How wild can Sunday school get?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm pretty shocked to see that there are still people who support the Catholic church being the church of the devil.   My experience with it is at least 20 years old.

Thirty years or more for me.  Growing up in a small mormon community ..I realized that they still hold on to some old thoughts on Catholics.  I had a good friend that was catholic in high school but was not allowed to bring her home.  I was so hoping that had been done away with.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Alan said:

Like I said previously, just think of the pre-1989 temple endowment presentation.

I went through the Temple endowment presentation the first time in 1972. It made no reference to  the RC church.

[MiserereNobis]

47 minutes ago, Alan said:

Just think back to the mention of the Pope in the pre-1989 temple endowment ceremony if you need a little more clarity.

The pope was in the temple?

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry Calm, that just doesn't fly with me. In fact we have versions of the gospel which predate the Greek. We also have the Peshitta and very early Syriac versions of the gospels showing our NT gospels are very intact with few exceptions. The changes came later. Should I mention Jerome? No? That would be bigoted? And all the sheeple said Amen.

Of course, the problem with your premise is very well known:

1.  We don't have the original autographic texts nor the statements of any witness who claims to have seen them, except as such exist internally in the gospels we have today.  So, to say that our NT gospels are very intact with few exceptions could easily support the statement that "second century forgeries of the gospels are very intact as today's gospels, with few exceptions."

2.  I have a lot of secular (as opposed to spiritual) doubt that the gospels ever existed in the first sixty years after the Crucifixion.  Had they existed, then surely Paul would have quoted from them at least once in his letters.  He was a lawyer, a lettered man.   He knew how to cite precedent as his letters cite to Jewish mythology, the Hebrew Bible and other textual sources to support his claim for Jesus.  The one and only quote he attributes to Jesus (other than on the Road) is "it is more blessed to give than receive" which is nowhere found in the gospels and which I suspect was a mere secular maxim.  (The Peloponnesian War 2.97.4:   For there was here established a custom opposite to that prevailing in the Persian kingdom, namely, of taking rather than giving; more disgrace being attached to not giving when asked than to asking and being refused ...)

Edited June 22, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

As prophet, did not Pres. Hinckley have the same access to revelation and inspiration that earlier prophets had?  

If so, why could not his changes be as inspired as earlier changes...line upon line?

In fairness to him, Benson was president in 1989, but Hinckley was 1st counselor. 

I don't mind the change in the endowment ceremony at all really. I feel the more recent changes are quite appropriate. The presidency does hold this key, and I have no problem with the changes in the ceremony. My comment is more directed at the apparent effort of the presidency to make the Church acceptable and mainstream, and all the changes which went with it.

But personally, I don't care if we never return to the days of Kimball who was waiting for the skin color of native converts to change, and got a few other things a little off...imho of course.

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The pope was in the temple?

We hold the endowment sacred so I will not say more than this. It changed, and I was not privy to the earlier version. There was a Protestant minister character in it, and it apparently mentioned "popes." As far as I know there was no "pope" character.

[thesometimesaint]

President Benson was not the fire brand Apostle Benson was.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

We hold the endowment sacred so I will not say more than this. It changed, and I was not privy to the earlier version. There was a Protestant minister character in it, and it apparently mentioned "popes." As far as I know there was no "pope" character.

From the context you use it as evidence, I assume the Pope was not shown in a good light

 

[Spammer]

Well. The RC is the Whore of Babylon canard rears its ahistorical head. This is the issue that first brought me to this board. I was baptized and chrismated as a Roman Catholic in 2008. Sometime in 2012 (I don't remember when exactly), my son came home from church one day very upset. His priestood quorum advisor went off on Catholics during a lesson that referenced the very same church of the devil verse and statements by past church leaders referenced in this thread.  His old man was Catholic, church leaders knew it, and he had to sit there listening to that ridiculous argument. From that day forward, he refused to ever attend the LDS church again. He went for a few more months, forced by my wife, but the frequent Sunday morning battles between my wife and son over church and ongoing gossip spoken to her face about me by relief society sisters (I violated my temple covenants when I left the church. I must not love my family! Maybe I'm having an affair!) were too much and now my wife no longer attends. Once she stopped, the younger boy also stopped. I was perfectly fine with my family going to the LDS church and I would go with them, but that's all over now. None of us have set foot in an LDS wardhouse since 2013. I'm the only one now that attends any church at all. The rest of my family appears to be done with church completely and all because of the spark provided by a a single youth lesson on a Sunday morning five years ago. Five generations of church membership in our families on both sides and now it's over. It's really kind of sad. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Spammer

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Of course, the problem with your premise is very well known:

1.  We don't have the original autographic texts nor the statements of any witness who claims to have seen them, except as such exist internally in the gospels we have today.  So, to say that our NT gospels are very intact with few exceptions could easily support the statement that "second century forgeries of the gospels are very intact as today's gospels, with few exceptions."

