Thanks for letting us know!:)
Posted on 04/27/2006 3:03:34 PM PDT by restornu
The Book of Mormon is often dismissed as gibberish by those who have never taken the trouble to read it. In fact, its very existence poses a serious puzzle if it is not what it claims to be - an ancient record. Below is the Book of Mormon Challenge, an assignment that Professor Hugh Nibley at BYU sometimes gave to students in a required class on the Book of Mormon. The following text is taken from the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.8, Ch.11, Pg.221 - Pg.222:
Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names--hundreds of them--pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 b.c.; be lavish with cultural and technical details--manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials.
Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up--we have our little joke--but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim--they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck!
To date no student has carried out this assignment, which, of course, was not meant seriously. But why not? If anybody could write the Book of Mormon, as we have been so often assured, it is high time that somebody, some devoted and learned minister of the gospel, let us say, performed the invaluable public service of showing the world that it can be done." - Hugh Nibley
Structure and Complexity of the Book of Mormon First Nephi gives us first a clear and vivid look at the world of Lehi, a citizen of Jerusalem but much at home in the general world of the New East of 600 B.C. Then it takes us to the desert, where Lehi and his family wander for eight years, doing all the things that wandering families in the desert should do. The manner of their crossing the ocean is described, as is the first settlement and hard pioneer life in the New World dealt with.... The book of Mosiah describes a coronation rite in all its details and presents extensive religious and political histories mixed in with a complicated background of exploration and colonization. The book of Alma is marked by long eschatological discourses and a remarkably full and circumstantial military history. The main theme of the book of Helaman is the undermining of society by moral decay and criminal conspiracy; the powerful essay on crime is carried into the next book, where the ultimate dissolution of the Nephite government is described.
Then comes the account of the great storm and earthquakes, in which the writer, ignoring a splendid opportunity for exaggeration, has as accurately depicted the typical behavior of the elements on such occasions as if he were copying out of a modern textbook on seismology.... [Soon] after the catastrophe, Jesus Christ appeared to the most pious sectaries who had gathered at the temple.
...Can anyone now imagine the terrifying prospect of confronting the Christian world of 1830 with the very words of Christ? ...
But the boldness of the thing is matched by the directness and nobility with which the preaching of the Savior and the organization of the church are described. After this comes a happy history and then the usual signs of decline and demoralization. The death-struggle of the Nephite civilization is described with due attention to all the complex factors that make up an exceedingly complicated but perfectly consistent picture of decline and fall. Only one who attempts to make a full outline of Book of Mormon history can begin to appreciate its immense complexity; and never once does the author get lost (as the student repeatedly does, picking his way out of one maze after another only with the greatest effort), and never once does he contradict himself. We should be glad to learn of any other like performance in the history of literature. - Hugh Nibley, Collected Works Vol. 8
The four types of biblical experts There are four kinds of biblical experts: At the very top are the professionals who have been doing biblical research all their adult lives. They are usually professors in leading universities in various fields that are related to the Bible such as archaeologists, historians, paleographers, professors of the Bible, and professors of Near Eastern languages and literature.
These people are the most credible of all biblical experts and do not let religious views get in the way of the truth. This is why a lot of them consider themselves to be nonbelievers in the modern Christian and Jewish faiths. Their reputation and standing in the academic community is very important to them. This causes them to be cautious and not rashly declare statements upon any subject without presenting verifiable proof for their claims. It is to them that encyclopedias, journals and universities go to for information. Their community is very small, but extremely influential in the secular world. One distinctive feature of this group is the difficulty outsiders face when reading their writings which causes them to be a fairly closed society.
The second group of biblical experts are those who have legitimate degrees and may have initially been in the first group but were spurned by the first group for being unreliable because they disregard demonstrable proof simply because their religious convictions teach otherwise. For them, their religion's teaching overrides real biblical research. Very few of them can be considered Fundamentalists.
