Doctor Steuss

Matt. 5: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

IIRC, the vast majority of the variants don't influence doctrinal matters at all, and are mostly scribal errors (the ancient version of a typo). I think there (again, IIRC) are a few attempts at harmonization within some manuscripts that cause some issues, but overall, the text we now have is fairly reliable (although I personally would take the NRSV over the KJV).

Silliness is in the eye of the beholder. I think this is deeply profound.

Since only 52.8% of the verses are variant free in the extant manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John (aka: “Revelation”), and there is an average of 5.1 variants per a page, I’d say there are a lot of people that are going to be punished.

The light of Christ has never been taken from His people.Ever. The priesthood authority necessary for the proper governance of His kingdom here on earth? Perhaps. G-d abandon His people and not allow those who seek to have access to the light of Christ? Never.

Welcome LDSTalk-ite.

This is where the LDS perspective can get a bit sticky. The KFD (and a few other statements) would lend credence to the belief that G-d has a God. However, at the same time, LDS scripture makes it clear that G-d is the "Most High," and "Almighty."Blake Ostler has written some interesting things about re-evaluating our concept of deity and "god/God/G-d/Godhead." At times it can seem like “turtles on the back of turtles” (to use a common phrase), but outside of a few statements, there’s nothing to preclude that our G-d the Father is the “first” and that there were none before Him. When Pres. Hinckley made his comment about “I don’t know that we teach that...,” I was at first surprised. After later spending a considerable amount of time exploring the various avenues, possibilities and implications of the KFD and/or the deification of man, I’ve realized that it is quite complex. There are so many different possibilities and avenues. For each question that is seemingly answered, a plethora of questions take its place. [edited for grammatical error]

Just wanted to add a bit more (just finding little tidbits that might be of interest -- I really need to get more organized): "The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God; of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him." Boyd K. Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 293, emphasis in original. And, as a side note, D&C 121:32 establishes that the G-d the Father is the “God of all other gods.”

BH Roberts attempted that avenue. Seems that ruling the entire cosmos and planning the salvation of mankind takes precedence over answering little questions that those of faith seem to not be overly bothered by.Now if I could only get an answer as to why the Bible classifies a bat as a fowl.

Reconsidering Psalms 82:6 -- Judges or Gods? A Proposal. This is from FAIR (so be forewarned that it's apologetic drivel and propaganda ). However, those who know Ben McGuire and have had dealings with him know that his logic is usually quite sound and he is a thorough (and respectable) researcher. This isn’t the best treatment of the topic from an LDS perspective; David Bokovoy’s recent publication while dialoguing with Dr. Heiser is fairly in-depth, and to date, Dr. Daniel Peterson’s treatment of Psalm 82 is probably the most thorough and thought-provoking. Or, for those who are looking for a (highly respected) non-LDS perspective: Here is an article by Dr. Heiser. As for men becoming gods... I'll simply leave that to the wealth of early Christian writings on the topic, as well as the wealth of scholarly publications that have been published, and continue to be published. LDS may take it a bit further than most, but in my (limited) research, I have never found anything from early Christian writings (nor scripture) that places limitations upon it. LDS are often maligned for limited the powers of G-d through various doctrines (no creation ex nihilo, etc.). But I ask, what greater power can an "all-powerful" G-d have than to make gods of men?

PaladinGirl02, “Someone” gave you one scripture that attempts to refute the concept of theosis. Although I could give a wealth (and I do mean wealth) of instances where early Christians taught this doctrine, I will stick with scripture: Romans 8:16-17 Luke 6:40 Hebrews 12:23 Galatians 4:7 Matthew 5:48 Psalm 82:5-6 Revelation 3:21 2 Peter 1:4 2 Corinthians 3:18 Acts 17:29 1 Peter 3:7

Theosis (or deification) is a well attested doctrine of Christianity.A few things to keep in mind while reading Isaiah (IMO) is audience, and context. Who was Isaiah (and the Lord) speaking to? And in what context? This is YHWH speaking (or in the LDS paradigm, the pre-incarnate Christ, aka Jehovah). And he is speaking to Israel. His use of “formed” (i.e. Hebrew yatsar) tends to make me think He is speaking of the human tendency to “form” (or “create”) gods/Gods. Also, if you think in an eternal scheme, those who are gods/Gods were most likely pre-ordained as such since the eternities (and if one takes the LDS concept of eternal “intelligences” and Christ being the “greatest,” then it is conceivable that no gods/Gods will ever be “created” as they have always existed… albeit some “in embryo.” Also, if one takes into account the next chapter of Isaiah (which also has two verses that are used as proof-texts) we can find the context of YHWH’s statements. Verses 9-21 (of chapter 44) make it pretty evident that YHWH is speaking of graven and false gods, and not those divine entities which exist[ed] in the Divine Council (and elsewhere) which was an ancient Jewish (and Christian) belief. There are hundreds of proof-texts to disprove just about any Judeo-Christian (for lack of a better term) religion. Such activities are nothing more than focusing on motes...

There’s something about a thread on “Magic” disappearing that tickles my irony bone.

Just a quick thought on “debunking” the beliefs of others. We must be careful while trying to support our own beliefs that we do not tear down those of others. In “debunking” apostolic succession, we might not necessarily show support for an apostasy and show the LDS viewpoint to be correct. Instead we might simply destroy someone else’s belief in G-d. Often, those who are influenced by writings that “debunk” a particular religion don’t necessarily embrace a new religion. Instead they become agnostics or atheists. In supporting our own beliefs we need to be careful to not take upon ourselves the tactics that anti-Mormons (or anti-anythings) use. One does not always have to attack in order to defend. Maintaining your own belief does not necessitate that you destroy someone else's in the process. *Stepping off soapbox, and now off to be a hypocrite until I can take my own words to heart.*

Simple answer; were Ignatius, et.al. ordained to be apostles?

