jlf9999

The issue is whether LDS writers and scholars have been discriminated against because of their religion. If an LDS scholar can provide some evidence of that there are many of us who would like to know about it. If there is some reason to keep their institution private I have no problem with that. It would be better if we knew but it isn't necessary.

We don't study this stuff because it doesn't relate to us directly. Maybe we should be a bit more concerned because it is important to people who are important to us. But just to complete the thought, LDS theology teaches that all of had a pre-mortal existence with God the Father. we grew from an infant spirit to a mature spirit and then were placed on the earth in order that we learn some things we could not learn in His perfect sinless environment. Coming here however meant that in a sinful state we could not return to Father. Therefore someone would have to save us. Christ did that. But what He did was save us from eternal damnation allowing all of us to resurrect. However, we would resurrect to s a preparatory place, not the perfect home of Father. That place, spirit prison, is a place of separation. Separation means separation from God which is hell. Just like on earth Christ has set out missionaries to teach all who never heard of the gospel a chance to learn of Him and either accept or reject His gospel. But each will have an equal opportunity to learn and decide for himself. Not everyone will agree. And all will do so at his own pace. Some have also by their actions, chosen Satan and will be consigned to live in outer darkness with Satan and his followers. In the end, each person will be assigned or allowed to choose one of three kingdoms, glories or places. Each is a sphere of existence or heaven where he feels most comfortable. The lowest of these places or kingdoms is where the inhabitants will never see Christ or God the Father in person again. They are those who were the liars, whore mongers, murderers and so forth. Without either God or Christ is considered hell in its final form except for those in outer darkness who have it worse. The next or middle kingdom is for those who knowingly rejected the gospel in life but accepted it after death and those who knowing rejected it after death too. Only in the highest kingdom can inhabitants live with God the Father and Christ. In both of the other two, there is certain pain and suffering the inhabitants will endure for eternity because they made their choices and have to live with them. That is its own kind of hell even in the best of the two lower places. They will only be allowed the ministering of Christ but not God the Father.

Son No where that I read does Christ mention the bible. He speaks about the OT. It is logical to include the letters of the apostles though. I see nothing however that says the multitude of future copies of these holy writings would be accurately transcribed or translated. In fact, adding "accurately transcribed" to each of your quoted passages adds nothing except to demand that we believe only those which are complete and accurate. You must acknowledge that Christ would expect that of us. He would not want us to believe just any old thing that someone said was accurate would he? In fact, I think He would expect that we use some common sense in what we accepted as an accurate representation of what He said. I think he would expect that we not just blindly accept another man's word for it. I think you can extrapolate that some of the important things have been removed from the bible and the OT. Take the Book of Enoch for example. Christ quoted from it so where is it? Do you contend that Christ thought it important enough to quote from but chose keep it out of the bible? Only in the minds of those who believe the non-biblical notion that God is sovereign therefore the bible is whole, complete and innerrent does that work. No one questions that God is sovereign but to accept that meme as true we would have to accept everything done in the name of Christianity in the last 2000 years is good and of God too.

Not always. Anti doesn't always mean antagonistic in the sense of mean-spirited bigots. Take the church's position on homosexual marriage. Many well meaning members have a different take on how the church ought to treat homosexuals who want to stay in the church. I wonder if that isn't why the brethren further refined the official approach to membership. They still allow homosexuals to be active and even hold a temple recommend as long as they remain abstinent, do not promote that lifestyle or speak out against the church. I think you can see how others on this board talk about and treat us even though in their own churches they may speak in opposition to our practices and theology. Compare that to the trash-talking street preachers on Temple Square. Merely having a different opinion isn't an evil thing. Some of the finest people I know are folks who have strong feelings about our church but in every other way are as fine a Christian as one would like to have as a friend or neighbor. My mother's mother comes to mind. That does not mean you should engage the low-life dragging a Book of Mormon across the side walk by a string however. And I would stay away from the websites that pretend to know all about Mormons. They don't and they are often ex-communicated former members with a grudge. Spending your time there is like stealing from God. You are wasting that precious resource that you are.

I appreciate what you are saying however I am not sure every one of the folks who approach is a hate-filled bigot. If I may suggest, what gets us into trouble is personalizing what these folks say. When we get defensive we loose our perspective. Afterwards we may become remorseful and doubt. You may find it easier to handle this stuff if you look at it as an opportunity rather than an attack. The opportunity is to discover in yourself what you really truly believe and go about proving it. You could be wrong you know. Maybe what one or two of these people has to say strikes an honest chord. Remember, you don't have to have an answer for every question. It is OK to say you don't know. One more caveat - never trust them to know more about our religion that we do. They never do. Never.

