Jump to content

Dr. D. Michael quinn has passed away


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Taking Lucy's statement in isolation leads nowhere.  It is only when we read statements by those who knew Joseph well, and when we read collateral accounts of that time and place that we begin to get an accurate picture.  We can entirely ignore both Lucy Mack and Philastus Hurlbut and still come up with some very sound conclusions on the world of young Joseph.

I understand all of that (your whole post), and I think I'm taking that into account when I read Lucy Mack's statement (I hope I am).  I'm not denying the Smiths involvement in anything you listed.  However, Lucy uses some specific language, "drawing Magic circles or sooth saying", language that I can only seem to find in the Hurlbut affidavits.  Do you find anywhere else that their participation in the folk traditions are described by her or anyone in their family in such a way?  (Honest question).   Bushman sees that statement as simply what the family did: "Magic and religion melded in the Smith family culture" (p.51), and while I accept that statement as completely true, I'm only questioning the specific language used by Lucy.  It seems out of the norm, but it does show up in the Hurlbut affidavits.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Bushman sees that statement as simply what the family did: "Magic and religion melded in the Smith family culture" (p.51), and while I accept that statement as completely true, I'm only questioning the specific language used by Lucy.  It seems out of the norm, but it does show up in the Hurlbut affidavits.

Samuel M. Brown wrote an entire essay parsing Lucy's statement. It's worth a read: https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Reconsidering-Lucy-Mack-Smith’s-Folk-Magic-Confession.pdf

He reads Lucy's statement (against Quinn) as disavowing the family's involvement in "folk magic." But he also thinks that Lucy was dissembling. He writes, for example, that "it seems likely that at some point Joseph Jr. and Joseph Sr. used magic circles as part of their treasure hunting activities" (5) and that "the Smiths almost certainly believed to some extent in the efficacy [of Abrac triangles and magic circles]" (7). His conclusion: "That Lucy denied her family’s involvement in deprecated folk religion does not mean the Smiths were not involved in activities that their critics called 'magic.' But it does suggest that they saw folk rites as distinct from honorable religion and were publicly embarrassed by these rites" (9).

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Samuel M. Brown wrote an entire essay parsing Lucy's statement. It's worth a read: https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Reconsidering-Lucy-Mack-Smith’s-Folk-Magic-Confession.pdf

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this source.  I haven't read it yet, but your summary of his conclusions do seem reasonable to me given the context of Lucy's narrative.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:
On 4/23/2021 at 3:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Haha not just naïveté but callow naïveté.  Your reply reminds me of the assailant who plunged the knife into his victim with a smile on his face and then asks his victim to say thank you.  I could just as easily call your attempt at gaslighting and rewriting reality as your own callow naïveté Scott.  Your bind-spot is your unyielding defense of the church even when it needs to be questioned. 

I think it’s fairly well recognized that most 19- and 20-year- old missionaries possess scarcely a rudimentary knowledge of Church history, and a good many know quite a bit less than they think they do. I dare say that was even truer back in the ‘70s than it is today.  If, at that age, you were not naive and callow, you were an outlier indeed. 
 

I don’t doubt you had never been taught about the seer stone, but I’m thinking if you were like most, you had not been taught enough to competently deny it. 
 

There’s a homely proverb: “‘Tain’t what a man don’t know that gets him into trouble. It’s what he thinks he knows that just ain’t so.”

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I understand all of that (your whole post), and I think I'm taking that into account when I read Lucy Mack's statement (I hope I am).  I'm not denying the Smiths involvement in anything you listed.  However, Lucy uses some specific language, "drawing Magic circles or sooth saying", language that I can only seem to find in the Hurlbut affidavits.  Do you find anywhere else that their participation in the folk traditions are described by her or anyone in their family in such a way?  (Honest question).   Bushman sees that statement as simply what the family did: "Magic and religion melded in the Smith family culture" (p.51), and while I accept that statement as completely true, I'm only questioning the specific language used by Lucy.  It seems out of the norm, but it does show up in the Hurlbut affidavits.

