As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[bookofmormontruth]

CV75,

I honestly think LDS parents have much bigger worries with regard to their children surfing the Internet than them running across the text of the endowment.

As I have already made clear, IRR does not "mock" the temple ceremonies, nor does it mock Mormonism in general. We don't mock it publicly or in secret, and we publicly discourage evangelicals from mocking it.

As far as I am concerned, blasphemy is an objective matter of offense to God, not a subjective matter of offense to a particular person's or group's religious sensibilities. The Jewish religious leaders accused Stephen of blaspheming Moses and God and of speaking against the temple and the Law (Acts 6:11-14), but Stephen was right and they were wrong. Speaking against the LDS religious system, including its temples, is blasphemous only if that system is truly of God. Likewise, I personally find some of the things Joseph Smith taught to be offensive, but what matters is whether he was right. Truth, then, is the issue. But out of consideration for the feelings of practicing Mormons, I do think it is a good idea to acknowledge LDS sentiments on the matter, and that is what we are planning to do.

Well, you better be 110% right or lots of explaining to do.

Thanks for having the discussion with Brant.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Well, you better be 110% right or lots of explaining to do.

Fair enough. Likewise, the LDS prophets had better be at least 90% right or they're going to have lots of explaining to do.

You wrote:

Thanks for having the discussion with Brant.

You're welcome.

[mfbukowski]

CV75,

Yes, absolutely, what I do is ministry. I am accountable to God for what I do. It is a calling from God....

How do you know that?

Personal revelation??

[Vance]

How do you know that?

Personal revelation??

It doesn't sound like it could be the "convicting" of the Holy Spirit or a "testimony", so yes, those questions are begged.

[CV75]

Yes, absolutely, what I do is ministry. I am accountable to God for what I do. It is a calling from God and one that brings great responsibility to live and work with integrity and character, even while acknowledging that I fall short and have plenty of room to grow and mature. Each member of IRR's staff is expected to be rooted in an evangelical Christian church--and in fact at the present time all of us are members of the same congregation (although that isn't a requirement), which actively supports what we do.

Thank you. From this description, I suggest the website subheading read, “The Institute for Religious Research is a nondenominational, nonprofit evangelical Christian foundation” since there are so many Christian denominations and churches that do not consider themselves "evangelical" as the term is commonly understood today.

[CV75]

CV75,

I honestly think LDS parents have much bigger worries with regard to their children surfing the Internet than them running across the text of the endowment.

As I have already made clear, IRR does not "mock" the temple ceremonies, nor does it mock Mormonism in general. We don't mock it publicly or in secret, and we publicly discourage evangelicals from mocking it.

As far as I am concerned, blasphemy is an objective matter of offense to God, not a subjective matter of offense to a particular person's or group's religious sensibilities. The Jewish religious leaders accused Stephen of blaspheming Moses and God and of speaking against the temple and the Law (Acts 6:11-14), but Stephen was right and they were wrong. Speaking against the LDS religious system, including its temples, is blasphemous only if that system is truly of God. Likewise, I personally find some of the things Joseph Smith taught to be offensive, but what matters is whether he was right. Truth, then, is the issue. But out of consideration for the feelings of practicing Mormons, I do think it is a good idea to acknowledge LDS sentiments on the matter, and that is what we are planning to do.

Not to discourage your efforts to consider the feelings of practicing Mormons, my concern isn’t for LDS parents monitoring their children’s use of the Internet; my concern is with the problem of offending believing children who love Jesus in a pure way regardless of their religious upbringing or how they are subject to what is presented through mass communication, whether directly or indirectly, or through primary or secondary sources. The concern is also broader than for people under the age of 18. If we are to be as little children, and also receive them, and consider the "least of these" as Christ, then we treat each other accordingly.

Yes, blaspheme is in the eye of the beholder, and I used the term in my post in the most general sense, not understanding how placing a mote into another’s eye is not a form of blaspheme.

Again, this feedback is provided for consideration in crafting the statement. The more you can do to present our sacred things (if indeed they truly must be presented at all to promote the evangelical viewpoint or to dissuade one from the LDS viewpoint) in a way that discourages mocking, the better for everyone. However, the evangelical position should be strong enough on its own without having to present our most sacred elements while reminding people not to mock them.

