tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post116221804553704593..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The God Squad on the MormonsJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34183489249573303602008-09-16T13:47:00.000-05:002008-09-16T13:47:00.000-05:00Returning to the topic of parents worrying about t...Returning to the topic of parents worrying about their children joining the LDS Church... :)<BR/><BR/>My in-laws, who had a bad experience with evangelical organized religion (yes, my Methodist and other friends, it happens on your side of the fence too), were initially upset about not being able to attend our wedding. However, today my mother-in-law is one of the staunchest defenders of the Church whenever people speak out against it or have completely wrong ideas about what we believe. She's still not a member but she does recognize the positive effects that a temple marriage has over the civil marriages she has watched disintegrate around her in her own family.<BR/><BR/>When my wife first joined the Church at the age of 15, they told her that they didn't care for organized religion but didn't mind if she chose to join one as long as it didn't cause harm to other people and taught people to be decent, hardworking individuals. They now see that in us and even though we disagree on doctrines, we don't disagree that it has been the best thing for our family.<BR/><BR/>So, no it doesn't always mean that families are divided. The only families who divide themselves choose to do that on their own. No Church or organization does that for them.AmericanTestament.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04127465919258708936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1169375060210465782007-01-21T04:24:00.000-06:002007-01-21T04:24:00.000-06:00I know my post is a few months late, but this whol...I know my post is a few months late, but this whole discussion is painful to read. Since when in the church have doctrines been selectable? When has faith been unfounded or taught to be nothing more than blind belief? When has scholarship been the founding method for believing truth?<BR/><BR/>First off, Truth is learned by means of the Holy Ghost and we are promised that we can know the truth of all things (Moroni 10:3-5) including this whole discussion of Matthew and families. Scholarship is great for affirming such, but will never have the power sufficient enough to convict us of truth. Only through the Holy Ghost do we know such things (1 Cor 12:3).<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I would hope that know one in the church accepts things simply on blind belief as it seems is being understood to happen on this blog. Faith is not absent of proof, or in more contextually phrasing, assurances. It of course starts with belief that is typically spurred by spiritual promptings and is then followed with our acting on such and ultimately leads to doctrines themselves or witnesses directly from the Holy Ghost. Please, no more mistaking faith with belief or hope because it is so much more than that.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I have to say that much of the wars we have over biblical debates, translations, authors and should almost be entirely irrelevant to a latter day saint's acceptance of gospel principles. We all know that every book that has passed through human hands has liability of error including the Book of Mormon, but does that change the fact that the doctrines present are not important for us to know and understand. We have at our disposal modern prophets and, as I mentioned before, the knowledge of personal revelation. So regardless of bible scholar this or that we know a few things. Joseph Smith when translating the inspired version of the bible did not change Matthew and prophets before and since him including Samuel & Micah (OT), Luke (Luke 14: 26), Brigham Young, John Taylor, Spencer W Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and even Gordon be Hinckley have used those exact verses in Matthew in more than one conference address. As to the exact text and translation, maybe it is in error, but as for the principle it is quite clear that the Lord wants us to love him first above all else or rather, to be even more clear, that we should seek his approval and instruction above all else, including the approval of family when it is in opposition to God. If choosing to follow the gospel results in your family breakup then I feel sorry for love in such family not abounding sufficiently to respect another's beliefs. As for those that followed the Lord I will praise them for having the courage to stand for what they believe.