It would be no more out of the norm than for modern people to play with a ouija board or to to use a witch hazel rod to find water.  I have seen that done in my lifetime, and thought it quite normal.  Such pastimes and games seem harmless enough, although that sort of thing can go in and out of fashion.  When I was a kid back in the 1940s, one would still see dancing around the maypole on Mayday.  Haven't seen that now for nigh on 70 years.

That excerpt from a book I wrote long ago only samples the subject.  I went on for hundreds of pages in my book.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The scriptural citations there do say that Jesus is a Comforter, but only one scripture speaks of a second (another) Comforter -- which Jesus says he will send when he leaves (that's what John 14:16 is about).  John 14 has Jesus telling his apostles what will happen when he leaves.  And that promised Second Comforter comes at Pentecost.  Scripture is normative.  Commentaries are not.

No, I'm afraid @JustAnAustralian is correct. 

When you write "Scripture is normative.  Commentaries are not." you are generally correct, but not necessarily in specifics. Also, the term "Second Comforter" does not actually occur in scripture.

John 14:16 refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost, "another comforter". This is not the "second comforter", just another one. Christ himself may be called the first comforter, but of course that term also does not occur in scripture. "First comforter" as well as "second comforter" are both terms of art and aren't scriptural.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

In that verse Jesus was suggesting he himself is a comforter, and the Holy Ghost is another comforter.

The Comforter, referring to the Gift of the Holy Ghost, occurs in several verses in scripture:

  • John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
  • Moroni 8:26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.
  • DC 21:9 For, behold, I will bless all those who labor in my vineyard with a mighty blessing, and they shall believe on his words, which are given him through me by the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart.
  • DC 42:17 For, behold, the Comforter knoweth all things, and beareth record of the Father and of the Son.
  • DC 90:11 For it shall come to pass in that day, that every man shall hear the fulness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language, through those who are ordained unto this power, by the administration of the Comforter, shed forth upon them for the revelation of Jesus Christ.

That which is commonly termed "second comforter" is referred to here:

  • DC 130:3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

In the discussion about DC 88, in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:

  • “there are two Comforters spoken of. One is the Holy Ghost, the same as given on the day of Pentecost, and that all Saints receive after faith, repentance, and baptism. This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence, … expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge. …
  • “The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses. …
  • Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions—Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.” (Teachings, pp. 149–51.)

Again, "Second Comforter" or "Last Comforter" are terms of art, but they refer to a personal visitation by the Savior, whereas the "First Comforter" or "another Comforter" (as seen in John) is the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Granted that scripture is normative and commentary is not, but I think the words of a Prophet explaining what is meant by scripture takes precedence in understanding the scripture.

 

 

Edited by Stargazer
clarification
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it’s fairly well recognized that most 19- and 20-year- old missionaries possess scarcely a rudimentary knowledge of Church history, and a good many know quite a bit less than they think they do. I dare say that was even truer back in the ‘70s than it is today.  If, at that age, you were not naive and callow, you were an outlier indeed. 
 

I don’t doubt you had never been taught about the seer stone, but I’m thinking if you were like most, you had not been taught enough to competently deny it. 
 

There’s a homely proverb: “‘Tain’t what a man don’t know that gets him into trouble. It’s what he thinks he knows that just ain’t so.”

On this subject, I'll count myself in the same callow naiveté  as members of the twelve apostles such as Bruce R McConkie & LaGrande Richards, who were 2 of my personal hero's in the 70's.  Richards is on record of knowing nothing of a stone separate from the Urim and Thummim.

Bottom line you've admitted that Smiths use of a rock on his hat was not taught (at least to me) and you've not provided any proof of it having been taught to anyone else.  So its fair to conclude that during the time I served my mission the only ones promoting this historical fact were anti-Mormons and it would also be fair to conclude that a missionary hearing this version of the translation process, knowing that it was being promoted by enemies of the church and NOT from the church itself would rightly conclude that it was an anti Mormon lie.

As a side note:  I met LaGrand Richards once at a stake conference, I still have his autograph in my missionary scriptures (it was still allowed back then) I loved him for his callow naiveté.

