[When The Missionaries Came To My Door]

I panicked there for a moment when it looked as if youwere leaving! I am glad you aren't. You are one of the most Christian posters there are on this board and I do so enjoy reading your posts. Scared me, Chap!

B)

This is very sweet. I'm am touched. But...where'd did this come from? That rumor is about 3 weeks old!

[John Birch Society Posts]

Might we also have a site reserved especially for anti-Mormon/anti-Christian posts? ;-)

I don't mind Ben creating a political ghetto for John Birchers (where did this idea come from anyway?), but would hate to see a religious ghetto here. B)

[Evangelicals And The Celestial Kingdom]

Still be “eligible”? Perhaps. But if God never “makes you” accept the gospel, as “LDS” accept it, and I believe He never will because that would violate your agency, how will or would you know it?

And btw, if you’re banking on the idea that some people in the “life to come” will be able to somehow make you believe it, any more than we can here, perhaps you should consider the idea that God will always allow people to believe whatever they want to believe, without imposing His will on anyone.

I suppose what we are really getting at here, is related to "Pascal's Wager." I have not looked this up, but am offering my rough memory of it. The original proposal was:

1. If Christianity is right, and you refuse to embrace it, you will die and spend an eternity in the flames of hell. 2. If Christianity is false, and you embrace it, you still live a life of morality, have enjoyed some healthy social relationships, and perhaps lost some time you might have spent doing other things. 3. So, Pascal argued, the logical betting person should embrace Christianity, because s/he has much more to lose than could possibly be gained by rejecting it.

Blomberg's revision went something like this:

1. If, as a Christian, I embrace Mormonism, and I'm right, I spend eternity with God the Father, and Jesus, the Son. I get to live in the Celestial Kingdom. 2. However, if I am wrong, and Mormonism is deemed unacceptable in God's eyes, I lose my place in eternal heaven, and will instead be doomed to hellfire. 3. If Mormonism is correct, and I reject it, I will still be assigned to the Terrestial kingdom, which is very much like the heaven I believe in anyway. Plus, I may yet have an opportunity to convert in the life to come. 4. So, Blomberg's revised Pascal conclusion goes, far better to stay with evangelicalism, since I have much more to lose than gain. BTW, Robinson's response was that a Terrestial Kingdom type person would indeed go that route, whereas a Celestial Kingdom would rather risk all for the sake of ultimate truth and renewed eternal fellowship with the Heavenly Father.

Bottom-line: I don't like Pascal's wager. Truth is truth, and I am certain God would have us wrestle until we found it, rather than settling for something close.

[When The Missionaries Came To My Door]

Why are Jehovah's Witnesses coming to awaken me every Saturday morning?

They are God's way of getting back at you for leaving a bunch of one-liner cryptic post response questions that are often unclear. :-)

[Polygamy Possible In Canada?]

And without exception you have followed these rules? Do you want me to show you how well I can cut and paste all of your inane posts which did none of the above?

There are many which are nothing more than cleverly disquised (to be funny) attacks on other posters. I hope you are not a Mod. Otherwise "all hale Setheus"

Hmmm...Syble is trying to take Snow to school about attack posts. She threatens to clip and paste his "inane posts." How about we look at Syble's gentle attempts at instructions--all clipped from one single string (from these you may get the impression she has a slight amount of skepticism about my Pentecostal beliefs, and would hope I'd be open to some subtle teachings) : I've bold-printed some of the more 'precious' quotes.

1. If praying and you speak in tongues, then there is an interpretor; the Holy Spirit. If there is no understanding of what you are saying, it is of the devil.

2. There is no righteous purpose in speaking tongues when no one understands what is being said. All things which cometh of God are good. Someonee speaking gibberish (which unintellible speech is) is not good and cometh not of God, but cometh of the devil.

3. If you are just saying a bunch of gibberish that not even you know what you are saying, then you are being over taken by the devil. That is just a fact. Do you find facts harsh? Sorry.

4. If you are praying in the Spirit and still don't know what you are saying~ you are possessed by the devils spirit. The Holy Ghost is a Spirit of enlightenment, not befuddlement of meaningless gibberish.

5. You are misled if you find it righteous to be speaking gibberish that the Spirit won't even allow you to understand what you are saying.

6. I guarantee you, that if you don't even know or are not given to know what you are saying through the Spirit, you are being led by the devil.

6. If you don't UNDERSTAND or are not given a INTERPRETQTION, you have nothing. Nothing is what you get from the Devil.

7. If you insist that people blubbering gibberish in a spiritual frendzy is the Holy Ghost, then why are we taught in many scriptures that the Holy Ghost gives the diversity of gifts that ALL might be edified. Everything the Father gives us in the way of gifts are to serve others.

