What if you want the church to be true,

[Meta]

Why does Pat Robertson preach? Or Jerry Falwell? Or indeed any other televangelist? Is it ego? The lust for riches? Or the desire to be an authoritative voice in terms of religion?

The inclusion of the Isaiah passages, the Pauline theology and syntax, and so forth gives the Book of Mormon the ring of Biblical authority. It seems likely that the Isaiah passages were used heavily in revivalist literature and sermons because of the Messianic themes and symbolism; it would make sense to include those passages in a document that purported to tell the story of a New World Christian community such as the Nephites.

As far as people finding out about the copied sections of the Bible, it goes back to what people want to believe. People, for instance, can easily find out about L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics and the fact that Scientology is a religion based on a science-fiction book. And yet there is a sizable section of the populace that chooses either not to believe the facts or who know them and simply choose to attribute philanthropic/divine inspiration to them.

Someone else posted that I and others like me focus too much on fact and not enough on possibility. I would have to plead guilty at least to the first part of that sentence. Facts are valuable to me, as is skepticism. Else, I would probably be a member of about fifty multi-level marketing groups and I'd be sending my bank account information to Nigeria in the hopes of getting a $15 million payday.

Real truth withstands the most rigorous scrutiny and investigation. That is why it is unquestionable that, in certain respects, the LDS church is a purveyor of real truth -- for instance, when it advocates charity, love of neighbor, generosity, and service. However, those are all traits of other religions -- even non-Christian ones. The truth of other aspects of the faith -- including Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet, the origin of the Temple ordinances, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and other LDS-specific doctrines -- is highly questionable and, in some cases (i.e. the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles) demonstrably false.

Regards,

TM

You are an intelligent person, my friend. In some ways I envy you, in other ways I pity you. In your mind you have to have a very large number multiplied by an even larger one for truth to be realistic and accurate. All I need is 2 + 2 to know, without doubt, that the church is all it claims to be.

I don't know why the spirit has eluded you except for maybe the fact that your intellectual egotism won't allow you trivial things such as a still small voice. The trend in highly intelligent people disclaiming the gospel seems to be extremely high, just as those that are rich not being able to part with a meager sum of money for tithing fall away. Gifts can sometimes be curses, and in my opinion, your intellectual gift is causing you to be unable to see the smaller precepts, and the 'less is more' core of the gospel.

I don't think the gospel was ever made to be proven with any facts. That would contradict the bible when the Lord asks us to come in faith. Faith can be achieved through knowledge, but its of spiritual knowledge and not 2 + 2 = 4. I know I have been blessed with faith, as it has been recorded in my patriarical blessing. There have been moments where I have slipped, admittedly, but I've never been able to see the next kingdom without God's true gospel, the one the LDS church preaches, in it.

I truly marvel at how one has such a difficult time receiving an answer of the divinity of the BoM. Every time I kneel and pray, I receive the answer. It is powerful, unlike any feeling I could ever come up with. A true sense of peace fills my soul with warmth and happiness. It is encapsulating, and I find my breathing is deeper as I drink in the sweet, sweet spirit of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes I'll stop in my prayer and just feel that warmth, unable to speak anymore words, and I listen to the words I hear coming from somewhere else. Peaceful words of wisdom sometimes soft, other times alarmingly loud.

My wife will nudge me as she thinks I've fallen asleep. It is at this time that I receive answers to problems I have. I ask a question inside my mind, I feel a response back. The experience happens everytime I go into deep prayer, and the answers are never wrong. How can I discount these feelings and words as being anything but the Holy Ghost speaking inside my soul to the truth of BoM and the divinity of the church?

Tragic, yea, I'll agree with that.

[Tragic Mind]

You are an intelligent person, my friend. In some ways I envy you, in other ways I pity you. In your mind you have to have a very large number multiplied by an even larger one for truth to be realistic and accurate. All I need is 2 + 2 to know, without doubt, that the church is all it claims to be.