The third group of biblical experts are the "biblical experts." These people disregard the works and conclusions of the first group, and view the second group as their mentors. Nearly all anti-Mormons who produce anti-Mormon paraphernalia fall into this group. Their views are purely theological and display ignorance of legitimate biblical studies. Their arguments are non-rational and are frequently sensational hype and empty rhetoric. These people are very vocal and constantly parade their "expertise" upon the unknowing masses by giving seminars in various churches and religious schools. Nearly all of them are Fundamentalists.
The fourth group of "biblical experts" are those who have never read the Bible completely and do not even know the history and contents of the Bible. They are completely reliant upon materials produced by the third group and may have five verses in the Bible memorized to quote at people they encounter (in nearly every instance John 3:16 and John 14:6 are included in these five verses) to give the impression they are experts in the Bible. They usually need the Table of Contents to find various biblical books and are extremely vocal in their condemnation of Mormonism. They personify the wise adage:
The less knowledge a man has, the more vocal he is about his expertise.
They read an anti-Mormon book and suddenly they're experts on Mormonism:
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The remainder of Christians are those who believe in the Bible but never read it. The Bible is a very complex book for most Christians and seems to possess a power that intimidates them. This is why a normal Christian is impressed whenever he or she encounters an individual who can quote scripture. It is this ignorance of the Bible that causes some to proclaim themselves "biblical experts."
I am not aware of anyone in the first group of biblical experts who are anti-Mormon. If anything, real biblical scholars who know Mormon theology have a profound sense of admiration for it and are usually astonished that so many facets of Mormonism reflect authentic biblical teachings.
They are frequently puzzled at how Joseph Smith could find out the real biblical teaching since modern Judaism and Christianity abandoned them thousands of years ago. Uniquely Mormon doctrines such as the anthropomorphic nature of God, the divine nature and deification potential of man, the plurality of deities, the divine sanction of polygamy, the fallacy of sola scriptura, the superiority of the charismatic leaders over the ecclesiastical leaders and their importance, the inconsequence of Original Sin because of the Atonement of Christ, the importance of contemporary revelation, and so forth are all original Jewish and Christian thought before they were abandoned mainly due to Greek philosophical influence.
Mormonism to these scholars is the only faith that preserves the characteristics of the early chosen people. This doesn’t mean these scholars believe Mormonism is the true religion, since their studies are on an intellectual level instead of a spiritual one.
On the other hand, the leaders of the anti-Mormon movement are nearly all in the third category with a couple in the second. Real biblical experts (who aren’t Mormon) and are in the first category normally refer to the “biblical experts” in the third group as the “know-nothings” or the “Fundamentalist know-nothings.” These terms aren’t completely derogatory, but are accurate descriptions of the knowledge of the “biblical experts” in the third group. Ed Watson - Mormonism: Faith of the 21st Century
>>Do I detect a scent of smugness in this post [#99]?
Not intentionally, but I was asked “off the top of your head…”
>>If names are so important…
They are not.
>>Again, you seem all caught up with status.
No, I am caught up with authority. If I say to my wife, go and write some checks to pay your bills, and you overhearing me, or seeing it written down, go and use my checkbook, you would be arrested. Christ told his disciples, people he had called, anointed, set apart and instructed to go and preach. You reading about it years later, assume he was talking to you. I think that’s a stretch, your interpretation is strained, at best.
>> (1) LDS believe prophets are called by fellow men
Absolutely 100% WRONG, Prophets are called of God (Big G here) or not at all. (Heb 5:4 http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/5/4#4 )
>> (2) Why only one "living" prophet at a time?
In the early days, travel and communication were a problem, now the prophet can hop a jet, and be anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. And that’s if being there in person is required.
>>As for the Scripture that shows Jesus Christ is our Prophet,
>>and is therefore not trumped by any Utah-based mortal: Hebrews 1:1-2
Trumped, no Rerpresented yes. Your scripture: (I find that adding the scripture, or a link to the post helps those who read later.)
1. GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Interesting, I see nothing about “There will be no prophets, If I say to you “yesterday, I spoke to you on a cell phone, but today I am visiting in person” that means there will never be another phone call? And why doesn’t this mean that god and Christ are separate personages? To interpret strictly in one section and loosely in another makes as much sense as what you say we are doing. Oh, Utah is not mentioned anywhere.
BTW Sorry for the delay in responding, the flu… you don’t want to know :-), Still recovering...
>>So who exactly GAVE Christ this authority if he is the only God involved why not say I have all authority…
>>One way to understand authority & submission (the two ends of lordship) is to first
>>look @ it through the eyes of marriage. Christ submitted to death & more on our
>>behalf. Likewise, Eph. 5:25 says husbands should submit to ultimate sacrifices on
>>behalf of wives. It's a form of submission. Eph. 5 talks about mutual submission in a
>>husband-wife relationship (Eph. 5:24ff). Submission is not the negative concept
>>feminists have made it out to be; it's a divine practice within God, Himself. Jesus on
>>his knees washing the disciples' feet was not the first time He submitted; it's what He's
>>done from eternity. As Lord, He didn't grasp after authority, even though He had the
>>"right" to do so. He waited until He was granted the exercise of all of it. (Matt 28:18-20).
>>Lastly, you can't understand this concept unless you grasp something of Philippians
>>2:6-7: "Who, being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God
>>something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a
>>servant, being made in human likeness..."
I thought we had agreed on using the KJV here…
6: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9: Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11: And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Authority and submission, right, God the father has the authority, and Christ is in submission to it, got it, next? Oh, that’s it, well how about this, I am in the form of god, I mean I look like my father who if you follow it back, looks like Adam who was created in the image of god, Jesus who was the express image of god walked among men without being noticed for his different appearance? You work it out, I already have.
BTW I wanted to go on down to verse 11 I like the “Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess” part, yes before you ask mine and every Mormon and especially the prophet’s knees and Tongue’s even those from Utah.
You still didn’t answer the question, of why Christ needed to grant himself authority if he is the only God, he would already have it.
I submit to you that Jesus Christ’s life was more than just the culmination of the reason for the earth being created; God ordained that he be a similitude of our journey here. In the Old Testament, called by one name, he was a spirit, premortal being. For most of the New Testament, during this life, he was called by another name, came and lived on the earth, was tested, passed, suffered, overcame, served and died here. In the end of the New Testament it is clear he will return, with his resurrected body intact, in Glory as the God of this earth to rule and reign as is his right and will be called by the same name as in the old testament, because he is the same personage.
Amen.
>>BTW, I don’t see anything there that says “And never let a positive word about Mormons go unchallenged”
>>There was a 4/25/06 thread on the LDS Church posted by Utah Girl. On post #53,
>>I responded to a comment by Utah Girl, who wrote:
I stand corrected, almost never (Big Grin)
See my post 342
>>There is only one Jesus Christ. You might claim we do not understand him, you may
>>claim we are wrong about him, you might even claim we are going to hell for our
>>misunderstandings. But to claim we are not talking about the same “Only Begotten of
>>the father” is disingenuous and you know better.
>>So, you're telling me that when "anyone says to you, 'Look here is the Christ!' or,
>>'There he is!'" (Matt 24:23), we are to believe that, 'cause there's only one Christ?
>>Sorry, you flunked the Matt 24 test:
>>"do not believe it," says Jesus, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear..."
>>(Matt 24:23-24).
We are not saying he is here, rather he was here, and he continues to follow his pattern of revelation as from the beginning. We proclaim that he was slain on the cross, who suffered for all mankind’s sins, and he now lives. We proclaim that we need not die in sin. This we proclaim, this does not flunk the Matt24 test this is a misunderstanding by you, this is why you left (but didn’t really leave) the church.
>>Paul talks about "another" Jesus in Gal. 1:8.
