Snow

You think? I am struck by how little Deseret Books has in an academic / scholar vein. I frequent a lot of Deseret locations and seldom find something significant that I don't already have. I have much better luck at Benchmark Books or BYU bookstore or online and direct from the Publishers. I am not sure what your point is but most members are no where near as educated about religion as is someone with a degree in religion.

I see ywhat you mean. Thanks

Let's just say that is an extremely, fringe, opinion. btw... how many of THM's words are canonized?

Obviously you and I are very different persons. I don't need a prophet to tell me debt, porn and raves are a bad idea. I can figure that out on my own... or maybe by watching Dr. Phil. ... and you have a distinct set of definitions. That's not doctrine, as most of us on the LDS internet world these days underand the word. That counsel or advice. We use doctrine to refer to those eternal, unchanging sets of of truth as revealed by God

I think you misread my post. I was asking if you had any evidence to support your claim/hypothesis?

No, not exactly. Originally there was no title given by the author. Please just started calling it something. The title you use is no more correct than some other name used by others.

Okay, I'll bite. Where and when was the doctrine that the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom required one to be a polygamist first revealed. Please be specific and quote the original sources.

You're correct. Current prophets seldom, if ever, offer new doctrine. What they offer is an inspired reiteration and interpretation of already revealed doctrine, made relevant for the audience to whom they are speaking / writing.

I was responding to what YOU wrote, not the link you posted. You can tell because in my posted I quoted what I was responding to. To your claim, that current prophets are more important than dead ones, I suppose you could construct a peculiar definition of the word "important" such that your claim makes sense. However, the normal sense of the word "important," it just doesn't make much sense at all. Take away Paul and you lose half the New Testament and likely Christianity as we understand it. Take away Joseph Smith and you take away 3/4 of the books in the Standard Works... not to mention the Restoration. Take away Brigham Young and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is likely something like the Bickertonites or Strangites or Community of Christ. Take away Thomas Monson and... what exactly? The Church has seen fit to canonize as doctrine (set as it's standards) 7 or so books of Paul, numerous things written by JS and nothing from Thomas Monson.

You mean that unless we call it by the name you want us to, the book doesn't exist? I don't think so.

You mean a beast in the future that is different than the beast Nero that the author of Revelations referred to?

Discovered THE location? Of discovered A location with a similar place-name that MAY be the same as the BoM?

Not so. If you want to know what Church doctrine is, read the Standard Works, which by common consent have been formally accepted as the Church's doctrine. If you want to how the Church interprets the doctrine at any particular time, read the writings of the General Authorities as published by the Church.

Getting baptized doesn't magically make you a non-idiot. If you were an idiot before getting baptized, you are still an idiot after getting baptized.

Hi Jolly is right. All through the ages people have read the Book of Revelations as if it pertains to their time (or the time immediately to follow. They have all been proven wrong. The people alive at the time the Book was written would have easily understood that it was referring to Rome and to Nero... not some distant, magical future. Using gematria 666 = Caesar Nero or Nerō Kaisar Interestingly, a number of ancient manuscripts have the number of the beast as 616. As it so happens, an alternate spelling for Nero is Nerōn Kaisar with a final n on Nero(n), which, through gematria, adds up to 616. Mystery solved... just like it was understood anciently.

The OT is inaccessible to a lot of people - too much trouble and not too relevant to people's daily lives. But you question about the BoM is interesting... I noticed a distinct change in teaching Gospel Doctrine as we switched from the NT to the BoM... there is more participation. People who didn't contribute once during the past year, all the sudden had all sorts of knowledge and insight about 1 Nephi. With the NT, I was fairly comfortable that I was about as knowledgeable or more so that many/most people in the class... not so with the BoM. They know a lot.

Two reasons. 1. The Church is very image conscious. It doesn't want it's public face to be a bunch of pierced, tatted up grangers. 2. The Church want to control you. It controls you overall by trying to control your diet, your sexual practices, your clothing, your entertainment and your leisure time.

I'm not claiming I have any particular ability to interpret scripture, just that I trust myself more than I trust, say, a home/visiting teacher, or a EQ President. What hanging out on the internet gives is an increase talent for spotting error/bull, however.

I'd disagree. Some of the most influential theologian in Church history have been the scholars, for example... Talmage, Widstoe, etc

Really? Those would be the last place I would go to for doctrinal guidance... except for SS Gospel Doctrine class... and that's only because I teach it.

We're letting them read now?

It's just a figure of speech... it means God really reveals things to prophets.

So you can get approved in heaven. ["No member of this Church can stand approved in the presence of God who has not seriously and carefully read the Book of Mormon." (Conference Report, Oct 1961)] You don't want to be unapproved do you?

Disfellowshipping is kids stuff. I went right for the big enchilada... double-secret-probation.

At minimun, either Mark of Matthew did not. At least one of them got it very wrong.