Evangelicals Against Mitt

Sorry, mhg, don’t have time to watch Bible Lite tv.

421 posted on 01/16/2008 7:46:40 AM PST by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)

To: Old Mountain man

Based upon your past empty posting, if you clicked on the link you wouldn’t have a clue. You might even think it was a reading from the Smith bible.

422 posted on 01/16/2008 9:32:35 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

To: Godzilla; sevenbak; tantiboh; Utah Girl

U Said: Everyone stand back, he’s figured out how to post pictures in html! Sophomoric, but I'll take humor over you getting mad and calling the Mods.

U Said: Bogus examples. There currently is no Jewish temple, only synagogues which you can go and attend services. You can attend Mass and observe Eucharist, but I cannot attend temple and observe your ceremonies. Your other examples are just stupid do comment on. LOL! So since it's not here right now it's a bad example? Do you consider Jesus' life a bad example? Lunacy logic by location (If I"m not near it it don't count!) LOL! I hear they won't let you in a Mosque on a "Holy Day", go fight with Moslems about that, I'll watch for your beheading video on the internet... No? So a Moslem religion gets more respect from you than a Christian one, I see.

There are just places you are not allowed to go, admit it, and get over it.

I Said: I was not pleading ignorance, you have a guy powerfully testifying of Jesus, who at the same time says Jesus Said all creeds were abominations and you say he is denying Christ? Do you even know how to get to reality from where you are?

U Said: 2Co 11:14 - And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Somebody was NOT listening.

First John 4:1-3 Tells us how to know if a spirit is of God or not, here, read it for yourself and I'll highlight the relevant bits.

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So, God appears with Jesus, Testifies of Jesus, Jesus testifies of himself, they Teach Joseph (by simply appearing) more about God in those few seconds than many have learned in a lifetime of study. If Joseph is telling the truth about what happened than it is of God, the Bible says so.

Now, I'll address the Satan appearing as an angel of light fallacy you guys seem to be so in love with. Jesus taught people to pray, he taught people to "Pray always and not faint".

So praying is Godly.

God is omnipotent

, God is honest, he keeps his word.

Matt. 21: 22

22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

All things, not some things, not maybe I'll show up, but you will always get an answer, though you may not understand it, it will be there.

Matt 7:9-11

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

God will give you good things:

This should be clear to anyone who reads english, if you ask God he will answer and not give you things you can't use.

Show me one, just one scripture in the Bible that clearly says that Satan can answer a prayer to God. If you can prove that God is not able to keep Satan for answering in his stead, you will make an atheist of me.

God is all powerful Satan cannot answer in his stead unless God lets him. God has promised to answer, if God is a liar than he is useless for he is no better than Satan. God forbid that any of these heretical things (which is what you have to believe, in order to believe that Satan answered Joseph's prayer to God) in order to make the argument you just did.

So, do you still believe it Satan Masquerading as an angel of light that answered Joseph's prayer? if so, prove this is even possible, Scripturally

If you say Joseph lied, I have an answer for that too, Find out for sure by reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it. (nobody expected that answer, huh </Sarcasm> I'm sure).

U Said: I will distill my comments for both here and the latter of your post concerning Hippolytus. To your credit, you link to the documents hosted on a Catholic site.

Why thank you for Honestly recognizing my efforts. (I won't get used to it)

To your discredit you blindly recite regurgitated material found on dozens of similar Mormon sites promulgated by FARMS.

Really? I found that on newadvent.org myself, I was doing research on something else (which is when you find the best stuff...) Did you know they have eight of his ten books there? I've red every thing they have on him a couple of times fascinating Hippolytus was the first Antipope, did you know? Anyway back to our regularly scheduled religion smearing.

U Said: Hippolytus must be evaluated in the context of what he was arguing against.

Not necessarily, just because you argue against on thing does not mean you support something else. Hippolytus specifically argued for a physically separate God and Christ, it's clear in his works and in the quotations I included earlier.

U Said: Thus Noetus is key to understanding the backdrop.

OK, Noetus was a modalist, he believed God acted like a shape shifter, shifting between God an Jesus, and the Holy spirit. This is similar to the Heresy of the trinity in that it makes God and Jesus "of the same substance", thus Hippolytus argued against him too.

U Said: Secondly, the term “Trinity” first appeared in the east in AD 180 used by Theophilus. Trinity was first used in the West around A.D. 213, by, Tertullian. So in your arguments, you not only align yourself with modalists like Noetus, but Jehovah witnesses too.

Lurkers, note that he gave no links, here I'll give one. Wikipedia

Yes, Tertullian used the word Trinity first, so? I was talking about when the church changed "officially" and it is clear (if you read the record) that the Christians in Constantine's day thought this was a major change. I mean come-on there is this Schism, and Constantine calls a conference to settle the differences and you say that I say this sprang into being on that day of the vote? Of course the idea had been around a while! it just didn't have a big enough following, and was not "doctrine of the church", Sigh, this is really a pathetic argument to make.

I Said: You state, excerpt and state, but you never link, I can find excerpts from any sufficiently large work to support any position, but in context the quotation can mean something entirely different. I link because my quotations are in context, you posted a carefully cut section without linking because... well, I'll let the Lurkers decide.

U Said: Oh, I get it, you made a joke. We’ll see later how well you do with ‘context’ later

No, it's not a joke. When someone takes something out of Context and just puts their little piece out there, they know that someone would have to look up the reference (which they don't give) and read more in order to then be able to say, "Hey, that's out of context" the poster who made the comment will even sometimes then say well that's old news when someone points out (later because they had to do the work) that the reference was taken out of context.

When you give a link, people can just click through, and you know some will, if you have taken things out of context you'll almost instantly get called on it on a forum like this. So while not linking is not a sure sign that someone is taking license, linking is a pretty sure sign that they are not taking license.

I Said: Please note that my links refute what you are saying, I have refuted you with scriptures, with definitions, and with documents, yet you are sure of your position because it is founded on faith not reason.

U Said: I can hardly call canned arguments ‘refutation’. Certainly not with scriptures (as we will see), or definitions (though wrapped in Christianese), and documents (or lack there of for BOM)

The only reason for Canned arguments is that the same old half truths are trotted out over and over in spite of the fact that they have been refuted. It gets boring, you know? The anti Mormons keep saying the same stuff over and over, we refute it. Because all the Anti's seem to have is a twisted brand of logic, I promote asking God. I ask you, If God told you Joseph smith was a prophet, would you believe him? God has told me exactly that, and now you want me to believe you instead? Get over yourself, Godzilla is a big lizard, not God.

BTW most of my links are to either the Bible, or to the Catholic encyclopedia online...

I Said: what? My statements still stand so he was an apostle soon after the last revision, that still doesn't make it Cannon, just a very good study Guide.

U Said: As a member of the 70, he taught directly from your doctrinal standard works, as an apostle his instruction continued, he is not an authority on your doctrine, then who is?

A "Cannon" is a body of works officially recognized by a church as authoritative.

It takes a specific action by the Church known as "Cannonization" for any body of Work to become Cannonized. President Hinkley, the current prophet, if you are a Mormon, has several books in print. they are not considered Cannon of the church, however, they are very good study guides. Periodically, the first presidency get together, at these times they decide if there is a body of work that should be Cannonized, if they decide to add to the Cannon of the church. Cannon has to be approved by the first presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve unanimously. That makes it"Authoritative" for the church. The book is written by the Man Gordon B Hinckley is his book, and reflects his views, not those of the church do you see the difference?

Those books are still a really good study guide, just not cannon, and therefore are not authoritative over Cannon or for the church.

I Said: Great, Mormon Doctrine is and was designed to be a study Guide for those learning about Mormonism, but it's not cannon, if it conflicts with cannon, then it is wrong, if it conflicts with the brethren, it is wrong. I know of many places it makes factual errors, but that is OK, Bruce R McConkie was not a perfect man, just a good one, who was called because the Lord saw him even as imperfect as he was as a tool he wanted to use at that time.

U Said: Remarkable, because he uses your standard works and the teachings of the prophet to ‘teach’ your doctrine. It is sanctioned by the Mormon church, so if it is so flawed, why haven’t they directed the “factual errors” corrected? (crickets) So if you own apostles don’t know Mormon doctrine correctly, who can I believe?

Mormon Doctrine is not sanctioned by the church, that would make it Cannon!

As for why they haven't corrected it, it's not theirs to correct, the McConkie family owns the copyright. They just refused to Cannonize it! (that's really all they can do.)

Lurkers, somebody here is displaying a great lack of understanding of the real world.

Godzilla then goes no to talk about the Belief that God was Born from another God somewhere in the dim recesses of the eternities before time began,I have not denied that this is a common belief by Mormons, however, it is not doctrine. Doctrine can only be established by Cannonizing a body of work. While many prophets and many books talk about this, it's not doctrine of the LDS church. Unless you can show where it's in the Cannonized works, it's just very good study material.

And with that statement I will skip the part of your post where you argue that an unCanonized work is authoritative...

U Said: The logical construct in Mormonism requires a god to father god.

Maybe, that's the point, it's not cannon, we don't know for sure, and since we can't know (because God has not told us). Whether or not God was created in eternities is irrelevant to our salvation.

In your prior post, you kept trying to say that set operators worked as an equivilency test. Let me show why that does not work: Lets take three sets of data, numbers as follows:

A = [1,2,3]

B = [1]

C = [3]

"in" is a set operator for containment.

So, B in A is True, and C in A is True, but A in C is False and B in C is False. B and C while being sub sets of A are not equal to each other, and A is not equal to either B or C.

I ran this quick, incomplete exercise just to show that Set operators are not math operators, just because something is a subset, does not make it equal to something else. Just because a lot of Mormons believe something (because it is a logical construct) does not make it cannon.

U Said: Simple dodge to the dilemma that your Christology fails when it comes to practical application. Since the ‘father’ of Jesus, according to your theology, had to have a ‘father’

Stop right there, it's a logical assumption, not Doctrine, Doctrine can only be established by the church, if you want to argue the construct, I'll be happy to, but if all you want to do is argue that we have Cannonized something that we have not, then I will have to call you on it. What you are saying is Doctrine of the church is simply not Doctrine. you are factually incorrect, so how can your conclusions (while being based on nonexistent facts) be correct? U Said: to procreate the spirit child, who according to the prophet Smith himself followed the path of eternal progression makes it impossible for Jesus too to be eternal. As Jesus’ ‘father’ had to enter time to be a man and obtain his physical body, time had to be already created, so Jesus could not accomplish what had already been done. So where in your standard works does this work out for you – the Jesus exception?

If we assume you are now arguing from a common Momrons belief that God had a Father, so?