>>How can your Jesus, who did not Create anything out of nothing, be my Jesus, the
>>creator of all things and all beings?
Mormon’s believe Jesus created all things, and all beings.
>>How can your Jesus, who is the spirit brother of Lucipher, be my Jesus, who created
>>Lucipher?
Why would he do that? Is Christ the only begotten of the father, or not? (Begotten: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=begotten )
>>How can your Jesus, whose blood was so anemic that not only is Calvary almost
>>irrelevant (LDS' belief that Jesus atoned for sin by sweating blood in Garden) but that
>>it paid only for Adam's sin but not for your personal sin or my personal sin...
BALDERDASH! Mormon’s believe no such thing. Christ paid for ALL sin, it’s just up to you to repent and take advantage of it. How dare you believe this heresy and teach others about MY faith. You know nothing about what I or other Mormons believe as evidenced by this post. You have no understanding and therefore no right to tell others what we believe because you either did not understand what was preached to you for years, or you are lying now.
>> be compared to the all-purifying nature of Christ's blood on the cross--a cross strangely
>>missing from the LDS facilities' landscape?
As you should know, we do not worship the cross any more than we would worship a gun if Christ were murdered with a gun. Countless numbers were crucified; two thieves were crucified with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the only one to suffer for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Let’s correct the misstating of Mormon doctrine right here:
Jesus Christ is the Savior of all, paid for all sin, and brought salvation within the reach of all.
Jesus Christ Suffered for all sin in Gethsemane.
Jesus Christ Died that all might be resurrected, thus redeeming “man” from the fall of Adam.
As in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive.
>>How can your Jesus, one most LDS say they don't even pray to, be compared to my
>>Jesus who loves to hear me pray [I mean, even the Nephite disciples prayed to
>>Jesus!!!].
Yep, when he was present…
>>How can your Jesus, who LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie told BYU students @ a
>>devotional in the 1980s that they should not seek a special personal relationship with,
>>be compared to my Jesus who said the very nature of eternal life was defined by
>>knowing Him (John 17:3)?
3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
So you would have this read… “And this is life eternal, that they might know me the only true God, and myself, whom I have sent.” A ridiculous interpretation on the face of it.
>>Let's face it. Don't make me dig up the quote. But even Ensign Magazine years ago
>>said that the Christian church "worships a different Jesus" than LDS do.
Dig up that Quote, I’ll bet it’s as out of context as everything else you post about us. Oh, and if you don’t have a link to the whole article, don’t bother.
>>I'm sorry. But you can't claim special revelations coming down from on high in Ensign
>>magazine, only for other Ensign mag comments to be totally disregarded by you.
I don’t even disregard you posts. I learned a lot in Taiwan, one of the thoughts of Higher learning was from Confucius. “A truly wise man can learn from even a fool” I hope I am wise enough to learn from everyone.
>>>>Since Authority begins with the creator who cares where his genealogy goes? Did
>>>>your dad have to get permission from Adam to spank you? This is a spurious
>>>>argument at best, who’s only purpose is to muddy the waters with a Mormon belief
>>>>that we are the literal son’s and Daughters of God.
>>LDS are the ones who make the huge deal out of having a priesthood.
Because having authority makes a big difference
Mark 13: 34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
Luke 9 1 – 2 ( http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/9 )
1 THEN he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Note, he sent those who were set apart and who had been granted authority, not the multitude who was listening, not any who read this.
>>And this is because LDS authority is perceived to be so wrapped up in it. Therefore,
>>the laying on of hands is indeed huge in Utah & the LDS concentric circle. The rite of
>>passing on authority is LDS' own construction, so don't tell me that I'm making a
>>spurious argument when so much rides on that for LDS.
Were the apostles ordained? Was it by the laying on of hands? (Yes and Yes)
Articles of Faith #5 ( http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/5#5 )
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
>>I can't tell you how many times I've heard an LDS missionary talk with pride about his
>>priesthood authority, and either in subtle or more open ways point out that he
>>perceives a vacuum of authority within "Christendom."
