Snow

Give me an example... what new knowledge did you gain last Sunday that you didn't know before. I'm looking for actual knowledge not the warm fuzzy stuff, important though it may be. What did you learn?

Such a pity... gone are the days when you could actually learn something new in Church: 1953 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual

There not and they didn't. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not Jewish. Because skin pigment is permanent, not temporary. Maybe backwardness. Otherwise it's a mystery.

I can't speak to other's motivations but if you do a search of LDS.org, you get 1470 hits.

Tell me Ram - how do you benefit by misstating what I posted? Do you think that I can't go back and quote what I said and demonstrate what I really said - which is different from what you erroneously represent that I said? Let me quote what I wrote: "If it is not in the Standard Works, it is not recognized as scripture in the Church." "And of those writings, what specifically does the Church officially recognize as scripture? The Standards Works - that's it." "What statement? That the Church officially recognizes just the Standard Works as scripture? Seriously?" "... but let's be clear. You are asserting that the Church officially recognizes as scripture, things outside of the Standard Works. It that correct? "I'll get to all your posts tonight. but can you please answer my clarifying questions so that I know what I am answering to? Is it your assertion that the Church officially recognizes material outside the Standard Works as scripture?" "I am not disputing that something that is uttered while inspired is scripture or can be considered scriptural. My posts refer to what the Church will go on record as recognizing as scripture." What is the definition of scripture: "There's no mystery and no special meaning. I use the term in it's common LDS parlance; it is that which is spoken or written that is God-breathed or under the influence of the Holy Ghost or as revealed by God." Obviously, Ram, I am not denying that things spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost are scripture. I said that exact thing. You claiming that I said something different doesn't change what I wrote. As you well know, my point and my question refer to what the Church officially RECOGNIZES as scripture. Really? If you think you can produce a post of mine in this thread to that effect - go ahead, but when you don't I'll thank you to stop misstating what I post. 1. I didn't quote the 20 year old Encylopedia. I claimed the current one that is maintained by BYU and it is different than the 20 year old one. 2. The point is obviously lost on you. The point isn't that the EoM set official LDS doctrine, the point is that authors and editors of the EoM are the experts who understand the material. Who is more credible - a guy with a fake name on the internet (you) or: EDITOR IN CHIEF Daniel H. Ludlow-Brigham Young University SENIOR EDITORS Robert J. Matthews-Brigham Young University Charles D. Tate, Jr.-Brigham Young University Robert K. Thomas-Brigham Young University EDITORS Stan L. Albrecht-Brigham Young University S. Kent Brown-Brigham Young University Richard L. Bushman-Columbia University Ronald K. Esplin-Brigham Young University Addie Fuhriman-University of Utah Jeanne B. Inouye-Provo, Utah Truman G. Madsen-Brigham Young University Terrance D. Olson-Brigham Young University Larry C. Porter-Brigham Young University Noel B. Reynolds-Brigham Young University John W. Welch-Brigham Young University That's not exactly a balanced teeter totter... That's a factual claim... 1. I'd love to see you prove it. 2. I'd also like to see you produce some evidence that the Church, officially, agrees with you. So, Ram, if you are done misrepresenting my posts, perhaps you want to take up where Skippy bailed. Care to give us a list of material -specific material - that the Church officially recognizes as scripture that are not in the Standard Works?

I didn't see that. Who is arguing that - what post #?

Being a valid priesthood holder does not depend on what shirt you wear but my last 3 wards have all asked, and require white shirts, ties, dress shoes and the like to administer the sacrament. That's the rule. People in robes and such aren't allowed.

Skippy, I've asked twice for clarification on you point and since answered your request for clarification. You could have answered my questions in less that 60 seconds. Obviously you are not interested so I am moving on. My first post is correct.

Hi Traveler, I disagree, Standard Works does equal our canon. The highly competent editors of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism agree: In one of its religious senses, the term "canon" refers to the literary works accepted by a religion as Scripture. The word derives from the Hebrew qaneh (reed), which came to mean "measuring rod" and then "rule." It thus indicates the norm or the standard by which all things are measured. Latter-day Saints accept a more extensive and more open canon of scripture than those accepted by other Christians and by Jews. Latter-day Saints accept, in addition to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four scriptural collections are called the Standard Works.

