Posted on 07/07/2008 7:13:25 PM PDT by Grig
Part 1, A Testament Is Established
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2033073/posts
Part 2, The Word Is Preserved
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2033622/posts
Part 3, A New Word Is Added to the Old
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038304/posts
Part 4, The Canon Becomes an Unread Relic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038916/posts
Part 5, Glimmers of Light in Darkness
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2039498/posts
Part 6, No Price Too Great
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2040572/posts
Fifth Column anti-Bible alert.
Interesting. This would help to explain how so many different words came to be included in the Bible lexicon (as opposed to, say, the Koran).
Why are you posting articles where over 20 percent of the footnotes came from a self-professed gnostic occultic theosophist at the time this article was written (1982)?
Do Mormons generally go around highlighting gnostic occultic theosophists to undergird their work?
In 2 of these 7 parts of Read's series you've posted, MacGregor constitutes about 20% of these article's footnotes...she also cites him in 3 other portions of the series.
TIMELINE OF THE MACGREGOR-READ-LDS CHURCH CONNECTION
1959: Geddes MacGregor publishes The Bible in the Making -- the book that Lenet H. Read decides to cite 20 times plus another 4 times in a 2003 article published by Deseretbooks.
1979 Geddes MacGregor does a "u-turn" on his earlier views on Gnosticism and writes a pro-Gnostic book published by the occultic group, a Theosophy publishing house.
WHO IS THEOSOPHY?
Theosophy is a 19th century occultic group begun by Madame Blavatsky. (When you look at the Theosophical Society's seal, of its 5 prominent symbols, two of them are the swastika and another is the star of David.)
Theosophy believes that God = "energy" and that "highly intelligent spiritual entities from superior spheres” have communicated "spiritual and intellectual thought" to us lowly earthlings, and that these "Masters are preparing" for a "new era" of "psychical and physical...opening for mankind." (for sources & quotes in context, see the end of this post).
Theosophy embraces reincarnation, karma and other New Age thoughts...but also has some "common ground" beliefs with Mormonism:
the existence of worlds of experience beyond the physical
the presence of life...in all matter
the evolution of spirit & intelligence...
the possibility of our conscious participation in (cosmic) evolution
the reality of free will and self-responsibility the ultimate perfection of human nature, society, and life
Question: Do Mormon "scholarly" pieces frequently cite occultic sources like this because there is overlap of beliefs on some things, or was it just slipshod work in the name of "scholarly" writing for it to be frequently citing such a "suspect" source?
(Picking up) TIMELINE
1982 (Jan thru Sept.) Ensign publishes series that Grig has posted...one that Ensign--the official magazine of the LDS church has placed online for years on end; & that FAIRLDS has linked to...As I mentioned, Read cites MacGregor 20 times in the series -- heavily relying on his material for 2 of the 8 sections...Read either cites MacGregor not caring about his Gnostic u-turn or--along with the Ensign editor--fails to bother to fact check who her sources were or their reliability as spokesmen for conveying an accurate understanding of Christian history.
