Comments on: End the suffering for the FLDS kids

By: Aaron Orgill

Aaron Orgill — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:41:48 +0000

Yes, most of these people I refer to would be LDS. And yes, there are huge differences between the LDS faith and the so-called “mainstream” Christian churches (although I say there are so many opinions that almost nothing is truly mainstream). But I have been LDS my entire life, and don’t feel Bible interpretation is a whole lot different except in the key point that we believe there is additional scripture. Faith of any kind is dismissed with contempt, so I almost never get into these theological discussions. Even as a missionary it made me uncomfortable to see my cohorts using LDS dogma to chastise and condemn people who saw it differently. And I can confirm that Tom has indeed come a long way in religious debate. There is nothing empirical about faith, so arguing is utterly useless and usually leads to bad feelings (which I hope hasn’t happened here).

Yes, unfortunately, sometimes I am guilty of needing to have the last word. Then again, you felt like you had something you just had to add in the same breath you made that accusation. I acknowledge you for your principles and wish you the best of luck becoming the person you want to be.

By: Kara

Kara — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:12:09 +0000

Thanks for your personal sharing, Tom. I agree with most of what you said in your latest post. Believe it or not, this is the first time I’ve debated “theology” in this place, and have found it to be very enlightening in a variety of respects. I’m not sure, however, if I’m up for a regular round of theological discussions, but I do believe I’m a stronger person in my faith as a result of the discussions, and I hope the others involved can say the same. Thank you for the initial posting that started this lengthy discussion. Hopefully we are not involved in a similar debate again in the future.

By: Tom Grover

Tom Grover — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:18:52 +0000

Kara,

This is why I no longer debate theology with people (no offense). Earlier in my life I dug it. Now, not so much.

The debates are highly abstract confounded by a lack of emprical evidence. Add a heavy dose of dogma from any religious person (myself included) and meaningful debates are impossible.

I suppose what makes these debates the most uninteresting is that too many of us take the position that our interpretation of God or Scripture is “the” interpretation and are unwilling to accept others seeing it another way.

Maybe the Pearly Gates swing, maybe they slide. Maybe Adam had a navel, maybe he didn’t. Maybe there was One Cumorah, Maybe Two.

Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, and variant opinions will be supported by fact and reason.

By: Kara

Kara — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:42:09 +0000

If we are getting nowhere, why do you keep coming back to the discussion and posting something? Do you have to get the last word in or something?

Are all these dozens of people LDS by chance? I’m starting to get the sense that LDS Bible interpretation is very different than mainstream Christian interpretation.

By: Aaron Orgill

Aaron Orgill — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:48:22 +0000

As I predicted, we are getting nowhere. Not sure who these “most” people are you speak for, or how you became their leader. I have heard that passage interpreted the same way at least a dozen times, by a number of people, and it is in no way out of context.

By: Kara

Kara — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:33:07 +0000

Plowking- I am aware of the meaning in context for verses 8 and 9. I was merely using it as an illustration for Aaron to show him the need to read the Bible in context and not isolate verses. I know Jesus is not talking about literally cutting off parts of our body in those verses, that doesn’t fit with the context stated in verse 1. But if someone were to simply isolate verses and read them without the Biblical context they were intended to be read in, they might walk away with strange ideas about what the Bible is saying. That is the point I was trying to make by using verses 8 and 9. Guess I wasn’t so clear in communicating that.

Aaron- I am by no way trying to limit the meaning of verse 6. Look at the context in the Bible, it speaks for itself to most people. If it doesn’t, talk with a Biblical scholar who will support reading the Bible on context. I know I’ve talked with a few scholars over this verse lately. Tom’s context and your support of that context are not from the Biblical context, they are your own, which you are entitled to believe. Your interpretations may indeed be considered outlandish to some in that Jesus is talking about HEAVEN here in this passage. Tom used the context in a way I believe to be incorrect according to the Bible’s intention, which is why I started the dialogue. Simple as that. Isn’t that what this website is about- dialogue on local and national issues?

By: Aaron Orgill

Aaron Orgill — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:45:27 +0000

I’m not sure how you can toss out the context in which Tom used it. I see no point in arguing about it. It doesn’t seem very likely that an extended conversation would get us very far. But I don’t know what other interpretation you could possibly have. I understand that you can reach all sorts of crazy conclusions if you isolate the verses, whether it be of the Bible, the Koran, or Battlefield Earth, but really, how outlandish is it to suggest that part of what is being said here is that harming or causing pain for children is a vile offense for which there will be severe consequences? I don’t really want to start banging our heads against the wall, but I don’t get why of all the contradictions and oddities in the Bible you would pick this relatively simple one to pick apart and limit its meaning.

By: David James

David James — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:06:52 +0000

Thanks for the info pk–great help understanding those passages.

By: plowkings

plowkings — Tue, 06 May 2008 05:22:49 +0000

Kara
sorry i just had to jump in on this one, only becouse you used 18;8 and 18;9, and this comes from the fact your probley useing the king james version or version of but actuly those verses for cut your foot or hand off or pluck your eye out. do need to be taken litteraly, its just that the english is an extremly poor translation of what is being said in hebrew, read the german or greek version it gets lost in the latin to english, but it is actuly refering to friend or family, we use a similur thing in english when we call someone are “right hand man” or the “apple of my eye” these sayings come from the hebrew wich is refering to are hand as are friend if are friend offends us cut them off Break the friendship if they are bringing you down or takeing you away from the gospil, pluck your eye out or your family member that is doing the same, sorry but i do believe in the bible litteraly, i know that is not popular but i do, as long as you find the corect meaning and i think you were trying to put this accross before take it in context. but when it says moses split the red sea he did it!

