Replies

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.

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?