Originally Posted By fkurucz <<We disagree with some of the ideas set forth in the 4th, 5th centuries>> And yet you accept others, like the NT Canon. Why do you accept the Canon put forth by an "apostate" church? I wouldn't.
Originally Posted By utahjosh We accept the writings of the apostles at the time of Christ. I look at the books that were not included in the New Testament as well.
Originally Posted By utahjosh But more importantly, Joseph Smith read the Canon as put forth by that church, and wrote that "We believe the bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly." He also did do his own translation of the Bible, restoring things that were lost, or clarifying things that might be confusing - that's the plus of having a Prophet.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "I look at the books that were not included in the New Testament as well." Such as? The gnostic gospels? Why don't read up on those before you try to use those as evidence to support the possibility of other scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, being written. Although their source of inspiration was probably very similar to the Book of Mormon's if you think about it...
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "But more importantly, Joseph Smith read the Canon as put forth by that church, and wrote that "We believe the bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly." Considering entire sections of the bible were put VERBATIM into the Book of Mormon, I'd say, in your eyes, they did a pretty darn good job of translating the bible originally. And, with the numerous changes to the Book of Mormon, shouldn't your faith adopt the same policy (as far as it is translated correctly) toward that book too?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>He also did do his own translation of the Bible, restoring things that were lost, or clarifying things that might be confusing - that's the plus of having a Prophet.<< Then why doesn't the LDS Church use that translation, instead relying on the "unreliable" King James Version?
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "Then why doesn't the LDS Church use that translation, instead relying on the "unreliable" King James Version?" They do - they call it the Joseph Smith Translation. Strangely though, he translated into King James English. I guess he wanted to match it up with the language of the Book of Mormon.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I guess that your "strange findings" about the translations and odd histories in the LDS church strengthen your resolve that the LDS church is not true. It's not affecting my faith, and I am looking at them just as you are.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Josh, I am happy for you. My wife and I talk about it all the time - we wish we could be Mormons. But we can not ignore facts. We can not ignore logic. We can not base our faith on emotion. You can say god told me two plus two equals thirty-seven, but that will never make it right even when you think god told you so. I believe in a god who gave us the ability to think and reason for a purpose. I can not accept your belief that god gave men this ability to make them stumble and fall. I guess this speaks to our differing opinions about god: I think he plays fair, you do not.
Originally Posted By PetesDraggin "I guess this speaks to our differing opinions about god: I think he plays fair, you do not." I like to think of Jesus as a mischievous badger.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<So your claim that in LDS theology "there is no need for Christ" is untrue.>>> Oh but it is, because without the LDS you cannot know the "true Christ." In other words, the church saves you, not Christ. Point being, can anyone who is not Mormon, be a Christian?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<"LDS is simply, a rip off of something that was already there. " Much like Christianity is a rip off of Judaism.>>> jonvn, I understand you point, and it is very valid. However the fundamental difference is... You don't have Christians walking around claiming to be Jewish, and further claiming that all Jews are no longer "true Jews". But yes, the egg does follow the chicken always.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<We don't claim to be a "break-off" of those. Some say we are, we claim we are not.>>> Quite right, quite right, You claim to be a replacement. The ones that "got it right" and rectified everything.
Originally Posted By DlandDug From LDS.org: >>Because the Bible has been translated many times, it is printed in different versions. In English, the King James Version of the Bible is accepted as scripture by the Church.<< <a href="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&index=19&sourceId=39327c2fc20b8010VgnVCM1000004d82620a___" target="_blank">http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/in dex.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&index=19&sourceId=39327c2fc20b8010VgnVCM1000004d82620a___</a>_ Also in LDS.org I read the following in a primary lesson for children concerning the Gospel: >>Have the children stand in a line. Whisper the two- or three-sentence message into the ear of the first child in line. Have each child in turn whisper the message to the next child. Instruct each child to say the message only once. Continue until the message reaches the last child in line. Ask the last child to repeat the message aloud. Compare the message the last child received with the original message to see how the message changed. • How had the message changed by the time it reached the end of the line? What was left out? What was added? • Why do you think the message changed as it passed from person to person? Explain to the children that just as their message changed as it was passed from person to person, over many years some of the scriptures in the Bible had been changed as people translated the Bible and made copies of it by hand. Mistakes were made: some incorrect teachings had been added to the Bible, and some important teachings had been left out. The Lord commanded Joseph Smith to prepare a translation of the Bible that would restore the correct teachings (see Articles of Faith 1:8).<< The lesson then goes on to say: >>Explain that while we do not use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as a separate book of scripture, parts of it are included in other Latter-day Saint scriptures.<< <a href="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=637e1b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d20ba41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1" target="_blank">http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/in dex.jsp?vgnextoid=637e1b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d20ba41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1</a> So... the LDS accepts the KJV as scripture, while simultaneously teaching their children that much of it is false. And that while Joseph Smith translated the Bible correctly, it is not used. Did I get that right?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<"We believe the bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly." >>> You mean to say.... We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as long as we are doing the interpretation to suit our own agenda.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<They do - they call it the Joseph Smith Translation.>>> And thus we come full circle, as I said, the LDS is merely a hi-jacking of protestant christianity. "Do it our way, not the old school way, because we are right and "they" are wrong." Gets so old and tired.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But yes, the egg does follow the chicken always.> Wow, talk about an age-old question we've finally got the answer to! Thanks, DVD Dad! (j/k)
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<<So your claim that in LDS theology "there is no need for Christ" is untrue. Oh but it is, because without the LDS you cannot know the "true Christ." In other words, the church saves you, not Christ. Point being, can anyone who is not Mormon, be a Christian?>>> You know, that is my biggest problem with the church. You can't be saved unless you believe in Jospeh Smith. Example: I believe in Jesus Christ but don't believe in Joseph Smith and I am going to hell. Isn't that true josh? I am going to hell for leaving the church?
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<We accept the writings of the apostles at the time of Christ.>> So why do you not have the Gospels of Peter and Hebrews? The Shepherd of Hermas? The Didache? They were written back them. The only reason they are not in the New Testament Canon is because the Catholic Church decided they didn't make the cut.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I think he plays fair, EighthDwarf. I do not see the contradictions that you see. I reason and I and I think. I'm not an ignorant follower.