 

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment

I called my uncle last night and had a good talk with him about what he knows about the second anointing. He said that David Buerger's "The Mysteries of Godliness" has a lot of information and background on this. The mechanics and details of the ordinance are fascinating in a lot of ways, but I won't discuss them here. He also said that there was some important information in a book Elder Kimball had written that the Church has suppressed (he found and bought it on Amazon for $600, but it's rare and hard to find copies). 

In a nutshell, the ordinance and its use and meaning have changed over the years, and is largely at the mercy of the whims of who is in charge. Heber J. Grant completely got rid of it. There was some unrest that some apostles didn't have the ordinance, while many of the rank-and-file did. A big factor was business interests and connections in the flow chart of it, and like with Freemasonry, one had to be "sponsored" and recommended for it. The ordinance was done by the president of the Church himself, but is probably delegated today due to the size of the Church, like with a lot of things that have been delegated to stake presidents (my uncle doesn't think that very many stake presidents are even aware of it, let alone have received it). In its heyday, it was akin to getting a watch from the railroad upon retirement --- a reward for a lifetime of service in the Church. It is unclear how one would receive an invitation today.

President Kimball reinstated it. One of the first ones who received it was then-Dr. Russel M. Nelson, just before Kimball's heart surgery. 

He agreed with me that it doesn't appear to be an essential ordinance, based on the tiny number of people who are ever given the ordinance. He said that Elder McConkie and his father-in-law President Smith didn't like the ordinance or the Calvinistic undertones of it. 

He also said that there was a minor controversy years ago, similar to the Tom Phillips thing, with a regional representative or some other high-ranking Church leader in the Pacific Northwest who had received the ordinance, but became a bitter, active anti-Mormon. His lack of any attempt to excommunicate him (like with Phillips) led to discussion about whether those with the ordinance were "untouchable," and what the implications of this are.

It appears to be an interesting piece of our doctrine and history that changes based on the doctrinal orientation of who is in charge. That's too bad, in my view. It would be nice for this to be definitively and authoritatively nailed down.

This is also why I don't care for posthumous reinstatement. It becomes, like on this thread, simply a matter of "Gee, it would be great if Quinn or whoever were reinstated. That would be so great!" regardless of any repentance or reconciliation. As God is going to sort out a whole bunch of things, I think it's best to leave most things like this for Him to sort out (glaring mistakes would be an exception, in my book). 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
On 4/24/2021 at 2:52 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

By the way, I know of some RLDS remnants in Missouri who still deny that Joseph used a seerstone.  I don't even bother to raise the issue with them.  Like you at one time, they think of that as a diabolical lie.  It is very hard to get through to people who have their minds made up.

Richard and Pamela Price would fall into that category. They authored the 3 volume texts of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. Having met the Price's, I found them wonderful and kind. Having read snippets of JSFP, they are reaching for something that cannot be grasped.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Richard and Pamela Price would fall into that category. They authored the 3 volume texts of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. Having met the Price's, I found them wonderful and kind. Having read snippets of JSFP, they are reaching for something that cannot be grasped.

Yeah, that would be standing out in the surf, trying to keep any water from reaching the shore. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, rongo said:

It would be nice for this to be definitively and authoritatively nailed down.

According to one of Margaret Barker's monographs that I read (I forget which one), that is precisely the desire that led the ancient Jews to prefer laws over prophets. Paraphrasing: prophets are messy because they're always (re)interpreting and updating things.

The more things change, the more they stay the same ...

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, I'm afraid @JustAnAustralian is correct. 

When you write "Scripture is normative.  Commentaries are not." you are generally correct, but not necessarily in specifics. Also, the term "Second Comforter" does not actually occur in scripture.

John 14:16 refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost, "another comforter". This is not the "second comforter", just another one. Christ himself may be called the first comforter, but of course that term also does not occur in scripture. "First comforter" as well as "second comforter" are both terms of art and aren't scriptural.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

In that verse Jesus was suggesting he himself is a comforter, and the Holy Ghost is another comforter.