I don't know why the spirit has eluded you except for maybe the fact that your intellectual egotism won't allow you trivial things such as a still small voice. The trend in highly intelligent people disclaiming the gospel seems to be extremely high, just as those that are rich not being able to part with a meager sum of money for tithing fall away. Gifts can sometimes be curses, and in my opinion, your intellectual gift is causing you to be unable to see the smaller precepts, and the 'less is more' core of the gospel.

I don't think the gospel was ever made to be proven with any facts. That would contradict the bible when the Lord asks us to come in faith. Faith can be achieved through knowledge, but its of spiritual knowledge and not 2 + 2 = 4. I know I have been blessed with faith, as it has been recorded in my patriarical blessing. There have been moments where I have slipped, admittedly, but I've never been able to see the next kingdom without God's true gospel, the one the LDS church preaches, in it.

I truly marvel at how one has such a difficult time receiving an answer of the divinity of the BoM. Every time I kneel and pray, I receive the answer. It is powerful, unlike any feeling I could ever come up with. A true sense of peace fills my soul with warmth and happiness. It is encapsulating, and I find my breathing is deeper as I drink in the sweet, sweet spirit of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes I'll stop in my prayer and just feel that warmth, unable to speak anymore words, and I listen to the words I hear coming from somewhere else. Peaceful words of wisdom sometimes soft, other times alarmingly loud.

My wife will nudge me as she thinks I've fallen asleep. It is at this time that I receive answers to problems I have. I ask a question inside my mind, I feel a response back. The experience happens everytime I go into deep prayer, and the answers are never wrong. How can I discount these feelings and words as being anything but the Holy Ghost speaking inside my soul to the truth of BoM and the divinity of the church?

Tragic, yea, I'll agree with that.

First (and forgive me for getting in a snit here), I don't need your pity, nor your judgments of egotism. Did I come in here saying you're all deluded, brain-dead sheep? No, because I don't believe that at all. Some of the smartest people I know are true-believing LDS. The only difficulty I have with them is that they suspend their natural inclination to avoid presuppositions -- it seems as though, when it comes to Gospel topics, they have a special set of mental and emotional rules that they follow. But I understand why -- especially given that for over thirty years I shared the same rules.

I'm sure at this point you'll start speculating about what spurred my "fall from grace." At this point, I'll let you speculate because it seems obvious that you don't believe what I mentioned in previous posts. And, with regards to the original topic, that is also understandable because Mormons tend to have a set of preconceived notions about why people go from belief to disbelief -- they rarely recognize any possibility outside of that set of notions.

My intellect is a matter of debate. I'm sure that a lot of people around here would probably disagree with your assessment of my intelligence. No matter. For all of my high-falutin' folderol, I am actually a pretty simple guy at heart. I appreciate Occam's Razor, common sense, and proper context. Having several relatives in the scholarly community, I have developed a distaste for overthinking matters. I've read so many scholarly papers written by professors about whys and wherefores that it makes my head spin. The thing about scholars is that there's not enough of "This happened" and too much "This is WHY it happened."

My point is that I've studied enough "This happened" to dispel me of certain assumptions and theories about the Church in particular and all religions in general. I think, for example, that the simplest reason why the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Breathing Permit of Hor is because Joseph Smith made it up. Ironically, it's the Mormon apologetic community that goes to great lengths to come up with an equation that proves that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

Joseph Smith's Mormonism arose from the idea that it is NOT enough to believe in Christ, to be ethical, to espouse charity, and so forth. It arose from the need for authority, the need to be totally correct on doctrine, and the need to have all of that vested in one Church and, indeed, one man. It was not a "less is more" approach by any means. In fact, the Restoration adds layer upon layer of ordinances, bureaucracy, and interpretation onto a Gospel that originally came into life as, "Love God, and love thy neighbor."

I don't marvel at why you have no problem having faith or receiving a testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon or the Church. I would suggest that it is because you do not care to think about it -- or do not permit yourself to think about it -- outside of the boundaries that you have placed for yourself. My mother told me once that the minute you can conceive of the Church as anything other than divine -- that it could be a human construct and not a direct revelation from God -- is the same minute that you lose your testimony forever. Perhaps that is the same idea that guides your thought processes, I don't know.

