jlf9999

Not so Livingstone. The bible tells us everyone will have a chance to hear the gospel preached to them and to make up their minds whether to accept or reject it. It also tells us no man may go to the Father save through Jesus Christ and baptism. God has made provisions. It is just that many traditional Christians believe in Christ, they just don't believe Him. They prefer their traditions.

With respect Livingstone, the bible is chock full of errors. I understand the current popularization that God is sovereign therefore the bible must be absolutley correct in every way. However, even the most rudimentary inspection of the book will prove what I am saying. May I suggest that it is interpretation of scripture that has gotten so many people into trouble doctrinally but it is also because the bible is less than clear on so many important issues. The nature of God is the first thing that comes to mind. It bears directly on whether Christ and God the Father are one being or two separate beings. A little outside reading might be helpful. I suggest Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Also, one British writer from Oxford is J G Davies. I think I got his affiliation right. His book The Early Christian Church will help too. Neither writer is LDS. Both are university religion professors and researchers. They are true academics. Both writers will provide an easy to read history of how the bible came to be. Both will explain what the first , second and third century Christian fathers had to day about religious doctrine and how that was changed in the fourth and fifth centuries and in some cases, why.

It seems we have gotten off track. I am not the subject. I went to the ND bookstore, not the library, and found 400 plus titles on Mormonism of which I found a very few were by LDS writers and an overwhelming majority by non-LDS writers. The fact that the ND bookstore believes these titles were important, current and relevant is evident by their number. The bookstore is an official organ of the university. Given the subject was "Mormon" and the bookstore stocked almost no LDS writers on the subject yet hundreds of non-LDS titles seems convincing. Add to that many, if not most, of the titles were obviously anti-Mormon makes my case stronger. As regards the BYU bookstore, how many titles by non-Catholic writers do they offer? If the subject is important to the university then I contend the number and type of titles in the bookstore will tell us their thinking and the importance they place on the subject. The fact that the BYU Bookstore carries only one book on Catholicism tells us BYU is non-committal, if not uninterested, in Catholicism. Concerning Mormonism, ND seems to be otherwise. The library tells the history of the subject. The bookstore tells us what current thinking is. The number of titles tells us the importance of the subject. How the subject is treated tells about bias. The writers tells us who they like.

So, the score is what? Mormon writers writing about Mormonism a dozen or so? And there are something on the order of 1080 plus or minus non-LDS writers writing on Mormonism? And the fact that an over whelming number of the works are vicious and defamatory is irrelevant to my allegation of bias. So, I can conclude that, in your mind anyway, LDS writers are adequately represented when the subject is Mormonism and there is no bias against them. Am I correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Let's tally the score. Elphaba says she found almost 1089 books on Mormonism and four were by recognized LDS writers. That is Mormon writers 4 and non-Mormon writers 1085. OK That surely settles that argument doesn't it? Volgadon says at least 4 too. He didn't say how many he got when he searched but if it 419 or 1089 either way, I am wrong. My friends provided evidence that saves Notre Dame's reputation as being even handed. Yep you are right. I was wrong. ND has a definite even-handed approach to LDS writers.

I went to the Notre Dame book store. ND is generally acknowledged as a liberal university. I searched under Mormon and got 419 works available through the bookstore. I looked through most of them and found NO modern LDS writers. Jan Shipps' works were there but no LDS writers since B.H. Roberts. I found multiple modern books by non-LDS writers but no one to represent current LDS thought, practice, church policy or discussions of LDS theology. However, the shelves were amply represented with works by Mormon haters. I did not find one work by a BYU professor, general authority, or authoritative LDS writer. Certainly I could have overlooked one. But among the titles of the works presented, anything that did not smack of Mormon bashing would have stood out like a sore thumb. There were some that might have approached the level of a scholarly work but without reading the book I could not tell. I think the substance of the works presented can be said to be definitive of ND's thinking. The lack of current LDS scholars and writers proves ND's anti-Mormon bias. If they are not interested in what we say about our own theology, Church and history yet have a multitude of anti-Mormon offerings, how can anyone say they are not prejudiced and that LDS scholars have been treated fairly? Bob Jones University had three books none of which attempted to present a scholarly look at Mormonism. None were by LDS writers. However Ed Decker was represented. Yale Divinity, Northwest Nazarene, Oral Roberts and Liberty University did not have searchable book lists. Is that sufficient Elphaba?

Anyone under 55 is a kid to me.

Not so. Scholarly criticism is different than bigoted anti-Mormon criticism. In the first instance, the reviewer actually reads and studies the subject work and the in the other the writer never gets a fair reading. You are young my friend and hopefully you never have to face the lies, distortions, misrepresentations and prejudice many of us older members have had to live with all our lives. Bigotry is very real and suggesting it has no impact on LDS scholars is ignoring the facts. I suggest the hotbeds of anti-Mormon scholarly bias are the traditional Christian universities. If I am wrong you will be able to go to the book stores at those schools and find at least a few LDS authored scholarly works in the stacks or on at least one instructor's required reading list. I hope you can prove me wrong. I would like to be but I think I am not.

For a kid you did good!