The Comforter, referring to the Gift of the Holy Ghost, occurs in several verses in scripture:

  • John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
  • Moroni 8:26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.
  • DC 21:9 For, behold, I will bless all those who labor in my vineyard with a mighty blessing, and they shall believe on his words, which are given him through me by the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart.
  • DC 42:17 For, behold, the Comforter knoweth all things, and beareth record of the Father and of the Son.
  • DC 90:11 For it shall come to pass in that day, that every man shall hear the fulness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language, through those who are ordained unto this power, by the administration of the Comforter, shed forth upon them for the revelation of Jesus Christ.

That which is commonly termed "second comforter" is referred to here:

  • DC 130:3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

In the discussion about DC 88, in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:

  • “there are two Comforters spoken of. One is the Holy Ghost, the same as given on the day of Pentecost, and that all Saints receive after faith, repentance, and baptism. This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence, … expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge. …
  • “The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses. …
  • Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions—Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.” (Teachings, pp. 149–51.)

Again, "Second Comforter" or "Last Comforter" are terms of art, but they refer to a personal visitation by the Savior, whereas the "First Comforter" or "another Comforter" (as seen in John) is the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Granted that scripture is normative and commentary is not, but I think the words of a Prophet explaining what is meant by scripture takes precedence in understanding the scripture.

There is no reference to the Holy Spirit as "First Comforter" in John 14:16.  Just the opposite.  Jesus states very clearly there that when he leaves he will send "another comforter" (Greek αλλον παρακλητον = Aramaic ‘aḥernʼa paraqletʼa ; the phrase is sequential and assumes a second comforter to the first, which is Jesus).  That is why the German Luther Bible revised has "Segond Consolateur," and why the New American Bible (NAB) says see note: "Jesus is the first Paraclete" in I John 2:1.  This is also a matter of rank:  Jesus is the "first counselor," and the Holy Spirit is the "second counselor," while God the Father is President.

One can see how that word "another" is applied in Scripture elsewhere.  For example, in Ezekiel 19:5 another king of Judah rises only to find himself taken into captivity to Babylon.  His predecessor was taken in exile to Egypt.  The sequence is clearcut in Ezek 19, and we are not permitted to claim that the first (Jehoahaz) must be the second (Jehoiachin).

Joseph Smith is certainly correct to say that there are two comforters, and that the Holy Spirit is given on Pentecost (which is what I said, and which the NT says).  However, it is precisely Pentecost which Jesus is referring to in John 14:16 -- at which time Jesus has the Father send "another comforter" to replace him.  The Holy Spirit cannot be the first if he is "another."  Joseph is also correct to observe that the generically first comforter a new convert meets is going to be the Holy Spirit, which he receives at his baptism confirmation.  One can also see Joseph referring not to the rank of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but rather to the sequence in which converts receive them.  Since that does not properly include John 14:16, one must judge the Prophet's comments there as erroneous -- because not grammatically correct.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no reference to the Holy Spirit as "First Comforter" in John 14:16.  Just the opposite.  Jesus states very clearly there that when he leaves he will send "another comforter" (Greek αλλον παρακλητον = Aramaic ‘aḥernʼa paraqletʼa ; the phrase is sequential and assumes a second comforter to the first, which is Jesus).  That is why the German Luther Bible revised has "Segond Consolateur," and why the New American Bible (NAB) says see note: "Jesus is the first Paraclete" in I John 2:1.  This is also a matter of rank:  Jesus is the "first counselor," and the Holy Spirit is the "second counselor," while God the Father is President.

 

Not arguing, just curious: why would the German Luther Bible use the French for "comforter"?  And "segond" isn't French or German -- I think it's Haitian Creole for "second" (that's what Google Translate says).

Note that I am aware that German speakers are not averse to using French words and phrases in common speech. When speaking German, I do likewise.

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One can see how that word "another" is applied in Scripture elsewhere.  For example, in Ezekiel 19:5 another king of Judah rises only to find himself taken into captivity to Babylon.  His predecessor was taken in exile to Egypt.  The sequence is clearcut in Ezek 19, and we are not permitted to claim that the first (Jehoahaz) must be the second (Jehoiachin).