8. You need a reference on this one too? I thought you were a chaplain? It is the basic principles of everything Christ taught -- those who lose their life for my name sake etc. Why would you think that this thing would be used for strictly selfish reasons on such a regular basis and not be from the devil?

9. What you are experiencing is deceit from the lower quadrant. It is not of the Lord because it is not truth, light, intelligence, which is His love and giving of Himself which is love. (1 John 2 ; 1 John 4:7-8) These you should already know.

10. what you are experiencing is keeping you satisfied on a very low level of spiritual obtainment. That would be the work of the devil.

11. I am praying for you out of the Love of Christ that you will not be over taken in your pride of dead works.

12. I think a little understanding of what dead works are would be in order as well.

13. I see nothing coming from unintelligle yammer that gives no messages, no teachings, no truths. What more are these experiences than the glory the Pharasees heaped upon themselves for fasting, and praying in public.

14. Dead works are a facade of the righteous gifts and I abhore them. The Holy Ghost only gives good gifts. A pretension of a gift in an incompleted form does not edify. If you choose this form, so be it. It is for you to choose.

15. Why you wouldn't want a purer form of praying to the Father than having this intervention happen is a mystery to me. (I stand by my first conclusions, if not even more strongly, after reading your continued defense and discription.) It seems to me as a form of seeking for a sign and only a wicked and adultrous generation seeks for such.

16. I see no humility in your posts, so I would assume you haven't the humility required for such a thing as the gift of tongues and you are being grossly deceived.

[Is Tongues-speech A Human Foreign Language?]

I see no humility in your posts, so I would assume you haven't the humility required for such a thing as the gift of tongues and you are being grossly deceived. I will continue to pray for your spiritual recovery.

You confuse the spiritual confidence I have in the Holy Ghost, and the gifts He bestows, with personal arrogance on my part. Perhaps a story will illustrate the 'poorness in Spirit' I speak of. I'm not sure the year, but it is the late 19-teens, or early 1920s. In this era most Christians considered Pentecostals to be very odd cultists (anyone familiar with the feeling?). An Presbyterian minister, pastoring a wealthy downtown congregation, senses a dryness in his spirit, and decides to go "incognito" to the Pentecostal revival meeting, happening--of course--on the other side of the tracks. He prays, "Lord, if there is anything for me here, I want it. But, do not embarrass me. Do not make me fall down, or babble foolishly." Every night he goes, senses a powerful presence of God, but receives nothing. After three weeks, he can no longer stand it. He's so hungry and thirsty for righteousness--for the power and presence of the Holy Ghost in his life. His prayer changes. "Lord, anything! Do anything you want. I'm so hungry for you!" Down he goes, 'babble' he does. But he leaves the place with such joy, such peace, such spiritual confidence. The following Sunday, he explains to his congregation what has happened to him, how happy he is, and how wonderful it would be if the church could enter into this fullness of the Spirit. Like so many other Christians of that era, who came into the Pentecostal fullness, they congregation promptly dismissed this pastor, and likely changed the locks. He ended up starting a store front congregation somewhere, and never looked back.

You might say this pastor lacked humility for putting his family and his church through such a changed. I would suggest he discovered what it truly means to be "poor in Spirit." I have nothing and I am nothing, save God work through me.

[The Final Thread On Recent Member Bans]

I've waited awhile to see how this thread goes, but thought I'd offer my thoughts, as one who has largely been out of the loop.

1. Role-playing at a denominational website is underhanded, at minimum. Very early on here, I realized I needed to be open about the fact that I was non-LDS, that I was a clergyperson, that I'm married, and that I'm a middle-aged male. Why? I did not want to be accused later on of being a stealth anti-Mormon missionary, or of feigning ignorance to grant unearned trust. I did not want anyone to think I was available for relationships, or that I was preying on the young. In other words, avoiding the appearance of deceit was important for me. Straightfoward honesty has allowed me incredible liberty, and a lot of beneficial interactions.

2. One or two-sentence flirtations might be innocent fun, but anything beyond that is SIN, IMHO. (Of course singles aren't prohibited from looking for love online).

3. Some posters here really enjoy oneupmanship, win-lose debate style argumentation, and "Who's the smarter one" contests. On the other hand, I have found that conversational posts garner conversational responses, whereas confrontational posts begat...well you get it.

Just my ...

[Oh Yeah, Homosexuals Are So Oppressed.]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Jews have been known to damage their own buildings for this very reason.

Neo-Nazi alert!

Thank you. Will take necessary precautions. Now ~ are you a Jew?

In a sense, aren't all Christians Jews? Are we not all "grafted into the seed of Abraham?"

[Bible Under Fire]

Thanks for doing some research. LDS do not believe in cannonizing Scripture. Although we believe in what we call the standard works these are not cannon. We believe that G-d will always add to scripture, at his will, and it is not for man to close off G-d speaking to his people.

