Anteojito Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I'll help you make the connection then: It means that with limited thinking one may perceive something that is true to be absurd or even impossible.Oh I get it now. You were making a snipe at my intellect.
Anteojito Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 There are an almost limitless gradation of options between the two extremes. Examples: Joseph Smith got it mostly right, but at times he wasn't in the proper frame of mind and mistranslated certain portions of the plates.Joseph Smith really translated gold plates, but what was on the gold plates was very similar to the Bible - mostly ahistorical in nature. Of spiritual value but not representative of real historyJoseph didn't translate from any gold plates, but instead did his best to transmit the spiritual vision that had been given to him. Like many Biblical writers, he employed the use of pseudepigrapha to transmit his message And so on I don't know how an active believing member could subscribe to any of the above options. The authorized leadership of the church says that Joseph Smith translated the BOM through the power of God. They (the church leadership) does not provide any other options.
Gray Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I don't know how an active believing member could subscribe to any of the above options. The authorized leadership of the church says that Joseph Smith translated the BOM through the power of God. They (the church leadership) does not provide any other options. I think there are more than you would think. Interestingly historicity of the Book of Mormon (or the Bible for that matter) are not items on the temple recommend interview.
Anteojito Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I think there are more than you would think. Interestingly historicity of the Book of Mormon (or the Bible for that matter) are not items on the temple recommend interview. That may be very possible, but that is not the official position of the church and that is the only thing that really matters.
Gray Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 That may be very possible, but that is not the official position of the church and that is the only thing that really matters. I agree it's not the official position of the church, but I disagree that that is the only thing that matters.
Anteojito Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I agree it's not the official position of the church, but I disagree that that is the only thing that matters. I am not sure that men like BKP or BRM would agree with you...
cinepro Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 That may be very possible, but that is not the official position of the church and that is the only thing that really matters. Until you disagree with it. Then suddenly it's optional (i.e. not a "core" doctrine). 1
Anteojito Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Until you disagree with it. Then suddenly it's optional (i.e. not a "core" doctrine).Right. People are free to believe what they want, but the church leadership clearly states that they are the only ones that can speak on behalf of the church on what is and what is not a core belief.
Gray Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) I am not sure that men like BKP or BRM would agree with you... I'm sure you're right, but not all Latter-day Saints take the same approach to matters of spirituality and doctrine. Even within the 12 and the FP, there are different approaches. Edited March 11, 2014 by Gray
CMZ Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Oh I get it now. You were making a snipe at my intellect. Only if you think something can't exist unless you perfectly understand it. If your intellect is flawless then no snipe exists. If it helps you feel better there was also a snipe at my own intellect. Even then, it's not really even about "snipes." It's just saying we all grow and learn and if we are in the middle of the process of growing and learning then we shouldn't think we are at the end of it. Edited March 11, 2014 by CMZ
Ahab Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I certainly believe that the teachings of man were introduced immediately after Christ left this earth. It is indisputable unless you believe that women should not wear gold jewelry, or make up or pray in church. That it is better to be celibate than to marry. Peoples ideas start with Paul and continue to this day. We are still getting individual's ideas introduced that is purported to be the word of God. If you can name just one teaching by any prophet apostle, pastor, teacher or evangelist etc. that is essential to our salvation that Christ Himself did not teach while here on earth then I will withdraw my statement. If not, then all other added teachings introduced by such men are really not important and lead us away from the gospel of Christ Himself.Your idea that Christ should have said all that he needed to say while here for his mortal ministry is just that. Your idea. He didn't say that, or set those boundaries. And he has come back here to say some more things after his resurrection. Are you going to wait until he comes down here again before you pay more attention to what he has said, and still says through revelation?
Ahab Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 As much as I respect Elder Holland, it's really a false dichotomy to suggest that the BOM must either be outright fraud or exactly what is claimed about it. No, not really. It is either what its writers say it is, or it is a fraud. There is no middleground.
Gray Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 No, not really. It is either what its writers say it is, or it is a fraud. There is no middleground. I listed several possible alternative theories. The middle ground is almost infinite in gradation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Scott Lloyd Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Your idea that Christ should have said all that he needed to say while here for his mortal ministry is just that. Your idea. He didn't say that, or set those boundaries. And he has come back here to say some more things after his resurrection. Are you going to wait until he comes down here again before you pay more attention to what he has said, and still says through revelation?And the best indication is that the bulk of what Christ did say while in mortality did not get recorded. The apostle John concluded his gospel by writing: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25) John, of course, is in a position to know about the incompleteness of the record. Along with being part of the inner circle of apostles with Peter and James, he wrote three epistles that are part of the New Testament as well as the Book of Revelation that contains his own apocalyptic vision. Edited March 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Ahab Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I listed several possible alternative theories. The middle ground is almost infinite in gradation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaWould it make more sense to you if I said the Book of Mormon is either what its writers say it is, or it is not what its writers say it is? Those are the only 2 options, even if you want to elaborate on some more details about what it is or isn't.
california boy Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Your idea that Christ should have said all that he needed to say while here for his mortal ministry is just that. Your idea. He didn't say that, or set those boundaries. And he has come back here to say some more things after his resurrection. Are you going to wait until he comes down here again before you pay more attention to what he has said, and still says through revelation?Is all I am saying is that there is not a single thing that has been added to the actual words of Christ while he was on the earth that is important or necessary for my salvation. People who have claimed that they have received additional instruction from Christ since his resurrection have stated things that we obviously know are not the teachings of Christ and often contradict what Christ actually said while He was on the earth. When anyone claims they have additional information from Christ, I weigh what they say against the actual words of Christ and take it more as advice rather than doctrine. It is my fundamental belief that after 3 years of teaching, Christ was able to lay out all that we need to know in order to obtain salvation. And since not a single person has been able to tell me one gospel principle that has been given since Christ's ministry essential to our salvation, it tends to strengthen my belief. Who said anything about not paying attention to the teachings of Christ until He comes again? What teachings should I be paying attention to, that I don't already do?