:):):)

Four months and no calling? There must be something horribly wrong with you. :)

Calling people dishonest, obtuse or calling posts stupid is one way of trying to win an argument. Do you think it's working out well for you?

Really? Does your ward allow people in robes and sandals to administer the sacrament? Mine doesn't. We have a rule about white shirts and ties. Since you say my point is blatantly false, you must mean that they do allow it. I'd like to check. What ward do you live in?

That's probably his point and he is probably correct, at least in part. Adults choose where they are going to live and people could choose not to live in an city that is 49% below sea level and sinking and subject to hurricanes. No place is completely safe but there's relatively safe and unsafe. Anyone who's tried to run a business in NO can tell you that it not the most educated, stable, reliable workforce but even poor people make decisions. Do they have the same means and capacity of people in Malibu who choose to live there despite annual fires and floods? No, obviously not but people, rich and poor, are still agents and still make choices.

You say that as if you think someone in this thread "discount(s) the value of the current messages that we receive from our leaders." Would you please say specifically what you mean rather than being oblique?

What, pray tell, is "pure scripture?" It is scripture like the Book of Mormon and then something else that is more pure than that? If you think that I am factually mistaken about anything, feel free to correct me.

There's no mystery and no special meaning. I use the term in it's common LDS parlance; it is that which is spoken or written that is God-breathed or under the influence of the Holy Ghost or as revealed by God.

Temporary scripture? If something is scripture today, how does it become non-scripture tomorrow?

I am not disputing that something that is uttered while inspired is scripture or can be considered scriptural. My posts refer to what the Church will go on record as recognizing as scripture.

I'll get to all your posts tonight. but can you please answer my clarifying questions so that I know what I am answering to? Is it your assertion that the Church officially recognizes material outside the Standard Works as scripture? And, if that is your position, you believe that someone who disagrees with you on that matter bears the burden of proof. I made posts (#5 and 7) and they you responded in posts (#6 and 8) so I think the above is the point you are making but I'd like clarity before responding - let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. In the meanwhile, could you please print of list of some of the things outside of the Standard Works that you believe the Church has officially recognized as scripture so I can see what you are thinking of.

I really don't think this is in your best interest. You were already found to be making erroneous statements about what constitutes scripture on the other thread, but if you are really anxious to argue it out, I guess I could oblige you tomorrow evening... but let's be clear. You are asserting that the Church officially recognizes as scripture, things outside of the Standard Works. It that correct? That's what you are asserting? Moreover, you believe that someone disagreeing with you about that has the burden of proof? Right?

What statement? That the Church officially recognizes just the Standard Works as scripture? Seriously? Q I probably could but it's common knowledge known by all Mormons. Since you, apparently, are claiming that the Church officially recognizes more than that, you bear the burden... But really, if you are going to be disagreeable, couldn't you pick something a little bit more likely to hang your hat on?

And of those writings, what specifically does the Church officially recognize as scripture? The Standards Works - that's it. Being scripture doesn't necessarily make it true and not being scripture doesn't necessarily mean it's not true.

It may be the word of God but that doesn't necessarily make it true or at least make people think that it is true. For example, Mormons don't believe what Paul wrote about divorce - and their disagreement doesn't turn on it's translation. Prophets, for example Brigham Young, thought some Old Testament stories to simply be fairy tales told by people who lacked understanding.

In another thread, now closed, some erroneous information was posted that may be confusing to some readers. I think that should be clarified. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a canonized set of Scriptures called the Standard Works. If it is not in the Standard Works, it is not recognized as scripture in the Church. The Bible dictionary, footnotes, chapter descriptions are not scripture. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not scripture, except for that part that is in the Pearl of Great Price: Matthew 23:23-39 through 24:51 and those parts that are contained in the Book of Moses. The Bible dictionary, which itself states, "t is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth." was composed by Robert Matthews, a BYU professor. He composed it by taking the Cambridge University Press Bible Dictionary, with permission, and adapted some of it to be LDS centric, other parts of it were incorporated wholesale. I don't know when or how the Matthew chapter and a half of the JST was added to the canon but that notwithstanding, the last addition to our open canon was the Official Declaration - 2 about the priesthood being available to all worthy men regardless of race or skin color in 1978 through common consent. Despite some people not liking it, the Song of Solomon is scripture. The Proclamation to the World is not scripture. Being scripture, doesn't make something true, but, according to scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16, all scripture is god-breathed (inspired).