What you are in fact arguing is that Jesus could not be "God" until he had completed the process of coming to earth and gaining a body.

You misunderstand some basic and fundamental beliefs by Mormons. I will attempt to set you straight.

A God is someone unto whom all power is given regardless of physical body, or lack thereof.

The holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, which is a member of the Godhead and has no body is also God, for he has all power as well. Jesus is not just an exception, He was part of the design that he unto whom all power was given went through being a spirit, being born, getting a body and being resurrected as an example to all of how the plan works, He is the exemplar, and the model upon which to build our lives, but he was and is God for all power is given unto him.

Jesus was God from all eternity (for he was God before this aberration called time existed, indeed he is the creator of Time, and he will be God after time has ceased to exist (for it will have fulfilled it's purpose.) thus he is God to Eternity, all eternity is that which surrounds time, thus he is God from all Eternity to all eternity.

Eternal life is a term Mormons use more than most other Christians. Eternal life is specifically not just living forever, we believe everyone will do that, but Eternal is one of God the Father's names (Given to the son with everything else) Eternal life is living as God the Father lives, righteously, with a body, and spirit children, and helping them grow and progress.

Did Jesus have "Eternal Life" before he came down from on high? No, for that he had to gain a body, now he could have built one like he did for Adam, but that was not the plan, the plan required him to come and be born and teach and suffer and die, for us. The Mormon View of Jesus is of a more compassionate, understanding Jesus than the perspective supplied by other religions (My opinion)

IT's funny to me that you don't think we can say that Jesus was God before he came down, yet Catholics teach that Mary was born without original sin and nobody bats an eye. (Sounds like "My exceptions to rules are OK, yours are heresy") You guys are funny.

U Said: You volunteered and still your ‘credentials’ are lacking in any adequate study of Christian theology, in fact the immediate context of my original comment was your equating the simple attendance of a Christian church service and equaling the knowledge of Christian doctrine. What you have shown me in the above that you and other Mormons don’t really have a grip on your own theology, let alone Christian.

Since Mormon theology IS Christian theology (for it is theology based in Christ) then I have studied much more than you think. I did far more than attend, I was commended by many of the preachers for my deep understanding of the Bible. Two of the ministers actually pulled me aside and tried to recruit me to their ministry, but no, I guess you who have never met me know that I don't know anything about Christology...ROTFLOL!

I Said: I may not be a professional theologian, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night...

U Said: Heretic, thought only Marriott was allowed for Mormons :)

Not to worry, I have that Get out of hell free card, remember?

U Said: You conveniently added to stated Christian doctrine “or his servants….etc”. That is not Christian doctrine, so it is incorrect to add ‘too’.

Do priesthood holders bless and curse in God's name? If a prophet promises you something like Eli promised Samualel's mom, will it happen? Has God ever sent an angel to do his work? It is a Christian doctrine that All of Gods words will be fulfilled. it is biblical that they are often fulfilled by angels (his servants) or PRophets, or people who are inspired. It is biblical that an angel fulfilling God's word is God fulfilling his promises. You are specifically incorrect too is the correct way to say this, you must not understand Christology for you disagree with me about it (LOL).

Argue all you want, it won't change reality.

U Said: Ah yes, the ‘ol left out of the Bible routine. Do you have proof, such as an early MS that contains this great gem of wisdom?

It's there, just not as clear, fine if you want to allege that God doesn't fulfill his word, or that "God assigning an angel do "it" doesn't count" is a "Christian view" knock yourself out, we can now point out several promises in the Bible that were never fulfilled... and all that that entails.

U Said: There are many other Biblical references to permit one to conclude that it is within God's power and scope to extend His loving grace and favor to small children just as He does to the committed believer.

God can do whatever he wants, he is all powerful. However, he has also said you must be baptized to enter the kingdom, so how do you reconcile that? (Do you make a special exception? chuckle)

U Said: Well here is a new twist, I thought every one except the son of perdition got to make it to at least one level of heaven. And when you read the greater context this extract is placed within, you will find that there is no reference to any during this judgment not being cast into hell. In the context of Phillipians 4:3, and Revelation 3:5, 13:8, and 17:8 the names in the book were already there because of belief in Jesus, not of any works. So how could Paul claim he was in the book of life when his ‘works’ were not tried, because he accepted Jesus Christ by faith and not of works.

Your name is entered when you are baptized and can be blotted out through lack of faith, or works, so if you are a member who has been baptized by the correct authority, then your name is in the book. It's not hard to get in the Book, the trick is keeping your name there...

U Said: You can’t even follow your on posts. I provided greek words in an earlier example that could have conveyed the subject. The word used didn’t support your assertion. That is not ‘interpretation’ but simple dictionary work. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses first person plural (i.e., "our," "us," "we") to refer to Christians but when he gets to verse 29, he then switches using second person ("they"). Hence, he does not include himself or the Corinthian church with this practice (v. 29: "what will they do" Not: "what will we do"). Lurkers will see that you cannot handle context.

LOL! Paul was arguing with people who didn't believe in the resurrection, but believed in Baptism for the dead. I will often on FR speak in such a way that people cannot take it personally and claim that there has been an ad homonym attack.

In the prior stance was I talking about you or not...

Paul used Baptism for the Dead as an argument for Resurrection. Therefore it was acceptable to him. No one would use a heresy to prove a gospel point, thus your rejection of this as heresy falls flat. My context is correct, yours is contrived.

U Said: You know, you threw down an awful big challenge to look to the word of the witnesses regarding the bom’s authenticity but only here crickets in reply.

So, by Asking people to Pray about the Book of Mormon, I challenged you? I'm sorry, I didn't see it that way. How does asking God about truth challenge you?

Speaking of Awfully big, posts like this take a long time to respond too. Can you cut out the Verbosity personification of the year award applications here?

U Said: Is this an example of not wanting this stuff aired?

Air whatever you want, I can't stop you, and you'll just look bad for doing it.

U Said: I also note that thought you could explain off the top of your head changes in the bom over time I still hear crickets churping.

Come back inside... I answered your questions, and consider the matter closed unless you have further questions.

Since you have said you have read things in Farms, here, read this Ensign article titled "Why have changes been made in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon?" It's an official answer in a magazine published by the church, that makes it a good study guide, but not Cannon of the church JFTR.

U Said: And we haven’t even begun to scratch bom (non)archaeology

There is plenty of evidence both For and against the Book of Mormon, let me guess, you have only looked at what is perceived as being against...

U Said: and gross contradictions between D&C, bom and POGP let alone the Bible.

The "Contradictions are misinterpretation of our doctrine on your part, but then, I'm not surprised.

U Said: If this is what is sticking in your craw, perhaps you shouldn't be playing in the kitchen

If I didn't like the heat, I'd stop throwing logs on the fire...

I Said: Please Believe me when I say I am really good at invective, if I were attacking you, you would most defintatly know it, Instead I am merely defending my right to believe as I wish without others defining my faith for me.

U Said: Lessee, this is the second threat of this kind in this posting.

You were saying I was attacking you, I was saying "That's not a knife, this is a knife" (Crocodile Dundee refrence)

So, if you complain that I am trying to ram you with my car, and I say, "I drive a Big SUV, if I ram you, you'll know it, but I am not trying to ram you, I just want to drive down the street unmolested." you construe that as a threat?

U Said: I certainly hope it is of the caliber of Smith’s against the three ‘witnesses’, if so I’ll have the popcorn ready. Such ad homem attacks are usually the refuge of the desperate.

ROTFLOL! ad hominem, (You speak greek, but can't spell ad hominem...) LOL, no really tell another one, an ad hominem attack would be something like saying "George, you are such a Fat, stupid, pinheaded, oblivious, slime ball, who tells such transparent lies that you are an embarrassment for the anti Mormons, but we love you for the fumbling grace with which you wipe the drool from off of your chin.

That would be an ad hominem attack, if your name was George, I don't know what your name is, so if it was a luck shot...

ad hominem means to attack the man, not the argument, I have never attacked you, only your arguments, and since you made it part of the debate your qualifications (as shown by your knowledge displayed here).

I Said: Well, the Word Godhead is in the Bible, the early christians believed in a sperate God and Jesus (Godhead), the Greek and Hellinistic influences on the Catholic Church are irrefutable to anyone who will actually look at the record. (Yes, I am linking Wikipedia because I don't want to add a ton of links here, this has already gotten too long.)

U Said: Right, wiki the infallible resource. And irregardless that your biblical proof texts don’t stand the test of scrutiny even at the usage of the greek. Further more the first Christians were Jews who accepted the monontheistic teachings of the faith and would flatly reject polytheistic beliefs (don’t believe that, ask the Romans).

Wiki is great if you want to link to a place with a wide variety of research, besides, I pointed out that I could have included some information from the links, but I think these missives of yours are getting way too long. thus my responses are getting lengthy too.

If brevity is the soul of wit, neither of us is looking to witty by these posts...

My biblical Quotations are linked, referenced, and correct, your retorts are unsourced assertions simply because we don't know where you are getting stuff.

Mormons are monothiests if Trinitarians are...

I Said: IMHO, the rest of your argument boils down to "IF you were right we (Trinitarianists) would have interpreted the scriptures that way while we were translating them, since we didn't you are wrong."

U Said: Here is another fine example for the lurkers out there on how Mormon apologists fail context and common sense 101 and why so much anger is being generated towards me. The passage in question again is:

Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form hoti en auto katoikei (3SPAI) pan to pleroma ten theotetos somatikos,
'K so you speak Greek, congrtulations, what is meant by fullness? Fullness as used though the scriptures often means everything that is required for salvation. The Fullness of the Gospel, or everything required for salvation, a fullness of knowledge, or knowing everything required for salvation, Fullness.

The fullness of diety, or everything required for salvation is in Christ, bodily. Sure, I agree with that. You are trying to say that fullness means "everything". 'K so If I say my cup is full do I have all the water? If I feel a fullness of Spirit, do I have it all? You interpret fullness your way and then say I am wrong because I don't interpret a scripture the same way. Neat, I say you are wrong.

There is a tie breaker, called prayer, I keep telling people to pray about it, you IIRC never have to date, why?

U Said: Thus they teach that Father God is a resurrected man with a physical body.

Yes, for he is our Goal, to be like him and Jesus. U Said: He has a Father-God above Him.

Yawn, I guess you subscribe to the "If you say something often enough ..." school of debate. Fortunately, I am immune for I know what I believe and it is not for you to define.

U Said: Christ is a separate resurrected man with a physical body;

U Said: Holy Ghost is a separate man with a spiritual body.

The holy Ghost is not a man, The Holy Ghost is a spirit.

U Said: These three are totally separate Gods.

