masterlee

I do not disagree with you, when you say there was good too. Everybody, including athiests, pagans, arabs, hindooists, whatever, all have much that is good in them. Latter Day Saints don't hold a monoploy on revelation/inspiration. But I still believe that we, Latter Day Saints, have direct authority by the almighty to spread the word of God in it's most potent, truest form. That is where all others are lacking: they are not prophets. Prophesy is the gift most diligently sought after by richeous, charitable men. On rare occasions this gift is given unto members of other faiths, simply because of the humble faith and obedience to the law that they know. This includes men like Jules Verne, Muhammed and Nostredamus, in my simple opinion. But despite all this they remained flawed, perhaps even to the point that they took the credit of their discoveries for themselves, rather than giving credit to where it's due. Everything they had was given to them of God. The LDS church is perfect; but it's members also are flawed. So if we err in our doctrine it isn't because we are wrong--it's because our teachers are human. In some ways, the members of our church can be the most wicked, vile imposters imaginable: because we know the truth and yet some of us discard it for the sins we know are wrong. There is not another church on the face of the Earth that has been blessed and nurtured than ours; and yet, some of us have a blatant disregard for the ways of God, that we know is true, that we remain in sin still. In my opinion, that is the reason why some of us will not enter through the gate of heaven.

I accede the point. Truth is had by ALL the children of God. Anything respectable comes from God. If you are ready to accept all new revelation, as long as it comes from Christ, I am more than willing to admit God speaks to you, whether through a medium or directly. Inteligence, or the ability to learn, is the form light takes in matter. You could say that light, inteligence and matter are synonymous. The fact that we live is proof that God made us. He formed us spiritually before he formed us physically. He gave us each talents, knowledge, inteligence and personality--all of our gifts. In this God talks to us all. But to have true communication is supposed to be a two way thing. God imparts knowledge unto us in exchange for faith and obedience to his word. But which church teaches the true word of Christ in THESE days? Every church teaches some truth, but only one can teach the full truth. Perception interpretes the truth. The goal is to view it in God's own way. For this we should not be content to accept other peoples word for it, we should seek to attain this knowledge for ourselves. And once we have it we should not cease to live by it's precepts for the rest of our days.

You go in depth to call Jesus our Heavenly Father--and He was:just not in the same sense as you use it. In the Gospel of John, John calls Jesus the Word: quothe "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God...The same was in the begining with God." {John 1;1-2.} "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt umoung us..." {John 1;14.} In this reference it also reads in verse 3 that "all things was made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." This means that God used Jesus as the Creator of all of us. This makes Him our Father. And once a father always a father. Thus he is the Eternal Father or Elohim. Does this mean that Jesus and his Father are one and the same? No!! They each retain their individual itentity, but that doesn't mean that Christ hasn't earned His title as the Messiah, the Son of God. As for our, us Latter Day Saints, use of scriptures, we fully acknowledge that the Bible is only as correct as it is translated correctly {Read our Articles of Faith sometime.}. We also have a collection of translated passages from the Bible that Joseph Smith was instrumental in bringing to light. As for what I'd put in the canon, I would only repeat that Revelation, either from God or his servants can decide what is sacred. Enoch is a very useful text, and despite the facts that there will be errors therein, deserves to be acknowledged as a text that inspired the ancient apostles to hold it in esteem and set the mood for religious furvor for centries after it was written.

I would be pleased to admit that statement, providing they were inspired in thier decisions. Personally, I believe that these counsels were man made. God had nothing to do with it. If they were inspired, then why didn't they come to the right conclusions. In the councils, we are told that God has no body, parts or passions. This is to say that God is nothing--for the only thing that can exist under those requirements is nothing. They tell us that God is three beings but one as well. I hold that the Godhead trio are one/united in power, purpose and likeness, but to say that they are both one and three is ridiculous. The number of inconsistencies is astonishing for a group that claims they have God's sanction. Perhaps the reason you Catholics do not hear from God has something to do with the fact you worship a god without a body, parts and passions--one that cannot speak for he only exists in your imagination.

Creation is an ongoing process. Although the Bible holds that the world was created in 7''days" these did not mean the same time period as our own 24 hour days. The proper meaning of which, the time it took to do each task was seperated and called "days." Evolution is true in the sense that animals of all kinds are symmetrically created similiarly. This does not mean that we all go back to a common ancester--a puddle of sludge or amoeba. You will find that God first created all the species that ever occupied the earth, simultaniously filling the world, and then let them evolve or grow to one day become these days animals. The animals Noah likely had on his ark were different than what we have today. As for the claim that humans evolving from monkeys, I know for a fact that human-like monkeys must have existed at one point but I have no reason to assume they were our predecessors. I belief that they had their own existence here and lived the fullness off their lives and exists whether we knew of them or not. These "peoples" never needed our permission to have existed. They were granted their own space on earth and though the Bible never mention them does not mean the evidence we now have are a fabrication.