The bottom line is that you are happy and satisfied the way you are with regards to the Church. You do not need to leave your comfort zone. You have a personal reassurance that your difficult questions will be answered on the other side of the veil if you remain worthy. For you, there's nothing wrong with that.

It was not enough for me.

So when you tell me you pity me, I feel just as much for you. You believe I am overintellectualizing a supposedly simple theology, and I believe that you fail to use the cognitive powers God gave you to realize that there are simple, fundamental things wrong with that theology. In short, we are at an impasse. Thus, we either take the high road and agree to disagree or we go the low road and start flinging insults and criticisms at each other.

WWJD?

Regards,

TM

[Meta]

First (and forgive me for getting in a snit here), I don't need your pity, nor your judgments of egotism. Did I come in here saying you're all deluded, brain-dead sheep? No, because I don't believe that at all. Some of the smartest people I know are true-believing LDS. The only difficulty I have with them is that they suspend their natural inclination to avoid presuppositions -- it seems as though, when it comes to Gospel topics, they have a special set of mental and emotional rules that they follow. But I understand why -- especially given that for over thirty years I shared the same rules.

My apologies if I've offended you.

I'm sure at this point you'll start speculating about what spurred my "fall from grace." At this point, I'll let you speculate because it seems obvious that you don't believe what I mentioned in previous posts. And, with regards to the original topic, that is also understandable because Mormons tend to have a set of preconceived notions about why people go from belief to disbelief -- they rarely recognize any possibility outside of that set of notions.

No, I believe what you've said.

My intellect is a matter of debate. I'm sure that a lot of people around here would probably disagree with your assessment of my intelligence. No matter. For all of my high-falutin' folderol, I am actually a pretty simple guy at heart. I appreciate Occam's Razor, common sense, and proper context. Having several relatives in the scholarly community, I have developed a distaste for overthinking matters. I've read so many scholarly papers written by professors about whys and wherefores that it makes my head spin. The thing about scholars is that there's not enough of "This happened" and too much "This is WHY it happened."

I'm a good judge of people, and I see the your intelligence radiate throughout your posts.

My point is that I've studied enough "This happened" to dispel me of certain assumptions and theories about the Church in particular and all religions in general. I think, for example, that the simplest reason why the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Breathing Permit of Hor is because Joseph Smith made it up. Ironically, it's the Mormon apologetic community that goes to great lengths to come up with an equation that proves that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

Joseph Smith's Mormonism arose from the idea that it is NOT enough to believe in Christ, to be ethical, to espouse charity, and so forth. It arose from the need for authority, the need to be totally correct on doctrine, and the need to have all of that vested in one Church and, indeed, one man. It was not a "less is more" approach by any means. In fact, the Restoration adds layer upon layer of ordinances, bureaucracy, and interpretation onto a Gospel that originally came into life as, "Love God, and love thy neighbor."

I don't agree with that, but I'll take the high road with you. I think God is much more complicated then "Love God, and love thy neighbor." That quote is much easier to understand and it is appropriate for those that either don't know much about the gospel or who can't understand more then that. That's why more important doctrines aren't written plainly in the Bible or the BoM, because they're taken differently.

There are high laws, and there are lower laws. High laws are only achieved when one can master the lower laws. "Love God, and love they neighbor" are lower laws compared to, "Take Jill as thy wife, and then take Courtney, Lisa and Janet." One must be able to walk before they can run.

I don't marvel at why you have no problem having faith or receiving a testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon or the Church. I would suggest that it is because you do not care to think about it -- or do not permit yourself to think about it -- outside of the boundaries that you have placed for yourself. My mother told me once that the minute you can conceive of the Church as anything other than divine -- that it could be a human construct and not a direct revelation from God -- is the same minute that you lose your testimony forever. Perhaps that is the same idea that guides your thought processes, I don't know.

This isn't true. I have struggled many times in my life. What it comes down to isn't evidance, its the unwavering sensation of the Holy Ghost that infiltrates my soul with warmth as I read the BoM and the Bible. The same feeling. It is not possible for me to second guess those feelings and all other thoughts and problems, be them difficult sometimes, slips out of sight.