But I wonder why the LDS “creed” (as found in the Articles of Faith, the Book of Mormon, the missionary discussions, the history, etc.) isn’t enough to compare with the Bible, history, science and even better in the context of your ministry, the evangelical “creed”. Creeds can be compared fairly, but deeply sacred matters for which there are no comparisons can only be misunderstood by the Institute, eroding its integrity by presenting its research of something out of context and therefore misrepresented.

[USU78]

Let's review. USU said, "Copyrights only protect PUBLISHED material." My point was simply that this is not correct.

Why would somebody want to protect work that wasn't published? Somebody might want to protect their unpublished work because they might want to publish it some day. Or they might want to protect it because they don't want it published. It seems quite obvious to me; have you thought this through?

Or . . . you might address the actual point instead of quibbling over how best to communicate how copyright law might be used to protect the ownership rights to the Temple movie(s) and text.

How, O Analytics, would you employ the statutory remedies best to accomplish the Church's purposes?

[cdowis]

What would you consider a cheap shot?

A recent example on this forum:

• Critic: "JS gave false revelations, such as Quakers living on the moon, etc."
  Response: "Please open a thread, and we will educate you."
  Critic: silence, no response.

That is a cheap shot. A drive-by cheap shot.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

Hi again. I wouldn't have any objection to that change, although the home page masthead description is already a bit long. Our "About Us" page explicitly identifies the organization as evangelical.

Thank you. From this description, I suggest the website subheading read, “The Institute for Religious Research is a nondenominational, nonprofit evangelical Christian foundation” since there are so many Christian denominations and churches that do not consider themselves "evangelical" as the term is commonly understood today.

[CV75]

CV75,

Hi again. I wouldn't have any objection to that change, although the home page masthead description is already a bit long. Our "About Us" page explicitly identifies the organization as evangelical.

Yes, I can see the practical considerations and trying to get the most essential information out front.

Regarding my other question: Why doesn't the Institute present its critique in a "creed vs. creed" comparison (as mentioned above)? A more apples-to-apples basis would prevent confusion, offense or over-complication.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

Yes, I can see the practical considerations and trying to get the most essential information out front.

I appreciate that.

You asked:

Regarding my other question: Why doesn't the Institute present its critique in a "creed vs. creed" comparison (as mentioned above)? A more apples-to-apples basis would prevent confusion, offense or over-complication.

We do that, too. That is, we compare LDS teaching to what we understand to be biblical teaching. See my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide for the most current example.

[CV75]

We do that, too. That is, we compare LDS teaching to what we understand to be biblical teaching. See my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide for the most current example.

(I meant without the offending material and the problems inherent in presenting it poorly... Now that I think of it, it is like a minister of any congregation presenting things from another minister outside of his ordained authority, to people who may not realize the boundaries that are being crossed.

[coolrok7]

To begin with in answer to the thread opening (late in participating but have been following it off and on), Mormonism (as it came to be known) begins with Joseph Smith being a critic of others based on his experiences (the claim is that these are God’s words, I think they are Joseph’s own words):

While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God. For how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know, for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of scripture so differently so as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible, . . .I at length came to the determination to “ask of God”. . . .I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof. (POGP, JOSEPH SMITH-HISTORY 1:11-13, 19)

(Joseph wrote, in his own hand- written in 1832, not part of the regularly quoted material in proselytizing pamphlets)-

At about the age of twelve years my mind became Seriously imprest with regard to the all important concerns for the wellfare [sic] of my immortal soul which led me to Searching the Scriptures believing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God. . .thus from the age twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things. . .and by Searching the Scriptures I found that. . .there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament. . . (An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions, by Paul R. Cheesman, Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965, pp.127-28)

(A contradictory statement in comparison to the above)

President Hinckley had stated:

. . .this is the pivotal thing of our story. Every claim we make concerning divine authority, every truth that we offer concerning the validity of this work, all finds its roots in the First Vision of the boy prophet. Without it we would not have anything much to say. . .This becomes the hinge pin on which the whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organizations and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple. (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.237)

This eventually makes individual Mormons “critics” of what others believe as well as they have chosen to follow him and his teachings which I believe are contradictory to Biblical teaching at critical points (sufficient I believe to deny the claim of Mormonism being the equivalent to/restoration of first century Christianity):

Joseph’s vision of the Father and the Son opened this dispensation. Then came the Restoration of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ with the same organization that existed in the primitive Church, built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets. . . . (The Ensign, President Boyd K. Packer, September, 2005 p.16)