Joseph Smith is certainly correct to say that there are two comforters, and that the Holy Spirit is given on Pentecost (which is what I said, and which the NT says).  However, it is precisely Pentecost which Jesus is referring to in John 14:16 -- at which time Jesus has the Father send "another comforter" to replace him.  The Holy Spirit cannot be the first if he is "another."  Joseph is also correct to observe that the generically first comforter a new convert meets is going to be the Holy Spirit, which he receives at his baptism confirmation.  One can also see Joseph referring not to the rank of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but rather to the sequence in which converts receive them.  Since that does not properly include John 14:16, one must judge the Prophet's comments there as erroneous -- because not grammatically correct.

Well, I don't entirely disagree, and don't entirely agree. I will say that we may be looking for more lingual precision than is available in mortal languages.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not arguing, just curious: why would the German Luther Bible use the French for "comforter"?  And "segond" isn't French or German -- I think it's Haitian Creole for "second" (that's what Google Translate says).

Note that I am aware that German speakers are not averse to using French words and phrases in common speech. When speaking German, I do likewise.

I just checked the 1984 Luther Bible revised, and it reads "andern Tröster" at Jn 14:16 (cf. 14:26), so I am befuddled as to where I got that reading.  I may have gotten it from a discussion of the Paraclete online at https://religiondocbox.com/77370183-Christianity/Parakalw-n-s-kuhner-bl-ii-289-jews-adopted-it-in-this-sense-as-a-loanw.html

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I don't entirely disagree, and don't entirely agree. I will say that we may be looking for more lingual precision than is available in mortal languages.

That is one of the risks of exegesis:  Not everyone interprets the same way, and this is one of the sources of rampant denominationalism.

Link to comment
On 4/22/2021 at 3:14 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

He changed the course of Mormonism.  I owe so much of what I believe and understand regarding the church today to this man.  His Magic World View book rocked my world and changed forever how I view the church.  RIP Dr Quinn

I knew Mike for decades. His scholarship inspired me and hundreds of others in Mormon Studies. No one, among all the fine scholars we have right now, can fill those shoes and his status. He believed in Joseph the Prophet, angels, golden plates, and so forth.

The tears come every time I dwell on our loss.

Mike, you are for the ages. RIP.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 4/27/2021 at 8:35 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I just checked the 1984 Luther Bible revised, and it reads "andern Tröster" at Jn 14:16 (cf. 14:26), so I am befuddled as to where I got that reading.  I may have gotten it from a discussion of the Paraclete online at https://religiondocbox.com/77370183-Christianity/Parakalw-n-s-kuhner-bl-ii-289-jews-adopted-it-in-this-sense-as-a-loanw.html

Well, as Hikaru Sulu is prone to say: "Oh, my!"

That's because I just now checked my brand-new, never before this moment cracked open, German-language Einheitsübersetzung, from 2016. It says in Jn 14:16...

"Und ich werde den Vater bitten und er wird euch einen anderen Beistand geben..." [emphasis added]

Now, "Beistand" is "help, assistance, support; (von Priester) attendance, presence..." according to my Collins Deutsch-English dictionary.

I just checked this Bible's publication source, and it's actually published by the Katholische Bibelanstalt. And the kicker is: I got it through LDS distribution!! Welch eine Überraschung! And unexpected, to boot. I would have expected to get a Luther Bible from the LDS Church. So, now what? Have we now given up on Luther??

Incidentally I checked an online Luther version for 1912, and it gives "andern Tröster" as well. https://www.biblestudytools.com/lut/johannes/14.html

I definitely cannot read Koine, so I have no idea what the original text was.

Quote

That is one of the risks of exegesis:  Not everyone interprets the same way, and this is one of the sources of rampant denominationalism.

Well, to quote Spock: "That much is certain."

And to quote Peter: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; ...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Which is why we have a living prophet.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
On 5/1/2021 at 7:01 PM, Stargazer said:

................................

Which is why we have a living prophet.

Yeh.  We had two General Authorities at our Stake Conference earlier today to install a new Stake Presidency, and it was obvious that revelation was directly involved.  Easy to forget how important that can be.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh.  We had two General Authorities at our Stake Conference earlier today to install a new Stake Presidency, and it was obvious that revelation was directly involved.  Easy to forget how important that can be.

I've observed the process a couple of times, too, and it was obvious to me, as well.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...