posted
I think the practical message from Revelation boils down to "Don't be fooled by a mere demonstration of power into abandoning what I have taught you." So there is some spiritual lesson to extract from even a literal meaning of Revelation. Things will get bad, and how we act during those bad times will matter, even though it won't change the outcome.
posted
Well, trying to understand Revelation IS on the list for someday, albeit pretty far down - after Isaiah but before Leviticus.
I do think it is scripture, and since it's scripture, it must have been given to us for a reason and contain something valuable, and I believe that if we read with faith and pray for wisdom, the Lord will give us what we seek.
I also have to admit I'm suspicious of just about anyone who says they understand it completely.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that when it comes to scripture that we don't understand, we benefit from being familiar with it. I believe that while it may not make any sense to us now, we can still benefit from reading and knowing well what is written there and that perhaps with doing so, someday it will make sense to us.
For instance, I don't claim to "understand" Isaiah, but I have come to love reading it. I find his words beautiful and evoking, much as I feel about Shakespear. Each time I watch "Hamlet", it becomes more beautiful to me. A lot of the wording and ideas still feel "over my head", but I feel edified nonetheless after immersing myself in it.
(I say this realizing I am in the company of literary giants who probably feel they do understand all of Shakespear and know it like the back of their hand. I am not one of those.)
I guess I believe that things don't have to be fully understood to have a powerful effect on a person. And when it comes to scripture, I believe that effect is resoundingly good.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to see the original vote tallies for inclusion or exclusion of Revelation from the canon.
I suspect that it was a close vote and if it'd gone just a little bit in the other direction we'd be sitting here arguing about whether this quirky book was scripture or some mystical BS of unknown provenance and uncertain value.
Basically, the "because it is scripture" argument assumes that the people who decided what is and is not canon were divinely guided. I think they were politically motivated more than they were divinely guided from everything I've heard to date.
Although I do have to say I'm not all THAT up on the process. Not even sure they actually "voted" in any sense we'd call fair or reliable.
I bet dkw knows, though.
So, anyway, here's a question for you. Do you think the decision on what is and is not canonical, especially in the New Testament, was divinely inspired and thus stands for all Christians for all time?
I know, this is not a fair question for LDS members since your prophets have (I assume) reaffirmed in modern times what is canonical or not, and it is that decision which you place your trust in.
But for everyone else...what do you think? Should this question be re-opened periodically?
Would it matter?
I mean, maybe we could get rid of "Numbers" and "Deuteronomy" and "Revelation" without too much problem. Add in some other stuff?
Also, maybe we should review the Dead Sea scrolls to see if something new in there should be added?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know - it seems like it wouldn't be any easier now than it was then, and probably a lot harder, especially with regard to adding things. There's a continuing line of authority to include these books; this tradition does a lot to boost their provenance.
posted
D&C 91 says the following about the apocrypha:
quote:1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
...
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.
I think Joseph Smith said the Song of Solomon wasn't scripture. The Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 14:18-27) reaffirms that Revelation was written by John the Apostle.
I know that's not exactly what you were looking for in the discussion, but I thought you'd like to know.
We know you're just pushing to get the Book of Bob put in.
All you really have to do is sneakily replace the Book of Job. How long will it be before people figure out it wasn't just a typo in their Bible?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob:"Revelations is by far the most difficult book in the Bible for people to understand and use. I have yet to see any claims for understanding it from credible scholars that don't include a whole raft of caveats, limitations, and cautionary statements."
One of Joseph Smith's most frustrating and baffling comments, for most Mormons, is when he said that the Book of Revelation is "one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written." Ever since then, all the other Mormons have been scratching their heads, wondering what it is that they're missing.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd never vote to dump Deuteronomy or Revelation. Or Song of Songs. Numbers I'd be a little iffier on. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said quit arguing. Shan, be the better person and don't post
quote:As for whether or not Revelation is relevant, I don't think we can take the parts of the Bible that make sense and reject the parts that don't. I say that fully knowing that I do that, but I disapprove of myself for it.