No, but we can compare the earliest manuscripts with subsequent versions  

Quote

2.  I have a lot of secular (as opposed to spiritual) doubt that the gospels ever existed in the first sixty years after the Crucifixion.  Had they existed, then surely Paul would have quoted from them at least once in his letters.  He was a lawyer, a lettered man.   He knew how to cite precedent as his letters cite to Jewish mythology, the Hebrew Bible and other textual sources to support his claim for Jesus.  The one and only quote he attributes to Jesus (other than on the Road) is "it is more blessed to give than receive" which is nowhere found in the gospels and which I suspect was a mere secular maxim.  (The Peloponnesian War 2.97.4:   For there was here established a custom opposite to that prevailing in the Persian kingdom, namely, of taking rather than giving; more disgrace being attached to not giving when asked than to asking and being refused ...)

So, I take it you believe Luke was a liar? or that someone else lied in his name claiming to have first hand knowledge of what  the apostles taught and writing it down in letter form?

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thirty years or more for me.  Growing up in a small mormon community ..I realized that they still hold on to some old thoughts on Catholics.  I had a good friend that was catholic in high school but was not allowed to bring her home.  I was so hoping that had been done away with.

Just FYI, I went to a Catholic high school and went to movies with my Catholic friends while being quite LDS. In fact I would say the Catholics received me fairly well as a "Mormon boy." I learned a lot of moral principles while pondering theology in this class. That doesn't mean I agree with all things Catholic. I surely don't just like they don't agree with things LDS. I joined the Church largely over the issue of the trinity and some other NT principles I felt the Protestants got wrong. That doesn't mean I don't love my Protestant kin - parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. But to believe the Catholic Church is wrong doesn't make me a bad person or prejudiced. I am sorry you were so taught.

[Bob Crockett]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No, but we can compare the earliest manuscripts with subsequent versions  

 

As we don't know whether the earliest transcripts were forgeries, comparison to subsequent versions is not very helpful.  I will certainly concede that manuscripts did not deviate much from the earliest 2nd and 3rd century manuscripts (there are some significant issues, however, but I won't get into that here except to mention Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, which seems to have been dropped (but not from the Quaker Bible) for mere doctrinal differences with Pauline Evangelicalism).

Quote

So, I take it you believe Luke was a liar? or that someone else lied in his name claiming to have first hand knowledge of what  the apostles taught and writing it down in letter form?

Your tactic here is not new, of course, to force somebody who doubts the provenance of the transmission of the text to also have to admit that the authors of the gospels we have today must have been liars.  An alternative way of responding to your question is to say that all secular signs seem to point to a lack of Luke in the first place, so his gospel is a forgery and somebody else was a liar.  After all, despite the fact that the Romans were highly lettered people, there were no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus's ministry in Jerusalem, and the earliest secular reference to Jesus (Josephus, who was an infant during Jesus' ministry) appears to be an interpolation.  And, again, I point out that Paul never quoted from Luke -- a rather strange thing in my view.

My subjective belief is irrelevant to this thread, which I never really offer. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've heard that phrase, but never 'an honest reading' phrase.  But even when i have heard 'to be honest...' used, it's used with the traditional definition of the word honest.  

As for the Catholic church and the church of the devil/i find that connection to be way to simple.  It leaves out a lot of the verses in question if we try to make the Catholic church fit in, most of the verses don't make sense.

Like? Can you be more specific? Make your case.

[JAHS]

One Sunday we were talking about sin and how murder can be considered one of he unpardonable sins and how the church doctrine considers suicide. Then a rather insensitive simple-minded class member raised his had and declared that suicide was the worst sin anyone can ever commit. Well of course there was a mother there who had a son who had committed suicide and she ran out of the room in tears. The teacher then explained the church's correct position on suicide but the mother had left the room by then. 

[mnn727]

6 hours ago, Alan said:

In my view, this is wrong and is designed by church officials to avoid offending Catholics.

The truth is that any honest reading of the scriptures clearly reveals that the organization being described is the RC Church. This isn't rocket science.