In other words, I don't need any amount of fact and I rely strictly on the Holy Ghost. If something is true, it will (and is) manifested by the Holy Ghost. I don't need to run to FAIR to see if my quivering testimony can find an answer for something I don't understand. I come to FAIR to get an opinion and someone elses stance on why things are the way they are. But I don't take those opinions as fact and I basically allow myself to know that I'll understand it better at another time.

The bottom line is that you are happy and satisfied the way you are with regards to the Church. You do not need to leave your comfort zone. You have a personal reassurance that your difficult questions will be answered on the other side of the veil if you remain worthy. For you, there's nothing wrong with that.

Yup, that's about it. Accept my comfort zone comes from the Holy Ghost, not from myself. I feel strengthened by the Holy Ghost enough that I don't need to find other sources for inspiration.

It was not enough for me.

My friend, this is what I pity you for. And please, don't take offense. I'm just sorry you didn't(/don't) have the same witness that I've had. It must have been hard as hell trying to understand why you weren't receiving information when your friends and family were. For that I'm sorry.

[Tragic Mind]

That's why more important doctrines aren't written plainly in the Bible or the BoM, because they're taken differently . . . There are high laws, and there are lower laws.  High laws are only achieved when one can master the lower laws.  "Love God, and love they neighbor" are lower laws compared to, "Take Jill as thy wife, and then take Courtney, Lisa and Janet."  One must be able to walk before they can run.

It's interesting that you bring this up in particular. I do have a couple of issues that I can highlight using your example.

First of all, polygamy as an important doctrine. In Jacob it reads that David and Solomon's wives were an abomination before God. Yet in D&C 132 God states that in no wise did David and Solomon sin except in the case of Uriah's wife. To me, that is not a discrepancy between the understanding of a lower law versus a higher law -- it is a flat-out contradiction. Not "line-upon-line" (i.e. that Joseph was given further light and knowledge from the time he translated the BoM, to the time polygamy was "revealed" to him, to the time that D&C 132 was written down), but a case of God saying two distinctly different things. In fact, the Jacob passage flatly condemns the justification for polygamy based on the readings of the Old Testament, while D&C 132 incorporates that justification into the commandment. Does God, then, distort the truth in order that people who are not ready for higher laws (in this case, the Nephites) do not sin, and only reveals the truth to people ready for said higher laws (Joseph Smith and his inner circle)? And if so, what does that say about God and truth?

Second, you fail to mention the fact that, according to Joseph Smith, the higher law included: "Take Jill as thy wife, and then take Courtney, Lisa and Janet... and if you don't I'm going to have my angel fillet you with this sword"; "Take Jill as thy wife, and then take Courtney, Lisa, Janet, and Mr. Wilson's wife Irene"; "Take Jill as thy wife, and then take Courtney in order to guarantee her family's salvation"; "Take Jill as thy wife, and then take Courtney, Lisa and Janet... because you've earned it!"; "Take Jill as thy wife, and then take Courtney, Lisa and Janet, but make sure thou tellest not Jill and printest thou multiple denials in thy newspapers." All of these happened at one point or another depending on the situation.

I bring these examples up somewhat facetiously, but my point is not to debate the subject of polygamy. My point, rather, is that within the Mormon community people either do not know about any of this or know and refuse to think about it. Everything I brought up is available in Church sources to anyone who bothers to pick up the books, but bring any of it up in Gospel Doctrine and it's likely you'll get shown the door.

And yet, ask any Mormon why the Catholic Church is not true, and you'll get an avalanche of data... from the Spanish Inquisition, to molesting priests, to infant baptism, ad nauseum. There's a wealth of research and history about the Catholic Church that people point to to debunk its divinity. And yet there are billions of Catholics that feel the same warmth and confirmation in Mass, or in the confessional booth, or hearing a papal sermon as you do when you read the Book of Mormon or watch General Conference.