I would contend that the LDS Church does have a canon of Scriptures, and that it is the Sacred Works. What Mormons do not have is a closed canon. See the attached for an excellent description of canon, including a portion on Latter Day Saint canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

According to my personal research the doctrine of cannon is a Pagan doctrine. I find no such doctrine in scripture. It therefore appears to me that the doctrine of cannizing scripture is a heresy and false and part of the paganization of Christianity. That the concept is popular is hardly a reason to say that it is of G-d. In fact the more popular a doctrine is - that is not in scripture - the more I am inclined to not believe it without some divine indication.

When you say that canonization is a "Pagan doctrine," I assume that what you really mean is that it is wrong to declare the canon closed. I'm not sure what church leaders closing the canon has to do with Paganism, however.

As to why the church developed a canon, and closed it, see the following short timeline:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html

What's most interesting is the development of the Marcion heresy. We know there were others, such as the Gnostic heresy. My hypothesis is that the canon developed, and was more or less closed, by the same process that the doctrine of the Trinity developed--in response to heresies that arrived. Note the parallels:

1. Bishop Arius teaches his local parish, which was steeped in polytheistic paganism, that God the Father is the one and only God, and that Jesus was his created Son--godlike, but not the one God. His reasoning is that the doctrine that God is one, yet that Jesus is fully God would confuse the people. As this, and other challenges to a very general understanding that God is one, yet in three persons continued to arise, the Church needed to formalize a doctrinal position on who God was.

2. Marcion offers some false teachings, as do others, and church leaders realize they need parameters. There needs to be guidelines for determining which writings are scripturally authoritative, and which are not. Eventually, the canons emerge.

3. Likewise, in my own movement, there was an intial relectance to have any "Statement of Faith," since most of the Pentecostal pioneers had been excommunicated, or simply kicked out, of their churches. There was a strong independent streak, and a desire to rely on the leading of the Holy Ghost, not the formulations of men. However, the Oneness heresy changed all that. In the early 19-teens a movement developed that said true Christians must be water baptised in Jesus name only, that the Trinity was a false doctrine, that Jesus was God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. That God was one person who simply manifested himself in three ways. Now those early pioneers realized that if they simply told people to believe what they wanted, as the Holy Ghost led them, well some would be led by false spirits into false teachings. So, to this day, if you examine the Assemblies of God Statement of Faith, the doctrines of God, Jesus, and the Trinity take up over 2/3rds of the statement, even though they are only three of the 16 doctrines.

So, why the canonization? The same reason we have detailed creeds in church history, and modern statements of faith. As challenges and false teachings arise, greater definition of what is basic and true becomes necessary. So, did God ordain these processes, or did apostate (or the more modern, "misguided") church leaders develop them without the leading of the Holy Ghost?

The doctrine of cannon is proof of Apostasy - which is the only reason for the LDS doctrine of a "restoration".

Except that the LDS Church does have a canon--one that is open. And, if your reasoning is correct--that there is no basis for a biblical canon--then the fact that the LDS version is open does not let the church off your heresy hook. On the other hand, you do make a reasonable case for an open canon--and even a canon that can be reviewed. I'm not sure I'm ready to say such a review is ready today, but I'm no longer able to dismiss the idea with consideration, either.

One of the great critizism of LDS is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture (The Word of G-d). This is because we have means to add scripture. We publically recognize that G-d speaks again. I understand that other do not believe this - which is fine. But I have posted because I do not understand the doctrine of Cannon or why it has such power over so many. The LDS method of determining scripture is different from the world. The reason I brought up other scripture is not because it meets LDS standards for scripture but becuse many of these manuscripts meet the historical standard that was claimed to be the standard when the Bible was determined. And I do not see that the determination came from G-d as scripture.

Again, I'd suggest that the "LDS method of determining scripture," while perhaps different from the rest of Christianity (Please--to say "the world" implies unregenerate ungodliness), is also a form of canonization. Clearly, the LDS process is more fluid and pliable, in that it is open. And, the fact that LDS written canon is to be interpreted in the light of any modern interpretation offered by the current church prophet does indeed make it incredibly open. Nevertheless, we are not really discussing the difference between having a canon and not having one, but whether the canon can be closed or not.

[Oh Yeah, Homosexuals Are So Oppressed.]

Britannica is the gold encyclopedia resources with it's articles written and reviewed by top scholars. In a recent study by the respect journal Nature, Wikipedia was found to be on par with Britannica.

There have been some recent well-publicized cases of tampering or spoofing with Wikipedia's open protocols and I myself have noted an inaccuracy in an ariticle about a minor public figure I know personally but on balance it stacks up well and in fact corrects many inaccuracies found in the gold standard.