Your opinion carries zero weight compared to the Prophets and Apostles.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Just FYI, I went to a Catholic high school and went to movies with my Catholic friends while being quite LDS. In fact I would say the Catholics received me fairly well as a "Mormon boy." I learned a lot of moral principles while pondering theology in this class. That doesn't mean I agree with all things Catholic. I surely don't just like they don't agree with things LDS. I joined the Church largely over the issue of the trinity and some other NT principles I felt the Protestants got wrong. That doesn't mean I don't love my Protestant kin - parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. But to believe the Catholic Church is wrong doesn't make me a bad person or prejudiced. I am sorry you were so taught.

Labeling the Catholic Church the Great and Abominable is more than just saying the Church is wrong.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

As we don't know whether the earliest transcripts were forgeries, comparison to subsequent versions is not very helpful.  I will certainly concede that manuscripts did not deviate much from the earliest 2nd and 3rd century manuscripts (there are some significant issues, however, but I won't get into that here except to mention Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, which seems to have been dropped (but not from the Quaker Bible) for mere doctrinal differences with Pauline Evangelicalism).

Your tactic here is not new, of course, to force somebody who doubts the provenance of the transmission of the text to also have to admit that the authors of the gospels we have today must have been liars.  An alternative way of responding to your question is to say that all secular signs seem to point to a lack of Luke in the first place, so his gospel is a forgery and somebody else was a liar.  After all, despite the fact that the Romans were highly lettered people, there were no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus's ministry in Jerusalem, and the earliest secular reference to Jesus (Josephus, who was an infant during Jesus' ministry) appears to be an interpolation.  And, again, I point out that Paul never quoted from Luke -- a rather strange thing in my view.

My subjective belief is irrelevant to this thread, which I never really offer. 

IMHO you are a good example of scholasticism run amok. You poo poo the gospels, and give more credence to the Quran, which has essentially no provenance - even the hadith say that verses were collected from stones and palm branches! But what do they know - they were written 200 years later. But lest you go overboard, I would remind you that the BoM says Revelation was given to John. So if you believe nothing was written by the apostles, you also have to discount the BoM.  Maybe you should rethink your positions as an LDS. It is very harmful to confidence in the gospel, which I find disappointing about modern Mormonism. 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Spammer said:

...It's really kind of sad. 

I agree.  These types of stories always sadden me.  I can understand how distressing that must have been for your son and wife.  It is so unfortunate how pure religion can so easily defiled by members, making it appear unattractive to some.  

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I agree.  These types of stories always sadden me.  I can understand how distressing that must have been for your son and wife.  It is so unfortunate how pure religion can so easily defiled by members, making it appear unattractive to some.  

I realized a long time ago that Gospel Doctrine can morph into Gospel Rumor quite quickly.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Labeling the Catholic Church the Great and Abominable is more than just saying the Church is wrong.

If the shoe fits...

I get it. The great, amorphous all the bad guys church snuck in and changed the scriptures right under our noses. It must be all those different Protestant versions...

[Bob Crockett]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

IMHO you are a good example of scholasticism run amok. You poo poo the gospels, and give more credence to the Quran, which has essentially no provenance - even the hadith say that verses were collected from stones and palm branches! But what do they know - they were written 200 years later. But lest you go overboard, I would remind you that the BoM says Revelation was given to John. So if you believe nothing was written by the apostles, you also have to discount the BoM.  Maybe you should rethink your positions as an LDS. It is very harmful to confidence in the gospel, which I find disappointing about modern Mormonism. 

I think you misunderstand my argument.  I merely want you to understand that it is rather meaningless to argue an error-free transmission of the gospels in light of the circumstances I mention.  Orson Pratt once said there was not a single verse in the Bible that didn't have error.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a problem with the Scriptures. I do have problems with some interpretations given to them.

[juliann]

I am so sorry I brought up this old story. I had no idea that there are some who not just believe this, and to be honest, I think such a belief is more of a manifestation of the church of the devil than the good Catholic church might be. 

It is one thing to think such things, it is quite another to say them out loud in this day and age.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think you misunderstand my argument.  I merely want you to understand that it is rather meaningless to argue an error-free transmission of the gospels in light of the circumstances I mention.  Orson Pratt once said there was not a single verse in the Bible that didn't have error.

Didn't he also say God married Mary?,,,yeah, he's not exactly on top of my list of reliable LDS theologians...

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am so sorry I brought up this old story. I had no idea that there are some who not just believe this, and to be honest, I think such a belief is more of a manifestation of the church of the devil than the good Catholic church might be. 

It is one thing to think such things, it is quite another to say them out loud in this day and age.

Time to pile onto Rev and shame him into submission. I hold my beliefs. I know the modern Church holds the new position dear to its heart, and won't listen to anything else because well ,,, living prophets are always right, and know more than dead ones. I have lots to do today, so everyone pile on.