Why does the Mormon Church qualify for an intellectual (or even emotional) exemption? That is the question redman and myself and others have asked. Because we believe that there IS no exemption for the LDS Church, we are automatically downgraded by TBMs as being faithless, overintellectual, and cynical. And to me that's simply wrong.

Regards,

TM

EDIT: EeeeeGADS! This quoting system drives me crazy...

[Abulafia]

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."Matt 22:36-40 (KJV)

Meta, Jesus was being simplistic then??? You think it is a lower law to love God and your neighbour (including yourself). I'll go down as a simplistic follower of a lower law then..

and remember how scathing he was to people who used the law for ego, superficiality,hypocracy, appearance, arrogance and superiority.

I'd say he got to the very 'heart' of what it is to follow him.

Abulafia

[Kevin Christensen]

Question. What is Jacob's source of information about David and Solomon? Who composed Jacob's discourse? What is Lehi's ancestry? Was Manessah associated with the Northern Kingdom or the Southern Kingdom? How did the Northern Kingdom tradition regard Solomon and David? Does the Book of Mormon reflect the attitudes of the Northern Kingdom, or of Judah? Answers to these questions are available in books. Were these books available to Joseph Smith?

Do such questions matter to those who refuse to grant the LDS faith an intellectual exemption?

Just curious.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Abulafia]

TM said: Joseph Smith's Mormonism arose from the idea that it is NOT enough to believe in Christ, to be ethical, to espouse charity, and so forth. It arose from the need for authority, the need to be totally correct on doctrine, and the need to have all of that vested in one Church and, indeed, one man. It was not a "less is more" approach by any means. In fact, the Restoration adds layer upon layer of ordinances, bureaucracy, and interpretation onto a Gospel that originally came into life as, "Love God, and love thy neighbor."

Tragic Mind I wish I could have said this as eloquently as you. I am 100% in agreement with you here.

Abulafia

[charity]

TM, I hardly know where to start. So one at a time, top down.

About polygamy. Obviously polygamy is approved of God in certain circumstances. Abraham. Jacob. David, who was given many of his wives. Etc. You are obviously picking and choosing which part of scripture you want to bolster your ideas. About polygamy in this dispensation. Neither you nor I know exactly what Joseph Smith was told to do when. You may think you do, but you don't. Until you can ask God, yourself, I think you should stop speculating and acting as though you are an authorized source.

You say, "Everything I brought up is available in Church sources to anyone who bothers to pick up the books, but bring any of it up in Gospel Doctrine and it's likely you'll get shown the door." Of course, you will, because you are being argumentative and contentious, by trying to go outside what the purpose of Gospel Doctrine class is, that is, to teach basic doctrines, and not cater to your whims. I have asked questions in appropriate venues and have never been "shown the door."

I cannot speak for all Mormons, but I can flatly deny that just "any Mormon" will furnish you a list of reasons why the Catholic Church could not be true. And all I have ever heard about the subject, in classes or over the pulpit, is that there was an apostacy, and there needed to be a restoration. We can come up with ideas of our own about evidences of the apostacy. And some may do that. I cannot recall ever having heard any member of the Church go through a laundry list of evils of any church, Catholic or other.

You asked, "Why does the Mormon Church qualify for an intellectual (or even emotional) exemption?" It doesn't, and it has never asked for one. See the above paragraphs. Any question in the appropriate place. I taught psych courses for years, human development, general psych, human sexuality. Questions were encouraged. If I we were in the middle of a unit on Piaget's theory of intellectual development, and a student asked a question about birth control methods, even though we would cover that in human sexuality, I would tell the student that I would speak to him at another time, and go back to what I was doing. Should he get angry that I wouldn't answer him right then, right there? That sounds exactly like what you were doing. If that student were to persist, sefishly insist on taking the time in human development class, make a scene, etc. the other students in the class would probably think he was not very bright, obnoxious, and selfish. They wouldn't be wrong.

[Abulafia]

Any question in the appropriate place.