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

Mormon General Authority Milton R. Hunter in his book, “The Gospel Through The Ages,” had this to say concerning the Bible (additional comments by others):

In fact, the New Testament contains. . .teachings. . .of. . .the Man of Galilee. This book, therefore will be our standard of judgment or the norm by which we measure the Gospel truths of all the dispensations. (p.91)

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 16:46)

As an example of comparing, Paul identifies the “fullness of the time” with when Jesus was born, not with Joseph’s “meridian of time” in “Mormon” so-called “Scripture”. It's about Jesus Christ not Joseph Smith:

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:1-5)

. . .even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, . . .; And the Lord said: it shall be in the meridian of time, . . . (POGP, Moses 6:57, 7:46a;)

Joseph Smith’s First Vision

The second cornerstone is the First Vision of the prophet Joseph Smith. . . .This transcendent experience opened the marvelous work of restoration. It lifted the curtain on the long-promised dispensation of the fullness of times. (The Ensign, President Gordon B. Hinckley, February 2004, p.5)

We also believe in prophets. God has always taught His children. . .through prophets. . . . Likewise we believe that Joseph Smith was called by God as the prophet to inaugurate this present era, known as “the dispensation of the fullness of times” (see Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 112:30; 121:31; 124:41; 128:18, 20; 138:48). . . .Previous dispensations include those identified with Adam,. . .Noah. . .Moses, and with Jesus and His Apostles in the meridian of time.” (AN APOSTLE’S TESTIMONY pamphlet, Elder Russell M. Nelson, pp.5-6)

Examples of Mormons being critics of others Biblical teachings- in their words:

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its place—a religion that professed to be Jesus Christ’s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiah’s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

The realization that the Lord’s true church was not only vulnerable, but destructible, comes as a shock to many people. But if wicked men were able to put to death the Messiah himself, is it so strange that they should have power to destroy his church? (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.11)

Salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. In him and in him alone is there redemption. But he works in his own way. God’s way is not man’s way. The Lord provided that salvation should come through his gospel functioning through his church, wherein are prophets and apostles “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12). . .Is there such a church upon the earth? Until 1830 there was not. It had been lost through the falling away we have described in this pamphlet. (Which Church is Right pamphlet, p.17)

Erroneous Teachings of Christian Churches

One erroneous teaching of many Christian churches is: By faith alone we are saved. This false doctrine would relieve man from the responsibility of his acts other than to confess a belief in God, and would teach man that no matter how great the sin, a confession would bring him complete forgiveness and salvation. What the world needs is more preaching of the necessity of abstaining from sin and of living useful and righteous lives, and less preaching of forgiveness of sin. . . .

One Heaven and One Hell

There is also the false teaching of one heaven and one hell, with the thought that all who reach heaven will share alike, and the same will be true of those who are assigned to hell. The truth, as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, emphasizes the fact that every man will receive according to his works; that there is a glory like the glory of the sun, another like that of the moon, and still another like that of the stars, and that the glory to which one shall be assigned will be determined by the things he does and the kind of life he lives. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.24-26)

I wonder how many of us are aware of one of the great religious phenomenon of the ages, one that is now sweeping through Protestant Christianity, as only one other thing has ever done in the whole Christian Era. . . .let me first identify the original heresy that did more than anything else to destroy primitive Christianity.

This first and chief heresy of a now fallen and decadent Christianity- and truly it is the father of all heresies-. . .pertains now to the nature and kind of being that God is. . . .a spirit essence called the Trinity. . . .The adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy. . . .

This second heresy-and it is the prevailing delusion and mania that prevails to this day in the great evangelical body of Protestantism-is the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law. . . .It is the doctrine that we may be born again simply by confessing the Lord Jesus with our lips while we continue to live in our sins (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in a BYU Devotional talk, given to a Mormon audience, 1984)

The last line above I believe is a false accusation from within Mormonism in light of what is actually taught in the church I attend (a part of the larger body of Christ).

It is not lip service but a response of faith (one of the Solas); followed up as a fruit of faith in good works (a product of the Solas) to the glory of God, derived from specific verses in obedience to His commands found within Scripture which is the Bible (I don’t acknowledge any other writing as such):

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. . . .What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works’ he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, . . . (Romans 3:23-28; 4:1-5)

Within the realm of religious belief, people assert things all the time. My belief/faith has an historic Scriptural context (its content as it is asserted in the context of evangelism is not meant to be intentionally offensive or having a “holier than thou” kind of an attitude).