By: Kara

Kara — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:28:56 +0000

Aaron- I have by no means suggested in any of my posts that I’m a Biblical scholar or expert. I do appreciate though your likening my Bible knowledge to that of the Pope or a Supreme Pastor. It is the highest of compliments. I have no desire to hold either of those positions, though I do respect the men under those titles. I do, however, have a personal interest in the Bible and have studied it in college and continue to study it now.

I agree with you somewhat that while a verse can have different levels of meaning, it can’t have completely different meanings. I do know how dangerous it can be to base a belief on one single verse pulled from the Bible. It is from this point I made my original comment.

If you hold to your rationale about Matthew 18:6, and the words “say what they say,” then this should also be true for other verses, right?

Let’s look at Matthew 18:8 and 18:9. Those words say: “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell.”

These words say to dismember our hand, foot, or eye if it offends us. Why don’t you follow those words exactly then if they are so clear stating to do that? Lest you think your hand, foot, or eye has never offended- think about a time your eye has looked at a female with lust or looked at your neighbor with envy.

Any more questions about reading Bible verses in context?

By: Aaron Orgill

Aaron Orgill — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:59:25 +0000

Kara, sorry you think I’m rude. But I stand by it. I too consider the Bible to be a sacred text, and for you to scold Tom for “taking it out of context” is amazingly presumptuous. The words say what they say, and to me it appears to be a very clear condemnation of abusing children. No one has even told you your interpretation is wrong. Often there are several levels of meaning in the same passage. So again I ask you, who are you to say that it’s out of context?

Rachel, in what way is Utah’s school system a joke? The numbers show that it is far better run here than in most states. If it’s the miserly amount of money we pay our teachers, I would agree with you. But to criticize the whole system is wildly inaccurate.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:32:00 +0000

Matt. 18: 6

6 But whoso shall aoffend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

I really see your point here Tom, but in a totally different way. I agree that girls must be a certain age to be able to give consent, otherwise it’s rape. Maybe those FLDS men who “offend one of these little ones” by institutional, church sanctioned (if not directed) rape of young girls are being punished with little patience (treating the 4th Amend. like the over zealous LCPD) and an abundance of vengeance (saving the children from continued or potential rape). Don’t you think?
I mean what is more offending: the temporary separation of children or the rape of children?

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 03 May 2008 01:54:02 +0000

First of all, Tom, what is your issue with Texas? It is so weird to me that you keep scolding “Texas”. I mean did the land mass do something wrong? Did all the citizens go into the compound and take these kids? Did the Alamo storm in an arrest the men? How about this.. Stupid Utah, your beer has no alcohol in it and you think cheer-beer or “alcohol pops” are Satan. Way to go Utah, you corrupted your way into Olympic History. Way to go Utah your school system is a joke. Man, Utah, you have the highest debt rate in the nation, you suck.

Anyway, yes. Maybe there was illegal search and seizures. It will all get thrown out. That may result in all of the children returning to their parents. Is that a good thing? Maybe. Is it a bad thing? Maybe.

I actually agree that Polygamy should be legal. I think gay marriage should be legal. I think that the government should have nothing to go with marriage.

HOWEVER, fourteen year old girls getting inpregnated and “married” is ILLEGAL. This has got to be stopped. If the Texan officers did something wrong, it was being too hyper to nail the men who do this to these girls.

Do I care that they wear 1600′s garb and have long hair? No. Do I care that they suck the LIFE out of welfare? YES.

AND one more thing. Stop bashing the poor Baptist people for taking these kids in. They see children who are lost and need to find Jesus and be saved. Is that crossing church and state? YES.

BUT you can not honestly tell me that if there was a religious sect in Logan UT that was raided for child abuse and molestation (which I would not put past Logan officers as they have issues with illegal search and seizers.. poor partying college kids) that there would not be a million nice LDS families that would lovingly bring the kids into their home and mention Jesus and God and The Book of Mormon. That is normal. It is how they feel and how they share love. Just like the Baptist. This is how they feel and how they are sharing their love.
Whew. I am done.

By: Kara

Kara — Sat, 03 May 2008 00:10:59 +0000

How rude, Aaron Orgill.

Just as so many Mormons get offended when what they consider sacred scripture is misused or misinterpreted by the common American, so do I get offended when what I consider to be sacred scripture (in this case, the Bible) is misused or misinterpreted.

Plowking- I’ll share more thoughts with you on your site later.

By: plowking

plowking — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:40:05 +0000

Further more matthew 18 you are right Christ is talking about what it takes to enter his kingdom and the subject of forgiving are trespassers there trespasses. This rule is to be followed in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. then Christ goes on to say about his little ones, Which as i said before can be interpreted as us all. But if Christ the forgiver of all has a hard time forgiving such actions against his little ones that should say something to the offenses against the completely innocent. As with all of Christs teachings it is a parable and can be dove into deeper and deeper with every line but i think there is a reason that in ver. 2 Jesus called the little child to come befor them and stay in there midst while he tought the parrible.

Sorry tom for turning your blog into a religious descusion but i gess us crazy theocons do that Kara please share more of your interpritations with me thow as i said i would love to hear a new point. if you want continue on my blog