A Catholic states that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. A Baptist argues that baptism is just an empty rite and not actually essential. (Which is ironic, given the name of his sect.) A Methodist looks on, disapproving of the counterproductive nature of the debate, and says to himself, "It's just a matter of Interpretation."

This is a common situation in the modern Christian world. This is what happens when no one can lay claim to God-given authority to interpret scripture. Joseph Smith adequately described such situations, having seen them first-hand in his own experiences of sectarianism:

...the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. (JSH 1:12)

After many centuries of intense debate over various gray (and not-so-gray) areas in scripture, many Christians today have given up on trying to define their faith in any specific terms, knowing that specificity will only lead to strife.

For this reason, the statement of the Methodist in the example has become a mantra: "It's just a matter of interpretation."

Does the fact that people argue over a particular issue make that issue unimportant? Actually, the fact that something has become a matter of debate usually stems from implicit importance.

Were I to suggest that we cut a number of "unimportant" verses out of the Bible, sectarian Christianity would be outraged. And yet, so many Christians today essentially do that very thing by ignoring any verse that is commonly interpreted in multiple ways.

The doctrine of salvation is the very center of Christianity. Therefore, if the Bible seems to suggest that baptism is a vital and indispensable requirement for salvation, is it not important to get to the bottom of the matter?

In the example given above, we see three different interpretations of the scripture:

1. Baptism is essential for salvation.
2. Baptism is not essential for salvation.
3. The argument is unimportant.

As well-intentioned as he might be in trying to dispel the un-Christian sophistries of the sectarian squall, the Methodist in this example does not realize that he is, in fact, giving a third interpretation of the scriptural question: he is saying that it is unimportant.

I say that he is giving a third interpretation because he has no more qualifications to designate the matter as irrelevant than the Catholic or the Baptist has to take a black or white stance on it. Did God speak to him and tell him that the issue was irrelevant? No. So, by declaring it to be irrelevant, he is overstepping the same bounds as the others.

Just as it takes a prophet to write scripture, it also takes a prophet to give the correct interpretation of scripture and clarify doctrinal misunderstandings. Sometimes people do come up with doctrinal questions that deal with irrelevant topics, it is true. However, one who is not a prophet does not have the right to say that something written in holy scripture is unimportant simply because he does not know how to interpret it. If a particular application of doctrine that we see in scripture is no longer relevant to our time, or if a particular point of doctrine needs further clarification, God will reveal the necessary truths through His prophets. Denying that God can or would do so is tantamount to denying His omnipotence or His love for His children.