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

[bookofmormontruth]

Yes. it is called research.

Okay smarty pants.

I mean verify if Mr. Rona is making these connections on his tours.

[volgadon]

Okay smarty pants.

I mean verify if Mr. Rona is making these connections on his tours.

Probably. I'm sure your neighbours wouldn't make it up, and I found a similar claim in Dan Rona's Holyland Revealed.

[CV75]

CV75,

You wrote:

I appreciate that.

You asked:

Quote

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.

(I meant to present the more straightforward, stand-on-its-own, apples-to-apples comparative critique -- naturally favoring evangelical over LDS beliefs consistent with the Institute’s ministry -- without posting the sacred material out of that religion's sacred context and without that religion's authority)

Please help me understand how you treat the concerns raised about presenting another religion’s most sacred rites to the public and Jesus’ admonition about how we treat each other. Both are related to authority and scope of ministry as well as simple common decency. I think Paul reached a good balance for these in his discussion and comparison of religions in I Corinthians 10.

To keep this on task with the OP, what is the Institute / ministry’s attitude about these two issues, or its response to the two issues raised?

[Rob Bowman]

VC75,

You wrote:

(I meant to present the more straightforward, stand-on-its-own, apples-to-apples comparative critique -- naturally favoring evangelical over LDS beliefs consistent with the Institute’s ministry -- without posting the sacred material out of that religion's sacred context and without that religion's authority)

Please help me understand how you treat the concerns raised about presenting another religion’s most sacred rites to the public and Jesus’ admonition about how we treat each other. Both are related to authority and scope of ministry as well as simple common decency. I think Paul reached a good balance for these in his discussion and comparison of religions in I Corinthians 10.

To keep this on task with the OP, what is the Institute / ministry’s attitude about these two issues, or its response to the two issues raised?

Our approach is to try to be faithful to all that the Bible says about how we should respond to other religions. Jesus was not shy about telling the Samaritans that they worshiped what they did not know (John 4:22). He candidly told the Sadducees that they erred out of ignorance of the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29). Paul similarly told the Athenians that they were ignorant of the true God and that he had come to proclaim that true God to them (Acts 17:22-23). When dealing with false versions of the Christian faith, Paul was especially sharp in his criticism: their gospel was no gospel at all but a distortion of the gospel deserving condemnation (Gal. 1:6-9); they had a different gospel, Jesus, and Spirit (2 Cor. 11:4); they were not to allow themselves to be deceived by messages or letters allegedly from the apostles that taught false doctrine (2 Thess. 2:1-3); they didn't know what they were talking about (1 Tim. 1:3-7); and so on. One finds similar warnings in Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and the three epistles of John. I'm not clear what you see in 1 Corinthians 10, but I'm not aware of anything in that passage that doesn't fit with the approach we take. Paul certainly did not view the religious rituals of other religions as "sacred."

[coolrok7]

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.

In your quoting of my statement, “interpretational of what the Bible means in its historical context” is at the crux of the issue. Let me explain more of what is meant in what I had said and the quotes I provided.

Christianity as it explained in the New Testament goes to the validating of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of the Jewish Messiah (Yeshua Ben David) and the surrounding events of His life as a man (as well as God in the flesh John 1:1-3, 14; Acts 2:22 see below).

It is the writers of the New Testament own quoting from the Old Testament where our understanding of what it prophesied about in how we understand today concerning what was written in first century Koine Greek, the lingua fraca of the day (in which English is like in our time):

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. (Acts 2:22-33)

Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God , fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you. (Acts 13:26-41)

For some correlation of the immediate above (tied directly to Jesus’ First Coming, not Joseph Smith as below).

