What's new

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Using the quotes of seven months ago to refute a story two weeks old? Not effective.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...eck-rally-civil-rights-leaders-protest-event/

Huge crowds at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" freedom rally -- organized to give thanks to U.S. troops -- left Washington, D.C., on Saturday night pleased by the theme and the turnout – as thousands in attendance returned home carrying a message of making America better.

Half a million people showed up. I think we can all relax. Beck isn't losing popularity anytime soon. He has millions of followers.

What am I supposed to scared of?

The socialist agenda is over. Americans are waking up to remember the long lost forgotten Constitution which was inspired by God (something that liberals want all of us to forget).

The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act has been rated to very slightly reduce the deficit, compared to the situation before it passed. Your question is based on a false premise, and is therefore moot.

Obamacare adds nearly $2 trillion to the deficit. that's unconstitutional and quite frankly, unforgivable.
The majority of Americans didn't want it, yet King Obama did it anyway. I can't wait to get Pelosi and Reid out of office. They're running roughshot over the Constitution and the American people. Why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? Get a job. Get better health care. Have pre-existing conditions? Then get into a high risk pool.

If Obama had listened to what the Republicans were saying, we'd have more competition hence a better system. Instead, a bad situation gets worse. Throwing more money at something doesn't fix the problem.

We're going to be paying more, receive less, have longer wait periods, and will have death panels for the elderly.

Awesome too since most of your lib senators didn't even read the 2,700 page bill. Have you read it?

https://dailycaller.com/2010/09/30/obamacare-lies-and-failures/

The plan taxes the American people for five years and the so-called “benefits” do not take effect until year six. None the less, a recent article by ex-CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin makes clear that a more comprehensive and realistic projection suggests that the new reform law will raise the deficit by more than $500 billion during the first ten years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade.

With ObamaCare, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says health insurance premiums will continue their steady upward climb and that they will accelerate faster in the individual market as a result of the new health reform law. It’s estimated that families purchasing insurance
in this market would see a premium increase of an additional $2,100 in the year 2016. That means those families would be paying $15,200 in 2016 for health insurance as a result of passage of health reform, and $13,100 otherwise.


But wait, there's more! Enjoy One Brow, open your eye and you'll see how ugly this thing is. You'll quickly find out what Glenn Beck has been warning us about. I know I know, he and Sean Hannity are just crazy, right? Obama just wants the best for us. He's going to pay our mortgage so then we won't have to work anymore! We need to hate the rich because they employ us and we wish that we had everything they had.

More Koolaid?

Premium Increases: One of the central promises President Obama made during the presidential campaign was that he would “sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of [his] first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

Health insurers
say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections. Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1 percent and 9 percent to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.
/QUOTE]

typical of Obama and his responses. Instead of confronting his opposition and dealing with the issues, he uses his teleprompter and attempts to shut everybody else up.

The administration’s response to insurers who announced they would be forced to hike premiums because of the health care bill? A threat from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to keep their mouths shut or suffer financial consequences.

But wait, I thought Obama wasn't going to raise taxes on those earning less than $250k? Another lie:

https://dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/obamacare’s-mounting-tax-burden-punishes-families-small-business/

The “Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card” debuts today. The front side of the card shows Obama’s oft-repeated campaign promise. The back of the card lists all the tax hikes Obama has enacted or proposed on families making less than $250,000 per year. They include a hike in cigarette taxes (about the only smoker in America who makes more than $250,000 is named Barack Obama), the individual health insurance mandate tax, the tanning tax, new taxes on HSAs and FSAs, a tax on prosthetics and other medical devices, a tax on tuition at special needs schools, and making it harder to deduct medical expenses on your tax return. Taxes which the Obama administration has floated but not yet been able to shove down the throats of an unwilling populace include a value-added tax (VAT), a new energy tax known as “cap and trade,” and a paternalistic tax on soda.

How many times does Breitbart have to show his untrustworthiness before you realize what he is?

I've trusted in him before. He exposes the truth.

Even if Nevadans will actually vote for Angle over Reid, why should that bother me?

Because it's one less lib in congress.

It's about time. Liberals never forgot about it.

Oh really? Where was social security mentioned in the constitution? Bailouts? Cash for Clunkers? Obamacare? libs never forgot the constitution? Wow...

