23 ... that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/19/23#23)
I'm sure most of you are familiar with this concept -- we should apply what we read in the scriptures for use in our own lives. I'd like to provide my interpretation of this verse (although it isn't the only one that I could come up with.)
With the spiritual stuff, it's really easy to apply the scriptures to ourselves because they deal with that directly. But what about other aspects of my daily life? Relationships, work, etc. There's not a whole lot of specifics with those. But I've heard the saying that when we want to talk to God, we should pray and when we want to hear God we should hear the scriptures. But if my problem is something like "What career should I pursue?" I could read the scriptures for hours on end and not come up with anything. It's obviously something that is very important to me and I would like some Divine guidance, so how can I get it by reading the scriptures. How do I liken the scriptures to myself? I really can't give any specific answers to this general question, but I thought up a method to liken the scriptures to ourselves to receive answers to things that aren't specifically mentioned in the scriptures:
Perhaps the most important thing is the Holy Ghost. For example, I could be reading from the war chapters in the Book of Mormon trying to figure out which career I should pursue. As the Holy Ghost guides me, it will point out specific things in the verses for me to think about. As I think about those things, I can start to apply them to my situation. However, I brought up the war chapters to make a point. Likening the scriptures to ourselves doesn't mean that in a given situation we should behave exactly like someone did in the scriptures. As in war there are lots of different options, each with advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps I'll read something and see how it's similar to my life, but the Spirit will guide me to look at other options. Perhaps the war strategy used isn't the best choice for me, but if I modify it a little it would be the best.
I'm sorry if I'm not very clear with all the steps, but this is the process:
1. Have the Holy Ghost (or at least be in an environment conducive to the Spirit)
2. Read the scriptures
3. PONDER the scriptures, think about what's going on, or what the teachings are
4. As you have the Holy Ghost, think about how to apply this teaching in your life
5. To confirm that you've made the correct interpretation, you should pray and ask God
"When we want to speak to God, wepray. And when we want Him to speak to us, we search the scriptures; forHis words are spoken through His prophets. He will then teach us as welisten to the promptings of the Holy Spirit." (Robert D. Hales, "Holy Scriptures: The Power of God unto Our Salvation," Ensign, Nov. 2006, 26-27)
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
DNA and the Book of Mormon (and the Bible)
I don't want this blog to be full of my questions about Mormonism that would make me almost appear to be a dissident. So I'm going to bring up a few points about DNA and the Book of Mormon. There's a lot that can be said on this subject, but I really want to focus on how hypocritical it is when other Christians criticize the Book of Mormon for "failing" the DNA test. That is because the exact same DNA tests that they use to "prove" that the Book of Mormon is false would also prove the Bible false with pretty much the same logic.
Their arguments against the Book of Mormon go something like this:
1. The Book of Mormon teaches that the ancestors of Native Americans are completely/mostly/primarily Israelite (or Jewish in modern times.) Or rather, Jews and Native Americans share a common ancestor.
2. Jewish DNA and Native American DNA are not alike enough to indicate that they share a common ancestor.
3. Therefore the Book of Mormon is not true.
A lot can be written about the flaws in their logic, but I just want to point out how this logic stands up with the Bible:
1. The Bible teaches that ALL humans share a common ancestor (First Adam and Eve, then Noah and his wife.) By ALL humans, that must include Jews and Native Americans.
2. Jewish DNA and Native American DNA are not alike enough to indicate that they share a common ancestor.
3. Therefore the Bible is not true.
I should note that there was only 11 generations between Noah and Abraham, so if they believe #1, there isn't enough time between Noah and Abraham for them to conclude that #2 applies to the first example, but not the second example.
So, it is hypocritical of a non-Mormon Christian to say that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, but not the Bible.
Their arguments against the Book of Mormon go something like this:
1. The Book of Mormon teaches that the ancestors of Native Americans are completely/mostly/primarily Israelite (or Jewish in modern times.) Or rather, Jews and Native Americans share a common ancestor.
2. Jewish DNA and Native American DNA are not alike enough to indicate that they share a common ancestor.
3. Therefore the Book of Mormon is not true.
A lot can be written about the flaws in their logic, but I just want to point out how this logic stands up with the Bible:
1. The Bible teaches that ALL humans share a common ancestor (First Adam and Eve, then Noah and his wife.) By ALL humans, that must include Jews and Native Americans.
2. Jewish DNA and Native American DNA are not alike enough to indicate that they share a common ancestor.
3. Therefore the Bible is not true.
I should note that there was only 11 generations between Noah and Abraham, so if they believe #1, there isn't enough time between Noah and Abraham for them to conclude that #2 applies to the first example, but not the second example.
So, it is hypocritical of a non-Mormon Christian to say that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, but not the Bible.
Priesthood Session of General Conference
I really don't want to come off as caustic, but there is something about the way General Conference is presented that I've never understood. Why isn't the Priesthood Session of General Conference broadcast in the same way that ALL the other sessions are? It's not like there's anything secret said. Transcripts and DVDs of everything are published soon after conference. Whenever a big announcement has been made it has been reported in all the major Utah newspapers and TV stations. So why is it made less convenient for people to watch or listen to?
I used to think that it was because if it was broadcast normally, the Priesthood wouldn't go. But that's a stupid argument. If somebody didn't want to go, he just wouldn't go.
Imagine this:
Suppose you had some information and you felt it was really important for the whole world to know it. So you publish the information in a video conference that the whole world can see on the Internet. Sounds good so far. Now suppose that some of this information you decide to publish, but not in video form on the Internet. People can read transcripts about a week later. Or if they really want to watch the video broadcast can find a nearby meetinghouse where it is broadcast (which might not be all that close depending on where they live.) It kind of makes it sound like that information isn't as important to you -- that it's more of a footnote or something technical.
My point is that if Priesthood session information is as important the other session information, then why would they make one much easier to access than the others? Or when they made the decision to do things that way, did they just not think about that?
Again, I apologise if I sound caustic, but I really want to know why Priesthood session is broadcast the way that it is?
I used to think that it was because if it was broadcast normally, the Priesthood wouldn't go. But that's a stupid argument. If somebody didn't want to go, he just wouldn't go.
Imagine this:
Suppose you had some information and you felt it was really important for the whole world to know it. So you publish the information in a video conference that the whole world can see on the Internet. Sounds good so far. Now suppose that some of this information you decide to publish, but not in video form on the Internet. People can read transcripts about a week later. Or if they really want to watch the video broadcast can find a nearby meetinghouse where it is broadcast (which might not be all that close depending on where they live.) It kind of makes it sound like that information isn't as important to you -- that it's more of a footnote or something technical.
My point is that if Priesthood session information is as important the other session information, then why would they make one much easier to access than the others? Or when they made the decision to do things that way, did they just not think about that?
Again, I apologise if I sound caustic, but I really want to know why Priesthood session is broadcast the way that it is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)