Besides, in reponse to the spoofing, Wikipedia has tightened up it's protocols. To say that it should be treated with the same skepticism as other web material is flat out wrong. I can go to any number of Christian apologetic websites and immediately spot numerous examples of bad science, inaccuracies, misstatement etc in only minutes. You can say the same about Wikipedia, and if you do note something amiss - you can see to it that it gets fixed.

I'm more than willing to adjust my nuance here. It was disconcerting to read that a living person could be linked to a potential murder case, and that it would take numerous weeks to clear it up--of course, by which time others had taken the erroneous information and passed it on. On the other hand, other old-technology sources, such as CBS News & Dan Rather, have muffed some facts, and taken many days to sorta recant. So, Snow hit a good balance. Use Wikepedia as a potential treasure trove of information, but keep in mind that the name does not guarantee every article, and that if you know about something, and Wikipedia's article says otherwise, you had probably better get more verification.

I agree - that's his audience, I am not part of it. I don't actually have anything against him - I wouldn't waste my time with his stuff, there's simply too much GOOD material to read to waste time with ordinary stuff, but never in a million years would I use him as my source for responsible and unbiased history.

I do have more respect for "popularizers" than many others do. USA Today may not be the NY Times or Wall Street Journal, but at least readers are keeping up with basic news summaries. Reader's Digest might not be the local university's community book club, but their offerings sure beat most of television. Tim LaHaye might not be the most imminent scholar of New Testament apocalypse (any more than Hal Lindsey was), but he has millions of readers learning about an interpretation of a book that many had never opened (Revelation). So, my hats off to such folk for helping people get their toes in the water.

[Bible Under Fire]

[i'll look into this a bit, and try to get you some intelligent information. However, I'm fairly certain the LDS Church also accepts the canonization process, as far as the compilation of the Bible goes.

Okay, okay. I did some searching around, and there is a good deal less certainty about this matter than I had thought--especially concerning whether the New Testament canon should even be closed (which may be encouraging for Mormons). To very briefly summarize my findings, the Protestant version of the canon was pretty much settled by the end of the fourth century, and undoubtedly by the sixth. The Syrian Church, which Traveler refers to, does have 81 books, rather than 66--and has for a long time. We also know the Catholic church chose to canonize the intertestamental books--ones that both Jews and Protestants consider of value, but not on the same level as the others. Bottom-line: The process of canonization, while valid and anointed of God, in my view--and in the view of most of Christianity--was a good deal muckier than we'd like to think.

Nevertheless, what I expressed before, was pretty much repeated in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia's article on canonization:

The Christian can only believe that this history, set in motion by the earthly Lord, has been superintended by the risen Lord, who will not lead His Church into error. We believe that He has built His Church upon this Scripture, and that all future development must spring from the grateful obedience exercised by a Church that may hear its Lord speak in the OT and the NT canon.

So, Traveler has put forth an interesting case for the largest biblical canon known--the Syrian set. It will be interesting to see if the LDS Church, or any other major denomination in Christianity takes this up. Apparently there are a few voices here and there calling for a reexamination of the biblical canon. My own guess is that this will not happen anytime soon, however.

[Is Tongues-speech A Human Foreign Language?]

Why you wouldn't want a purer form of praying to the Father than having this intervention happen is a mystery to me. (I stand by my first conclusions, if not even more strongly, after reading your continued defense and discription.) It seems to me as a form of seeking for a sign and only a wicked and adultrous generation seeks for such. I continue to pray for you.

Two thoughts: 1. Why would I seek a biblical pattern of prayer--one that allows my Spirit to directly commune with the Father, without human filter or hindrance? You don't know? Or is the "poorness in Spirit" that surrendering one's tongue to the Spirit requires, just a little to humbling? 2. To assign malicious motives to believers practicing a form of prayer that is repeatedly layed out in Scripture is just plain odd.

And a question: Did you used to be a fundamentalist Baptist, and when President Hinckley said, "Bring all that is good with you," you thought he meant rabid anti-Pentecostalism?

[Christianophobia]

Interestingly, the bloodshed in Indonesia has occurred on both sides, Christian and Muslim. So may we assume that this is also evidence of Christian conspiracy and hate crimes toward Muslims?

I could be wrong here, but I seriously doubt that this is a case of equal bloodshed. Muslims are a huge majority in Indonesia, despite the demographics of this local area. Of course, when teenage girls are beheaded or some other atrocity committed, some will be so enraged as to seek revenge. Then the international media picks it up, including a secular American media that is decidedly NOT pro-Christian, and says "religious violence on both sides."

In fact, the policy referred to only pertains to chaplains offering an invocation or benediction in public settings such as a change of command or other public ceremony where people of different faiths are in attendance, not a religious service. In services, chaplains are free to pray according to their beliefs.