Ram Is that what the savior actually said? He said take up the cross? I wonder about that. I don't know anything but it sounds a bit too much like Moses writing about his own death and burial. Isn't it a bit apocryphal?

As a case manager in a previous life, I can tell you there are many erstwhile strong LDS people who spent some serious time before the judge. About 20% of my caseload in fact.

I don't want to get too far into the weeds here about JW's but are you saying they resemble LDS thought on the matter? If so, that isn't what I understood JW's to believe. It seems I recall they believe there will only be 144,000 who are saved or go to heaven and the rest will have to find shelter elsewhere. Fix me up if I have gone astray there partner. :)

Maybe some folks don't exercised about it because they don't believe a just God would keep them out just because of the "normal" life they have lived. Do you suppose that the lack of religious upbringing causes that or is there something else?

One thing that I found is for those people who never get past The God Makers type stuff likely will believe anything - as long as it gives them something or someone to hate. The thought provoking writers are a different breed. Those who know their stuff make me wonder what I believe and cause me to stop a bit. Now that kind of person I find valuable and worth listening to. I could learn stuff from some of them.

Chaplain Your temple comment is interesting since many people who attend for the first time find the whole experience less than spectacular. I did too. Over time however, I have concluded it had more to do with me than the program. Certainly baptisms and sealing ceremonies are much different than the endowment.

Ram I may have to start taking back some the things I have been thinking about you. :)

I agree. Discussion with others who think differently forces me to decide what I believe and why. I learn when I have to look it up. I think I learned more defending my faith than I ever did in college taking religion classes. It also gives me a sense of who is serious about religion and who is a propagandist. Until recently I always had a low regard for Evangelicals because of the mean-spirited approach most have towards us. In fact, I stopped blogging because I was so burned out on them. My readers it seemed were all bent on converting this heathen Mormon to the true gospel and bashing Joseph Smith than trying to understand what we we actually teach. But I have discovered not all of them are toads. There are others who are fine folks with a different view of what the gospel says. So maybe I owe the "toads" something after all.

I engaged a few folks here in a discussion about whether LDS writers and scholars are discriminated against in the academic world because of their religion. I think I made my point convincingly, however I would like to hear from some legitimate scholars. That is, people who write and publish as a part of their job as an academic. Have you been discriminated against because you are LDS or do you know of another scholar who has been? If so, are you willing to tell us about it? Your place of employment is not important.

Question: How much has anti-Mormon propaganda affected the way you perceive The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Jen The OP was how we handle beliefs when they are not in keeping with what the bible says. Of course the problem arises when we disagree on what the bible actually says. Traditional Christians who believe in the bible's absolute innerrancy are yet to be convinced that there is any error. Some traditionals wear blinders so tight they are not willing to even look at how the bible came into being or who compiled it. Others understand that there is likely some error in the translations but it still is substantially error free in matters of significance. As I view what has been said so far, this thread, on at least one side, has bogged down. Maybe some new blood will come into the discussion but it pretty well has all been said.

Precisely. Good post Jason. They say further in the short statement at the beginning: 5. "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church." I added the emphasis. This goes directly to the heart of what Bart Ehrman and others have said about the existing record - the existing record means the bible and remaining bits and pieces of the oldest text from which it was translated. It wasn't until the late fourth century that the first editions of what would become the bible were consolidated and canonized. And even then there was no total agreement on what it should contain. Some participants didn't think the Old Testament should be included. Others wanted apocryphal writings. This was entirely a man made thing. No one claimed to be an apostle or prophet or to have been divinely called as I recall but if someone can show me where I am wrong, I am teachable. It makes sense that to understand what the bible is and is not you have to look at it in the context of its provenance.

Son Why don't you tell me what you think Jesus said? About academics - I suppose you can reject what others who study these things say but I think you miss a lot. You never have a fuller understanding of the history and politics of early Christianity. You are left with a decidedly single-eyed perspective. To my way of thinking, that is how traditional Christianity got so far off track. They bowed to the politics of the day just as much of traditional Christianity today bows to the traditions they developed over 2000 years. That is how the Creeds developed. As Ehrman suggests, the existing record is less than totally reliable. He is commenting on things other than matters of faith. What he is saying is much of it is contrived (Trinitarianism), missing (the Book Of Enoch) or misinterpreted. Let's face it Son, you believe in the innerrancy of the bible and Mormons believe it in so far as it is translated correctly. That isn't going to change on our part. You put more faith in the good will and works of man than in what God would tell you if you asked. Or so it seems to me.