Charity. I am sorry, but I NEVER found an appropriate place to ask questions, and when I did the only answers I got, were

1) That was the wild west...things happened (in response to my Q's over Van Wagoner's work, which had come from area authorities - my sp gave me a copy of the letter he recieved on my behalf)

2) Don't worry about that, concentrate on the basics. We aren't meant to know everything.

3) Nope.....can't think of a 3).

In truth, this is the first place where I have found both active, inactive, ex, and members of other faiths discuss difficult questions with 'relative' freedom.

Abulafia

[charity]

I'm sorry about your experience, Abulafia. I got lots of answers at BYU, but then also from institute instructors and people I recognized as very educated, in the gospel sense, even well away from Provo, Utah. I just called a person on the phone, or found an opportunity in an appropriate place to ask questions. I was never put off, or turned away. Sometimes I got an "I don't know. I will have to look that up."

[Tragic Mind]

Question. What is Jacob's source of information about David and Solomon? Who composed Jacob's discourse? What is Lehi's ancestry? Was Manessah associated with the Northern Kingdom or the Southern Kingdom? How did the Northern Kingdom tradition regard Solomon and David? Does the Book of Mormon reflect the attitudes of the Northern Kingdom, or of Judah? Answers to these questions are available in books. Were these books available to Joseph Smith?

Do such questions matter to those who refuse to grant the LDS faith an intellectual exemption?

Just curious.

Occam's Razor would say it doesn't matter because both the Jacob passage and the D&C passage purport to be the strict word of God. Do you, then, excuse two polar opposite depictions of God's word simply because of demographic differences?

I learned in Primary that you can't build a house if the foundation isn't solid. So everything you bring up -- while fascinating to think about and speculate upon -- has no bearing on the fundamental issue.

As always, in my opinion.

Regards,

TM

[Tragic Mind]

About polygamy. Obviously polygamy is approved of God in certain circumstances. Abraham. Jacob. David, who was given many of his wives. Etc. You are obviously picking and choosing which part of scripture you want to bolster your ideas.

I am picking and choosing the two instances in Mormon scripture that substantively deal with the topic of polygamy -- Jacob 2 and D&C 132. You are obviously picking and choosing scriptures out of context in order to avoid the implications of the contradictions found within.

See how it feels when people make assumptions about your methodology and intent?

As for the rest of your post -- you cast my theoretical Gospel Doctrine questioner in the worst possible light... i.e. a rude, obnoxious, boorish instigator of trouble. What about the person who, when GD class is covering D&C 132, honestly brings up questions about the Jacob/D&C contradiction? Or the person who asks about the Nauvoo Expositor and its role in Joseph's extradition to Carthage during a class on the martyrdom? When Gospel Doctrine is ostensibly treating Church History, those questions are well within the parameters of discussion. So long as the questions are asked politely without the express desire to cause contention, why are they not welcomed as part of the study? Isn't it called Sunday SCHOOL?

Honest inquiry is a good thing. And as a teacher, you of all people should know that people learn best in a setting that encourages inquiry and discussion, not where the student is blissfully copying down the lecture without regard to what is being said. I agree with you that the discussion should be on topic, but apart from that I think that classifying anything as "taboo" -- particularly Church History topics and doctrinal topics that do not reference Temple-specific ordinances -- does a disservice to the honest and inquisitive student.

Regards,

TM

[charity]

TM wrote, and Abulafia seconded: "Joseph Smith's Mormonism arose from the idea that it is NOT enough to believe in Christ, to be ethical, to espouse charity, and so forth. It arose from the need for authority, the need to be totally correct on doctrine, and the need to have all of that vested in one Church and, indeed, one man."

That statement is wrong on the face. The need for authority, to be correct on doctrine, the need to vested in one Church, is shown in the New Testamentm with Christ's own words. We read of the strait gate, the narrow way, the few who find it, (Matt 7:13, Luke 13:14) Mark 11 speaks of the need for authority, from the words of Christ. In Mark 2 Jesus tell that it is His doctrine.

So while it may be comfortable to think that all we need to do is be warm and fuzzy and love each other, quite clearly,the Savior had something else in mind.