Why not? That's what the authors did.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: One of Joseph Smith's most frustrating and baffling comments, for most Mormons, is when he said that the Book of Revelation is "one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written." Ever since then, all the other Mormons have been scratching their heads, wondering what it is that they're missing.
I don't have it handy, but the rest of Joseph Smith's quote makes it clear that it is plan to understand in general, but not in specific. For example, it's easy to understand that at the end, times will be really tough, there will be a lot of conflict, and that the good guys will win. But the specific stuff ---- not so clear.
And katherina -- didn't Nephi say that Isiah is easy to undestand if you have the spirit of prophecy?
What does it mean for something to be scripture? I mean, you can tell the difference in text that is written by different authors, but if it is all scripture, how much of a personality can be threaded and injected into the words before it strays too far from was intended to be scripture?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of Joseph Smith's most frustrating and baffling comments, for most Mormons, is when he said that the Book of Revelation is "one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written."
I always thought it was that bit about the proof he wasn't talking to God being the proof that he was... But that's just me. No offense to LDSers (which there are probably a lot here), but that's just baffling...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean, you can tell the difference in text that is written by different authors, but if it is all scripture, how much of a personality can be threaded and injected into the words before it strays too far from was intended to be scripture?
I'm just thinking aloud here, but perhaps this is one of the reasons why it is so important to take scripture together as a whole, in context with all other scripture? Because I do think there is always a bit of that person's individual self woven in. I've always kinda looked at it that way.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tammy: [speaking of Joseph Smith's statements about Song of Solomon] "Do you think that means that he didn’t consider the Song of Solomon to be sacred or authoritative?"
In the LDS edition of the KJV Bible, the footnote at the beginning of the Song of Solomon reads, "Note: the JST [Joseph Smith Translation] manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings'." So yes, that means that JS didn't consider the SofS to be sacred or authoritative.
I realize this isn't exactly on topic, but the question was asked.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Someone said that for Latter-day Saints it would be easier to determine what is or is not Scripture because of what is called modern revelation. In some ways that is true. The Canon, through various supporting clarifications, has been determined reliable. On the other hand, there are several statements about scripture that makes identification of what is to be considered "Canon" very difficult. In some ways you could say that there is no problem with the identity of what is already considered scripture, but an extremely open question of what could become such. Even determining what is and is not scripture among our Prophets' statements is a hot topic.
As for understanding Revelation, I think Latter-day Saints should understand a lot of what the book is talking about, at least from its own viewpoints. I have studied the book for ten years and have come to definate conclusions about its meaning. Some of it is specific understanding, and some of it is more general. I hardly say I understand all of it, but I think I understand a great deal.
Here is why I believe LDS should understand, from their own viewpoint, the book of Revelation. Lets start with section 77 that gives very specific answers to particular verses. After that, we have the Book of Mormon that is a kind of apocalyptic literature itself. There is also the Book of Abraham with its many allusions to the final days and cosmic events. The same with the Book of Moses, with its warnings and blessings and cosmic discussions. Finally, there is the Temple experience itself that is filled with allusions to final victory over sin and death, and the return to a Celestial City. Of course, add that in with the Old Testament and New Testament -- specifically the JST of Christ's "Little Apocalype" and there is little reason to not understand, again from an LDS point of view, the meaning of the Book of Revelation. As a deeply millenialist church, the idea of the final days is not very difficult to understand. I would like to break down the Book of Revelation for discussion, but that is beyond my time right now. One thing I would like to know is the historical interpretation of the book, as I do believe it was his time that he used as the symbols for the past and future. He saw things beyond himself, but still from where he stood.
With all that said, I must agree that some LDS go way too far in their interpretation of the book beyond what is either known or true. Some are more fanatical than the most literalist of Protestants.
Eh, big deal. Hatrack has had at least a dozen of those over the years. They're really pretty common.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, the thing is, I'm not sure everyone wants to discuss what the LDS think of scripture and Revelation...
