Bible studies coming back to Arizona public schools?

Examiner ^ | January 31, 2012 | M

[usalady]

Study of the New and Old Testament may be coming into public schools if the Arizona House Education Committee is able to convince the rest of the Legislature that The Bible and its Influence on Western Culture, will use Books of the Bible as part of literature and history courses.

[usalady]

Current Arizona law requires that all books, publications and papers of a sectarian, partisan or denominational character must be excluded from school libraries.

Is this the beginning of a trend in response to secularism?

[humblegunner]

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...

I'd sooner set myself on fire than visit the examiner blog.

[onedoug]

The teachers union is not going to like this. But it is essential education.

[greyfoxx39]

AZ legislature loaded with mormons. Mormon "seminary" is study of mormon doctrine usually held before classes.

This is camel's nose under tent flap for "seminary" to be taught in schools during class time.

[stuartcr]

Will they include the books of the Apocrypha?

[annieokie]

This is just wrong to do. I do not want any "teacher" teaching the true gospel bible, let along brainwashing with any other "bibble scribble"

There once was a time, long long ago, when our teachers could speak on the gospels, but that was when truth was allowed. That era is only a haze to me now.

Seems like it was a stradegy of the mormons, islamist to remove the true bible from the schools, no prayers, Seperation of Church and State, etc.

Thence numbing the peoples toward secular beliefs. They now see the time to strick and thus reinstate what they want. After all, they will say, "I thought you wanted religion back in the schools"

Not this way.

[svcw]

Seems like it was a stradegy of the mormons, islamist to remove the true bible from the schools, no prayers, Seperation of Church and State, etc. Bingo!

[Psalm 144]

Look for ‘literary deconstruction’ if true.

[sportutegrl]

When I was in grade school in Louisiana, my public school offered Catechism classes. My mother was furious about it and demanded that she be allowed to teach Bible classes to the non Catholics. So she did and I had Bible study.

[annieokie]

And when they succeed, they will call us Hypocrites.

Long Long ago, once upon a time, I lived in a great America, now I'm living in Alice in Wonderland of the United States of America. That wonderland has no boundries. It is simply "Idocracy", just give them their daily bread, and ipod, and entertainment channels only, and they will conform and SHUT UP.

[SENTINEL]

I went ot Junior High in Springville Utah and High School in both Logan and Smith firld Utah. At all three locations we had "seminary" class during a period of schoolday. The school districts made available a class period every day, for the full five years from 8th to 12th grade for every student. Seminary grades were put into the school report cards, and the buildings themselves appeared to be on school property.

Here is a satelite photo of Logan Utah high school. The LDS Sect "Seminary" building is the one on the upper right of the high school grounds. This is a typical arrangement from what I have seen in Utah.

View Larger Map

[savagesusie]

Isn’t it funny that current Arizona law censors school libraries from the concept of God—which is where our Natural Rights come from. To keep the kids ignorant of that concept is unconstitutional and destroys the very Republic.

The Bible had been taught in public schools for hundreds of years until John Dewey, the Fabian Socialist, kicked it out to establish secular humanism and rid the world of the concept of a “Christian God”—which was anathema to all Postmodernists/Progressives/Marxists.

The Bible should be taught in the schools, just like it was until the Atheists took control to force their religion of secular humanism on kids. Formative years are crucial for worldview—Lenin knew that. Teaching concepts to kids is what schools do-—to remove all the thousands of years of history—(The Bible contains the oldest history stories) and exclude “God” when He was the major player in our government and world history is keeping kids ignorant of history-—exactly what the Communists want.

[P-Marlowe]

This is camel's nose under tent flap for "seminary" to be taught in schools during class time.

When I was in elementary school we had "Religious Release Time" and the students would be released for religious studies which were in a trailer parked outside the schools. The Catholics and Protestants all participated and went to their respective trailers, but Mormons and Jews did not. We stayed in class with the teacher and did our homework.

As Mormons, we did not consider ourselves either Catholic or Protestant so we opted out of the program.

These days I suspect that the Mormons would pretend to be Protestants and possibly even infiltrate the program so that there would be Mormon Elders teaching the "Protestant" classes. Unfortunately a lot of Protestant Churches would probably not object and instead welcome them with open arms as fellow non-Catholic "Christians".

That being said, I really don't have a problem with the idea of a religious release time. Even though it may be superficial and the kids probably wouldn't learn anything, the important thing they would learn is that Religion is NOT irrelevant.

By teaching nothing about religion, the State is in effect teaching that Religion is irrelevant. Classes in religion therefore should be included in public school curriculum and the parents should have the right to choose the program and/or opt out of the program.

[svcw]

These days I suspect that the Mormons would pretend to be Protestants Christians.

[HiJinx]

The Bible as Literature was an elective English course during my Senior year at Cortez High School (Phoenix) 40 years ago.

Even though the stated approach to the Bible was neutral, it was nonetheless a Bible study and one of the most enjoyable classes I took.

[Elsie]

These days I suspect that the Mormons would pretend to be Protestants Christians MUSLIMs!

 

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

• Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

• Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

• Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

• As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

• Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

• Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

• Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

• Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

---

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.