This is not Mormon Doctrine, they are three persons and one God, the Godhead.

U Said: Is this what is really being said by this passage?

In a word, No.

U Said: The dispute can be focused upon the Greek word here for Deity – Theotes.

The debate can and does seem to focus on all sorts of things when you are part of the debate, If the Bible is inerrrant, do I need to speak Greek? Why, what was it in before Greek? (some books were written in Greek some were not.) Fine,
The Greek word "theotes" (Strong's # 2320) used only once in the Bible in Col 2:9, is translated as "the state of being God, Godhead". Why does the NWT mistranslate this as "divine quality" in Col 2:9, instead of "Godhead".
The state of Being God, so... I can attain the state of Being Hot, or of Being Cold, can I become God? (you are not helping yourself here, oh wait, You are not through giving me your interpretation.) U Said: Theotes refers to the essence and nature of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (which is a different Greek word (theiotes). Christ, as Man, was not merely God-like, but was in the fullest sense, God. Greater detail can be found at http://www.preceptaustin.org/colossians_28-15.htm#2:9.

I agree with Jesus being in the Fullest sense God...

U Said: Here Mormons fail because they try to rely upon the translation absent the underlying greek word. Godhead is only found in the KJV as well as Douay-Rheims and Young’s literal) it is generally translated ‘Deity’ in all modern translations. So, relying upon King James English, mormons have fashioned an argument that avoids the actual pesky greek that denies their positions and assertion of their ‘godhead’.

Nice try, but Godhead is in fact in the Bible, and Trinity is not.

Jesus and God the Father show up all over the place (it is all about Jesus) Stephen's vision is clear when you look at Stephen's vision, here, I'll quote it for you:
Acts 7: 55-56
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
If you truly understand that God the Father and Jesus are separate beings, then this makes sense, If you don't you end up with stained glass windows with Jesus bent over standing on his hand as the depicting of Stephen's vision.

U Said: The proper application of the greek in this instance provides one of the strongest Trinitarian statements found in the Bible. For Christians Godhead and Trinity are interchangeable and the same.

If you fail to read the Bible, that's not my problem, I don't care what you translate it into, or go back to if the Bible means to you that God and Christ are the same personage you were not paying attention.

I Said: I am going to skip a bunch of blovation here...

U Said: What is skipped here is a short list of Mormon scriptures that he challenged me earlier to produce. I encourage everyone to go back and re-read this list that he is ducking in his reply.

I skipped that section because it was so convoluted that I was not sure what you were trying to say, the section was large and these posts are longer than war and peace.

I Said: That is funny, every time Jesus refers to himself or the Disciples refer to him as "The Son of Man" they are referencing a specific Messianic Prophecy in the Book of Enoch.

U Said: Now we enter a funny little phase about the psudeographic book of Enoch. As I stated, it was around at the time of Christ, but did Jesus refer to this or the Book of Daniel (7:14). The phrase ‘son of man’ is specifically referenced within Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71). The Similitudes of Enoch do not appear in early versions of Enoch, and is unlikely that this was the specific reference Jesus was speaking of. Greater discussion found in Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Did you mean:Pseudepigraphical? [certain writings (other than the canonical books and the Apocrypha) professing to be Biblical in character.]
Here is a link to the Summary bearing that name The Pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch

Your book appears to be a summery of the book, how would you feel if I wanted to debate the Bible from a summery?

Try this: Introduction to the Book of Enoch it's even shorter.

But, if you want a fairly accurate synopsis, go to New advent, Here.

But if you really want to discuss the book from a position of knowledge... Read the whole thing:
1. The Book of Enoch
2. Here is a PDF, which is how I read it the first time.
Some quotes from a Non-Mormon site:
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked"–the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.

Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians' acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible's mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke's verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him."

The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One"–the one promised in the Book of Enoch.

The Book of Enoch was also used by writers of the noncanonical (i.e. apocryphal or "hidden") texts. The author of the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas quotes the Book of Enoch three times, twice calling it "the Scripture," a term specifically denoting the inspired Word of God (Epis. of Barnabas 4:3, 16:5,6). Other apocryphal works reflect knowledge of the Enoch story of the Watchers, notably the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Book of Jubilees.

Many of the early church fathers also supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for women (from the Ibid.)–directly referencing the Enochian writings.

Athenagoras, writing in his work called Legatio in about 170 A.D., regards Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which "violated both their own nature and their office." In his writings, he goes into detail about the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from the Enochian writings.

Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso–also approved of and supported the Enochian writings.
Did you really want to talk about this, or were you just hoping I had no idea what I had said?

Of course, I am also going to bring up Nibley since you are going to bring him into this anyway.

In Enoch the Prophet Nibley Talks about the amazing (If you don't believe Joseph translated the Book of Abraham) similarities between the Book of Abraham and the Enoch section of the Book of Moses. How did Joseph tell the same stories and use the same names that at that time were not to be had in all of Christendom, if he was not inspired of God?

(Don't worry, you'll rationalize this away eventually.

I Said: Catholic church fathers? or other churches, funny that the Book of Enoch was used all the way up until well after the OT was compiled, and only fell out of use when everything including the services were moved into Latin the Pope did not have the Book of Enoch translated into Latin, so it gradually fell out of use.

U Said: Again, lacking knowledge you stick your foot into your mouth. Ireanus (150) and Eusabus (325) considered it scripture, but the majority of others at the time didn’t. The Jews dropped Enoch by AD 90, and it was not found in the LXX (greek version of the OT). As the church in AD 90 still had a strong Jewish background, and concurred with the Jewish decision. While Jude quotes from it, that in itself doesn’t necessarily endue it as a canonical book. To follow mormon logic on this manner, the greek philosophers Paul quoted should also be canonized.

So, Justin Martyr, The Bishop of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen Lactantius (He has some really interesting writings...), Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso are all just pikers to you? ROTFLOL!

I Said: Joseph dictated it like a story, word by word, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, not letter for letter. the differences of the spelling of words by the different scribes should be proof enough of that for you since apparently his word is not.

U Said: Again, I am not talking about ‘spelling’ changes or minor grammar. What I am talking about are significant re-writes that I posted and you some how failed to answer ‘off the top of your head’. Readers lose out, but some of these discrepancies are listed on the previous post. Far to many for simple scribal error.

UM, no, have you ever written a book that was being read to you? It's kind of like telephone "stuff" gets lost in the "air waves". Plus you did not give "Example" in any meaning full sense, you paraphrase and later say you were definitive. You have continued to offer subjective opinions and claim them to be objective. Show me a list of Thousands of changes that do not include punctuation and Spelling. I'm calling you out mister! Show me a list!

And before you even do, I'll link a resource that shoots the gun right out of your hand (again). A collection of Articles addressing the repeated charges of "changing the Book of Mormon"
Oh, and before you trot out the tired DNA evidence (that doesn't exist), Read This.

I Said: They were his papyri, just not the one from which the book of Abraham was translated, they don't even match the Description of those papyri by Joseph, or third parties.

U Said: Again from the November 27, 1967, the Mormon-owned Deseret News announced:

So, there are republicans that have owned stock in the New your times, so it's a republican paper, and prints conservative views, right?

Balderdash, the church owns corporations that own stuff, the church does not get involved in day to day publication, but let us continue, this should be funny.

U Said: Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called "Facsimile No. 1" and published with the Book of Abraham.

There is a fragment of papyrus that contains the Figure #1, that is all that is known to remain of the Scroll from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham.

U Said: In fact the papyri was turned over to the famous Mormon Egyptologist Hugh Nibley. Upon further investigation at a meeting held at the University of Utah on May 20, 1968, Dr. Nibley made these comments:

Within a week of the publication of the papyri, students began calling my attention... to the fact that, the very definite fact that, one of the fragments seemed to supply all of the symbols for the Book of Abraham. This was the little "Sensen" scroll. Here are the symbols. The symbols are arranged here, and the interpretation goes along here and this interpretation turns out to be the Book of Abraham.
Can you source this? This quotation diametrically opposes all the quotes I have been able to find on this. since it is unsourced your quotation is unsourced, you could have made it up. Please post a link, My BS meter has been broken since you first post, and may have to be replaced entirely with one of grater range.

Here is a photo of the "Recovered" facsimile, the missing pieces have been filled in with pencil on a paper behind it.

U Said: Here is your irrefutable MS for one of the standard works. Again, you selectively quote with no source, how do we know the context?

Here is the conclusions from an article quoting extensively from Nibley's work.
Of the 11 fragments, one fragment has Facsimile 1, and the other 10 fragments are funerary texts, which the Church claimed from the moment the papyri were rediscovered.

There is no evidence that the Church has ever claimed that any of the 10 remaining fragments contain text which is contained in the Book of Abraham.

The critics are telling us nothing new when they dramatically "announce" that the JSP contain the Book of the Dead. The Church disseminated this information as widely as possible from the very beginning.
Michael J. Hickenbotham, in his book Answering Challenging Mormon Questions, gives a convincing rebuttal to the critics' assertions, as follows:
Soon after the purchase of the original papyri, Joseph Smith stated that he "commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and . . . found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (History of the Church, 2:236). In December of that year, he said that "The Record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation" (History of the Church, 2:348). Hugh Nibley points out that the Book of Breathing text is "entirely different" from the record of Abraham described by Joseph Smith. The Book of Breathing papyri were neither beautifully written nor well preserved and were devoid of rubrics (passages in red). Thus, on each of these three points, the Book of Breathing manuscript conspicuously fails to qualify as the manuscript Joseph described (Nibley, Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham, p. 6 and The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 2-3).
Also, This
Hugh Nibley further observed that one of the three or more original scrolls was described as long enough that when "unrolled on the floor, [it] extended through two rooms of the Mansion House" (Dialogue, vol. 3, no. 2, 1968, p. 101). He also noted that in 1906, Joseph F. Smith remembered 'Uncle Joseph' down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him .... When one considers that the eleven fragments now in our possession can easily be spread out on the top of a small desk ... it would seem that what is missing is much more than what we have (Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham, as reprinted in They Lie in Wait to Deceive, p. 243). We should also add that only one of the three Abraham facsimiles were among the rediscovered fragments. This fact alone demonstrates that significant portions of the original scrolls are still lost. The traditional opinion held by LDS scholars has been that the Book of Abraham papyri are among those fragments which are still lost.
If you are using references authored by Dee Jay Nelson, I hope you realize he has been revealed as complete charlatan who had no more knowledge of Egyptology than I have, maybe less.

In short, the Papyri you want to say are the ones Joseph translated, aren't they are indeed papyri Owned by Joseph, but not the one from which he translated the Book of Abraham. Please try to keep up. I have testified to you that I have received an answer from God, I have testified to you of the divinity of Jesus Christ, I leave you with a plea for smaller posts, break them up topically or something and a scripture to ponder.