And he is right, you all claim, god told the apostles this”” and then left, that’s the last word, don’t tell me any more, I’ve got enough (Effectively shutting off revelation because you won’t listen to him whom you profess to be following)
>>I mean, just look, for example, at how many times in this thread alone you bring up the
>>question of how/where we're authorized to several posters. It's even in your blood!
Yep, that’s because it’s important to have authority to act in god’s name or anybody could say “I’m a believer, follow me” (oops, that’s what you believe, isn’t it, sorry)
>>The chain of authority within the LDS is huge. How dare you make light of it or
>>downplay it.
I’m not down playing it, it starts with the Creator, If I create you, I am in authority over you (lest I un-create you). So that’s where authority starts. (This isn’t even theology, merely logic).
restornu, thought you'd enjoy this post, thoughts on authority starting with the creator?
>>>>Please if you have other questions, ask members of the church, not those who do not
>>>>understand our beliefs because they are not members. (You wouldn't go to Ford to
>>>>find out about a Chevy would you?)
>>Yeah, we all know that used car salesmen are the perfect 100% trusted sources of
>>information on the cars they sell! Go to them and never mind consumer mags
>>weighing different autos, never mind bringing your own mechanic in to evaluate a car.
So you are the Consumer reports of Religion are you? Can you give totally unbiased responses?
It is always a good idea to go to all the car dealers (to continue the metaphor) and not tell them you are looking at other dealers’ offerings. Then go to any unbiased source of information (in this case, the only one that matters, God) and then based on what you know, decide. To me religion is way more important that a car purchase, and comparing honest practitioners of a religion as used car salesmen is beneath this forum, and disingenuous as well.
>>You can call it, "BTV evangelism"
Sorry, confused you with CC there for a minute, your text looks a lot alike on my monitor (squinting).
Did I mention I was coming down with the flu when I wrote that, (looks over shoulder for mods), I'm Sorry, Cough, Cough, (contrived hoarse voice) I got to go, see you later.
(GRIN)
I really am sorry about that.
>>The book I was referring to is The History of the Church by Joseph Smith. Not the
>>other book mentioned by the other two guys Queer and Win or whatever it was. I am
>>smart enough to know the Church didn't condone a book written by a homosexual.
>>< smile - that was fun!>
>>I put a link with my source but I know if you visit it you will melt. :-)
>>Gosh it is nice to have a little funnin' on these threads.
I do not melt (sniffs) I singe! (grin)
Well, I am not one to ask for it, so I won’t (Big Grin)
Besides, we both know it wouldn’t change my mind, mine is made up based on personal revelation, and no board (no matter how wonderful it is) is going to change that. I’m sure you wouldn’t want my conviction to be any less either.
Do you dispute the following quotes?:
"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." LDS Quorum of the Seventy member Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p. 26
"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p. 7
"Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost...He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:18
"Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. ...If the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed upon the Elders by the people bringing the Elders into great difficulties." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:51
"The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy, ...a belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were 'Mormons.'" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:345-346
"The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this sprit-filled brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind." Milton R. Hunter, Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15
Okay, starting out with this blatantly false statement throws down a challenge that will result in the usual cries of bullying by those who resent it when informed people challenge the claims of a church that sends people door-to-door to tell the inhabitants that whatever church they attend is apostate.
>>>>I can categorically say that we do not teach this! We can be come gods, and
>>>>goddesses, but we will never be equal to God. He will always be our God.
>>Who is the God of your god? Does your god worship a being higher than himself? >>Does your father in heaven have a Father in Heaven?
Not needed so not revealed to me, yes and yes, to answer your questions.
>>Just how far down the line will you be when you become a god?
Does it matter? And what is this line business anyway God is the ultimate authority as far as we are concerned.
>>>>Besides President Hinckley is a little older than you (I think, 92?)