Mormonism quotes from Isaiah in the book, “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” in which Elder LeGrand Richards explains it to be talking about the work of Joseph Smith (which it is not):

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.(Isaiah 29:13-14)

In fact Jesus quotes verse 13 and applies it directly to the practice of some of the scribes and Pharisees instead of supporting their elderly parents they would give the money as an offering and possibly get a kickback from the priests:

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Matthew 15-1-11)

In the quotes concerning Joseph Smith by Church leaders, it is where Joseph’s teachings concerning the “meridian of time” now refer to Jesus (which is not used in the KJV) and Joseph Smith becomes the object of the interpretation where he now inaugurates the “fullness of the time” along with the “restitution of all things”:

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)

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)

DISPENSATION OF THE FULLNESS OF TIMES

The gleams of prophetic light which flashed across (*)Emerson’s mind were shining forth with full radiance right at the time in another section of America. God the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, had already spoken to that “new teacher—the Prophet Joseph Smith—and had, through him, inaugurated another Gospel dispensation. The decree had gone forth from the heavens that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was given to this Prophet “never to be taken from earth again nor given to another people.” (THE MERIDIAN AND FULLNESS OF TIMES in the book, The Gospel through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.93)

* Emerson had been a Unitarian minister- believed heretical doctrine; became a teacher of philosophy

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)

When John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for the Savior in the meridian of time, the Savior bore testimony that there was no greater prophet in Israel than John the Baptist. (See Luke 7:28.)(LeGrand Richards, “He Has Sent His Messenger to Prepare the Way,” Ensign, July 1973, p.76)

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: . . .(A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Elder LeGrand Richards, p.35)

This was an already accomplished (continuing) fact, “that. . .he might gather together in one” as indicated by Paul (way before the Mormon church came along). Continuing on in Ephesians Paul goes on to say:

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:11-22)

The “restitution of all things” in Acts 3:19-21 as interpreted by LeGrand Richards, is still future in that it takes place at the Second Coming when Jesus returns for/with His saints to judge the world.

This will be when the “restitution of all things” takes place as it is tied into the phrase “. . .whom heaven must receive until. . .”. This is why, “the fullness of the times” is about Jesus, not Joseph Smith:

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:7-12)

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 the 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.

[Vance]

Our approach is to try to be faithful to all that the Bible says about how we should respond to other religions.

Not exactly. Your approach is to be faithful to YOUR INTERPRETATION OF what some of the Bible says about how you should respond to other religions.

You, of course are neglecting Jesus' teachings with regard to treating others.

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Would you like your most sacred things cast as pearls before swine?

Jesus was not shy about telling the Samaritans that they worshiped what they did not know (John 4:22).

Jesus was authorized to act for God, you are not.

He candidly told the Sadducees that they erred out of ignorance of the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29).

Jesus perfectly understood the truth, you do not.

Paul similarly told the Athenians that they were ignorant of the true God and that he had come to proclaim that true God to them (Acts 17:22-23).

Paul was authorized by God, you are not.

When dealing with false versions of the Christian faith, Paul was especially sharp in his criticism: their gospel was no gospel at all but a distortion of the gospel deserving condemnation (Gal. 1:6-9); they had a different gospel, Jesus, and Spirit (2 Cor. 11:4); they were not to allow themselves to be deceived by messages or letters allegedly from the apostles that taught false doctrine (2 Thess. 2:1-3); they didn't know what they were talking about (1 Tim. 1:3-7); and so on.

Paul had received the truth by REVELATION, you have not.

[CV75]

Our approach is to try to be faithful to all that the Bible says about how we should respond to other religions. Jesus was not shy about telling the Samaritans that they worshiped what they did not know (John 4:22). He candidly told the Sadducees that they erred out of ignorance of the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29). Paul similarly told the Athenians that they were ignorant of the true God and that he had come to proclaim that true God to them (Acts 17:22-23). When dealing with false versions of the Christian faith, Paul was especially sharp in his criticism: their gospel was no gospel at all but a distortion of the gospel deserving condemnation (Gal. 1:6-9); they had a different gospel, Jesus, and Spirit (2 Cor. 11:4); they were not to allow themselves to be deceived by messages or letters allegedly from the apostles that taught false doctrine (2 Thess. 2:1-3); they didn't know what they were talking about (1 Tim. 1:3-7); and so on. One finds similar warnings in Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and the three epistles of John. I'm not clear what you see in 1 Corinthians 10, but I'm not aware of anything in that passage that doesn't fit with the approach we take. Paul certainly did not view the religious rituals of other religions as "sacred."