[Kevin Christensen]

Occam's Razor would say it doesn't matter because both the Jacob passage and the D&C passage purport to be the strict word of God. Do you, then, excuse two polar opposite depictions of God's word simply because of demographic differences?

Actually no. The Jacob passage is Jacob's discourse. He is speaking as a consecrated priest but he is not speaking first person utterances provided to him

as the strict word of God. No points in this case for being intellectual, let alone over intellectual. And no points for anthropomorphizing Occam's Razor. It is a tool, and as such does not say anything of itself, but can be used skillfully, or not, as in this case.

In this case, homogenizing the diverse categories of scriptural utterance into a single, one-size-fits-all class generates contradictions, ignores Sir Occam's preference that an explanation be not only simple, but free of contradiction and qualification. In this case, a too-simple categorization actually generates contradictions, and is therefore, a misuse of the razor. The Bible is a book of many sources, many editors, many traditions. Even the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants show the imprint of human editing at times. And far from insisting on being nothing but the strict word of God, the Book of Mormon deliberately allows for human mistakes, some of which it intentionally describes, and some of which, it may unintentionally provide.

I heartily recommend the exercise of reading Alma, for instance, and notinc how frequently he qualifies just what his sources of information are. I had published some of these in a Sunstone essay last year, "On Wagging the Dog." Alma quite readily distinguishes between information he received from God, from angels, from his own diligent study, and some from his own opinions.

It does happen that the traditions of Northern Israel looked with disfavor upon David and Solomon, which explains the scant discussion of them, and the disfavor by Jacob. That provides a reasonable, rational explanation of the different assessment in the two texts.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Tragic Mind]

Actually no.  The Jacob passage is Jacob's discourse.  He is speaking as a consecrated priest but he is not speaking first person utterances provided to him

as the strict word of God.

Jacob 2:24: Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

As far as scoring points is concerned... well, if you would truly like to accelerate your attempt to show my lack of credibility, let me offer some ammunition for you. I do not have a degree higher than a bachelor's degree. I have not conducted advanced study into ancient Israel. While I do know what the term "anthropomorphizing" means, I do not use it in casual conversation. And I once thought the term "ad nauseum" meant "and so forth until you throw up."

I do know what is reasonable and rational to me, however. Your hypothesis is fascinating, for sure. But ultimately I believe it has as much historical merit as the backstory of Lily and James Potter. That's just what I believe.

Regards,

TM

[Beowulf]

Good try. But the "saith the Lord" is a reference to a quote from Deuteronomy, therefore Kevin's assertion still holds.

[Tragic Mind]

Good try. But the "saith the Lord" is a reference to a quote from Deuteronomy, therefore Kevin's assertion still holds.

Really? Have you read the verses immediately preceding and following that quote?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. My apologies to redman for hijacking this thread. To charity, I'm glad I had a chance to exchange ideas with you and hope you have an enjoyable weekend watching General Conference. To Kevin C.... you win. Score another one for the smart 'n' faithful...

Anyone who wants to gloat, my e-mail is in my profile (I think... at least, Invision usually includes that info).

Regards,

TM

[charity]

Thanks, TM. I will enjoy conference, and maybe there will be some interesting topics on the board on Monday occasioned by talks.

[HiJolly]

Thanks, TM.  I will enjoy conference, and maybe there will be some interesting topics on the board on Monday occasioned by talks. 

If anyone hears about/sees a Choir member falling asleep during Elder Scott's talk, it WASNT ME. Even if his voice does put me out...

HiJolly

[Meta]

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."Matt 22:36-40 (KJV)

Meta, Jesus was being simplistic then??? You think it is a lower law to love God and your neighbour (including yourself). I'll go down as a simplistic follower of a lower law then..

and remember how scathing he was to people who used the law for ego, superficiality,hypocracy, appearance, arrogance and superiority.

I'd say he got to the very 'heart' of what it is to follow him.

Abulafia

Who said lower? Lower law doesn't mean lower in priority. It all has to do with what you can come to grips with. The higher law of tithing is the law of consecration, but as we saw in Zion, we weren't able to handle that, so the lower law of tithing prevailed. That doesn't take away the importance of either instance.

