "gray area" column. Religions come and gone have speculated heavily here. Rapture and its tribulation variants, preterism with it's variants and opponents, dispensationalism, etc.

Would disagree with the statement that there's a fair amount of "lay doctrine" surrounding the end of days? Particularly as applied to the practice and interpretation of patriarchial blessings in many stakes and wards?

LDS instruction comes from manuals. I'd expect much variability in a religion that expects personal study. The basic manual information is the same, but the individual outcome is going to vary based highly on individual effort, and compounded by personal biases (call it the Bircher effect--those people know everything from the start).

Here we agree. I suspect we'd simply disagree as to the extent that the church varies through differences in emphasis and departures from materials (which happens) from region to region.

 

[franklin]

I was merely disputing the notion that the Articles of Faith represent some bedrock core of beliefs among church members that doesn't vary and demonstrating my point using some selected articles and differences of opinion.

That's what I thought. The issue started that LDS belief is more variable than most other churches. Obviously I disagree, and see a lot of variability in pretty much every brand of religion. Where I think you may be selling LDS short is in picking words like translation, transmission, and deletion, and calling it a difference of opinion when the overall idea is not. Tying any religion down to statements like these that seem contrasting all-too-often doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Religion is big picture.

It matters a great deal because a key issue is what segments of the Bible are "fair game" and which ones are in doubt. If the issue is translation or transmission error that that means the actual text is unreliable. If the issue is merely deletions then everything that's left is kosher but there is additional supplemental materials (including but not limited to the possible inclusion of apocrypha). If the issue is additions then the problem then there is no supplemental material allowed per se and the issue is figuring out which parts to excise. Those are significant differences in how to treat inconsistent or questionable text in a core book of the religion and we get differing statements on the issue between prophets and apostles over time. That's not a nitpick, that's a major difference and the differences occur at a high level of the church leadership.

The way I understand it, LDS don't have to guess what to follow in the bible and what to ignore. Interpretations have been laid out pretty plainly. Also, current prophesy is pretty much synonymous with modern translation of what the bible meant when handed down from God through prophets and apostles. I think the bible is more of a supplement or historical document with deep religious undertones. They also use the Joseph Smith Translation [of the bible], which I don't think was a finished product.

You'll have to give and example or two of major differences in biblical interpretations over time. The bible is contradictory, and your concern is something every church deals with. I think LDS have staked out their interpretation of biblical passages pretty clearly. I guess I didn't see anything in your speaking in tongues example, but admittedly, I'm not familiar with the situation.

Would disagree with the statement that there's a fair amount of "lay doctrine" surrounding the end of days? Particularly as applied to the practice and interpretation of patriarchial blessings in many stakes and wards?

Lay doctrine, yeah, but I don't know much about patriarchial blessings. I thought they're supposed to be personal and not shared gospel discussion.

 

[bigb]

Lay doctrine, yeah, but I don't know much about patriarchial blessings. I thought they're supposed to be personal and not shared gospel discussion.

They are a personal blessing one receives, but you are free to share them with others, if you so desire. I've shared mine with my wife and parts with others as well.

 

[freakazoid]

https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-4-2010/hurty-sanchez