John 3:11
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Go with God.

423 posted on 01/17/2008 11:30:43 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

To: Colofornian; Godzilla

So...frankly, DU, your response re: McConkie is disengenous. It only explains McConkie's 1958 version of "Mormon Doctrine." Anything republished since then--with FULL APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY--and anything that's remained in there in its last reprint--was done with full First Presidency & General Authority oversight.

Histronics aside, the church cannot stop anyone from publishing a book.

The Church can refuse to cannonize a book.

Mormon doctrine has been brought up by many people through letters tot he first presidency as a candidate for cannonization, the church has refused to Cannonize it, Which means they see some problems with it. What more do you want?

Oh yeah, justification for your actions here by "proving" the church not to be true. Well, your not going to prove truth to be error, so give up.

McConkie as a solo target applies only to 1958. Any critical assessments or putdowns of republished books of "Mormon Doctrine" since then is an outright slam against the entire First Presidency & General Authorities & the editors & publishers of the book. Many authors make as you call it "factual errors"--those are fixed. I know many such "errors" in McConkie's '58 version were "fixed." But if ensuing "factual errors" haven't been "fixed"--and you imply that you openly acknowledge that's the case--then it's not just a one-man doctrinal show.

Why? When did the personal private property of Bruce R McConkie pass into the property holdings of the church? The Church does not publish Mormon Doctrine, Bookcraft does. Bruc's children hold the Copyright and get paid when the book is repreinted. It's not churhc property, get it? I can see just how you would react if we marched down there and say tried to stop them from publishing, maybe you want us to destroy the printing press? (you are not being reasonable here)

Is the first presidency to excommunicate Bruce because he says some things in a book that are not material to salvation, that are incorrect? How about teaching in Sunday school, if I make a mistake there will I be excommunicated? Private conversations? You guys are saying we should take the very actions you would denounce if we did.

So you need to come clean. Does your assessment above apply only to McConkie's 1958 version, or ensuing versions as well?

Absolutely! It's not Cannon, it's not authoritative, it is good for education and discussion, but it's not scripture.

When will you guys get it that I am actually saying what I mean?

Go with God CF, I hope you have a good day.

424 posted on 01/17/2008 11:59:18 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

The Deification of Man can and is Doctrine of the church. I have never said otherwise. The application of this as the Source of God being God is not Doctrine of the church. No amount of posturing can make it so, we simply don't have a canonized work that says we believe that. Since we believe in continuing revelation, that could change in the future, but as of my writing this, it's not doctrine. Is it a common belief? Absolutely.

I am not going to change my statements, they are consistent, and true.

425 posted on 01/17/2008 12:05:53 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

has the JST been "canonized?"

By the LDS church, Yes.

Secondly, in light of other KJV "Cannonized" passages like those listed below, which essentially bring to light the same thing as what's indicated in a non-KJV rendering of the 2 Peter 1:3 Greek, does it really matter?

Yes, it does for I red those scriptures as support of my position.

That's like saying we also know he was not a monotheism, because monotheism had not been invented yet... (You'll notice that the word "monotheism" is not in the Bible, or in any of the LDS standard works)

Jesus was not a monothiest, he was a himself a God, and he obeyed his Father, who was a God. Yet, he and the Father were so close that they were and Are one God.

Monothiesim is not a philosophy he worried about.

That's like saying We also know he was not into a system of Christianity, because the word "Christianity" had not been invented yet...

Christianity has existed since before the world was.

That's like saying We also know he was not a Bible believer, because the word "Bible" had not been invented yet...

Obviously Jesus did not believe in the Bible, the Bible teaches us to believe on him. Jesus did study the "Scriptures (which he did believe in) and studied books we do not currently call scripture, like the Book of Enoch. (He quoted from it, so he studied it)

That's like saying that because Paul in Thessalonians uses the phrase "caught up in the air" that Paul wasn't a believer in some form of a "rapture" because the word "rapture" had not been invented yet...

Paul was indeed not a believer in the rapture, for he was a believer in being caught up in the air. Much has been added to the exact meanings of the words in the bible some cultural, some assumed doctrines have been added and they are attached to the word "Rapture". Paul wouldn't believe in it, he wrote what he believed, and did a darn good job IMHO

I'd be curious from others, especially ex-Mormons, to tell me what common LDS words are not found in any of the standard works.

I thought the LDS church pretends to be a "restoration" of the original New Testament church pre-apostasy.

As they say, it ain't bragging if you can do it.

Where do we find any of these titled leaders mentioned above in the New Testament? Where is "president" in the New Testament? (That's a distinctly American term coined by George Washington himself...so the Mormon god follows George?)

The president of the church is a term reflecting the requirement in the USA for a church to be incorporated as a tax exempt corporation, all the buildings are for example owned by the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.Inc Sorry it's all in caps because the charter has it all in caps, there is also a corporation for the presiding bishopric, and a corporation for the welfare arm of the church. Calling him the president of the church is merely a reflection of the reality that he is in charge of the corporation that runs the earthly church as well as the Prophet who promotes the Spiritual church.

And speaking of titled leaders and the LDS church being a "restoration" of the original NT church, where are Mormon "pastors" (Eph 4:11)?

In some languages, the missionaries are called "pastors".

Where are Mormon "prophetesses" like Anna in Luke 2:36 or Philip's daughters in Acts 21:9 (others in OT, too)?

I don't think Prohetess was a title in the church, more a designation of someone who prothesis, there are many women in the church who possess this gift, so?

Where can we find unmarried 12-year-old deacons in the NT?

Unmarried at 12 is our society (thank Heavens), Deacons can be any age, however, since Jesus Came the High priesthood was no longer reserved for the High priest of the Temple, and the Aaronic priesthood was given to every man. IIRC Jewish tradition calls to males of the tribe of Aaron to be ordained when 12 although there are certainly cases of it happening both earlier, and later.

Happy? I though not.

Well, have a good day anyway.

426 posted on 01/17/2008 12:33:32 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

To: DelphiUser; Godzilla

Whew! thast Godzilla post was a monster! (Bad Pun intended)

BBL8R

427 posted on 01/17/2008 12:35:45 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

Well, I just hate wasting my time on your antimormon videos. They are so boring and pointless.

428 posted on 01/17/2008 4:21:28 PM PST by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)

Response to #426:

Me: has the JST been "canonized?"

You: By the LDS church, Yes.

BYU prof Stephen Robinson: First of all, the JST is not canonized Scripture even for the Latter-day Sints, JST Genesis 1-6 and Matthew 24, which are both found in the Pearl of Great Price, excepted. The JST is not the LDS version of the Bible--the KJV is and always has been. (Robinson & Craig Blomberg, How Wide the Divide, IVP, p. 64)

Hmm. Who are we to believe? (You or a BYU prof?)

Are you simply mistaken, DU? Or is the BYU prof?

Me:That's like saying We also know he was not into a system of Christianity, because the word "Christianity" had not been invented yet...

You: Christianity has existed since before the world was.

Thanks for confirming my exact point. Yes, "Christianity" has existed since before the world was--even though it was not a word on the minds of the New Testament authors or a word amongst its pages; it had not yet been invented. So is also true of the Trinity, which also existed since before the world was--even though this specific word was not amongst the New Testament pages.

We also know he was not a trinitarian, because the trinity had not been invented yet...

That's like saying We also know hnow he didn't believe in an "age of accountability," because the phrase "age of accountability" is not in the Bible & had not been invented yet...

That's like saying We also know he didn't believe in a prohibition against "abortion," because the word "abortion" is not in the Bible & had not been invented yet...

That's like saying We also know he didn't "eschatology" was worthy of the New Testament, because the word "eschatology" is not in the Bible & had not been invented yet...

That's like saying We also know that "soteriology" or "hamartiology" wouldn't dawn the doors of New Testament writers because the words "soteriology" and "hamartiology" are not in the Bible & had not been invented yet...

Jesus was not a monothiest, he was a himself a God, and he obeyed his Father, who was a God. Yet, he and the Father were so close that they were and Are one God. Monothiesim is not a philosophy he worried about.

So I guess only Isaiah, most quoted Biblical prophet in the Book of Mormon, was a "philosophical monotheist," eh?

Here, let me help you rewrite the book of Isaiah to match your proper polytheistic philosophy (bold faced words are the changed words to more accurately reflect Mormonology-Smithology):

...before me there was a council of gods formed, plus millions shall there be after me. (Isaiah 43:10, Mormon Inspired Version)

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the J in the Alphabet of gods, but I'm not the last; and beside me are a whole series of gods. (Isaiah 44:6, Mormon Inspired Version, see also Pearl of Great Price, 1:6, Mormon Inspired Version)

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is (and it's a bit crowded up here on Kolob Heights); I know plenty (Isaiah 44:8, Mormon Inspired Version)

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by divine committee; (Isaiah 44:24, Mormon Inspired Version)

for I am God, and my vacancy sign is up; I am God, and all kinds of divine vacancies are open, (Is. 45:5; 46:9, Mormon Inspired Version...Note: Because of the sheer high volume of god positions open, God put an extra "ad" in both chapters 45 & 46)

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there are as many of us as sands on the all the earths. (Is. 45:22, Mormon Inspired Version)

The president of the church is a term reflecting the requirement in the USA for a church to be incorporated as a tax exempt corporation, all the buildings are for example owned by the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.Inc Sorry it's all in caps because the charter has it all in caps, there is also a corporation for the presiding bishopric, and a corporation for the welfare arm of the church. Calling him the president of the church is merely a reflection of the reality that he is in charge of the corporation that runs the earthly church...

No...the whole flow & structure of the Mormon church is just one commercial-like enterprise...A forced-fee structure of 10% tithe (or no temple recommend which translates both into being shut out of the temple + no godhood for you); whereas no one single person is the author of the Bible, Doctrine & Covenants 24:1 tells us exactly who the Book of Mormon author is: "Behold, thou wast called and chosen to write the Book of Mormon... ("Revelation" of July 1830); whereas no one single person has copyright of the Bible...the copyright of the Book of Mormon was secured in Smith's name; and even now, just about all of the LDS general authorities are businessmen.

If the LDS church is a "restoration" of the original church--and if Jesus had 24 apostles--12 in the Bible & 12 in the Book of Mormon Americas--why don't LDS have "24" if it's a true "restoration?"

429 posted on 01/17/2008 9:03:15 PM PST by Colofornian

Histronics aside, the church cannot stop anyone from publishing a book.

That's precisely what the LDS Church did when McConkie wanted to republished "Mormon Doctrine" with the fixed errors pointed out to him by the First Presidency.