<BR/><BR/>As to the temple ceremony and not allowing family members to enter unworthily or of other faiths, I can sympathize with those situations and can only say that if it were to be any other way the Lord would so specify. In accordance with the temple being his house, He is allowed to permit those He chooses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162957753408902152006-11-07T21:49:00.000-06:002006-11-07T21:49:00.000-06:00Gourmandista,I'm not going to re-hash the witness ...Gourmandista,<BR/><BR/>I'm not going to re-hash the witness statement. I am satisfied with where we left it.<BR/><BR/>You think I should have read the scriptures, pondered them etc. before joining the church.<BR/><BR/>Today, that is exactly what I would do, but, as I said, I was a 16 year old adolescent. It was hard enough for me to quit smoking, drinking, and many other things I was doing at the time.<BR/><BR/>In addition, I was challenged to be baptised during the first discussion even before I recieved my first BOM. I turned down the challenge, but no one seemed to care then that I had not read the BOM or Bible.<BR/><BR/>Again, regarding the contradictions, it seems obvious to me that they are in there because they were not caught. I don't know why this is even up for discussion.<BR/><BR/>Regarding educated men, I suppose there were men that would be considered educated for the time period. What I should have said, was there was a lack of educational opportunities (by today's standards) at that time.<BR/><BR/>Well, if Matthew had to rely on Mark for the majority of his content, that alone is pretty strong evidence that he wasn't Matthew the apostle. Proof? No. But the evidence leans heavily in that direction.<BR/><BR/>I agree, that some of the ommissions, etc., were accidental, but we also know that books were voted in or out depending on whether they supported the theme that the counsel wanted the Bible to portray. That takes some of the accidentalness away.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162851264462854022006-11-06T16:14:00.000-06:002006-11-06T16:14:00.000-06:00Ah, tis more a function of time than of willingnes...Ah, tis more a function of time than of willingness. Last time I stated my argument (must have been stated poorly) in-depth, but it was dismissed as "rambling." So no worries. Catch y'all on the flipside.<BR/><BR/>And I did have a sincere desire to burden the blog, something I have a penchant of doing :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162791928266804322006-11-05T23:45:00.000-06:002006-11-05T23:45:00.000-06:00You are also appreciated more than you know. :)You are also appreciated more than you know. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162788871537725652006-11-05T22:54:00.000-06:002006-11-05T22:54:00.000-06:00Gourmandista,You pretty much got it right on Matth...Gourmandista,<BR/><BR/>You pretty much got it right on Matthew and Mark, but Paul wasn't writing about the life of Jesus, so him not being a witness is irrelevent in this discussion.<BR/><BR/>There are those, however, that feel that Christianity is really Paulianity, but that is another discussion.<BR/><BR/>I never said the testimony of the BOM witnesses was out. I just said they saw the plates with "spiritual eyes" as opposed to naked eyes.<BR/><BR/>When I stated that the D&C content could be considered influenced by the times, I was responding to a request by Walker (I believe) to take the position of someone looking to attack the church. I was not speaking as if that was my view.<BR/><BR/>That said, I was 16 years old when I joined the LDS church. Had scarcely read any of the scriptures, and was young and easily influenced.<BR/><BR/>In response to the contradictions in the NT, they are there because they were not caught when written. Simple as that. These alterations took place in 300s. Not alot of educated men back then.<BR/><BR/>And, you correct. Joseph Smith did say that many plain and simple truths were taken out of the bible, and that is exactly what happened. So you should not get so riled up at my comments about Matthew. I didn't say anything that wasn't true regarding the origins of his writing, and my view on the section of scripture in question is shared by many biblical scholars, so it is not just the ramblings of a mad man.<BR/><BR/>I must be absolutely horrible at writing my thoughts, because I am constantly misquoted and misrepresented on this blog.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162707665780321292006-11-05T00:21:00.000-06:002006-11-05T00:21:00.000-06:00Walker,That is weak. I'm trying to have a discussi...Walker,<BR/><BR/>That is weak. I'm trying to have a discussion about the validity portions of Matthew, and all you can say is I'm wrong because this guy said so.<BR/><BR/>Why not just say, "I disagree with you but I have nothing to substantiate that disagreement."<BR/><BR/>When you have legitimate answers, you don't shy from discussion.