This I pretty much agree. It is a tough issue for some Christian chaplains though. The feeling is, "I was enlisted as a Christian chaplain. If I am called upon to pray, I should be expected to pray according to the dictates of my faith--even in official ceremonies.

The other side is: Jews cannot say "Amen" to a prayer in Jesus name, because the Talmud declares Him to be a false prophet. So, when such a prayer is offered, they are "left out." My guess is the military establishment will "win" this one.

[Bible Under Fire]

We know from discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the modern Bible is only a small part of sacred scriptures from the past. The problem is not what is there but in what is missing.

I repeat my question. Is the LDS Church considering adding any of these texts to the canon of Scripture? If not, your suggestion is 'radical' not only to evangelicals, but to your own church.

I do not believe G-d forces his word on anyone - He will only give what man will accept. The scriptures tell that man must seek in order to find. Those that do not seek will not fine. Do you disagree with this notion?

BUT we're not talking about individuals here. We're talking about the Church. Are you suggestion that your own LDS church is also not willing to see...that God is not 'forcing his word' on the LDS Church. Or, am I wrong--is it considering adding some of these texts you refer to?

I think you have missed the point. These manuscripts were written when the Apostles were still leaving - before man decided what the Bible ought to be. And those in control will not even let their fellow Christians know what the books in the manuscriptures are.

There are many manuscripts written around the time of Christ and the first generation of the Church which did not become part of the canon. The Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic heresy) is one example. Just because something was written at the same time as the New Testament does not mean it was missed. God has always had a remnant. And, we are convinced that God's anointing was on the canonization as much as it was on the writings themselves. It often is equally important what gets left out as what gets put in.

About 7 years ago I joined with a team of Eastern Orthodox Christians to have these manuscripts released. In general these manuscripts were not released because there was not enough interest. I Do not understand Christians that refuse to care - I do not understand it. Some of these manuscripts may have been written by the very hand of Apostles. The most correct New Testament scriptures available and Christians just do not care. It appears to you thay you do not care eather - you would make excuses rather that seek answers. That is fine but I am not like that - I seek answers and I want to know.

One time a team of Christian university students (American) were sent to Ireland for homestays. I'm not sure how long they stayed, but it must have been at least a few months. Some went to Northern Ireland, others to Protestant areas. After the stays were over, the students got into passionate arguments about the Catholic/Protestant divide there. They had been steeped in the histories, the complaints, the historic slights--and all came away convinced. Me thinks you became close with this particular sect, and gained great sympathy for their views. I'm equally certain you are being quite hasty to so quickly dismiss the sincerity of Non-Eastern Orthodox Christian leaders and scholars who have looked into these matters and reached different conclusions.

I am glad you say you have confidence in G-d's ability to communicate - Where did G-d communicate that the scriptures should be cannonized and where did he communicate what scriptures were to be included in the cannonization he wants.

This is the crux of the issue. You do not believe God ordained the canonization process of the Old or New Testament, whereas I and most of the Christian world (nearly 2 billion strong) do. I'll look into this a bit, and try to get you some intelligent information. However, I'm fairly certain the LDS Church also accepts the canonization process, as far as the compilation of the Bible goes.

[What One Lds Distinctive Truth Is Most Essential?]

I might ask, with which of the three(views concerning the gift of tongues and salvation) above do you agree?

#2. I'm an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, which, with the possible exception of the Church of God in Christ, is the largest classic Pentecostal denomination in the U.S., with roughly 3 million members--about 35 million worldwide.

[Is Tongues-speech A Human Foreign Language?]

Or in other words, even if the gift of 'tongues' gave someone the ability to speak in a 'language' only of God, and not a language of any man or nation on Earth, anyone who receives that gift should have the ability to speak that language of God while knowing it is not gibberish.

I know I'm speaking in tongues (not gibberish) when I'm 'praying in the Spirit,' in the same way you know the LDS Church is true--by the testimony, or leading of the Holy Ghost.

And btw, if someone speaks in a language they don't know isn't gibberish until someone else tells them what they said, then the person who acts as 'interpreter' could say anything without anyone catching on. And to understand my answer to the question asking why the gift of “interpretation” is given, try imagining what it would be like to listen to the United Nations without anyone interpreting for others in that room.

When there is the public exercise of the gift of tongues, for the edification of the church, then yes, of course, the gift of interpretation is needed. When my spirit is praying in tongues then the prayers go to the Father directly. He needs no interpretation. But, so my faith is also built up, I also need to pray in English, so I know what I've asked of the Father, and can be encouraged when the answers come.

[Evangelicals And The Celestial Kingdom]

[i think it’s good that you’re asking this question[How many American evangelicals have actually had an authorized presentation of the LDS plan of salvation?], but perhaps you should be more concerned with whether or not YOU have had that opportunity, and how YOU would ever know if you had.