>>Are you saying that Hinkley was mistaken in his response about LDS Doctrine? If we
>>can't count on the sole Living Prophet of God and President of the LDS Church to give
>>us the answer in regard to what is or is not official church doctrine, then who can we
>>look to?
No, I’m saying he was in a rapid fire interview, and being older, was wise enough not to try to answer deep one liner questions there, kind of like here, getting into deep doctrine, people will edit your words and send them out twisted if you are not careful.
>>Well if you don't know, that's fine. Even an "I don't know" to those questions makes it
>>clear to everyone that LDS theology and Christian theology are mutually
>>incompatible.
So, tell us everything you know, or are you incompatible with Christian theology?
(Grin)
I know that there is a lot I don’t know, in fact the more I learn, the more I become aware of that I don’t know yet and therefore, I know of more that I don’t know, but as I study that which I now know I don’t know, I again become aware of things I didn’t know I didn’t know before. I do not see how a process of learning is incompatible with Christianity, please post a reference from the scriptures (apparently, something else I did not know, well here we go again).
Then I can state categorically tht you and I do not believe in the same God. Period. I do not worship Allah, the God of the Muslims and I do not worship the Mormon god who lives on Kolob.
My God bows to no other god. There are no other Gods (anywhere) than YHVH.
Amen
I would like to add, I am also not Kookoo for Kokoubeams (who live on Kolob)
>>>>Besides President Hinckley is a little older than you (I think, 92?)
>>Are you saying that Hinkley was mistaken in his response about LDS Doctrine? If we
>>can't count on the sole Living Prophet of God and President of the LDS Church to give
>>us the answer in regard to what is or is not official church doctrine, then who can we
>>look to?
No, I’m saying he was in a rapid fire interview, and being older, was wise enough not to try to answer deep one liner questions there, kind of like here, getting into deep doctrine, people will edit your words and send them out twisted if you are not careful.
****
Amen!
Are you trying to say that since soldiers have authority doled out to them through their immediate commanding officer [we all know how the military is known for its sharp adherence to a chain of command] that such an immediate commanding officer is that soldier's "ultimate authority?" I thought the "commander-in-chief"--who in turn answers to God, Himself--one of these would be deemed as the "ultimate" authorities.
So why is it any soldier knows where the buck stops, but in your spiritual warfare where we're supposed to be a soldier of Christ (Paul's analogy), you pretend commanders in chief are irrelevant to your role.
I can think of one of those movie lines where a new boot camp recruitee would be told by his seargant something to the effect of "While you're here, I will be your momma and your daddy!! In short, I will be your god."
Yet you seem to claim that just because an immediate commanding officer is the only supervisor--the only authority he reports to in this chain of command--that just because he's the only "god" in that young soldier's new universe, that somehow making the claim "Well, he's the only god with which we have to do" gets you off the hook of being under the authority of other commands further up the chain.
Furthermore, it shows extreme shortsightedness that you don't know the ultimate spirit to whom Joseph Smith was reporting to. Somehow you reduce the LDS version of Elohim to be the "ultimate" authority when you know full well he's not. The key question to ask is, "what spirit" (if any) appeared to Joe Smith? Was it an "angel of light" masquerading under another identity? [Gal 1:8-9] And what spirit entity was really behind the scenes?
Wow! What if JoeSmith had such open-mindedness?
I can hear it now. I can just imagine it in my mind, Jimmy Stewart playing the role of JoeSmith in a Hollywood movie:
"Now, never you mind, Moroni. You just get on back up to wherever you came from, wings or not. I'm not going to change my mind. My mind's made up based upon personal revelation." [Then as wingless Moroni mozies off sullenly, JimmyJoe mutters under his breath, "Sheesh. Gold plates from South America hauled all the way to upstate New York when Arizona would have been just fine & dandy. Who would choose to write a detailed history on gold plates anyway? What? Does he think I was born yesterday? Next thing ya know this Moroni character thinks I'd believe in an invisible bunny!")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.