Paul is saying that there must be a falling away before Christ can return.Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3. Justin Martyr, in "Dialogue with Trypho," in Chapter 71 complains about how the Jews had altered scripture. "And I wish you to observe, that they [the Jews] have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations.". Origen, a recognized early Church father, complained about scriptural problems when he said "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.." Read Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman. These are just a few.

Livingstone As you might have guessed by now, members on this site have heard all this before and generally are well schooled in it. It is nothing new. We hear it all the time. Sometimes we get a bit short with new comers who come here thinking to convert all us heathen Mormons with what we understand is a less than well understood version of bible teaching. Others like me, have had their own blogs and discussed these things many many times before. Many of us attended church universities, attended four years of seminary and are returned missionaries. Some have advanced degrees in religion and have studied this stuff for decades. We hope not to be offensive but sometimes are. I apologize if I have given offense.

Maybe we are talking past each other. It happens often in my case. We believe the bible to be the Word of God in so far as it is translated correctly. Where we differ is whether it was translated as God intended. As I understand, you are saying your traditions tell you is more accurate than what God would tell you if you asked him personally. All of LDS theology is based on receiving direct communication from God upon humble and sincere supplication. You suggest two thousand years of traditional man-interpreted tradition is a better way of understanding God and what He wants for us. As proof you cite a fairly recent notion that God is sovereign and therefore the bible must have been interpreted correctly and that nothing important has been mistranslated or deliberately left out. Yet I can provide and have, several volumes of reasons to support what we suggest from non-LDS writers, that supports what we teach. But the only one that really matters, sincere and humble prayer, you deny. You completely deny Christ when He said ask it will be given. Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. I can provide more scriptural sources that tell us to do just the opposite of what you are saying to do. We suggest everyone do just what Proverbs says and make it a part of worship. You say to trust your traditions.

I think you are referring to the book of Revelation. So far as I know, no one has added to or taken anything away from it. The injunction doesn't refer to the bible because it didn't exist until well after (300 years or so) John wrote Revelation. Even so, Mormons have neither added to or detracted to the bible as far as I know. Any other works are separate from it. It is important to understand just what the bible is and is not. It is a collection of religious letters written over time by early (first century) church leaders. It was not intended to be a cohesive or complete work. In fact it did not exist until the fourth century long after Christ and the last apostles died. You might give serious attention to the books I mentioned and another one called Lost Christianities by Ehrman as well. They will help you understand just how all this came to be.

We have a saying in Mormondom: milk before meat. I would very much like to get into why we have a different take on this. But there are some fundamentals that may need explaining first. From a Mormon point of view, which is what we are discussing, Christ died to save every person born on the earth. That means every person will be resurrected. If He had not sacrificed himself we would all have been condemned to outer darkness with Satan and his angels and followers. But that doesn't mean every person resurrected will be living with God in his presence. It just means we all will take up a perfect physical body just as Christ did. What happens after that is another story. The bible is correct in as much as it is translated correctly. It has gone through several iterations. From the first Aramaic and Hebrew to Greek and Latin to English. Some of the Old Testament was left out too. The Book of Mormon is a history of another group of God's children starting about 600 BC. Christ visited them at the time of His crucification. With the Book of Mormon, it is easier to understand what the Bible says. It doesn't replace it. It is an adjunct to it. Maybe I have gone a bit off course but I don't know from you are starting. In any event, there is a good deal of difference between what you are saying and what we believe those same words mean. For example, Elohim can mean chief God or highest God as a title rather than a personal name or description of His nature. Given there is but one God and He has said there were other gods in Genesis, it could also mean that there are divine beings of a perfected nature along with God the Father. Ergo, gods, small g, preserves God the Father as Elohim and still allows for other perfected beings of a lesser nature, e.g., Christ and others. Christ's prayers and many comments about being different from His father point to the two being separate and distinct rather than supporting the Trinitarian view. We agree they are not angels in the sense most people understand angels to be. We also believe everything is created under God the Father's direction. We think Christ was the administrator so to speak acting under assignment.

Livingstone, you are sounding more and more like a Mormon. You may be one and not know it.

You are on the right path my friend. May I suggest the next step is to pray to God asking for His help in discovering His true gospel. Have faith that He will provide if you are sincere, humble and teachable. By true I mean his authorized and complete gospel. Traditional Christianity only takes you so far. It doesn't mean we think it is wrong - just limited. We believe they are good honest people doing the best they know how. They just don't know everything God has available. It is our job, our responsibility to help those folks take the next steps. But you don't need to believe any person. We are mistake prone too. God will talk to you directly through the Holy Ghost if you are serious and willing to listen. Our People | Mormon.org is interesting.