clarkgoble Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: LDS.org articles and manuals however often gush on how footnotes are tying together things that we missed not knowing the original language. From what I skimmed it was felt a lot of insight could be gained by just knowing the multiple uses in different scriptures of the same Hebrew/Greek word (which iirc is how Strong's function though they also divide usages). Well to be fair, compared to what came before it was good. It's just that is damning with faint praise. There's so much more they could (and should have) done. Admittedly though the resources in the 70's were meager compared to today. So I'm not really condemning the effort. However by the 90's when the Church had access to so much more I'm surprised they didn't start investing into better scriptures. Edited June 28, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 8 hours ago, bsjkki said: This was a question brought up in a youth Sunday School class. How would you answer this question? Is it a straight yes or no or more nuanced than that? If you have a good resource that makes it clear, please provide a link. Thank you for your help! Maybe answer the question with a question: Do you think the Arnold Friberg pictures in the Book of Mormon are scripture? How about the page numbers? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Well to be fair, compared to what came before it was good. It's just that is damning with faint praise. There's so much more they could (and should have) done. Admittedly though the resources in the 70's were meager compared to today. So I'm not really condemning the effort. However by the 90's when the Church had access to so much more I'm surprised they didn't start investing into better scriptures. By then we were well along in the age of personal computers. The question is how much of one's resources to invest in improved slide rules and typewriters.
RevTestament Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 8 hours ago, Calm said: Here is some history, though it sounds like you have likely seen it already. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/10/the-church-publishes-a-new-triple-combination?lang=eng A lot of people think the chapter headings are also scripture, but they were not there originally and they get changed as well based on scholarship so they don't qualify as scripture. And they are still wrong.
Calm Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: And they are still wrong. What are still wrong?
Alan Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 12 hours ago, bsjkki said: This was a question brought up in a youth Sunday School class. How would you answer this question? Is it a straight yes or no or more nuanced than that? If you have a good resource that makes it clear, please provide a link. Thank you for your help! They're not scripture. And many of them are not very useful either.
clarkgoble Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: By then we were well along in the age of personal computers. The question is how much of one's resources to invest in improved slide rules and typewriters. I think that had we started we'd have been able to add them to the current online versions. It's funny, I forget the name of the guy who did all the online scriptures, but he gave a fireside up in Cardston my dad attended. Apparently he's one of the few people carrying around paper scriptures. Realistically though there's just a lot of tedious work hours to get footnotes put together. Honestly I'd start with the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price. The nice thing about the online scriptures is you could roll them out slowly and have good feedback mechanisms to detect problems.
hagoth7 Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, bsjkki said: This was a question brought up in a youth Sunday School class. How would you answer this question? Is it a straight yes or no or more nuanced than that? A footnote, a footnote! :0) Seroiusly though, do i believe that footnotes and margin notes in scripture *are* scripture? *If* I highlighted and/or wrote them, and *if* I'm convinced I was moved by the Spirit to do so, then for me, yes. Otherwise no. Just as I completely accept some records outside of the 4 standard works as scripture. Do I deem such things to be scripture *for others*? No. It is insight instead intended specifically for my path/walk. What others opt to accept as scripture is their turf, not mine. Edited June 28, 2017 by hagoth7
Recommended Posts