As a Wikipedia entry states: The January 8, 1960 office notes of LDS "prophet" David O. McKay reflect that: We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."

When did the personal private property of Bruce R McConkie pass into the property holdings of the church?

Listen, General Authorities can't slap on a title like "Mormon Doctrine" & expect other LDS General Authorities to check off on it as a one-man enterprise. And this is exactly why, as Dennis B. Horne wrote in the book, Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings (Eborn Books, 2000), that on January 5, 1959, Apostle Marion G. Romney of the First Presidency was assigned by President David O. McKay to read & report on McConkie's book. His report was delivered on January 28 which mainly, according to Horne, "dealt with Elder McConkie's usage of forceful, blunt language; some strongly worded statements about ambiguous doctrine and matters of opinion; and the overall authoritative tone throughout the book, though in general Elder Romney had a high regard for Mormon Doctrine and felt it filled an evident need remarkably well." The report concluded "notwithstanding its many commendable and valuable features and the author’s assumption of ‘sole and full responsibility’ for it, its nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author’s attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the Church on 'Mormon Doctrine.'"

The Church does not publish Mormon Doctrine, Bookcraft does. Bruc's children hold the Copyright and get paid when the book is repreinted. It's not churhc property, get it?

Right. (And next you'll try to tell me that the LDS First Presidency had "no role at all" in the republishing of "Mormon Doctrine" as it was republished in 1966). But according to Deseret Book Publishing, owned by the LDS Church, you'd be flat out wrong & persistently deceitful if you tried. According to the book, The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, a biography written by his son, Joseph Fielding McConkie (Deseret Book Publishers, 2003):

On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder [Spencer W.] Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes....My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction.

Mormon doctrine has been brought up by many people through letters tot he first presidency as a candidate for cannonization, the church has refused to Cannonize it, Which means they see some problems with it. What more do you want?

Why, silly me. Here, we have an Amos 3:7 LDS "prophet" in 1966 clearly directing McConkie that "if appropriate changes were made and approved," he could republish "Mormon Doctrine" in 1966. What? Did McConkie shun McKay's directive to make those changes? What? Did McConkie ignore the then to-be future LDS "prophet" mentoring provided by Spencer W. Kimball, who was assigned to him by McKay re: special "changes" project for the to-be republished book? Is this what you're seriously claiming? That the First Presidency, that McKay, that Romney, that Kimball...2 of them LDS "prophets"...had literally no operative oversight available to them to fix those "problems" you refer to between 1960 and 1966? The First Presidency was powerless & totally handcuffed to effect gentle guidance upon an apostle of the Church?

Is the first presidency to excommunicate Bruce because he says some things in a book that are not material to salvation, that are incorrect?

Again, you seem to keep pretending that McConkie published a 1958 book, and then a 20-year gap like the Nixon 18-minute gap in the tapes sets in. Your reference here applies only to his '58 version. The fact is Romney reviewed the book in '59-'60. McKay told McConkie changes needed to be made pre '66 republishing. Kimball was assigned to the specific project as a mentor to ensure that took place. And then one more slight revision was done in 1978.

Had the First Presidency--either at publishing time in 1966 or 1978--had as much heartburn over McConkie's book as what I've seen from LDS grassroots apologists (overdone bosom burning?), there's no way the book either (a) would have gone to print; or (b) would have gone to print as is.

What? Are you seriously & continually trying to tell us all that the LDS First Presidency had less evaluative & review & oversight power of this book in 1966 and 1978 than any given editors & publishers of any book? Your arguments in this area are as incredulous as they could be given the sheer hierarchical nature of the LDS Church in that era!

430 posted on 01/17/2008 10:40:54 PM PST by Colofornian

The Deification of Man can and is Doctrine of the church. I have never said otherwise. The application of this as the Source of God being God is not Doctrine of the church. No amount of posturing can make it so, we simply don't have a canonized work that says we believe that. Since we believe in continuing revelation, that could change in the future, but as of my writing this, it's not doctrine. Is it a common belief? Absolutely. I am not going to change my statements, they are consistent, and true.

Are you just deliberately avoiding the obvious conclusions then? If you concede The Deification of Man can and is Doctrine of the church what keeps other LDS homilectic teachings from also reaching status as "doctrine of the church." If one sermon can make this heightened position, why not others? If you can't deny it to this sermon teaching, how can you deny it for other sermon teachings.

You have an inconsistent standard. You constantly deflect and/or plaster past homilectic material on the sheer grounds that it's not canonized. You claim apriori that it can't be considered official LDS doctrine on that grounds. Yet LDS do treat deification as an official doctrine & officially assert it as so--even if they concede it's not as you say--"sourced" in a canonized way from God.

This is sheer double-standard treatment. Sheer inconsistency. And sheer hypocrisy.

Let me ask you: Is this just easier to be inconsistent & hypocritical rather than having to face the realities of past LDS teachings?

431 posted on 01/17/2008 10:49:15 PM PST by Colofornian

Sophomoric, but I'll take humor over you getting mad and calling the Mods.

No more than your silly little picture, lent sooooo much to your argument.

I hear they won't let you in a Mosque on a "Holy Day", go fight with Moslems about that, I'll watch for your beheading video on the internet...

Moslems do not make the claim to be Christian.

Somebody was NOT listening.

Somebody cannot understand context

Now, I'll address the Satan appearing as an angel of light fallacy you guys seem to be so in love with.

Who actually visited Smith? Was it -
Door #1 – “First vision" story, Smith said he was first visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ in the woods in 1820.
Door #2 - Brigham Young, prophet second only to Smith said when Mormonism began, "The Lord did not come - but He did send His angel" (J. of D., Vol. II, p. 171).or
Door #3 - Smith was first visited in his bedroom by an angel in 1823.
http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1832-m&av1p42.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1832-m&av1p78.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1832-m&av1p79.html
.

If LDS leaders (including Smith) told the first vision story wrong, could they also be wrong about other LDS doctrines? Mormons claim their apostles and prophets clarify God's message, but instead they have taught contradictory things about the first vision. Is God the author of confusion? (I Cor. 14:33.)

Which angel provided the plates was it:
"Nephi" the angel revealed the gold plates to Smith according to the first edition of the P.of G.P. published in 1851. In 1853, Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79).
“Moroni” as published after Smith’s death?

Did Moroni (or Nephi) or whoever visited Smith for the first time 1820/1823 preach the same gospel that Paul did in Galatians and the other epistles? If Moroni did preach the same message as Paul did, we already had the message and therefore we do not need the bom. But, if Moroni preached a different gospel than Paul did, he is under the curse of Gal. 1:8-9, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Show me one, just one scripture in the Bible that clearly says that Satan can answer a prayer to God. If you can prove that God is not able to keep Satan for answering in his stead, you will make an atheist of me.

Depends upon if you are really praying to the true God or the devil in disguise.
MT 4:9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

So, do you still believe it Satan Masquerading as an angel of light that answered Joseph's prayer? if so, prove this is even possible, Scripturally

You’ll have to show me which version of the ‘vision’ is correct from above 1st :) But in either case
Paul made it clear that Satan does so work in that fashion if he chooses.
2 Cor 11: 12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Did Paul teach polytheism? No, eternal progression? No polygamy? No how about 11 year old elders? No, the list can go on and on. Smith fits Paul’s definition of a false apostle, deceitful workman, masquerading as an apostle of god.

I promote asking God. I ask you, If God told you Joseph smith was a prophet, would you believe him? God has told me exactly that, and now you want me to believe you instead? Get over yourself, Godzilla is a big lizard, not God.

Oh yes, but you are on that god-progression thingie. I judged Smith by the standards of the Bible and found him lacking and a false prophet. Perhaps we could examine his accuracy if you really want to hmmmmm?

A "Cannon" is a body of works officially recognized by a church as authoritative.

And teachings allowed to go on by PROPHETS and others of the General Authority, unrebuked by the same General Authority even today, then your PROPHETS don’t know what they are talking about, especially PROPHET PRIME Smith. If his teachings are in error, Mormonism has no living prophet.

Lurkers, somebody here is displaying a great lack of understanding of the real world.

Apart from the fact that DU is talking about himself again, he dodges behind the glaring fact that he is saying that the highest mormon prophet – Smith – didn’t know what he was talking about, believed or was understood the doctrine he established. Furthermore, this doctrine has not simply ‘believed’ but actually taught and endorsed by the General Authorities. Such is a defacto endorcement that the teaching is in line with canon. Colofornian did a pretty good job of deconstructing your argument here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=414#414
To deny eternal progression is to deny a fundamental aspect of mormon life. It is eternal progression that drives temple membership, weddings and other temple ordinances. You are also denying that you have living, breathing PROPHETS (a distinctive claim of Mormonism) that are in tune to God and speak his word, the fact that they have taught this for some 150 years as doctrine. Are you denying that Smith was your greatest prophet and mouthpiece of God and that when he spoke as such his words were not doctrine? Or do mormons only accept those teachings as prophetically uttered when it is less objectionable to do so?

But then, whatever. He wants see that eternal progression and its logical constructs come from lds works, so be it. Key word search in the official lds website yields dozens on passages obliquely addressing this doctrine. Here are a few:

D&C 138: 38-39 38 Among the great and amighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father bAdam, the cAncient of Days and father of all, 39 And our glorious aMother bEve, with many of her faithful cdaughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.
Abr. 3: 22 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the aintelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the bnoble and great ones;
D&C 76: 58Wherefore, as it is written, they are agods, even the bsons of cGod—
D&C 130: 22 The aFather has a bbody of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cSpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.
D&C 132: 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Other citations that are possible. From these we see that there is a plurality of gods apart from the mormon godhead. One of which is Adam. Gee, I guess that Young wasn’t wrong when he prophesied about Adam-God. They also show that there are spirit children (intelligences) existing that are born to the gods and goddesses there. That there are gods who are sons of gods – indicating that the cycle had to be accomplished in a previous generation too. Other passages allude to these spirit children being given physical bodies and being born here. They eventually will become gods too if they successfully follow all of the ordinances and gain access to the highest heaven. With these facts in place know that Adam did this progression and took Eve. Therefore to become a god one must first become human else they will not have a body of flesh and bone, they would continue to be amorphous ‘spirit children’ and denied the opportunity to progress.

Now with this hodge-podge of verses providing the structure (and I’m sure DU could provide a better structure for eternal progression). Smith clarifies the subject while preaching with his ‘prophetic authority’ recognized by other duly appointed mormon prophets agreeing with the Prophet Prime. Smith says that Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, If the preceding doctrine was eternal life, it must have been pretty important if it involved such. Clearly the PROPHETS of Mormonism have accepted this as truth ever since.