[Meta]

Occam's Razor would say it doesn't matter because both the Jacob passage and the D&C passage purport to be the strict word of God. Do you, then, excuse two polar opposite depictions of God's word simply because of demographic differences?

This is rediculus. Have you also decided not to read the bible as well? Is it just as flawed as the BoM?

There are many, MANY instances where the Lord has different laws or asks us to do things that are contrary to other things. We are commanded not to kill, but the Lord has commanded some in the bible to do just that. I had no idea you had thrown the bible out the window with the BoM. I'm beginning to think we can't have a discussion if we can't at the very least compare things to the bible.

[Abulafia]

TM wrote, and Abulafia seconded: "Joseph Smith's Mormonism arose from the idea that it is NOT enough to believe in Christ, to be ethical, to espouse charity, and so forth. It arose from the need for authority, the need to be totally correct on doctrine, and the need to have all of that vested in one Church and, indeed, one man."

That statement is wrong on the face.

[charity]

Abulafia, we can pull different verses from here and there and prove almost any point. We say God has a body (Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God) and yet there are passages which seem to say otherwise (John 4: 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.)

So how do we reconcile two differing ideas? Authority vs no authority needed, a church organization vs no church organization?

I think we have to look at how things fit. In the framework that is suggested by what Latter-Day Saints believe, it all fits in. Does Jesus organize a specific Church organization? We believe so. Can you believe that and believe that He said at different times things that were more accepting and tolerant of those who were not aligned with a church organization? Yes. Can you believe that He did not organize a specific organization and reconcile passages of scripture where He indicates an organizationis necessary? No. In our view, the conflicitng passages fit. In the opposite view they do not.

That's my view on it.

[Abulafia]

Abulafia, we can pull different verses from here and there and prove almost any point. We say God has a body (Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God) and yet there are passages which seem to say otherwise (John 4: 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.)

So how do we reconcile two differing ideas? Authority vs no authority needed, a church organization vs no church organization?

I think we have to look at how things fit. In the framework that is suggested by what Latter-Day Saints believe, it all fits in. Does Jesus organize a specific Church organization? We believe so. Can you believe that and believe that He said at different times things that were more accepting and tolerant of those who were not aligned with a church organization? Yes. Can you believe that He did not organize a specific organization and reconcile passages of scripture where He indicates an organizationis necessary? No. In our view, the conflicitng passages fit. In the opposite view they do not.

That's my view on it.

Hi Charity. Yes I do agree that we can pull different verses from here and there to prove almost any point. I think that the LDS church is as guilty (if that is the right word) as anyone on that. I know my Jehovah Witness friend felt the OT references to not injesting? blood were extremely important to her.

Who says which of the scriptures are right/wrong, true/false, important/unimportant. I don't think it is easy. I know that the LDS church claims to have the correct pair of glasses with which to view and interpret religion, but then others claim the same.

That's why I get so discouraged with organised religion. They all do the same thing, pick and choose scriptures to support their point of view.

To me, christianity very quickly became a tool of power, manipulation, social control. That was certainly the case in England. Augustine went straight for the tribal leaders. His preaching went from top down. Whereas the older Celtic Christianity tended to go from bottom up. Things were not resolved until the Synod of Whitby in the 7th Century.

There have always been divergent view points. That makes life complex, but also gives people choice. Perhaps its meant to be that way.

Abulafia

[HiJolly]

I know that the LDS church claims to have the correct pair of glasses with which to view and interpret religion, but then others claim the same.

That's why I get so discouraged with organised religion. They all do the same thing, pick and choose scriptures to support their point of view.

But don't you see, Abulafia, that this is where the Church differs from practically all other Christian churches? Our stuffy, institutionalized "cult of the White Shirt" Mobot selves constantly preach and teach the value and necessity of personal revelation on these things. And yes, this does necessitate disagreements at times, and differing views on beliefs.

Some think the differences in belief point out how 'lost' or 'fallen' the LDS faith is. I think it points out the strength of the Church.

HiJolly