This reply does not address the Lord’s teachings about how we are to treat each other, and does not address a minister displaying another’s sacred things out of context. You reference the most severe condemnation of the Lord and His ministers as the basis of the Institute’s mission vis-à-vis how it treats the LDs faith.

I Corinthians 10 shows how Paul treats those of other faiths and traditions in comparing their teachings, how he compares the true faith with their teachings, and he instructs the Lord’s people to do the same. There is a lot of emphasis on not offending those not of the faith or the tradition.

He speaks of the followers of Moses being taught to follow the Rock, but they instead gave in to temptations (evil things, idolaters, fornication, tempting Christ, murmuring, etc.), and we should learn from the consequences they suffered. He shows how we can still learn from their mistakes of disobedience to the Rock even though Christ fulfilled the law and it is no longer necessary to follow. He acknowledges what was to be gained of the Jews.

He then focuses on the subject of idolatry, and that his flock must not give the impression to the non-believers, proselytes or the weak in the faith that they believe in false things by eating that which is commonly associated with the false belief, but instead promote the Lord ’s Supper. They are to accomplish this by partaking of the “communion” honorably while not eating that which is obviously offered to devils. But they are not to offend: they are to ask “no question for conscience sake” when invited to dine with them, but refuse it when they are informed that the food had been offered to devils.

Verse 29 picks up on caring for the conscience of another, even of one who practices idolatry (and presumably other false teachings). We are to be careful not to offend the conscience of another, no matter how far off the path they seem to be, for it’s the spark of conscience that will bring them to Christ. He advises not to give offense to Jew, Gentile, or the church of God, that all may be saved.

In following this pattern, the Institute might demonstrate what evil the members of another faith have suffered because of their church’s rebellious ways or their ignorant rebellion against God by following the principles of their church. Also, the Institute might not go into detail on what is done in what is deemed to be false ceremonies of the other faiths, and pick them apart point by point.

The Institute might ask “no question for conscience sake.” It is one thing for the LDS to invite the ministry to the temple and partake, and another for the Institute to invite itself (and others) to the feast and the cry foul when the food disagrees with its ministers. The LDS Church does not invite other ministers into the temple until they have become members. So there is no need for the Institute to offend by revealing that which the LDS Church will not share for its or the public’s consumption and then critique it.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Since I see your post as providing a teachable moment, I will make an exception to my usual choice to ignore your posts. You wrote:

Not exactly. Your approach is to be faithful to YOUR INTERPRETATION OF what some of the Bible says about how you should respond to other religions.

Your twisting of my statement aside, everyone is limited to his or her own interpretation of whatever it is they claim to believe. You are no different.

You wrote:

You, of course are neglecting Jesus' teachings with regard to treating others.

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

I don't neglect this teaching. I simply disagree with your inference from it.

You wrote:

Would you like your most sacred things cast as pearls before swine?

If I thought something was sacred and of God, when it was not, I would most certainly want to be corrected. I would gladly have my supposedly sacred things exposed as not really sacred, if they were in fact not sacred.

You wrote:

Jesus was authorized to act for God, you are not.

Incorrect. Jesus authorizes all of his disciples to teach his truth to others (Matt. 28:19-20). Of course, I don't have the same divine nature or position as Jesus, but I am authorized to act on his behalf in speaking the truth that he has taught me in his Word.

You wrote:

Jesus perfectly understood the truth, you do not.

I hate to break this to you, but you're in the same boat, at best.

You wrote:

Paul was authorized by God, you are not.

See above.

You wrote:

Paul had received the truth by REVELATION, you have not.

The mode of revelation is different, but the fact of revelation is the same. I am utterly and entirely dependent on God's revelation in Scripture for any truth about him that I know.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

I am glad you want to discuss the teaching of the NT. I am always delighted to discuss the teachings of the NT with anyone. You wrote:

This reply does not address the Lord’s teachings about how we are to treat each other, and does not address a minister displaying another’s sacred things out of context.

See my reply to Vance regarding Matthew 7:12. I am treating you just as I would want you to treat me. If I am in error, I want you to show it to me. I agree with you that we should not take things out of context, but you haven't shown that I am doing so. You have only asserted that I can't help doing so with regard to the temple ceremony.