I envy you. Thank you for sharing this. It the words of others that helps me maintain my sliver of belief (D&C 46:13-14). Congratulations, and best of luck.

D&C 46:13-14

I'm too lazy to go through all of the pages of the thread, so if someone has already posted this, I apologize. This is one of my favorite ER quotes: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Edit: ER = Eleanor Roosevelt

"Latter-day Saints believe that God has inspired not only people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but other people as well, to carry out his purposes. Today God inspires not only Latter-day Saints but also founders, teachers, philosophers, and reformers of other Christian and non-Christian religions. Since LDS belief is grounded in a theistic biblical faith, it has been relatively easy for scholars and believers to perceive parallels between it and traditional Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Now that the Church has become a global movement extending into Asia, comparisons between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the principal religions of India, China, Korea, and Japan are increasingly significant. ... ...speeches by apostles George A. Smith and Parley P. Pratt in 1855 evoked more positive traditional interpretations: that Islam, fulfilling biblical promises made to Ishmael ("gen. 21:1Gen. 21), was divinely instigated to "scourge" apostate Christianity and to curb idolatry. Perhaps unknowingly paraphrasing Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), George A. Smith applied historical judgment to Islam´s experience: "As they abode in the teachings which Mahomet gave them,…they were united and prospered; but when they ceased to do this, they lost their power and influence" (pp. 34–35)." http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=202 Also (one of my favorites)... "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. … We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation” February 15, 1978 First Presidency Easter Message (as cited in James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, Mar 2002, 2–7)

Perhaps I misunderstand the atonement, but it seems that Christ suffered so we wouldn't necessarily have to.Based on your comment regarding a “Temple Marriage,” I will assume that this particular sin was of a sexual nature, and as it occurred during the “summer” I assume you are a teenager. Part of the reason it isn’t feeling “bad” may be because your hormones are a little out of control right now, and chemically (and physically) it felt right due to the urges and chemical changes your body and mind are currently undergoing. This is not a viable “excuse” per se, but it may help you to understand why the things you are receiving from your conscience, mind and body are not necessarily reconciling with your knowledge of the Gospel. Some primal urges feel “good.” I know this is a bit of hyperbole, but there are some people that don’t feel bad about violence (there was a time in my life when I was such a person). Not feeling “bad” about a particular thing does not necessarily make it “good.” I imagine the perpetrators of many of history’s travesties didn’t feel “bad” about what they did. Now, I’m not equating whatever it was you did with such actions. I am merely trying to illustrate that oft times in life, the things we do will not necessarily feel bad despite the fact that they might indeed be far from holy. Unless your bishop is brand new in his calling, he has probably helped others through the repentance process that have erred in a similar fashion. There may even be a chance that he himself struggled with similar transgressions in his youth (I know, it’s crazy to think our leaders were once teenagers and may have actually sinned in life). He will help you move forward and put this event behind you, and (in my own experience) may do so with a level of understanding and compassion that might surprise you. All-in-all though, just because we don’t feel “bad” about a particular thing doesn’t necessitate that it is by default “good.” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, trying to force yourself to feel “bad,” or attempting to bring about personal penance may not be the most productive course of action. Also, remember that free advice is worth as much as what you pay for it... I'm just some anonymous hombre on the internet, so you must seek out your own path.

I think the majority of Genesis is allegorical/analogous/mythoi (to follow in your line regarding Noah, I believe the serpent in the garden was most likely representative of another nation's/culture's god that was commonly depicted as a serpent, thus showing [through the Eden narrative] the primacy of Israel's G-d while at the same time establishing the evil nature of the other nation's/culture's god). Exodus is probably a mixture of myth and fact. There are a few other stories (such as Elias) that just don't seem to line up with a just and merciful G-d, so I usually put those on the shelf as analogy/allegory/myth (if for no other reason than to maintain belief). It can be a tricky line to tow as there have been several instances in modern revelation that seemingly establish the literal historicity of many of these events/stories.I guess it ultimately comes down to the eloquence of LM; regardless I will probably "still fall at the feet of my Savior."

His article on the "Message and the Messenger" is a must-read, IMO.

2-3 months? I imagine you're probably being overly hard on yourself. Sometimes we are our own worse punishers. I haven't taken the sacrament in about 7 years.

How long have you been in "apostasy?" Long enough to forget common LDS nomenclature for the last supper? But, yes, you will need to talk to your bishop.

A nifty resource showing some “false” prophecies in the Bible: The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy. From the article: Important Points to Remember in Evaluating So-Called "False Prophecies" of Joseph Smith Is the source authentic or is it hearsay? Is the statement accurately quoted? Does the statement claim to be a direct revelation from God? Does the quote claim to be a prophecy, or is it a statement of commandment, instruction, etc.? Is it clearly intended to be literal (not poetic, a figure of speech, etc.)? Is there a definite time limit set for its fulfillment, not simply "shortly," "nigh," "soon," etc.? Are there any stated conditions to the prophecy? Are there any possible unstated conditions to the prophecy? Is there only one possible interpretation? Can it be shown beyond dispute that the time of fulfillment is past?