Here's what I've had: 1. Numerous postings from here, including many from returned missionaries, whom I assume are authorized to present the gospel. 2. Professor's Robinson's presentation in "How Wide the Divide?" 3. An hour-long presentation in the chatroom by DisRuptive1. Granted, I'm not sure how authorized he is, but it seemed to be an accurate explanation, offered in a down to earth manner. So, I suppose I have.

On the other hand, I've not had a testimony as to the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims. My sense was, Prof. Robinson might even argue that anyone who has not had such a testimony, since s/he DID NOT RESIST the truth, but never really had a sense of it (head yes, but no wrestling in the heart), would still be eligible for conversion in the life to come.

[Apostles And Prophets]

[All of the books of the Old Testament are represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls with one exception that is open to speculation as to why. In addition all of the Old Testament books have at least 2 versions – something very troubling to the Jews concerning the Torah. The fact that the books were maintained in multiple versions is a very new concept in our time concerning sacred revelations but anciently 2 versions were considered critical. (See Genesis 41:25 and 32)

The reference is to two dreams that the Pharoah had about the upcoming famine in Egypt. The point: When God really wants to emphasize a matter he repeats himself--or relays the point from two different approaches or stories.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, though. Are you suggesting that for each of the 39 Old Testament books there are 39 additional counterparts--additional books that might have the same level of inspiration as those we already have?

Interestingly, the Old Testament era book most quoted in the New Testament is missing from modern versions. Perhaps the real reason it is missing is because there are no complete and accurate copies in existence. But from what we have we know a couple of things about this book. We know for example that the scholars that claimed that this book was plagiarized from the New Testament are false because the fragments found among the DDS predate Jesus and the NT by 300+ years. It also means that Jesus and the apostles thought this book was important enough to copy it word for word in their teaching.

The fact that Jesus, the disciples and Paul may have quoted some relevent material from a well-known extrabiblical writing does not mean that the book should therefore be canonized.

I believe that for most part the reason there are only 66 books in the Bible is not because Christians have all that G-d wants to tell them (I believe it was Paul that said there is not enough room to write all that should be written) but because they have all or more than they want and refuse to accept anything else – even if it once existed as sacred scripture. Most non-LDS Christians I have conversed with are very adamant about this idea concerning scripture – They will have no more of such sacred kind of things, regardless of reason or divine desire to enlighten and they make up all kind of excuses to justify it. Which is fine by me – if they do not want it I will not argue the point. But for me I wish for and pray daily for more and openly welcome anyone that will join with me or allow me to join with them in this quest.

This really is a new topic--though I see the connection. My argument would therefore be the same in both cases: To convince greater Christianity that writings should be added to the Scriptural canon, after a nearly 2000 year period of nothing being added, requires a substantial burden of proof. And, this is not a matter for individual laity to decide. It took Pentecostals about 40 years to convince evangelicals to even let them in the door, and another 60 for us to earn a place of respect in theological academia. Over time the larger Christian family saw at least the plausiblity of our "innovations." Rather than bemoan those who are "willfully blind," make the case...with patience and persistence.

[Bible Under Fire]

Yep. It'll say..."Chap, I gave you a brain to reason with...now why didn't you use it!"

Jason, Jason, Jason...tsk tsk tsk! I know that you are well aware that there are many highly educated Christians, evangelical, LDS, and otherwise. You also know that, for all the complaints about the dark ages, in many countries of the world, Christian missionaries actually brought modern higher education. As an example, many of the great universities in Korea were established by Presbyterian missionaries.

All this to say, it just won't do for you to insinuate that Christians of any category are unreasoning. Faith is not ignorance. It is a willingness to look at some indicators, to believe that God desires to speak to me, and combine that with faith. Blind faith is indeed foolishness, but I doubt anyone could function if they relied soley on 100% verifiable information. Even scientific theories "evolve."

[Bible Under Fire]

What is the Bible – really? Where did it come from and how did we get it today in English? What has history contributed to determining our understanding of the Bible?

I offer the suggestion that there is no real Bible in existence, only a shadow of something that once was.

Evangelicals, and I believe most LDS, believe that the 66 books that comprise the Holy Bible are the Word of God. My understanding, thus far, is that Mormons allow more room for translation errors and faulty manuscripts than do evangelicals. Nevertheless, I've understood that moderate to conservative camps in both faiths agree on this issue. We have manuscripts now that date back to the 200s I believe. We compare those with the medieval texts used to translate the KJV--and the manuscripts are numerous--and find very few discrepancies. If my memory serves me correctly, those passages of Scripture that the scholars argue over make up far less than one percent of the text, and the areas of dispute never involve theologically significant issues (I'm speaking now of the text itself, not of doctrines).

So, Traveler, for you to suggest that we really don't have a true Bible, but only a shadow of what God intended, implies some pretty radical departures from both Mormon and LDS orthodoxy concerning Scripture. Am I wrong, here?