2003 (Jan. 2) Lenet H. Read continues her reliance upon Geddes MacGregor as a source, citing him 4 times in an article for placed online by Deseretbook.com: Article title: "New Testament Primer: How We Got the New Testament" http://deseretbook.com/mormon-life/news/story?story_id=734 [So apparently now we have DeseretBook enter into the lack of fact checking]
2005 (Fall) BYU instructors Renata Forste (Sociology), James Faulconer (Philosphy), and Brandie Siegfried (English) all endorse/sanction Lenet H. Read's Ensign Series -- specificially Parts 5, 6 & 7 by including them as "readings" for Rel C 350 R, "Religious Studies in a World Setting." http://kennedy.byu.edu/isp/graphics/ISPalbum/london/RelC350Rsyllabus.pdf [So now we have a trio of BYU professors failing to engage in proper fact checking in their assignments forced upon unwary BYU students]
2006 (August) BYU Endorses & Sanctions Lenet H. Read @ Campus Education Week: Aimed @ 14-18 yo Handout from Lenet H. Read called "Finding Clarity in the Scriptures" http://ce.byu.edu/ed/edweek/handouts2006.cfm and http://ce.byu.edu/ed/edweek/handouts/2006/25.pdf [BYU now extends it's "scholarly sanction" of Read to younger teens]
Unsure of date: FAIRLDS adds all 8 parts as links to its Web site. http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai101.html
THEOSOPHICAL BELIEFS:
"Theosophy...was delivered to the first human protoplasts, the first thinking human beings on this earthy, by highly intelligent spiritual entities from superior spheres...Furthermore, portions of this original...system have been given out at various periods of time to various races in various parts of the world by those guardians when humanity stood in need of such extension and elaboration of spiritual and intellectual thought." -- G. de Purucker, Occult Glossary, TUP, 2nd ed. 1996, p. 176
"...new era, psychical and physical, is opening for mankind...There will soon be a need for men and women of outstanding spiritual power and of intellectual force, and the Masters are preparing for this need. The teachings that you have been receiving are such as have not been divulged for tens of thousands of years in the past, except under the most stringent and rigid conditions..." G. de Purucke, Esoteric Teachings, PLP, 1987, 2:102-103
And what kind of reader reaction has MacGregor’s book Gnosis received? ”BTW, I read and enjoyed his book on Gnosis. It was a turning point for me: after reading it, I accepted to identify myself as a neo-gnostic. I’ve felt “at home” ever since.” See http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/04/15/the-holodeck-vs-the-prime-directive/
And what kind of reaction has MacGregor’s books (yes, plural) rec’d from the Gnostic folks? Gnostic Magazine reviewed his follow-up book, Angels: Ministers of Grace [gotta love that “angel theme” the Mormon church connection has going here] (See http://www.gnosismagazine.com/issue_contents/contents13.html ). MacGregor’s book was reviewed sandwiched right between The Goddess Re-Awakening: The Feminine Principle Today compiled by Shirley Nicholson and Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact by Jacques Vallee, foreword by Whitley Strieber
According to that same Gnostic Magazine issue that reviewed MacGregor’s “Angels” book and read these other “stellar” religious works [sarc]:
In Search of the Primordial Tradition and the Cosmic Christ by Father John Rossner, Ph.D.
Practical Magic in the Northern Tradition by Nigel Pennick
Persuasion's of the Witch's Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England by T.M. Luhrmann
Blavatsky and Her Teachers by Jean Overton Fuller
The Elements of the Celtic Tradition by Caitlin Matthews
Inside the Brotherhood: Further Secrets of the Freemasons by Martin Short
The Temple and the Lodge by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh
Black Square and Compass: 200 Years of Prince Hall Freemasonry by Joseph A. Walkes, Jr.
So here L.H. Read keeps heavily citing an author steeped in reincarnation, karma, gnosticism -- and he's supposedly representative of conveying Christian history? (His other books and CDs):
Reincarnation in Christianity
Reincarnation in Christianity: A New Vision of the Role of Rebirth in Christian Thought [Separate from the resource above…According to the brief review on this book, it apparently attempts to show how ”Christian doctrine and reincarnation are not mutually exclusive belief systems. “ http://www.questbooks.net/title.cfm?bookid=350
The Christening of Karma: The Secret Evolution
Theosophical Perceptions in Christian Orthodoxy
Evolution, Transmission, and the Inner Meanings of Bible
Rebirth of Christian Gnosticism (CD)
He has edited a book Immortality and Human Destiny that includes a chapter called “Humanistic Self-Judgment and After-Death Experiences” [does that mean humanists believe that they step right up to the Judgment seat and make themselves comfy??? Kind of sounds like temple-worthy Mormon men & women who expect to be omniscient, omnipotent, and worshipped as gods in the life to come, eh?]
Who?
you? Authorized version not good enough? Oh, wait.
You didn't read the posted article, did you?
Hmm, do you have a problem with the poster of this article? Some other disagreement?
And incontrovertible proof that there was no need for a so-called "restoration" of the gospel by the occultic treasure hunter, money digger, and false prophet Joseph Smith.