Maybe, that's the point, it's not cannon, we don't know for sure, and since we can't know (because God has not told us). Whether or not God was created in eternities is irrelevant to our salvation.

You don’t know for sure? Certainly you don’t doubt the testimony of the first and foremost Prophet of Mormonism? I thought that was one of the great things Mormonism had over Christianity – a 24/7 prophet? It must be disturbing that Smith came to the same conclusion as I did. Are you greater in knowledge of God than Joseph Smith to second guess him? If Smith’s teachings are a lie, then chances are the rest of what he has said is a lie too. Young produced the same logical construct that I did, so did Snow (5th prophet). The mormon church is continuing to publish things like The LDS Booklet: Celestial Marriage--Key to Man's Destiny, where it states on the first page “God was once a man who, by obedience, advanced to his present state of perfection; through obedience and celestial marriage we may progress to the point where we become like God “.

Stop right there, it's a logical assumption, not Doctrine, ….. Smith and I are in agreement on where the logic leads to the doctrine he set up, set up as prophet prime. A the General Authority promotes that teaching since it is founded on canon references, absent rebuke by the GA yields a defacto doctrine due to passive acceptance as well as active promulgation.

What you are in fact arguing is that Jesus could not be "God" until he had completed the process of coming to earth and gaining a body..

I am reciting what you already told me earlier was mormon doctrine. :
(2) Jesus as a spirit at the beginning of time becoming a mortal at the meridian of time, and being a perfected being with an eternal body by the end of time represents our journey through life. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=307#307

If he represents you journey in life, he couldn’t have been a god as a spirit child and only could have become a god after death and all the processes thereafter – becoming a perfected being.

A God is someone unto whom all power is given regardless of physical body, or lack thereof.

Provide me canon for that one ;)

The holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, which is a member of the Godhead and has no body is also God, for he has all power as well.

Your getting all mixed up. According to mormons, the course of perfection requires humanhood, death and exaltation.

Jesus was God from all eternity (for he was God before this aberration called time existed, indeed he is the creator of Time, and he will be God after time has ceased to exist (for it will have fulfilled it's purpose.) thus he is God to Eternity, all eternity is that which surrounds time, thus he is God from all Eternity to all eternity.

Where do you get that doctrine from, DC says he is the Firstborn, that implies a point of origin, he was the first of the spirit children. Smith explains it for you if you will listen to your prophet.
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!.... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see... he was once a man like us... and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976)

General authorities have yet to refute Smith’s teaching (crickets). Smith said that he refutes that idea of an eternal god. Or do you know something your religion’s founder doesn’t know?

Did Jesus have "Eternal Life" before he came down from on high? No, for that he had to gain a body, now he could have built one like he did for Adam, but that was not the plan, the plan required him to come and be born and teach and suffer and die, for us. The Mormon View of Jesus is of a more compassionate, understanding Jesus than the perspective supplied by other religions (My opinion)

Your opinion isn’t canon and is worthless here as a mormon viewpoint.

You are specifically incorrect too is the correct way to say this, you must not understand Christology for you disagree with me about it (LOL).

Pontificating doesn’t prove you argument, though it might make you feel better about your self. It's there, just not as clear, fine if you want to allege that God doesn't fulfill his word, ….

I ask again – show me which MS has that nugget. Prove to me your superior intellect.

God can do whatever he wants, he is all powerful. However, he has also said you must be baptized to enter the kingdom, so how do you reconcile that? (Do you make a special exception? chuckle)

Luke 23:42-42

432 posted on 01/18/2008 9:35:09 AM PST by Godzilla (Forgive me, Gore, for I have emitted. (Tamar1973, cafepress.com))

Paul used Baptism for the Dead as an argument for Resurrection. Therefore it was acceptable to him. No one would use a heresy to prove a gospel point, thus your rejection of this as heresy falls flat. My context is correct, yours is contrived.

Lurkers will once again note that DU still cannot under stand proper context, Paul’s rabbinic method of argument construction or even the full extent of the passage in 1 Corinthians. Paul arguing here not for resurrection in general, but specifically the resurrection of Jesus and how central to the Gospel he preached that resurrection is. If Christ didn’t raise from the dead, all the gospel was worthless. He was not arguing within the Corinth church, but reinforcing them against false teachings from without. This is the only verse in the Bible that mentions baptism for the dead. Notice that Paul is not advocating this practice. He merely makes a passing reference to some group outside of the church that had such a practice. His emphasis throughout that chapter is on the resurrection. Had baptism for the dead been a primary function of the early church surely there would be more teaching on it than this casual reference. So Mormonism snatches a single phrase and constructs and entire doctrine about it.

So, by Asking people to Pray about the Book of Mormon, I challenged you? I'm sorry, I didn't see it that way. How does asking God about truth challenge you?

You said I should accept the word of the ‘witnesses’, a people who Smith later had excommunicated. Hardly a resounding endorsement.

Since you have said you have read things in Farms, here, read this Ensign article titled "Why have changes been made in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon?" It's an official answer in a magazine published by the church, that makes it a good study guide, but not Cannon of the church JFTR.
And later….
UM, no, have you ever written a book that was being read to you? It's kind of like telephone "stuff" gets lost in the "air waves". Plus you did not give "Example" in any meaning full sense, you paraphrase and later say you were definitive. You have continued to offer subjective opinions and claim them to be objective. Show me a list of Thousands of changes that do not include punctuation and Spelling. I'm calling you out mister! Show me a list!

Sorry, my browser won’t let me download that document. But I have read enough of their apologetic on other pages to know the gist. Their problem is that their excuses run contrary to the testimony of the witnesses at that time. Since the following citations, being closer to the actual event, and coming from the mouths of the prophets holds more weight than speculation by FARMS:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth.” (J Smith, The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.

President/ prophet J.F.Smith taught that “The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or word, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there.” until the mistake was corrected. (Journal of Oliver Huntington III, p 168) JFS also asserted that “There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part of it (bom) to make it fit; but each new revelation on doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure” (Doctrines of Salvation).

Your grammar and spelling argument runs counter to your own church history, prophets and teaching. Since God made and supervised the translation, we would expect the 1830 edition to be exactly as God wanted it to be. The prophet JF Smith agrees with that assessment and reinforced it as doctrinal teaching. Furthermore, you have avoided answering “off the top of your head” the very specific NON grammar or spelling changes I posted. Since you have been incessantly whining about the length of these posts, you know where to go back and find them.

There is plenty of evidence both For and against the Book of Mormon, let me guess, you have only looked at what is perceived as being against...

It might be worth a few chuckles to see the ‘for’ evidence FWIW. However, the credibility of a document, absent any extant MS besides the 1830 original, that makes claims of events that happened in America that can be verified. If those claims are found to be bogus, with the additional issues with the book, the verdict is that the bom is a fraud. For beginners, the bom is not recognized by either the National Geographic Society or Smithsonian Institution as being a valid document of worth to learn of pre-Columbus Americas. The prestigious BYU has no specific mormon archaeology department because there are no mormon archaeological sites to study. But that might be too harsh, so perhaps you can answer these questions from the scientific community apart from FARMS as they are biased and IF the claims of the bom are true, they would be verified independently:

1. Have any of the cities in the BOM been located?
2. Have any BOM names in New World inscriptions been found?
3. Have any any Hebrew inscriptions been found in America?
4. Well, any Egyptian inscriptions in America been found? "No". 5. How about anything even resembling Egyptian even been found in America?
6. Have any ancient copies of the BOM been found?
7. Have anthropologists found any ancient Native American cultures who held Jewish or Christian beliefs?
8. Has ANY mention of previously unknown BOM persons, places, or nations been found ANYWHERE?
9. Is there proof that Native Americans are really of Semitic stock?
10. If the BOM is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision)

You were saying I was attacking you, I was saying "That's not a knife, this is a knife" (Crocodile Dundee refrence)

I identified it as a threat and unlike you I know the difference between a threat and an attack. But I’ll have the popcorn ready anyway. BTW, your spell checker broke?

Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
hoti en auto katoikei (3SPAI) pan to pleroma ten theotetos somatikos, 'K so you speak Greek, congrtulations, what is meant by fullness?

And you talk about my spelling LOL. You need to use a English-greek lexicon or dictionary to define ‘fullness’, as those documents will define it within its proper context. The complete extent of the definition of fullness is found in context of the passage. Here the word means the unbounded powers and attributes of God. In association with the term deity (theotetos – Godhead in the KJV) makes it clear that Jesus is not only God-like, He is God. Or in terms not to confuse you further, in Jesus the complete, unbounded powers and attributes (everything that defines the Godhead) of the Godhead, physically and spiritually dwell within when he was a man as well as now after the resurrection. In Christianity that is 100%, in mormonism that can be no more than 33%.

Yawn, I guess you subscribe to the "If you say something often enough ..." school of debate. Fortunately, I am immune for I know what I believe and it is not for you to define.

I didn’t know the doctrines taught by the prophet smith bored you.

This is not Mormon Doctrine, they are three persons and one God, the Godhead.

You are sounding seriously confused or you got your crib notes mixed up. You are reciting a Trinitarian formula – not mormon doctrine established below:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22: The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

The Father is god with a body of flesh and bone (god 1), Jesus has a separate body of flesh and bone (god 2) and the holy spirit is the odd thing out (an unheard of ‘god’ without flesh and blood, yet god 3). How does this flesh out? James Talmage said "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith ) Bruce McConkie states: "Three separate personages---Father, Son, and Holy Ghost---comprise the Godhead...As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us...these three are the only Gods we worship" (Mormon Doctrine, p.576-577). Since the General Authority has not rebuked this relatively straightforward presentation of DC 130:22 and even endorses it, you are sadly confused. Multiple gods = polytheism by definition.

Why, what was it in before Greek? (some books were written in Greek some were not.)

You need to go read FF Bruce sometime and understand how the Bible was recorded and transmitted to us. It is safe to say that Colossians was written in Greek. There are no internal textural evidences in the document to indicate that the Greek MS of Colossians were translated from some other language.

Why does the NWT mistranslate this as "divine quality" in Col 2:9, instead of "Godhead".

That is because the NWT is not an accepted Christian translation, but a Jehovah Witness published ‘translation’. Their exogenesis of the Greek is not supported by the vast majority of other Greek scholarship. I’m sure you’d get along with them just fine :)

Nice try, but Godhead is in fact in the Bible, and Trinity is not.

KJV only and that based upon 1611 language and is not translated that way in modern versions. You and the KJV only folks are probably in bed together on this. Is ‘godhead’ found in any other of your standard works?