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162704854457379672006-11-04T23:34:00.000-06:002006-11-04T23:34:00.000-06:00Well, I don't want our exchanges to dominate the p...Well, I don't want our exchanges to dominate the post (too much) :) Nor do I want to distract from the gracious sentiments of our Methodists friends more than I already have. Call it rambling if you wish--better a rambler than wrong. <BR/> <BR/>Remember though, it was you who made the argument that Matt. 10:37 was not a legitimate rendition. As historical text critic Frederik Blass noted, in matters of textual criticism (in a reversal of traditional argumenation): the verse must be considered true first and then proven to be false. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, cheers to you all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162699414210835412006-11-04T22:03:00.000-06:002006-11-04T22:03:00.000-06:00Walker,You are just rambling without offering anyt...Walker,<BR/><BR/>You are just rambling without offering anything other than trying to discredit me, but that is your style.<BR/><BR/>When you can't offer any substance, you simply attack the opposition.<BR/><BR/>Very predictable.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162622442471970092006-11-04T00:40:00.000-06:002006-11-04T00:40:00.000-06:00At least you've given us something to work with. ...At least you've given us something to work with. While these scholars may reject Matthew as a whole, that is not what YOU are doing. You have chosen a scripture that you do not like and decided that it is "bunk." That is a VERY different thing from rejecting the New Testament altogether.<BR/><BR/>Now if you wanted to argue that the gospels are ENTIRELY spurious, at least that would have some semblance of consistency. However, you say that some verses DO represent the real Jesus while others do not. Why would we accept Matthew in one case while rejecting him in another? Unless we have reason to rank his verses, we must either accept it is an accurate source or discard it because of the chronological difference. <BR/><BR/>To emphasize, if we are going to discard certain verses while accepting others from the same source, we need a valid reason for doing so, not just that we decided that a verse is bunk because it doesn't fit with our paradigm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162610378118443842006-11-03T21:19:00.000-06:002006-11-03T21:19:00.000-06:00anon,I'm not sure if I am attacking the NT, but I ...anon,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if I am attacking the NT, but I understand if you feel that way.<BR/><BR/>How does examining the origins of the NT take away from the teachings of Jesus?<BR/><BR/>If there are things in the NT that don't belong, I don't think mentioning that detracts from true teachings.<BR/><BR/>The NT is what it is. It is a compilation of stories and letters (Mostly from people outside the inner circle of Jesus) that were never intended to be included as scripture. The NT was compiled hundreds of years after the death of Jesus by the very people that you claim caused the apostacy. Many texts were altered, edited, and omitted to suit the agenda of the group in charge.<BR/><BR/>You would have to be a fool to take any of it at face value without doing thorough research and study.<BR/><BR/>Faith isn't truth. Truth is truth.<BR/>People that say you have to accept something on faith, only do so because it can't be explained otherwise.<BR/><BR/>I used to accept things on faith, but I can't do that anymore. Too many things that I am supposed to accept on faith don't add up.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162609738297188042006-11-03T21:08:00.000-06:002006-11-03T21:08:00.000-06:00Dan the Man,Never once did I say that non-temple r...Dan the Man,<BR/><BR/>Never once did I say that non-temple recommend holders (including non members) should have the same rights and priviledges as members.<BR/><BR/>What I said was there is no reason to exclude family members from attending a temple marriage. This is not ludicrous, it is compassionate.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162609074858898702006-11-03T20:57:00.000-06:002006-11-03T20:57:00.000-06:00Be careful of attacking the New Testament. Attack...Be careful of attacking the New Testament. Attacking it takes away from Him and what he teaches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162606226136769372006-11-03T20:10:00.000-06:002006-11-03T20:10:00.000-06:00Read James 1:5. And if you dig too deep you will h...Read James 1:5. And if you dig too deep you will have a large hole you can't get out of. Some things you will have to accept on principle and on faith. If we are to tear apart every scripture to get at the roots then we will not have anything left. And that includes all modern scriptures and all of our current leaders' addresses. All God wants us to do is have faith in Him and obey His commandments and to follow Christ's example of love and charity. Keep this in mind and everything else will fall into place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162600942250433402006-11-03T18:42:00.000-06:002006-11-03T18:42:00.000-06:00Walker,You are a bit confused here.Bad scholarship...Walker,<BR/><BR/>You are a bit confused here.