You wrote:

You reference the most severe condemnation of the Lord and His ministers as the basis of the Institute’s mission vis-à-vis how it treats the LDs faith.

I don't know what you are saying in the above sentence. Please feel free to rephrase.

You wrote:

I Corinthians 10 shows how Paul treats those of other faiths and traditions in comparing their teachings, how he compares the true faith with their teachings, and he instructs the Lord’s people to do the same. There is a lot of emphasis on not offending those not of the faith or the tradition.

He speaks of the followers of Moses being taught to follow the Rock, but they instead gave in to temptations (evil things, idolaters, fornication, tempting Christ, murmuring, etc.), and we should learn from the consequences they suffered. He shows how we can still learn from their mistakes of disobedience to the Rock even though Christ fulfilled the law and it is no longer necessary to follow. He acknowledges what was to be gained of the Jews.

He then focuses on the subject of idolatry, and that his flock must not give the impression to the non-believers, proselytes or the weak in the faith that they believe in false things by eating that which is commonly associated with the false belief, but instead promote the Lord ’s Supper. They are to accomplish this by partaking of the “communion” honorably while not eating that which is obviously offered to devils. But they are not to offend: they are to ask “no question for conscience sake” when invited to dine with them, but refuse it when they are informed that the food had been offered to devils.

Verse 29 picks up on caring for the conscience of another, even of one who practices idolatry (and presumably other false teachings). We are to be careful not to offend the conscience of another, no matter how far off the path they seem to be, for it’s the spark of conscience that will bring them to Christ. He advises not to give offense to Jew, Gentile, or the church of God, that all may be saved.

Paul states quite openly and candidly that "what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons" (1 Cor. 10:20). It doesn't sound like he is worried here about hurting the pagans' feelings. The reason for asking no questions about the meat is not to avoid disagreeing with their host's religious beliefs but so that the believer may eat with the host without making an unnecessary issue about the meat (vv. 25-27). If the pagan points out that the meat was sacrificed to an idol, though, Paul says that the believer is not to eat the meat because to do so would convey to the pagan that the believer supports sacrifices to idols (vv. 28-29). Care for the pagan's conscience, not concern to avoid making the pagan feel badly, is the issue here.

It is very common for readers to misunderstand verse 32, where Paul says "give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the people of God." To "give no offense" does not mean to avoid ever making someone feel badly. Modern English has almost completely lost the original sense of the verb "offend," which meant to cause someone to stumble, to lead them into sin or error, to lead them or cause them or encourage them to commit an offense. Paul's meaning is that we are to act blamelessly and avoid committing any offense against God whether we are dealing with Jews, pagan Greeks, or other Christians.

This is why I disagree, with all due respect, with your suggested application of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 10 to the issue of what IRR should say about the religious rituals of the LDS Church. Paul wrote elsewhere:

"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible" (Eph. 5:11-13).

Even though it may be embarrassing or "shameful" to mention what some religious groups do in secret, Paul says that what they do should be exposed and brought out into the light.

[William James]

A critic is anyone who expresses a value judgement.

Informally, criticism is a common aspect of all human expression and need not necessarily imply skilled or accurate expressions of judgement. Critical judgements, good or bad, may be positive (in praise of an object of attention), negative (in dispraise), or balanced (weighing a combination of factors both for and against). Since all criticism must be regarded as having a purpose, a critic may also be definable by his or her specific motivation. At its simplest, and for whatever reason, a critic may have either constructive or destructive intent. My link

Granted, this forum has more "honest critics" than what I have seen in other forums and being rare are very welcomed. Yet, I continue to see "cheap shots" toward our sacred faith with "questions" disguised as "gotchas" or the elusive trail to the "nail in the coffin" for the Lord's Church.

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

I only ask because I know of no one in the LDS Church who plays the role as a "critic" for other's beliefs and I completely don't understand the need to be one. I am open to understand.

As a critic, I have no intention of destroying the LDS Church. I remain a member. I criticize the church because of the immeasurable pain many of its teachings have caused in my life (unnecessarily, it turns out, because those teachings were, in my view after study, pondering, and prayer, wrong). My hope is that I can be an instrument in helping to bring about corrections of erroneous teachings/doctrine so that future generations will not have to suffer what I have suffered. I realize that this change is not likely to happen during my lifetime, but I keep hope that it will happen one day, and when it does, a very heavy yoke of bondage will have been lifted off of people who want to keep their faith.