Acts 7: 55-56

He saw God's glory (that Jesus shares as God) and Jesus "standing" with the metaphor (dexios) ‘at the right hand’.

433 posted on 01/18/2008 9:38:25 AM PST by Godzilla (Forgive me, Gore, for I have emitted. (Tamar1973, cafepress.com))

I Said: That is funny, every time Jesus refers to himself or the Disciples refer to him as "The Son of Man" they are referencing a specific Messianic Prophecy in the Book of Enoch.

summery

That the same as onery LOL. You specifically referenced the ‘Son of man’ quotations and made it the crux of your argument. I stated, Enoch was around during the time of Christ (would have saved you all that cut and past if you would read). However, the book of Enoch at that time was missing the section known as the Similitudes. It is this portion that contains the ‘son of man’ references. This section is not present in the DSS collection. Because of this absence, it is not believed to have been added until mid to late first century. Too late for Jesus to be making specific references to it.

In the Similitudes of Enoch (chapters 37 to 71 of 1 Enoch, probably written in the mid first century by a Jewish sect) the figure called the Elect One or Righteous One—also Son of Man and Messiah—is revealed to be waiting in heaven http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp08.htm

The similitudes furnish information about the hierarchy of the angels and reveal atmospheric, meteorological, and astronomical secrets; they culminate in the appointment of Enoch as the Son of Man. They contain various traditions dating from earlier ages but in their present recension cannot be designated earlier than the first century B.C. J.T. Milik dates them as late as the second century C.E., above all because there is no trace of them at Qumran." (Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon, pp. 138-139)

Martin McNamara writes: "No fragment of any part of Parables has been found in Qumran. For this, and for other reasons besides, some scholars doubt its pre-Christian and Jewish character. J. T. Milik maintains that it was composed in the second or third century of our era. However, contemporary scholarship tends to reckon the parables Jewish, and to assign their composition to the first century of the Christian era." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 71)

Michael A. Knibb writes: "The concern with the Son of Man has led to the Parables being considered in relation to the traditions in the gospels about the Son of Man. Some scholars have thought that the Parables are Christian, but this is very unlikely because the Parables lack any reference to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; …….. It is a matter of debate whether the Parables, a Jewish work, might have exercised some limited influence on the gospel traditions; but their real importance—in the writer's opinion from towards the end of that century. It should be noted that for this section of Enoch we have available only an Ethiopic text." (Outside the Old Testament, p. 44)

Approximately 49 Ethiopic manuscripts of 1 Enoch survive, dated to the 14th-19th centuries C.E., and most of these contain the Similitudes. Notably, unlike the rest of the books preserved in the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch, no fragments of the Similitudes survive among the Qumran manuscripts.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/academic/divinity/similitudes.html

So, Justin Martyr, The Bishop of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen Lactantius (He has some really interesting writings...), Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso are all just pikers to you? ROTFLOL!

They felt it was recommended, but not to the level of scripture. If you consider their opinions valid, so you must yield that Smiths and mormondom’s teaching on gods being fathered by other gods is valid.

Oh, and before you trot out the tired DNA evidence (that doesn't exist), Read This.

Most DNA apologists like FARMS defending the Book of Mormon, do so on the assumption that Lehi and his family made a small genetic impact in the Americas. They flatly reject the hemispheric geography, the view accepted by most Mormons and all the prophets. In fact, this is one of the instances the General Authority stepped in to denounce a teaching - the limited geography (central America) put forth by FARMS. In 1978 the GA warned against this theory which “challenged the words of the prophets concerning the place where Moroni buried the records.” (Deseret News, Church News 48, No. 30 (July 29, 1978)).

It has already been long established from non-dna evidence that the native Americans are from Mongolian (asian) descent. Most carry markers that link them unequivocally to Asia. The same markers cluster in people who today inhabit the Altay region of southern Siberia, suggesting it was the starting point for a journey across the land bridge. What is absent is the link to semitic peoples from the middle east. In my searches, I continually run into FORMER mormon DNA experts who because of the overwhelming proof that native Americans are not of Jewish linage and have come to the conclusion that the bom is a fraud.

DNA Evidence and the Book of Mormon, 2003 by Mormon Anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy

Other items:
http://www.morningsun.net/stories/080104/lif_20040801012.shtml
http://www.irr.org/mit/Lamanites-DNA-Book-of-Mormon.html
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/1_20/pages/mormons.html
www.mormonchallenge.com

RE the JSP. Facsimile 1 is present in the JSP and variations from traditional book of breathings MS show up where Smith filled in the gaps. There are three fragments of the JSP. Following the pattern of books of breathing, the third facsimile would have form the next (or fourth) fragment. From the original hand written MS of the Book of Abraham, all 46 characters (denoted in the margin – example in figure below) are present in the JSP and in the same right to left sequence found in Smiths writing. Smith said HIMSELF that these characters are what he based the boa on. 46 characters were made into 1125 English words, including 65 proper names.

Greater documentation, including the great Nibley’s heroic efforts to salvage disaster from the jaws of defeat are included in this document:
http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh1.html

Or for media nutz, a very interesting video presentation and interviews of mormon Egyptologists can be seen at:
http://www.bookofabraham.info/

Bottom line is DU, this IS the parchment that Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham. The mormon church accepted it as such, FARMS continues to try to justify it (even to a laughable paper by Nibley about 11-12 years ago where he put for a ‘super cryptography’ theory to account for Smith’s ‘interpretation’. The correct translation parchment shows that Smith is a fraud, swindler, liar and a cheat. You want me to further read and pray over a document created by such a crook? A book who’s contents contain a completely undefendable ‘record’ of life here in America? Accept thousands of changes in the same book – one that was dictated letter by letter by God – absent of any MS to support it.

434 posted on 01/18/2008 9:42:01 AM PST by Godzilla (Forgive me, Gore, for I have emitted. (Tamar1973, cafepress.com))

435 posted on 01/18/2008 9:54:11 AM PST by Godzilla (Forgive me, Gore, for I have emitted. (Tamar1973, cafepress.com))

Hmm. Who are we to believe? (You or a BYU prof?)

THe Articles of Faith #8

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

That makes the Bible, with some minor room for clarification, Cannon. I don't care what some Professor at BYU says he is not supposed to be speaking for the church. The questions is, what is his source, can he back it up with more than his opinion?

The LDS Church prints the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants in a single binding so that the "SCRIPTURES" can be joined together in our hand. This guy is off the mark.

Are you simply mistaken, DU? Or is the BYU prof?

He is, I am backed up by the church, If I was not, I would be wrong. IT's not about me or him, it's what the church has Cannonized.

I Said: Christianity has existed since before the world was.

U Said: Thanks for confirming my exact point. Yes, "Christianity" has existed since before the world was--even though it was not a word on the minds of the New Testament authors or a word amongst its pages; it had not yet been invented. So is also true of the Trinity, which also existed since before the world was--even though this specific word was not amongst the New Testament pages.

Christianity has existed since before Adam for His calling was before the world. The trinity as a Doctrine, or Creed was made the "Doctrine" of the Catholic church in 325 AD. God and Christ existed before and will exist after the trinity as doctrine has fallen to more knowledge. To equate the two is to compare an essential part of the plan of salvation to a creed adopted at a point in time. Jesus was known by name long before he was born, the trinity was never discussed at all in the Bible. The Trinity is the embodiment of an interpretation, not the embodiment of God. The Trinity as a creed conflicts with he Bible in many places. The Bible never conflicts with Christ being our savior. Your contrived comparison is exposed.

As for things Not being defined in the Bible. It's simple. We believe in continuing revelation with Prophets who speak for God, you don't believe in modern day prophets. Therefore it is OK for us to have modern revelation, but not OK for you to have similar additions, for you don't believe in continuing revelation.

I Said: Jesus was not a monothiest, he was a himself a God, and he obeyed his Father, who was a God. Yet, he and the Father were so close that they were and Are one God. Monotheism is not a philosophy he worried about.

I Said: So I guess only Isaiah, most quoted Biblical prophet in the Book of Mormon, was a "philosophical monotheiest," eh?

You obviously did not understand what I was talking about, and I'm OK with that.

No...the whole flow & structure of the Mormon church is just one commercial-like enterprise...

The Corporate entity is forced by the US government, all churches in the USA have one or they get taxed like Joe citizen, because they are owned by Joe citizen.

A forced-fee structure of 10% tithe (or no temple recommend which translates both into being shut out of the temple + no godhood for you);

No one is forced to pay a tithe and it's a Biblical command. (Why aren't other churches following the Bible?)

whereas no one single person is the author of the Bible, Doctrine & Covenants 24:1 tells us exactly who the Book of Mormon author is: "Behold, thou wast called and chosen to write the Book of Mormon... ("Revelation" of July 1830);

Yes, Joseph had the Copyright on the Book of Mormon which was transferred to the LDS church.

whereas no one single person has copyright of the Bible...the copyright of the Book of Mormon was secured in Smith's name; and even now, just about all of the LDS general authorities are businessmen.

Yes, you had to make some money to be able to give the service they give.

You might also be interested in this:

Is the Bible copyrighted?

Ron
Asheville, North Carolina

Dear Ron:
There are no original Biblical copyright holders. The Bible was written by roughly 40 or so people over the span of 1,500 years (from around 1450 B.C. until A.D. 100). It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.
Many modern translations of the Bible are copyrighted. While several of these Bible copyright holders offer their translations online and allow people to make attributed quotes, they would probably frown upon someone printing their translation and trying to sell it. Besides, since a Bible quote in English is by definition a translation, it's good practice to attribute the source.
As we quickly discovered, copyright law is a complicated affair. Many books become public domain 70 years after the author's death. Of course, it goes without saying that the Bible isn't your average book, so we suggest you check with the publisher. However, the Bible Gateway notes that many versions are in the public domain including the King James Bible.

I know that the addition of Footnotes to the JST allows the LDS church to copyright the Bible we are printing.

If the LDS church is a "restoration" of the original church--and if Jesus had 24 apostles--12 in the Bible & 12 in the Book of Mormon Americas--why don't LDS have "24" if it's a true "restoration?"

Actually, there were replacements of the apostles in Jerusalem, so you can make the same argument for more than 24 apostles, hey why not it would be just as wrong.

We have 12 apostles, because every time Jesus set up his church, he called 12 apostles. We are a restoration, so Jesus called 12 apostles.

436 posted on 01/18/2008 11:31:56 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

U Said: That's precisely what the LDS Church did when McConkie wanted to republished "Mormon Doctrine" with the fixed errors pointed out to him by the First Presidency.

So you make my point that the church was upset at the errors, and it's not approved by the church. The church used strong language to encourage but did not have the power to compel.