While it might be perceived that way it goes with the territory in having opposing views in which people agree/disagree. To “contend” for Biblical Truth is not being “contentious” although at times it might seem that way:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)

[volgadon]

Coolrok, baloney.

The most charitable thing that could be said about your post is that you did not read Moses 7.

As an example of comparing, Paul identifies the “fullness of the time” with when Jesus was born, not with Joseph’s “meridian of time” in “Mormon” so-called “Scripture”. It's about Jesus Christ not Joseph Smith:

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:1-5)

. . .even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, . . .; And the Lord said: it shall be in the meridian of time, . . . (POGP, Moses 6:57, 7:46a;)

Moses 7:44And as Enoch saw this, he had abitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be bcomforted; but the Lord said unto Enoch: Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look.

45And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be asanctified and have eternal life?

46And the Lord said: It shall be in the ameridian of time, in the days of wickedness and vengeance.

47And behold, Enoch asaw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the bLamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through cfaith I am in the bosom of the Father, and behold, dZion is with me.

[coolrok7]

I prefer ham, fried baloney is ok though. I already have the “word of God” which is Jesus (not Joseph):

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:12-16)

You are entitled to your view but it does not answer the issue as I raised it. I’m answering the thread question, directed at those not Mormon. It is a reason (but not the only one) why I’m critical of the teaching of Mormonism based on what the Bible teaches in it’s context/historical setting.

Your quoting of Moses to me does nothing as I already provided BofM quotes (just another example of Joseph adding to the writing of Scripture) which does not adequately answer the issue as far as I’m concerned as it is based on a plagiarized writing coming through Joseph Smith (spiritually inspired but not by God I don’t think):

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. . . .They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1, 4-6)

Paul’s statement concerning the “fullness of the time” is about Jesus as I said. The Mormon view is based on a “wrong” interpretation of Paul based on the teachings of Mormonism directly from/through Joseph Smith:

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:1-5)

Jesus had called Paul (not Joseph Smith):

And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’ (Acts 26:14-18)

The issue as I made the point is that (interpretational of what the Bible means in its historical context) Paul was addressing the coming of Jesus into the world in which he wasn’t predicting the coming of Joseph Smith as a so-called “Prophet” of God (the time had already come and gone when Jesus was born, the actual context of Paul’s statement):

Joseph Smith’s First Vision

The second cornerstone is the First Vision of the prophet Joseph Smith. . . .This transcendent experience opened the marvelous work of restoration. It lifted the curtain on the long-promised dispensation of the fullness of times. (The Ensign, President Gordon B. Hinckley, February 2004, p.5)

In addition to what I had stated the following explanation is taken from the chapter entitled: A MARVELOUS WORK AND A WONDER TO COME FORTH in the book, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder by Elder LeGrand Richards, a Mormon General Authority:

The Restitution of All Things

In the accomplishment of this promised marvelous work and a wonder, the Lord had in mind a “restitution of all things” and moved upon Peter to so prophesy to those who had crucified Him:

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:19-21.). . . .

It was the time of such a complete restitution that Paul must have had in mind when he wrote to the Ephesians:

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he had purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. (Ephesians 1:9-10.)

It is the pronouncement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that this is the dispensation of the fullness of times, and through the restitution of all things, the Lord has made provision to “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth.” (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, pp.34-35)

It can be “pronounced” all day long but it doesn’t change the meaning of what Paul taught.

It wasn’t Joseph Smith being prophesied about except for Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7 concerning “false prophets” (it was prophesied in the Old Testament of the coming of Messiah). Paul was confirming the First Coming of Jesus in the “fullness of the time”.

The “Restitution Of All Things” takes place at the Second Coming of Jesus (as underlined above in the quote from the book of Acts which is also not about Joseph Smith):

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:8-12)

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:51-58)

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:1-2)

The “like Him” will be in our resurrection of glorified bodies, not His Deity:

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” Luke 24:44-49)

[USU78]

Snape, having read the title of this thread, seizes coolrok7 by the label with his left hand, points his wand at coolrok7 and incantates: "Reveal your secrets!" Whereupon coolrok7 saith:

I prefer ham, fried baloney is ok though. I already have the “word of God” which is Jesus (not Joseph)

And a book flew off the shelf, landed in coolrok7's hands, and opened itself up to a page, where coolrok7 read:

2 Nephi 29:3-6 "And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?"

And there was sorrow in Hogwarts.