Name a country where people are not motivated to work due to "socialist" policies.

Ever heard of France? They're not working today because they feel it's a "birthright" to only work until 60.

https://world.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23930&external=537056.proteus.fma&pageNum=-1

Is this chaos really what we want here in America?

Socialists believe in freedom, as well.

Actually, Karl Marx stated that it was a transition between Capitalism and Communism. Do Communists believe in freedom?

Anyone who paid attention to the last half of the 19th century knows that, for the vast majority, hard work offered no relief from poverty.

Andrew Carnagie was born rich? John D Rockefeller too? So Bill Gates was born as a billionaire?
Government spending winds up creating jobs with more efficiency than private wealth. If you really want more jobs, you'll support higher taxes.

Link?
The government is trying to sell it's share of the auto industry. Should it have let GM and Chysler close shop instead?

Yes.

And also, I've heard of banks trying to pay back their loans and the government not accepting them. They'd rather have power.
Many world economies thrive with much greatergovernment involvement in health care than Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act grants our government. We are a long way from being "taxed to death".

We cannot sustain the current rate of spending especially on healthcare and entitlements. We're going bankrupt.

Most of that power was given to Bush. All of a sudden, it's scary that Obama has it. Hmm....

We need to come back and remember the constitution. Normal people like Christine O'Donnell and Paul, and not these lifetime politicians are going to bring us back. Restoring our honor, as Beck is trying to do.
 
My mother in law is a Beck fan, and has seriously said on several occasions that she hopes someone assassinates Obama. That's all I need to know about him and his followers.
 
My mother in law is a Beck fan, and has seriously said on several occasions that she hopes someone assassinates Obama. That's all I need to know about him and his followers.

How is that any different than you libs and socialists when Bush was President? Hilarious how things are different when the shoe is on the other foot.

We need Obama out. But not that way.

He should be impeached. Obamacare isn't supported by the US Constitution one bit. He's done in 2 more years. Mitt Romney with his private industry experience will help. And Sarah Palin will give Washington a breath of fresh air.
 
How is that any different than you libs and socialists when Bush was President? Hilarious how things are different when the shoe is on the other foot.

We need Obama out. But not that way.

He should be impeached. Obamacare isn't supported by the US Constitution one bit. He's done in 2 more years. Mitt Romney with his private industry experience will help. And Sarah Palin will give Washington a breath of fresh air.

I can't believe I've been being trolled this whole time. Wow, don't I feel sheepish.
 
I'm just goig to respond to a few points.

The socialist agenda is over. Americans are waking up to remember the long lost forgotten Constitution which was inspired by God (something that liberals want all of us to forget).

The framers of the Constitution did not believe it was inspired by God. Why do you think it was?

... and will have death panels for the elderly.

When you say things like that, How am I suppsed to think you're not trolling?

Because it's one less lib in congress.

Which one would that be?

Though, if the thought of Senator Angle doesn't scare you, you haven't been paying attention to the "Asian" politician. To be clear, I was scared of Gingrich, Dole, or Bush in power. That someone like Angle would take power is frightening, and not because she's a Republican.

Oh really? Where was social security mentioned in the constitution? Bailouts? Cash for Clunkers? Obamacare? libs never forgot the constitution? Wow...

Pretyy much all of that is covered under the Commerce clause. Meanwhile, conservatives have been busy shredding the bill of rights (serch and sieze, habeus corpus, due process) with nary a peep from Beck and co.

Ever heard of France?

Yup. They have protests, but most of the time, they work as hard as Americans. As do the Germans, British, Swedes, Danish, ...

Andrew Carnagie was born rich? John D Rockefeller too? So Bill Gates was born as a billionaire?

Hence my use of the term "vast majority". For every Carnegie there were 10,000 people who were born in squalor, worked just as hard for poverty wages, but didn't happen into the connections he happened into, and died in squalor.


https://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm/

We need to come back and remember the constitution. Normal people like Christine O'Donnell and Paul, and not these lifetime politicians are going to bring us back. Restoring our honor, as Beck is trying to do.

You don't like the professional politicians, so you think amatuers will do better? Do you use amatuer surgeons and lawyers as well?
 
Top