I Said: The Church does not publish Mormon Doctrine, Bookcraft does. Bruce's children hold the Copyright and get paid when the book is reprinted. It's not some property, get it?

U Said: Right. (And next you'll try to tell me that the LDS First Presidency had "no role at all" in the republishing of "Mormon Doctrine" as it was republished in 1966). But according to Deseret Book Publishing, owned by the LDS Church, you'd be flat out wrong & persistently deceitful if you tried. According to the book, The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, a biography written by his son, Joseph Fielding McConkie (Deseret Book Publishers, 2003):

The LDS church presidency can encourage, and coerce and ask and if you are a Good member and you are trying to publish a book that helps the church, you'll listen. However, the church cannot compel. The church cannot even excommunicate for publishing a book that talks about things that are not doctrine.

Did the Church leadership say to him "At least fix these things..." I am sure they did. Did they fix everything? No. Could they force him to, no. But would a good member, or GA disobey? Probably not. Does that make it condoned by the church, no.

U Said: What? Are you seriously & continually trying to tell us all that the LDS First Presidency had less evaluative & review & oversight power of this book in 1966 and 1978 than any given editors & publishers of any book? Your arguments in this area are as incredulous as they could be given the sheer hierarchical nature of the LDS Church in that era!

Lets review the actual record:

When the First Presidency met with McConkie about their decision, he responded, "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and as wise as I can." (Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings.)

So, as I said, the church could not compel him, but could ask, and he could agree. The Church did not have control, but most certainly had influence. You might also want to note, that Bruce R McConkie, stated that this was his work , and not the Church's.

In 1958 McConkie, who was at the time a member of the First Council of the Seventy of the LDS Church, published a book entitled Mormon Doctrine: A Compendium of the Gospel, which he described as "the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom" and "the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel--the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion." He included a disclaimer that he alone was responsible for the doctrinal and scriptural interpretations, a practice unusual at the time. (Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings.)

David O mckay said:

we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie's book is not approved as an authoritative book, (Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings.)

So clearly, my statement is correct when I said the Book was no cannon, was not considered authoritative, but it was, being written by a GA a good study guide.

In short, it's a really good book to read for additional study, but it's not scripture.

BTW, since I am distantly related to Bruce R McConkie, and since I know some of his children, I just might have an insight here, and yes, my mother has a first edition copy of his book and I have read it.

I nominate the "Why don't you have 24 apostles" question for the Dumb post of the thread award.

437 posted on 01/18/2008 12:43:40 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

I Said: The Deification of Man can and is Doctrine of the church. I have never said otherwise. The application of this as the Source of God being God is not Doctrine of the church. No amount of posturing can make it so, we simply don't have a canonized work that says we believe that. Since we believe in continuing revelation, that could change in the future, but as of my writing this, it's not doctrine. Is it a common belief? Absolutely. I am not going to change my statements, they are consistent, and true.

U Said: Are you just deliberately avoiding the obvious conclusions then?

No, I even stated that many Mormons probably believe it, but only the church can canonize doctrine and they have not. An example, Only congress can declare war, the president can put troops in harms way and hope the Congress will follow, but it does not always work that way, look at Vietnam, it was never "Technically" a "war" even though most believe it to have been and it is printed that way most of the time. I am just being accurate. If accuracy offends you, that is not my problem. Personally, I find it difficult to inaccurately tell the truth...

U Said: If you concede The Deification of Man can and is Doctrine of the church what keeps other LDS homilectic teachings from also reaching status as "doctrine of the church." If one sermon can make this heightened position, why not others? If you can't deny it to this sermon teaching, how can you deny it for other sermon teachings.

I went to the tore yesterday, and even today, does that mean I will go tomorrow?

If I tell you I am Going to the store today, and plan to tomorrow, does that mean I did yesterday?

PROBABLY! but probably is not yes, and until I know it is a yes, I will not say yes.

Get over it.

U Said: You have an inconsistent standard. You constantly deflect and/or plaster past homilectic material on the sheer grounds that it's not canonized.

Did you mean "homiletic" Yes, points made in a sermon are not doctrine unless published by the church in an authoritative source. That's it, that's the rule, I am sorry if it makes your life difficult, but that is one reason I source so much so that people know I am speaking from accepted sources, not just Johnny said Sue said that Bob hears X GA say Y. BAH! If your mind is so imprecise that you are willing to accept non authoritative sources then you can expect for others (such as myself) to dismiss your conclusions out of hand because it cannot be sourced to something that is Doctrine.

U Said: You claim apriori that it can't be considered official LDS doctrine on that grounds. Yet LDS do treat deification as an official doctrine & officially assert it as so--even if they concede it's not as you say--"sourced" in a canonized way from God.

Deification is mot certainly sourced in Cannon Is it not written in your law that ye are gods?, and We may become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, and Thou art a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ, and When he shall appear, we shall be like him, and Those who inherit the celestial kingdom are gods, even the sons of God lastly Then shall they be gods, because they have all power.

Remember when I said you become a God when all power is given unto you? I can source that. I do try to be very exact in my speech here.

U Said: This is sheer double-standard treatment. Sheer inconsistency. And sheer hypocrisy.

If it is, then it is not being done by me, I have been dead on, 100% consistent across the board.

U Said: Let me ask you: Is this just easier to be inconsistent & hypocritical rather than having to face the realities of past LDS teachings?

I think you need to answer that question for itself. The reality is that the teachings, with the proper perspective are clear an logical 100% consistent, and beautiful.

To those without that perspective, it looks convoluted, twisted, and changing.

I would not want to we "without" or outside the perspective of God.

CF, I know you will probably never admit that I am right about that which I believe, but you could be more compassionate.

Go with God may he continue to send you messages to lead you to the light.

438 posted on 01/18/2008 1:23:09 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

To: Colofornian; Godzilla; DelphiUser; Jim Robinson

"I know you will probably never admit that I am right about that which I believe, but you could be more compassionate."
Not one person as far as I'm aware has ever claimed you are not totally believing the fantasies you defend so ardently. You believe what you believe. And that is the reason so many continue to have C O M P A S S I O N on your smartaleck, mocking, insulting, childish self, and have not put you on permanent ignore.

Some actually care that you are totally believing these fabrications from a peepstone lying false prophet named Joseph Smith. We are sadly convinced you are believing what you keep claiming. That is a universe away from you believing truth, however. Mormonism is founded in lies and fabrications from a divination conman who lied about having the Urim and Thummim and used a peep stone stuck in his hat to dupe nineteenth century folks.

Your ardent belief in these fabrications and lies concerns some because a bishop in your false religion is trying to become president. How rational can a man/bishop be who believes the myriad of fabrications by Joe Smith? We aren't talking one or two strange beliefs, we're talking about wholesale lies and fabrications such as the book of abraham and the Bible contradicting book of mormon, and the book of mormon contradicting declarations on such things as polygamy by your false prophet!

439 posted on 01/18/2008 2:09:23 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

We have 12 apostles, because every time Jesus set up his church, he called 12 apostles.

You mean every continental set up of his church? (Then why don't the LDS have a dozen for the Americas, another dozen for Africa, another dozen for Europe, etc.?) Are you telling us that the Book of Mormon early church was a "horse of a different color" and was not part of the worldwide body of Christ?

No one is forced to pay a tithe and it's a Biblical command.

Right. (Just try getting a temple rec minus a tithe. Just try getting the Mormon bait of celestial kingdom minus a temple rec. This isn't all that far removed from what Martin Luther objected about the sale of indulgences during the reformation.)

Why aren't other churches following the Bible? [re: tithe]

The bigger question is why aren't Christians & churches following the Bible in believing Psalm 24:1? The earth is the Lord's, and EVERYTHING IN IT. So I could come right back atcha--although the question would apply just as much to Christian churches as the Mormon church: Why aren't churches following the Bible in believing that 100% (not just 10%) is the Lord's?

I don't care what some Professor at BYU says he is not supposed to be speaking for the church.

DU, do you know how this statement sounds to non-Mormons? Here, you have a prof who is paid by the church to expound upon the standard works to the brightest & best of the young generation.

In fact, I come away from our convo with comments like this and your comments about McConkie wondering, "How does their accountability process on proper teachings work if they don't ever seem to consider the end-user?" (I mean that's what my analogy was all about re: the baby sitter & the sleeping bag & how you would think that LDS general authorities would be looking out for the welfare of the spiritual milk drinkers.)

I mean, when I've read Christianity Today articles & other sources over the years about Christian doctrinal debates, if some prominent prof or teacher or author is off base--especially in a church body that actually exercises orthodox accountability--then there's actually some high-level private and public discussions of these things. It allows the "end user"--say a parent whose sending or will be sending their kid to that Christian university or college--to consider the orthodoxy (or lack of it) of that campus' classrooms.

With Mormons, it seems like all we ever see is the grassroots' discussion. Since LDS general authorities tend to be businessmen and not theologians, we don't see them issuing directives or warnings to the "spiritual faithful" about even what they consider to be specific false theological teachings in their church. (No warnings to the milk drinkers that even they see some of the milk is tainted)

I mean the only exception I can think of is like the early 80s when McConkie took issue with a book published by a Mormon & went on his personal crusade to try to interfere with BYU students' seeking an intimate relationship with Jesus (thru that devotional he did). Now McConkie happened to be dead wrong on that & made a big fool of himself inside & outside the church.

But it seems to me that the LDS church really only has two "speeds" for dealing with what they deem to be unorthodox teachings: (1) ex-communicate...like Michael Quinn, etc. and (2) Private discussions only.

But it seems to me that if you put a poisonous substance (a false teaching) into the public channels, that it's up to the manufacturer (in this case the LDS church) who actually pays the salaries of their teachers to issue a recall ("don't drink the poisonous kool-aid").

In other words, if Robinson in 1997 was teaching as you say, a false teaching that most of the JST is not canonized, then where has the LDS Church as HQ officially corrected that? Since they pay the salaries of BYU profs, and since end-user parents need to be assured that if they send their kids to BYU, they won't (from a Mormon's perspective) be taught open heresy like what you've accused Robinson of, where has the LDS Church gone of the offensive to let Mormon parents out there know? Where has the LDS Church, with seminary students, institute students, BYU students, & other young people in mind, put out a warning for them all: "Prof. Robinson has taught that 95% of the JST is a nice read, but isn't sourced from God as canonical. This is heresy and should not be believed."

So where is the "product recall" on this poisonous teaching of Robinson you accuse him of? I mean what if Robinson started teaching that 95% of the Book of Mormon wasn't canonical. Would that also get a ho-hum public response from the church coupled with some private reprimand?

440 posted on 01/19/2008 6:08:19 AM PST by Colofornian

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794