[coolrok7]

Thus speaketh coolrok7 unto the Snape:

Unhand me knave. Lego my label with thy left hand and casteth thy deceitful wand back to the pit from which it came, away with it. For thou soundest of the serpent "hissing forth"!"

And all the saved of God rejoice in the God of our Salvation.

Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD GOD Almighty, for He alone is worthy of our praise!!!

For Salvation is from the Jews, even Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior!!! Amen

Therefore those in Hogwarts, who were saddened, repented of their sorceries and were glad.

And their names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Where the saints will be in glory in the Day of our God!

[Questing Beast]

...

Within the realm of religious belief, people assert things all the time. My belief/faith has an historic Scriptural context (its content as it is asserted in the context of evangelism is not meant to be intentionally offensive or having a “holier than thou” kind of an attitude).

While it might be perceived that way it goes with the territory in having opposing views in which people agree/disagree. To “contend” for Biblical Truth is not being “contentious” although at times it might seem that way:

I just want to say that I enjoy your rational, dispassionate assertions and your criticism of Mormonism. It's a two-way street. And you play on it with candor and grace....

[Analytics]

Or . . . you might address the actual point instead of quibbling over how best to communicate how copyright law might be used to protect the ownership rights to the Temple movie(s) and text.

How, O Analytics, would you employ the statutory remedies best to accomplish the Church's purposes?

My intention wasn't to quibble, it was to clarify the nature of copyright law. I thought that was relevant. I don't believe statutory remidies exisit to accomplish the Church's purposes of controlling the text, because from a legal perspective, the text is in the public domain.

The film is a different matter. There, I would think the church can do what any other big corporation would do that stole a film--call the FBI, sue, etc.

[volgadon]

The issue as I made the point is that (interpretational of what the Bible means in its historical context) Paul was addressing the coming of Jesus into the world in which he wasn’t predicting the coming of Joseph Smith as a so-called “Prophet” of God (the time had already come and gone when Jesus was born, the actual context of Paul’s statement):

Coolrok, I almost wonder if you aren't being intentionally obtuse. As the quote from the book of Moses should have made abundantly clear, the meridian of time bit is refering to the coming forth of Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith.

[bookofmormontruth]

volgadon,

The tour was one by Daniel Rona Tours. His son, Stephen Rona was the guide and was raised in Israel.

They recommended the manual for the Old and New Testaments for a reference book.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

The tour was one by Daniel Rona Tours. His son, Stephen Rona was the guide and was raised in Israel.

They recommended the manual for the Old and New Testaments for a reference book.

I know them extremely well, from my very earliest childhood in fact, I'm just surprised that they would make such a claim. Stephen is a great guy, so it surprises me no ends.

[bookofmormontruth]

I know them extremely well, from my very earliest childhood in fact, I'm just surprised that they would make such a claim. Stephen is a great guy, so it surprises me no ends.

Is there any way to verify what they are saying on their tours?

[USU78]

My intention wasn't to quibble, it was to clarify the nature of copyright law. I thought that was relevant. I don't believe statutory remidies exisit to accomplish the Church's purposes of controlling the text, because from a legal perspective, the text is in the public domain.

That is arguable, naturally, since thieves have been stealing for a long time.

Even absent that wrinkle, my view is that parading the text in Court, with the press involved, and, at minimum, expert witnesses, clerks, court reporters, judges, litigants, counsel and fact witnesses objectifying it, defeats its sacredness far worse than any theft and strategic modification by the Tanners or anybody else.

There is, moreover, the issue of "fair use." The only "fair use" from our perspective is no use at all outside the Temple. "Fair use" is a farce.

The film is a different matter. There, I would think the church can do what any other big corporation would do that stole a film--call the FBI, sue, etc.

Still doesn't work. Cops, investigators and the same old-same old in Court and the sacred is profaned and besmirched.

Ultimately there's nothing that USmerican statutes and courts can do to protect G-d's script for perfection of the human animal from being beshat by miscreants when thieves steal it.

[volgadon]

Is there any way to verify what they are saying on their tours?

Yes. it is called research.