[cdowis]

Vance,

You are having an interesting interchange with Rob.. He responds, "Jesus authorizes all of his disciples to teach his truth to others (Matt. 28:19-20). Of course, I don't have the same divine nature or position as Jesus, but I am authorized to act on his behalf in speaking the truth that he has taught me in his Word."

This what I call a "black hole" argument. There is no way to refute it in a sensible manner, just as Saul felt justified in defending the teachings of Moses and the Hebrew prophets from what he perceived false and blasphemous teachings of the Christians.

Saul taught "from the word" and that the word justified him in his ministry against the Christian heretics.

There is no sensible way to dissuade and debate Saul from his mission. After all, he had been taught from the best scholars and teachers, and had a ready response. So we can only leave it to the Lord to sort it all out.

If Rob wants to justify himself in the context of Christ Himself chastising the scribes and Pharasees, with the authority of the prophets and apostles, he himself understands the potential consequence. The Bible is quite clear on that point.

I might add, for you own benefit, Vance, that exposing those sacred temple rites to the gawking public serves little purpose except to make that "potential consequence" serious indeed.

I would suggest that you just move on to some other topic of discussion.

[Vance]

Vance,

Since I see your post as providing a teachable moment, I will make an exception to my usual choice to ignore your posts.

Thanks for condescending from your superiority to interact with the unwashed. You are so magnanimous.

Your twisting of my statement aside, everyone is limited to his or her own interpretation of whatever it is they claim to believe. You are no different.

Are you included in your "everyone"?

I don't neglect this teaching. I simply disagree with your inference from it.

Of course not. Your superiority prevents you from doing so.

If I thought something was sacred and of God, when it was not, I would most certainly want to be corrected.

And if you knew something was sacred and of God, and IT WAS, you would most certainly NOT want it to be mocked and treated poorly.

But, in your superiority you know what God holds sacred and what He doesn't. And, of course, you can't be wrong.

I would gladly have my supposedly sacred things exposed as not really sacred, if they were in fact not sacred.

And of course, you would recognize your error, if you could make one, and change. Right?

Incorrect. Jesus authorizes all of his disciples to teach his truth to others (Matt. 28:19-20).

I have read that just like you, therefore I am just as authorized as you. Thanks for pointing that out.

And now that we have established that I am as authorized as you are, I tell you that you are wrong. And if you don't change the time will come when you will have serious regrets.

Now, let's see if you really meant what you said about wanting to be corrected when in error.

Of course, I don't have the same divine nature or position as Jesus, but I am authorized to act on his behalf in speaking the truth that he has taught me in his Word.

And of course, I, (and nearly everyone else here,) am as authorized as you to act on His behalf in speaking the truth He has taught me in His word.

And as such, I declare that you are wrong.

I hate to break this to you, but you're in the same boat, at best.

"At best"?

Nah.

The mode of revelation is different, but the fact of revelation is the same.

CFR

I am utterly and entirely dependent on God's revelation in Scripture for any truth about him that I know.

How do you know that it is "God's revelation" in scripture you are getting and not just you own understanding?

You still need to explain why your interpretation must be more correct than others'. Saying that you got it from the Bible doesn't cut it. Many people study the Bible, and some more so than you, and they have different interpretations than you.

The Bible, being an inanimate object, is unable to give authorization. Reading a verse doesn't do it.

[Vance]

Vance,

You are having an interesting interchange with Rob.. He responds, "Jesus authorizes all of his disciples to teach his truth to others (Matt. 28:19-20). Of course, I don't have the same divine nature or position as Jesus, but I am authorized to act on his behalf in speaking the truth that he has taught me in his Word."

This what I call a "black hole" argument. There is no way to refute it in a sensible manner, just as Saul felt justified in defending the teachings of Moses and the Hebrew prophets from what he perceived false and blasphemous teachings of the Christians.

You make a good point.

But, I can point out, that those are just bald assertions that need no refutation.