The Bible of today and of history is not unifying - but a means of dividing Christians. There are more Christians of declared different concepts based on the Bible with each new generation. The Bible of today and of history has not been a means of stabilizing doctrines and practices of Christians but has fueled changes to the point that Christians today are as different from Christians of 1000 years ago as they are from current Moslems, Hindus or most any other modern religion.

If I were to accept your assertions here--and they are not totally without merit--I would suggest that your dissatisfaction be aimed at religious leaders, not at the Bible. I've had this discussion with Snow before as well. My contention is that Christian churches (and no, I cannot include the LDS in this trend) have become increasingly cooperative in the past 40 years or so. Southern Baptist leaders speak at Assemblies of God conventions and vice versa. Pentecostals, who used to be parriah-status to evangelicals, now make up the largest bloc in the National Association of Evangelicals. The cross-denominational cooperation of groups like Promise Keepers, Billy Graham Crusades, pro-life politics, Christian bookstores (selling Catholic materials right next to TBN stuff), etc. Also, increasingly churches are renaming themselves, dropping the denominational affiliation from their names. Thus First Assembly, becomes Life Center, etc. Additionally, with increased technology and communication, we're looking more and more alike. Do a study on the "pentcostalization of worship services." You'll find we're singing the same songs, increasingly using the same worship styles--and we are learning from each other. We still disagree about some teachings, but we seem to be agreeing on more and more.

Even when Jesus and his apostles walked and taught, the historian Flavius Josephus recorded of massive and multiple efforts to modify and distort scripture text. His main purpose in writing was an attempt to preserve some small remnant of the store of accurate scripture that still existed while he lived.

Do you not believe that God would preserve enough of his Word to "feed" his followers?

Before the end of the first century of the Christian era the scriptures comprising the New Testament were hidden in an obscure Christian church at Mt Sinai to prevent distortions going on at the time. These texts were discovered over 150 years ago but the Christian scholars that control these text have never even allowed a list of the books that comprise this sacred cash let alone a translation of any text – yet without question these text meet all the criteria historically established in identifying the most accurate scriptural text. Most Christians do not even know of their existence (and are deliberately kept from knowing).

More often than not, so-called "lost books of the Bible" turn out to be extrabiblical texts, that might be historically useful, but which were not intended by God to be part of the sacred canon.

Most religious scholars are ether ignoring the Dead Sea Scripture or attempting to explain away their differences and doctrinal enlightenments or to keep them from being distributed.

Maybe this part should fit under BenRaines conspiracy theory thread? I'm frankly skeptical of claims that secret cabals of church leaders or theologians are keeping Scripture hidden from the unsuspecting masses.

The Christians of the East (often referred to as Nestorian Christians) have in possession a letter claimed to be written personally by the hand of Christ. Every effort to scientifically validate this manuscript indicates that it came from Jerusalem when Jesus lived. Yet most Christians do not know of its existence or of it contents.

The problem with the National Enquirer is that once in awhile a story proves true. Since they don't have to wait for verification, they get the story out first. There are many "stories" about hidden or lost biblical texts. I'm convinced we have what God wants us to have.

It appears to me the modern Bible represents exactly and only what many modern Christians “want” to believe and the totality of all that they by their desire ever will except under covenant of G-d. Or as once was stated, “The scraps that fall from the masters table.” In other words it represents a collective will and perhaps man’s best efforts; rather than complete submission, desire and covenant to the will and power of G-d and his pure revelation and light that will and can only exist in his kingdom as he directs.

I have a greater confidence in God's ability to communicate, and less confidence in corrupt religious leaders ability to supress that communication than you do.

[Christianophobia]

Is satanism a conspiracy theory? Another case of shooting the messenger...

Okay, I'm a little confused. Was Clinton flashing gang symbols, making him a satanist, or was Tex Marr suckering 1000s of nutjobs out $20 each, making him a satanist?

So, back to the issue of "Christian persecution." Of course, by global standards, we are not persecuted, harrassed, or hated. However, there is a sense that Christians have lost their unofficial status as the civic religion and ethical foundation. And yes, it's increasing okay to poke fun at Christians in ways that other groups are protected from.

Two examples:

1. At a public university in Kansas, a student creates a statue of a Catholic cardinal, done in the shape of a male private part. The student more or less said that as a child he saw the bishops and cardinals this way. The statue was part of a permanent display of student art. Catholics complained, and the university went to court to defend the artistic and free speech rights of the student and the university.

2. A single Muslim patron of Burger King (overseas--Europe or England, I believe) complains that the icecream cone symbol on its wrapper looks too much like the Arabic name for God, and is offensive. Burger King immediately pulls the wrappers and issues an apology for any untintended offense it may have caused. The ingrate customer was later interviewed and said that Burger King's anti-Muslim attack cannot be washed away so easily, and that he feels that it is his personal jihad to oppose Burger King at every step!

