- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote that caught my eye. Seems to imply that truth is relative, from our own scriptures: Quote:
All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it…”-D&C 93
A correct interpretation?
I think it can be read either way (that, in specific spheres, there is Truth, but that that same Truth might be only truth when viewed more broadly) – and I really like the idea that there is both Truth and truth. The D&C institute manual has some interesting things to say about that verse: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-90-100/section-93-truth-is-knowledge-of-things– ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-90-100/section-93-truth-is-knowledge-of-things– Borrowing one line from the manual:
Quote:Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field.
Oxforddictionarries.com has definitions for sphere: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sphere ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sphere I’ve always interpreted this scripture using definition 1.3: “A celestial body,” but the manual seems to be using definition 2:
Quote:An area of activity, interest, or expertise; a section of society or an aspect of life distinguished and unified by a particular characteristic.
The use of the word “sphere” in the temple may also add interesting insight into the intended meaning.
We had our Stake President teach EQ and RS this Sunday (like every other ward I’m sure) and he spoke about the ordain women movement and all the hype surrounding Kate Kelly. I can’t remember specifically what verse he used to defend his position on only men receiving ordination, but I do remember is was a verse from Section 132. I wondered how often church leaders use scripture verses that are taken completely out if context. What constitutes as truth in one verse is independent of any other gospel principles. I don’t know that it is appropriate to use verses from a section of the D&C outlining the practice of polygamy to enforce one’s stance on women rights when church leaders (Hinckley) have denounced the practice as not doctrinal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
EuSouScott wrote:wondered how often church leaders use scripture verses that are taken completely out if context.
I think it happens fairly often.
SilentDawning wrote:A correct interpretation?
I’ve always liked the idea that the laws of physics (to me the “truth”) are the same everywhere throughout the universe, but I can’t say that for certain, I suppose, because we don’t even know what all the laws are.
It’s not just leaders who take things out of context. Humans generally crave simplicity in a complex world, so we look for the easiest, shortest, most easily digestible explanations we can find that will give us contrived simplicity. The concept of a “cafeteria” isn’t limited to religion. We are supposed to rise above the natural (wo)man, but it isn’t easy to do.
Old-Timer wrote:It’s not just leaders who take things out of context. Humans generally crave simplicity in a complex world, so we look for the easiest, shortest, most easily digestible explanations we can find that will give us contrived simplicity. The concept of a “cafeteria” isn’t limited to religion.
We are supposed to rise above the natural (wo)man, but it isn’t easy to do.
Ray, you’re right and thank you for pointing it out. It’s probably unfair to always criticize the leaders for their orthodoxy.
Since my loss of testimony, I have a tendency to walk around with a chip on my shoulder. It’s unfair and inappropriate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.