They can't be supported in any scholarly way.

Saul taught "from the word" and that the word justified him in his ministry against the Christian heretics.

And yet he was wrong just like Bowman.

He couldn't see the truth, even though it was right in front of him.

There is no sensible way to dissuade and debate Saul from his mission. After all, he had been taught from the best scholars and teachers, and had a ready response. So we can only leave it to the Lord to sort it all out.

True.

Only the direct intervention of God turned him around.

If Rob wants to justify himself in the context of Christ Himself chastising the scribes and Pharasees, with the authority of the prophets and apostles, he himself understands the potential consequence. The Bible is quite clear on that point.

I sure hope he understands the consequences.

I might add, for you own benefit, Vance, that exposing those sacred temple rites to the gawking public serves little purpose except to make that "potential consequence" serious indeed.

I suppose that if I didn't care at all about the consequences I wouldn't even bother trying to dissuade Bowman from doing it.

I would suggest that you just move on to some other topic of discussion.

I don't think the term "discussion" applies here.

But perhaps you are correct about moving on.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I will ignore your sarcastic remarks. However, in response to my statement that "The mode of revelation is different, but the fact of revelation is the same," you replied:

CFR

I don't think you were serious about this CFR, but I will answer it any way. The Bible is revelation from God (e.g., Rom. 16:26). Therefore, in being dependent on the Bible, I am dependent on revelation.

[CV75]

CV75,

I am glad you want to discuss the teaching of the NT. I am always delighted to discuss the teachings of the NT with anyone.

We clearly have very different interpretations and applications of I Corinthians 10 and Ephesians 5. I Corinthians 10 teaches us not to cause another to stumble with hypocritical, contrived, or heavy-handed methods of pointing out errors. I see Ephesians 5 being about personal repentance, conversion and avoiding a return to former sins, not pointing out the sins of others:

Paul speaks of those saints secretly engaged in fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, filthiness, foolish talking and jesting, whoremongering, uncleanness, covetousness and idolatry. “Secret” can mean both hypocritically and being hidden in significance from oneself, which easily happens when one separates himself or refuses light from God. Paul shows that while such things are typically repented of when people come unto Christ, some will continue or return to engage in these works of darkness. He exhorts us not to be deceived by vain words into partaking in the same (continuing the theme at the end of Chapter 4).

The light spoken of is not about something being dragged out of darkness by some external force and finger-pointing by others, but is the blessing of the Lord where His light shines upon the conscience of the sinner, so that he stops doing these things. Paul summarizes the many blessings and attributes of those who thus repent.

In this context, verses 11-13 have to do with individual responsibility for one’s own repentance:

11. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” I take this to mean, “Have no fellowship with your prior works; reprove these works of yours so that you give them no more places in your life.”

12. “For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret,” is not a license to talk about what others do in secret but is rather counsel to put your own sins away, and speak of them no more, and be actively engaged in such things as listed in verses 15 onward. I take it to mean, “It is a shame for you to speak of your prior sinful works, which are still done of them who are without the light (in secret, whether hypocritically or in secret from your true self, as the result of having the conscience seared), as you once did.” Paul is teaching about voluntary, not forced repentance.

13. “But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” Again, this means that the light of Christ brings one to see the need to repent of his own secret sins, not so much to point the finger at others – after all, only the secret sinner knows he is sinning in secret if he is hypocritical, or finds out the secret he has kept from himself when he allows Christ’s light to visit him.

Let's hold off further discussion until you show the approved final statement that gets put on the website for how LDS temple material is treated.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

On the one hand, I could take offense at you repeatedly characterizing me as a Saul of Tarsus, despite the fact that I believe in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it reveals that from your perspective we really are representatives of two different religions. So I don't take offense, but I do take exception.

For the umpteenth time, Saul's problem was not that he based his teachings on the word of God in Scripture, but that he rejected the One to whom the word of God in Scripture pointed. Since I am not doing that, the comparison is not appropriate, accurate, or fair. When Paul became a Christian, he did not stop arguing from Scripture. The point of your comparison is simply wrong; it is unfaithful to Paul himself.

[cdowis]

Can someone show Rob how to use the ignore function.