<BR/><BR/>Bad scholarship is dipping your bucket in and accepting all that you bring up. No credible scholar would do this.<BR/><BR/>I am not cherry picking. I am accepting the overwhelming majority (Jesus's message) and throwing out the bunk (this segment of scripture).<BR/><BR/>Scholars?<BR/><BR/>How about <BR/>Herman N Ridderbos<BR/>J. C. Fenton<BR/>Francis Write Beare<BR/>Larry Swain<BR/><BR/>the list is way too extensive to list here.<BR/><BR/>There is a huge number of biblical scholars that don't even think the book of Matthew was written by the evangelist, but rather by someone who was not in Jesus's inner circle (thus not being an eye witness) and relying mostly on the writings of Mark (another non witness).<BR/><BR/>If you simply did a little research, you might discover just how suspect many of the scriptures are.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162588228258752622006-11-03T15:10:00.000-06:002006-11-03T15:10:00.000-06:00Never been on a mission. Dang, I'm a "bad" member...Never been on a mission. Dang, I'm a "bad" member... better not tell you my calling. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162585456190425602006-11-03T14:24:00.000-06:002006-11-03T14:24:00.000-06:00A mission is required if one wants to be considere...A mission is required if one wants to be considered a "good" member of the church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162582658301514992006-11-03T13:37:00.000-06:002006-11-03T13:37:00.000-06:00"I don't think he wants us to blindly follow and a..."I don't think he wants us to blindly follow and accept without using our own brains to study and figure out what is right and what is bunk"<BR/><BR/>You know that this approach has been used before, right? The tacit assumption is that what YOU think is right and that what the other guy thinks is bunk. That could be true, but you have yet to back up your claims. You might actually quote these bible scholars you speak of. <BR/><BR/>And being in the scholarly profession myself, I know that "cherry picking" is NEVER a good thing to be doing in research. It means an attempt to square a circle. Scholars are discredited on these grounds--I've seen it.<BR/><BR/>With all of the examples provided above, we anxiously await a reason to believe that the biblical record of that verse is incorrect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162571205917489092006-11-03T10:26:00.000-06:002006-11-03T10:26:00.000-06:00Hi Bishop Rick!We can chalk up the doctrine, "a ma...Hi Bishop Rick!<BR/><BR/>We can chalk up the doctrine, "a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife" as bad doctrine. It seems rather divisive. Especially with how well wives and mother-in-laws <I>always</I> get along. ;)<BR/><BR/>How about the afterlife? That's a divisive doctrine as those who don't believe in Christ cannot return to live with God (as far as Christians are concerned).<BR/><BR/>For that matter, being here on earth divides me from having the best possible relationship with the super-patriarch of families, aka God. I have to now use prayer and scripture study and sit through Church services (inspiring as they may be) to feel close to my Heavenly Father.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Sealing covenants in the temple are a very sacred event. It is a proposition that (if you want to believe is true) unifies families for eternity. Combined with works for the dead, even those who fail to follow Christ is this life get a second chance to be part of this unifying work. It is not divisive.<BR/><BR/>It is incredibly hard to swallow when family members get bent out of shape because they aren't temple recommend holders of the Church. It puts pressure on the soon-to-be newly weds who’s focus should only be on each other and their new life together. Again, temple marriages are a sacred event. If it's too hard to "cleave" unto one's spouse for eternity because of ones family, there's always civil marriage. God blesses those unions, too.<BR/><BR/>Besides, “excluded” family members could always just take the easy route, become members of the Church, and live temple-recommend worthy lives. :)<BR/><BR/>-ShawnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162568199451050542006-11-03T09:36:00.000-06:002006-11-03T09:36:00.000-06:00Bishop Rick, it seems to me that you have this not...Bishop Rick, it seems to me that you have this notion that non-members and non-temple recommend carrying memebers are entitled to everything that members are. This is of course a ludicrous idea. This is not to say treat tempe recommend toting members with more respect, but they do have the right to be in the temple and attending by virtue of their temple attendance.