Buzzard Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Who said anything about not paying attention to the teachings of Christ until He comes again? What teachings should I be paying attention to, that I don't already do? "If you love me, keep my commandments"Oh, I forgot. You only keep the commandments that you have decided are commandments. To each their own, I guess.
california boy Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) "If you love me, keep my commandments"Oh, I forgot. You only keep the commandments that you have decided are commandments. To each their own, I guess. And just what commandments are you judging I don't keep? What a post to make. I didn't realize it was you job to monitor my sins. Edited March 11, 2014 by california boy
Buzzard Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 And just what commandments are you judging I don't keep? What a post to make. I didn't realize it was you job to monitor my sins.I'm not monitoring. You have been pretty forthcoming about which ones you consider to be real sins and which ones you feel justified in.
california boy Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I'm not monitoring. You have been pretty forthcoming about which ones you consider to be real sins and which ones you feel justified in. Now you have an additional statement to disprove. Find ONE post where I have justified my own sins. If you are going to judge me, then show proof of what you accuse me of. Seems only fair don't you think? This is all just a strawman to deflect from my statement that there is nothing that Christ didn't teach while here on earth that is essential to anyone's salvation. Rather than a response that disproves what I have stated, you have decided that a strawman of calling out my personal sins will work. Hey I have plenty of sins for you to point out if that is your intent. So have at it. But you still can not disprove what I have stated can you.
Ahab Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Is all I am saying is that there is not a single thing that has been added to the actual words of Christ while he was on the earth that is important or necessary for my salvation. People who have claimed that they have received additional instruction from Christ since his resurrection have stated things that we obviously know are not the teachings of Christ and often contradict what Christ actually said while He was on the earth. When anyone claims they have additional information from Christ, I weigh what they say against the actual words of Christ and take it more as advice rather than doctrine. It is my fundamental belief that after 3 years of teaching, Christ was able to lay out all that we need to know in order to obtain salvation. And since not a single person has been able to tell me one gospel principle that has been given since Christ's ministry essential to our salvation, it tends to strengthen my belief. Who said anything about not paying attention to the teachings of Christ until He comes again? What teachings should I be paying attention to, that I don't already do?Tell me all you know about what is essential for salvation while describing the various degrees of salvation that are attainable, and then I'll see if our Lord has told us more than you know.
Ahab Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Is all I am saying is that there is not a single thing that has been added to the actual words of Christ while he was on the earth that is important or necessary for my salvation. People who have claimed that they have received additional instruction from Christ since his resurrection have stated things that we obviously know are not the teachings of Christ and often contradict what Christ actually said while He was on the earth. When anyone claims they have additional information from Christ, I weigh what they say against the actual words of Christ and take it more as advice rather than doctrine. It is my fundamental belief that after 3 years of teaching, Christ was able to lay out all that we need to know in order to obtain salvation. And since not a single person has been able to tell me one gospel principle that has been given since Christ's ministry essential to our salvation, it tends to strengthen my belief. Who said anything about not paying attention to the teachings of Christ until He comes again? What teachings should I be paying attention to, that I don't already do?Tell me all you know about what is essential for salvation while describing the various degrees of salvation that are attainable, and then I'll see if our Lord has told us more than you know.
Ahab Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Is all I am saying is that there is not a single thing that has been added to the actual words of Christ while he was on the earth that is important or necessary for my salvation. People who have claimed that they have received additional instruction from Christ since his resurrection have stated things that we obviously know are not the teachings of Christ and often contradict what Christ actually said while He was on the earth. When anyone claims they have additional information from Christ, I weigh what they say against the actual words of Christ and take it more as advice rather than doctrine. It is my fundamental belief that after 3 years of teaching, Christ was able to lay out all that we need to know in order to obtain salvation. And since not a single person has been able to tell me one gospel principle that has been given since Christ's ministry essential to our salvation, it tends to strengthen my belief. Who said anything about not paying attention to the teachings of Christ until He comes again? What teachings should I be paying attention to, that I don't already do?Tell me all you know about what is essential for salvation while describing the various degrees of salvation that are attainable, and then I'll see if our Lord has told us more than you know.
Buzzard Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Now you have an additional statement to disprove. Find ONE post where I have justified my own sins. If you are going to judge me, then show proof of what you accuse me of. Seems only fair don't you think? This is all just a strawman to deflect from my statement that there is nothing that Christ didn't teach while here on earth that is essential to anyone's salvation. Rather than a response that disproves what I have stated, you have decided that a strawman of calling out my personal sins will work. Hey I have plenty of sins for you to point out if that is your intent. So have at it. But you still can not disprove what I have stated can you. I agree with the statement you bolded. My issue was with this statement: " What teachings should I be paying attention to, that I don't already do? " Are you saying you have made no bones about your contention that homosexual relationships are just as moral and acceptable as heterosexual marriage? I can go mine a few posts if you wish, but is that necessary, since you and I-and you and others-have gone the rounds on this multiple times?
Gray Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Would it make more sense to you if I said the Book of Mormon is either what its writers say it is, or it is not what its writers say it is? Those are the only 2 options, even if you want to elaborate on some more details about what it is or isn't. Yes, I think that's fair. But, whether or not the Book of Mormon is scripture is not dependent upon its historicity. If that were the defining feature of scripture very little in anyone's canon would count.
Recommended Posts