[Vance]

Vance,

I will ignore your sarcastic remarks.

What sarcastic remarks?

Your superiority is rather obvious.

The fact that I (and many others here) have the same authority as you is also rather obvious, your superiority not withstanding.

However, in response to my statement that "The mode of revelation is different, but the fact of revelation is the same," you replied:

I don't think you were serious about this CFR, but I will answer it any way. The Bible is revelation from God (e.g., Rom. 16:26). Therefore, in being dependent on the Bible, I am dependent on revelation.

As you should know, the Bible wasn't created/assembled until a few CENTURIES after Paul wrote to the Romans. So clearly Paul was not referring to the "Bible".

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

These verses don't support your assertion.

As you know, with "the scriptures of the prophets" Paul is referring to the Old Testament and "the revelation" is separated from "the scriptures by the conjunction "and".

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I do know how to use the "ignore" function. It also allows me to choose selectively to view posts from those I usually ignore. All in all, a very nice feature.

Can someone show Rob how to use the ignore function.

[CV75]

All,

Just wanted to let you know that I have drafted a statement to be added to our website about the sensitive nature of the LDS temple endowment ceremony. The statement will get kicked around for a day or two, probably, and I expect it will be posted online next week. I'll let you know when it's up and what it says (without a link here, to comply with board rules).

Please provide an update on the status of kicking around a statement addressing a sensitive issue--thank you,

[USU78]

Vance,

You are having an interesting interchange with Rob.. He responds, "Jesus authorizes all of his disciples to teach his truth to others (Matt. 28:19-20). Of course, I don't have the same divine nature or position as Jesus, but I am authorized to act on his behalf in speaking the truth that he has taught me in his Word."

This what I call a "black hole" argument. There is no way to refute it in a sensible manner, just as Saul felt justified in defending the teachings of Moses and the Hebrew prophets from what he perceived false and blasphemous teachings of the Christians.

Saul taught "from the word" and that the word justified him in his ministry against the Christian heretics.

There is no sensible way to dissuade and debate Saul from his mission. After all, he had been taught from the best scholars and teachers, and had a ready response. So we can only leave it to the Lord to sort it all out.

If Rob wants to justify himself in the context of Christ Himself chastising the scribes and Pharasees, with the authority of the prophets and apostles, he himself understands the potential consequence. The Bible is quite clear on that point.

I might add, for you own benefit, Vance, that exposing those sacred temple rites to the gawking public serves little purpose except to make that "potential consequence" serious indeed.

I would suggest that you just move on to some other topic of discussion.

This, folks, is why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRx5V8Umt0A

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

Please provide an update on the status of kicking around a statement addressing a sensitive issue--thank you,

I have drafted the statement, the others have approved it, so we're ready to go. But I would welcome input on the statement from people here. This is it:

A note to the reader: Practicing members of the LDS Church regard the temple ceremonies, including the text of the endowment ceremony, as “sacred” and not to be divulged to the world or discussed with others. They take an oath not to make this information public. Former temple-going members who have left the LDS Church, on the other hand, often view their oath as invalid or non-binding. Although we do not regard the LDS temple ceremonies as sacred and do not agree with the idea of keeping sacred things secret, we understand and acknowledge that some Mormons may be offended by the publication of details concerning LDS temple ceremonies. It is definitely not our intention to mock Mormons or their practices; our intention is simply to make information available to those who are looking for it. We encourage readers to be circumspect about bringing up these things when engaged in discussion with practicing Mormons.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CV75,

You wrote:

I have drafted the statement, the others have approved it, so we're ready to go. But I would welcome input on the statement from people here. This is it:

This is the first time I have seen this. It sounds like it is what I would include.

Hopefully people will head that message. Thanks Rob.

[volgadon]

CV75,

You wrote:

I have drafted the statement, the others have approved it, so we're ready to go. But I would welcome input on the statement from people here. This is it:

Fair enough.

[CV75]

I have drafted the statement, the others have approved it, so we're ready to go. But I would welcome input on the statement from people here. This is it:

I recommend removing the quotation marks from "sacred" in the first line to remove any implication of irony. This would offer a consistent example when encouraging readers to be circumspect.