<BR/><BR/>It is also important to realize that families continue on through eternity- just because a family is "divided" in this life does not require that same division in the next, another reason we have temples. If you could tak to my mom, she would give you quite a lecture on that idea. She was disowned by her parents for about twelve years when she joined the church. But, she had faith in Christ and knew that her family loved her but they were ensnared by the adversary. Today they have come to be more comfortable with us, though still not yet members.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me your general attitude is to find fault in every place you can, and I will guarentee you will find it if you look for it. As my Book of Mormon professor said, "If you strain for evidence you will find all you need." <BR/><BR/>I personally have found fault with many things, but when I look back now I can see that often the fault was my own short-sightedness. I was unfortunate enough a while back to be a somewhat rebellious teenager. I searched out the endowment ceremony in an attempt to see what all the big fuss was. I now wish fervently that I hadn't, even though I was convinced that searching out now could do no harm. The fault was not the church leaders in making the temple ceremony secretive or sacred, but mine in not accepting that in due time I would attend the temple and witness it myself.<BR/><BR/>I hope you can understand what I have written. I hold nothing againsgt you and cannot blame you for your perception of the church's exclusionary principles, however it might help to keep in mind that Christ's church was rather secretive. It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th century that the Catholic church began to claim that nothing was secret and that the gospel should be, in full, preached from the rooftops.Dan M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10361995806554388397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162567793820994532006-11-03T09:29:00.000-06:002006-11-03T09:29:00.000-06:00Cherry-picking scholarship is poor scholarship.......Cherry-picking scholarship is poor scholarship....says who? You? Certainly not an overwhelming number of biblical scholars on this subject.<BR/><BR/>Please God indeed! First you have the task of learning what God wants.<BR/><BR/>I don't think he wants us to blindly follow and accept without using our own brains to study and figure out what is right and what is bunk.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162530836155725222006-11-02T23:13:00.000-06:002006-11-02T23:13:00.000-06:00Controversial? Certainly. But there it stands. ...Controversial? Certainly. But there it stands. I have seen no historical evidence to cast doubt on its validity. Remember, Matthew recorded the teachings on peace and love too. What makes Matthew more reliable on these points than the aforementioned? Cherry-picking scholarship is poor scholarship.<BR/><BR/>Scriptures aren't exactly tactful in most things, including family relations. At the end of the day, who reigns supreme? Yes, we must account for Paul's teaching that the unbeliever is sanctified by the believer. But when circumstances absolutely require it, God is the one whom we should please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162527334961089472006-11-02T22:15:00.000-06:002006-11-02T22:15:00.000-06:00Walker,That particular segment of scripture has lo...Walker,<BR/><BR/>That particular segment of scripture has long been controversial due to the fact that it runs contrary to Christ's message of peace, love, and life.<BR/><BR/>The first and great commandment was the law of Moses that was supposed to be fulfilled thru Christ.<BR/><BR/>Which doctrines are "good" doctrines?<BR/>For starters, those that don't divide families.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162525021704921442006-11-02T21:37:00.000-06:002006-11-02T21:37:00.000-06:00The scriptures don't always put a gentle politcall...The scriptures don't always put a gentle politcally correct spin on things, I've noticed.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1162489649326558972006-11-02T11:47:00.000-06:002006-11-02T11:47:00.000-06:00Indeed, I just checked Clarke's commentary. It's ...Indeed, I just checked Clarke's commentary. It's entry on the verse is brief and direct:<BR/><BR/>"If, in order to please a father or mother who are opposed to vital godliness, we abandon God's ordinances and followers, we are unworthy of any thing but hell."<BR/><BR/>Far more harsh than my proclivities, but certainly worth listening to as coming from legitimate bible scholar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com