Yikcigmij, it is not man that can determine what is sacred: the only sources that can be trusted are for this are God and the servants that he has sent. I have a testamony of the truth of this for God has revealed it to me by the Holy Ghost. But do not take my word on it. Pray. The Lord can reveal anything whenever someone truly has faith. Take the test of faith. Tell me, dost not this makes your heart burn within you. Does this give you a testamony. If not, I suggest that you are too hardhearted and devoid of the spirit of God to feel this still small voice of that sacred spirit of revelation. On another note, may I ask, which Book of Enoch do you have. I'm just curious. I particuliarly like the Greek version. The most common, ands most well known is the Ethiopic one. The smallest fragments belong to the Hebrew books of Enoch. Some other good sources I like are Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Documents. As for the other sources that you mention, I do not immiediatly discount the pagan refferences. Even a pagan can tell the truth. The search for truth should not end just because the source isn't of your faith. I happen to study all religions. No matter where I search I see truth. It is not necessarily all true, but thats why you must rely on the Spirit of God to see them rather than rely on your own wisdom. Even an evil man can teach us somethging useful, if only to live diferently than him.

Try reading anything written by Hugh Nibley. He explains all this.

The importance of the books of Gad, the relevance of Enoch, cannot be dismissed easily just by saying they are not included in the Bible, and therefore cannot be considered scripture. You are ignoring the facts--the prophets and apostles in the Old and New Testaments were more than familiar with these books. They considered them sacred. How are we better able to judge these books than they? You are obviously saying that man, infallible man, are better able to interpret the value of these works than those who are taught by God to discern the truth of all things. Salvation is individual, therefore ANY individual that writes the Words God gives them are SACRED SCIPTURE to that person. Therefore the words that God reveals to us TODAY are the means of our Redemption. No man can be saved without his grace, after all we can do. Therefore I ask you to pray about my words, exersize a grain of faith. If you ask in sincerety, fully believing to recieve, I promise you that you will gain a testemony of these things. If you do this you will be filled with gladness, knowing that scriptures are being engraved upon your heart, and you will know for yourself that which will save you from the second death. Do not take this step lightly, for a new responsibilty is required of the truthbearers of Christ.

Islander, this is the second post you have written on this subject. I am thankful for your opinion. Don't hesitate to post anything you think important. You have an interesting point of view and I am pleased to hear it.

yekcidmij--The whole point in my argument is to show that the Bible cannot be the source of all human knowledge, by acknowledging this you are to realise that ANY book that was written by the servants of God, including Gad and Enoch, must be just as sacred as anything that is included in the Bible, and neither can the man of God rely solely upon it's merits to guide them in their duties today. There is a impending need for God to direct us in these times, for the scriptures cannot save our souls today. I admit that the revelations that Moses had were sufficient to save the people of Isreal, and the revelation Timothy had familiar were sufficient to redeem him, but to say that their words would be sufficient to redeem us is to say that we can alienate ourself to God and live on the works and words of others. No, I testify unto you that the word of God is necessary to our salvation today, and there is no other source to go to than God himself and to his servants that know him.

My opinion is yes, they are both necessary and scriptrural. This, to me, is at the heart of the LDS question; that being, who of all the churches have authority to teach. Wherever the vestitures of priesthood are, this principle governs: God speaks in these latter Days, he has not forsaken his people. Our God is in our midst, and reveals himself to his faithful. Every occasion we speak, it is to be with His words placed in our mouths, or else we are without the Power of God behind our words. Scripture has never indicated otherwise, though some have decieved themselves otherwise. If any has any doubt, look at these fools first line of defense--they quote the Book of Revelations, as written by John on the Isle of Patmos: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." {Revelation 22:18-19.} Now, I ask, which book is John referring to? It couldn't mean the Bible, since the book we all now acknowledge as the Bible did not then exist at the time of it was written. If we are to acknowledge the book written of in this passage, then how did our ancestors determine which, of all the thousands of manuscripts, were of God and which ones were not? How did the compilers of the Bible know they even found every book of inspired origin in their search? What about the several books mentioned by name in the scriptures that were considered sacred by the apostles but are lost to us. What of the Books of Enoch, the Book of Iddo the Seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, Epistles written by the hand of Paul, and dozens of other books we do not have in our collection? Wouldn't these be just as sacred? So what, I ask, is the book we should neither add nor diminish? It is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto...his servant John." {Rev. 1:1.} The fact that our decietful friends include such a flimsy argument as their sole reasoning, shows that they have no better argument to substantiate their claims.