Why such a discrepancy?

1. A public university is a government agency, and academia does have a pro-liberal and anti-religious bias. It has no need to guard against offense, and occasionally revels in doing so. It's the politically correct way of earning gang-member status--by offending organized religion.

2. An international corporation (be it Target or Burger King) has a strong financial incentive for NOT OFFENDING its customers. Despite this years hullabaloo, most people are not offended by a generic "Happy Holidays." But a few sensitive and politically active Jews may be offended by Merry Christmas.

So, there is no conspiracy here. Besides, if we really are the 85% majority we keep hearing we are, then quite confidence should be the order of the day.

[When The Missionaries Came To My Door]

I wasn't referring to you at all PC. All your comments made perfect sense. Sorry for the confusion

A couple hours after posting this I thought, "Prend my think I was referring to her, since I attached it to her post. So, I'm sorry for the confusion. I was responding to the turn of the string as a whole, in response to my suggestions, not to your specific response. In fact, I sensed that you were indeed agreeing with me. I'm not certain the others necessarily disagreed--but it somehow spun off into a tangent against whiners, the emotionally high-maintenance types, and into a pro-American-Rugged-Individualism (which I don't find supported by Scripture, btw--at least not for the church family) stream.

Bottom-line: I think we're on the same page here, Prend1!

[Polygamy Possible In Canada?]

Like the spread of AIDS...As Christians, we have the right and responsibility to repeal unconstitutional laws which break down our traditional family values in this country. The majority rules!

Snow asks: What law is unconstitutional?

The phrasing here is EXTREMELY imprecise. My guess is that what is meant is, repealing laws that are based on what our side perceives to be a faulty reading of the Constitution (read Judicial Activism).

Let me translate this further into basic English: Repeal ROE V. WADE. That is what is really meant when most conservatives talk about 'unConstitutional rulings' 'Judicial Activism' 'Legislating from the bench' etc. What it mostly boils down to is overturning Roe v. Wade.

Some may also want to bring back school prayer, but that ain't happening. Nativity Scenes in town squares, keeping in God we trust, keeping one nation under God, etc. However, IMHO, these are all very secondary to the Roe v. Wade decision for most conservatives.

[When The Missionaries Came To My Door]

Wow you people are so clueless....what happens to the person who relizes they need help but can't get it. Until you have suffered through depression lets not paint labels okay. I am nothing like you described and it pains me to think that people might look at me that way. This just feeds into my theory more and more that unless you are happy and living well than the LDS church has no use for you.

Quite frankly, I'm shocked. I do not understand the responses I got to the suggesting that the church needs to rally around its own. Maybe I did not communicate clearly. I'll try once again with two scenarios:

1. Church member loses a job, gets sick, is have marital troubles, has children who are wayward, etc. S/he deeply desires prayer, a listening ear, perhaps even a helping hand, but is fearful that if the request is made, the spiritual family members will begin to ask: Is there sin in your life? Have YOU prayed about it? Have you been setting the right example? Are you giving it to God? Maybe your incompetent (said more politely and 'in love' of course). So, smiles and pretend happiness become the order of the day, and Prozac the order of the night.

2. Church member gets a new job, a promotion, is pregnant, just got a bonus, just won a prize, etc. However, s/he is fearful of giving testimony because it might hurt those who lost jobs, got poor work evaluations, can't get pregnant, just lost some money, or just failed in some venture. Besides, if they share the happiness, others might accuse them of pride (or 'spiritual pride').

3. My recommended solution: Jesus said to mourn with those who mourn, and rejoice with those who rejoice. Usually, all wounded people are looking for is some prayer, a listening ear, and a word of encouragement. Rejoicing people are looking for affirmation, for a sense that the spiritual community feels its reputation is blessed when a member is blessed.

I didn't think I was out to lunch on this. Is what I am saying so foreign, so revolutionary?

[Bible Under Fire]

Should we accept your apologist explanation of the biblical confusion on the matter of Goliath's killer?

Probably not and here's why.

Like any faith dilemma, how stridently we attempt to uphold the truth of biblical information, and such discrepancies as the Goliath/Elhannan episode, depends on how strongly you believe the Bible is true in detail as well as spirit.

1. Fundamentalists will fall on a spear over every jot, tittle and comma to prove that the 1611 KJV Bible is true.

2. Evangelicals will accept scribal errors, but will also go to great pains to solve discrepancies such as the Goliath story.

3. Liberals/Progressives/Modernists etc. embrace the overall message of God's love, and will sometimes join forces with critics, because they are often embarrassed by their "backward bretheren."

I'll camp with Red and Archer on this one. Somebody will be saying, "I told you so," in the life to come.