Ping
You have an intereseing posting history. Where have you been for the last 2 1/2 years.
You came out of retirement just yesterday, and now you attack the motive of another Freeper. I wonder what your other screen name is?
I can’t believe how many sleepers aseem to be defenders of Mormonism.
And with all of that, mormonism continues to include the caveat as far as it is translated correctly
How am I defending Mormonism???
I can only assume now, that my guess as to you having prior problems with the freeper who posted this article, were correct. You may wish to see my questioning of your motives as "an attack", as you put it, if you like, but please, it is much simpler to try and take things at face value, if at all possible. It was only a question.
Since I myself was not able to see the rational sense behind your own comments, I was forced to guess at your motives. So to clarify, I asked.
Sorry about that...but you have now fairly well confirmed that your problem is not with the article per se, but with whom posted it. Or with Mormonism? Ok...
Guessing further, I'll just go ahead and assume that poster is a Mormon? And you, most likely, are not.
What the heck does Joseph Smith have to do with the formation and compilation of the King James, anyway?
I really like the "Authorized" version, myself. I see in the article, it was updated in the 1760's (replacing some of the archaic spellings). I'd forgotten that detail.
Overall, I think the men whom worked to bring us the King James, did a fabulous job, one of which we may all be thankful, and grateful for.
Might we find some agreement on that point?
I really enjoyed the article, too. That doesn't make me, or equate with myself becoming a "defender of Mormonism", in the very least. Except perhaps from some sort of perspective, which lumps all whom claim to recognize this Hebrew Messiah, known to many as Jesus Christ, all into one basket.
If such a basket were to exist, it might be reasonably argued, that it contain many differing sects and denominations. Even Mormons? How about Coptics? How about home churches in China, many of which carry a Pentecostal flavor? Are they rubbing elbows with Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, too?
I guess it depends on just who is gathering what, into which baskets!
Yep, sure.
So where have you been?
You don’t like a more objective look at the history of the Bible so you try to shoot the messenger. How typical, and what a double standard.
When it comes to my faith, you dismiss anything coming from a insider or organization related to my church saying that the ‘truth’ can only be obtained from an outsider, but when it comes to your faith anything from an outsider is rejected.
“Sorry about that...but you have now fairly well confirmed that your problem is not with the article per se, but with whom posted it. Or with Mormonism? Ok...
Guessing further, I’ll just go ahead and assume that poster is a Mormon? And you, most likely, are not.”
Correct. CC has a long history of jumping on any Mormon related thread with venom and spite and as a Mormon who often stands up against the lies CC and his/her group spread they are not exactly my fans. Sorry you had to get some of that first hand.
They hate this article because a) it comes from an official church magazine and b) it put the lie to how they misrepresent our views on the Bible. I love the KVJ. It has beauty and power in the prose that sets it apart.
I read the article, without examining the source. If I'd looked, I could have saved him, you, and me some trouble?
The article didn't appear to me, to be in anyway a setting up of the King James for criticism, or something. More like the opposite.
Did I miss something? I thought I was just reading a plain 'ol vanilla history.
Dang it all. Why can't things just be simple, even sweet? Like the Lord Himself can be to us?
Man, I get so tired of this world. It keeps trying to tear out of me what is good. But not too much longer...and I'll be gone. That will be a relief.
“The article didn’t appear to me, to be in anyway a setting up of the King James for criticism, or something. More like the opposite.
Did I miss something? I thought I was just reading a plain ‘ol vanilla history.”
It’s plain ‘ol vanilla history. Religious bigotry in action is an ugly thing to see and it doesn’t stop to evaluate the facts rationally.
Doesn’t surprise me that the LDS are in bed with the gnostic theosophists.
The LDS were VERY warm and fuzzy about the “Da Vinci Code” a year or two ago.
.......it all comes with the territory of counterfeit religion from Joseph Smith.......
Do not use potty language or references to potty language on the Religion Forum.
Good post Grig and to the contrary of what all the Anti’s will say about it...it hasn’t been pulled and isn’t marked devotional. Whether you are LDS or not thanks for the posting, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and the posts.
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.