Ask your bishop given that he is who you see at tithing settlement. Expenses incurred in the line of your job are exempt just as mileage for using your personal car would be. They are not part of your salary but rather the boss using you to pay his bills. I would think that if you convert any part of those expense checks that becomes taxable and titheable although (full disclosure here) I never claimed what I pocketed on my taxes. When I first started, I had a per diem and used it all most of the time anyway. Years later, hotel rooms were often direct billed and I put almost everything else on the company card. I am surprised that your employer doesn't do that - direct bill and company credit card that is. You might ask about getting a CC if you have to wait for home office to cut a check to you. Just a thought.

Be careful of what you read. Many non-Mormons profess to know what we believe and teach when in fact they are clueless. If you want to know, ask us. Read our doctrinal discussions not someone else's. Many of us on this site and others tend to go beyond what many new folks are up to speed on. We have a saying: "milk before meat." Some of us forget that. May I suggest that you read the basics first. You can find them at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormon.org. If you want a deeper discussion you will find LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage helpful for some subjects. Another good source is Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Of course you can always come back here but I think you will find that you will get a more thorough background faster at these other sites. Just remember that the best place to find out about our doctrine and theology is an official or quasi-official site. If active knowledgeable Mormons do not recognize the site then they are probably just gobbledygook.

String theory tells us there are 11 known dimensions and that our universe is part of something called the omniverse. The omniverse is described as an ocean of universes, some large and some tiny. In other words, mathematically anyway, there may be a limitless number of universes. When two universes come into contact they may create another one which may remain small or grow to as larger or larger than ours. Go to NOVA | The Elegant Universe | PBS for the PBS documentary about it. Of course this is all theory but it is theory subscribed to by world class physicists and researchers. The Large Hadron Collider was built to research such things. CERN - The Large Hadron Collider.

Ask any religious scholar at any traditional Christian university about Nibley or any LDS scholar for that matter and see what kind of response you get.

Read widely was not meant to mean the public at large. Nibley was read by other scholars around the world. However there were and are some who because of their anti-Mormon bias would never think of reading any book written by a Mormon. I used bigot because such people are intolerant and hateful towards others.

Good luck.

I understand however wandering off doesn't mean forbidden, just unexplored.

That is my point exactly. The two you mention have stumbled when they got away from established doctrine. Wandering off into the dark does leave one open to stubbing his toe. I will have you know even I make mistakes. Just ask my wife. At times I am amazed at how often I can be so wrong on so many subjects at the same time.

I like Millet too. However I wonder how many readers outside the church read his specialist works. Nibley on the other hand was read by a wider readership than the commenter above seems to believe. I don't say everyone agreed with him because of widespread anti-Mormon bias. That doesn't mean he wasn't read by others though. Anti-Mormon bias does taint other people's thinking when it comes to religious works but it doesn't diminish the work. - just the objectivity of the bigot.

In theory yes, a priesthood holder can get rid of such visitors. However, Joseph Smith commented that it could require an extra ordinary amount of effort and preparation by priesthood holders of extraordinary humility. I think he was referring to someone at the GA level or maybe a Mission president or area authority level man.

Our church has been blessed with a few super bright very accomplished intellectuals who read widely and have been recognized. But since the death of Hugh Nibley, can we say we have a current one? There are many bright people who are experts in their field but do we have one as widely regarded as Nibley or B. H. Roberts was in his day?

Let's put it this way: Every one has an opinion. I can provide lots of opinions by well-meaning people that end up being so off track that it spoils just about everything they say/write thereafter. I recall one particular geologist from Arizona some years back who had everyone glued to their chairs where ever he went when he spoke about ancient writings only to be shown that he was somewhat less informed than he originally thought. If everyone was required to provide their bona fides and a CV that might be different. But we do not for a good reason: we do not want to beheld accountable for what we say. It is hard enough for even the general authorities to get it right all the time. Think the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, The JoD and Mark E Peterson. Maybe in some venues speculation is appropriate. But in this forum I feel uncomfortable going down that road. Too many will take speculation as doctrinally based rather than just an exercise in a particular discipline such as was intended by the writer of the piece you referred me to. This isn't a High Priests group although it would be very interesting if it was.

Sorry old buddy. I don't know who you are and why is affirmation so important? Send me an email with your real name and I just may become an enthusiastic supporter- if you are a Republican:)

Good points. I chose my sources carefully when I read outside works. There is so much malarkey out there that the uninitiated could think some writers actually know the subject. If people like the F.A.R.M.S. contributers or the GA's have never talked about them, I ignore them too.

I don't take things personally. It is hard to read certain posts and feel detached though because you can't know the tone in which it would have been said if the other person was talking to you in person. I just decide it was meant nicely. It is a choice I make. Some folks, who have hard feelings, chose otherwise. Like the lady said: she has been barraged by LDS family members who want to do the work for her daughter - at least that is what she said. Experience has taught all of us that feelings are just that- feelings. They are not right or wrong. They are just feelings. If you ever decide to join the church and get that first affirmation that what we teach is just as we say, then everything starts to take on a different color. Life changes because you change. You might be surprised how quickly all that happens. A sense of love starts to take you over. It is a remarkable thing.

Thanks but I don't ask either. I am not brazen about it but I know thousands of my dead relatives on the other side welcome the work. You can't expect the non-LDS to be anything more than polite. Some are are, some are not. We knew in advance that we would be subject to a certain amount of abuse for doing what we do. I follow the rules however - strictly.