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kath, I understand that. My comments are toward Mormons (specifically you to name one) who have stated they don't understand, and those who specifically mentioned mormons. And yes, I don't know how to spell canon or whatever.
posted
Okay, if there's something that's only directed to and is basically only discussed among LDS, OSC created a whole site just for that purpose. They aren't new protocols, they just haven't been brought up for a while. There's an area called Gospel Discussion (I think) that would be perfect for a dissemination of Revelation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes its difficult to determine what is for "Mormon eyes only" and "open discussion" here at Hatrack. I should have said "because of Mormons," rather than "toward Mormons" in my explanation.
posted
Actually, given the very different outlook on revelation between LDS and Catholicism (for example), I find the Mormon-specific outlook on the canon interesting and fitting for this thread. If it went 2 pages of people disputing some obscure point made by JS, I might get bored. But general introduction to a particular denomination's view on the canon is perfectly suitable here to me.
Dagonee Edit: Kat, I do appreciate you taking the views into account from the recent threads and posting the reminder. It's just that this interests me greatly.
posted
The Song of Solomon is a prophetic portrayal of God/Christ's courtship of His church, through the ages and to the day of Judgment (Marriage). That is why it is in the Bible.
Jesus told several parables employing the metaphor of marriage, and introduced each one by saying, "the kingdom of heaven is like..." The marriage in those parables is the judgment, when Christ receives His kingdom. (Note the examination scene in Matthew 22:11-13.)
The Apostle Paul portrayed the church as the wife of Christ in Ephesians 5:25-27. In Revelation an angel called the Holy City, New Jerusalem, "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Revelation 21:9). John likened the sight of the New Jerusalem as it came down out of heaven onto the earth as being "adorned like a bride for her husband" (Revelation 21:2) The New Jerusalem, of course, is where Christ's people dwell.
The same theme is throughout the Old Testament, as well. For example Isaiah 62:5 (NKJV): "For as a young man marries a virgin, So shall your sons marry you [Zion]; And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So shall your God rejoice over you."
[ June 23, 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering what Joseph Smith understood about Canon (ALL canon is open canon, ready for interpretation and reinterpretation in several competing, although equally relavant, forms). I would say he didn't think the Songs of Solomon were of re-interpretive value. In other words, for him the book was of dead rather than living significants.
quote:The Song of Solomon is a prophetic portrayal of God/Christ's courtship of His church, through the ages and to the day of Judgment (Marriage). That is why it is in the Bible.
I'd always heard that as a sort of forced explanation to try and explain it. Personally, I don't buy it. Some great poetry, but I think pulling it to be a prophetic allegory of Christ and his church is stretching - especially when those in the NT who made those specific claims concerning Christ and his Church didn't even quote the SofS in support for it.
**
And I think he parenthesis of adding why LDS should have a 'greater understanding' of their church's understanding of a particular biblical book according to THEIR Canon was a perfectly fine parenthetical that was relevent to the discussion.
posted
Bob, now Dana knows your plan for the nupitual night!
Loose lips, man, loose lips....
I think that a complete breakdown of Relivations might be a little much for me, but I do find the LDS perspective interesting in biblical matters, probably because I don't know much about the LDS cannon.
Just remember that there is a fine line between discussing this sort of thing and preaching it to "unbelievers", if you know what I mean. Catholics (at least some of them) do it too....as a matter of fact, most branches of religion do at times. I like to hear other religious views, but I ahte being preached at....and even I have trouble distinguising between them at times.
posted
While I think cannon is important, I don't think it really applies to the subject. At least what the subject is supposed to be. What does cannon have to do with revelation? Cannon and revelation are two seperate, although related issues. Let's leave cannon issues for another thread. Cannon cannon cannon.
I think the Song of Solomon was put in there because Solomon was all like "Hey, put my poetry in, dangit! I'm the frickin king of Israel!" and then all the scribes were like "Okay, *mutter* you perverted son of an Amalakite *mutter*" and Soloman was like, "What!?" and they were like, "nothing, Solly" and Solomon was like "I told you not to call me Solly!" and they said "Right, sorry Solly."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
