Doctor Steuss

I think you have no more obligation to learn the organ than I do. Then again... talents and all that jazz...

Some may find this blog post by Ron Baron of interest.

This is nothing more than my pure unsupportable speculation… I don’t think the ink is necessarily dry on the “contract” right away. Some may get “another chance” per se to receive a body and know the pains and joys associated with this life.

It's commendable and amiable. It gives me something to aspire to (maybe I need to find me one of those ladies). Seriously, anyone who can make such a change in their life (and in seemingly short time) is deserving of my utmost respect. I am sincerely impressed. Hopefully the questions will find answers. But, in my experience, usually when a question is answered within the LDS paradigm, it just causes further exploration and even more questions... I guess that's why I like it. -Stu

SeattleTruthSeeker / Timothy ------------, I forgot to mention that your posting style and approach has changed substantially since your posting at MA&D (and your subsequent usage of a sock-puppet and deceit). It's refreshing and appreciated. I am disheartened that you have a link to CARM on your site and still claim that Christian Apologists have (emphasis in original) “…consistently shown that the doctrines of the LDS Church (otherwise known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are not in alignment with the scriptural teachings of the Bible. Yet, when presented with infallible reasonings and proofs, the LDS Believer and Apologist explain and rely upon the faulty argument that the Bible had become corrupt over the ages and that the original church of Jesus Christ went into a state of apostasy...,” and that you are still on your personal crusade to show why you “...can no longer accept the Doctrines of Mormonism.” Anyway, once I figured out that this was the same person that engaged in blatant deceit and vociferous accusations on MA&D, I was quite surprised. You seem to have done a 180 in regards to your approach and I think it is quite commendable. Hopefully I will be able to follow your example. Kudos! -Stuart Let's be careful about putting out proprietary information (such as real names) without proir consent. Most folks prefer to keep their identities private to avoid endless spambombs a/o harassment. Honos

I think the implications of verse 27 are interesting. So God ['elohiym] created man in his own image, in the image of God ['elohiym] created he him; male and female created he them. Things that make you go hmmmm... I agree with Dr. T though that 'elohiym can potentially be used as an evidence for the orthodox concept of the Trinity.

Maybe some of these?

Also check out Margaret Barker's stuff. Heiser takes issue with some of Barker's research; however, Kevin Christiansen recently demonstrated that some of the things he takes issue with are actually dealt with in some of Barker's works. There were still a few things though that seemed to not be addressed through Barker's work though (IIRC). Edit: From memory, I believe it's a Hosea passage that is still Heiser's main qualm.

Michael Heiser's Website on the Divine Council

It's a wee bit slower that MA&D (at least right now). But, it seems to be picking up a bit. Good to have yet another familiar face who has made the trek over to this side...

Simple answer (in regards to your friend’s retort). LDS don’t claim that the Book of Mormon or the Bible are enough. This is why the line of thinking still stands as a legitimate line of reasoning in regards to “mainstream” Christianity. Many within it feel that the Bible is sufficient and all that we need (placing the Bible on par with G-d Himself). However, if it was "sufficient" and "all that we need," then we wouldn't expect there to be so many divergent paths from this ultimate source of truth.From an LDS paradigm, splinters are expected, even within “Mormonism.” This is why the need for continuing revelation becomes apparent. In fact, they seem to be a doctrinal tenet (as there will always be those who are carried about with every wind of doctrine [Eph 4:14]). LDS believe that not only did revelation not end with the Bible, but it also didn’t end with the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, nor Doctrine and Covenants.

Don’t bother responding. I see what your “research” entails. The fact that you edited out the Moderator warning from your post doesn’t exactly reflect well upon you either. I’m done with you. Isaiah 29: 21

One of my favorite examples of a text being altered is: αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει (Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!) This is a complaint that one of the scribes wrote in the margin of Codex Vaticanus (by Hebrews 1:3). Another scribe had altered the text to read differently. Interestingly, the other scribe actually was correcting the text. So, the text was wrong, a scribe fixed it, another scribe changed it back to the incorrect reading, and then wrote an insult in the margin. Groovy stuff.

I just found this (I haven't read it though), maybe it will give some insights...: 2 Nephi 26 and 27 as Midrash

Two of the online ones that I dig can be found here and here (this one is actually an online book). There was an article in Dialogue (sorry don't have the source and I'm too lazy to find it) that proposed that the Book of Moses was actually a kind of Midrash. In a lot of ways, I'd venture to say that much of Nephi's commentary on Isaiah is essentially a Midrash (although technically he was probably being guided by "the spirit" in his exegesis in lieu of applying middot). If you go to this article and scroll down a bit it kind of explains middot.

I'm going for number 3.

Just from the apocryphal Book of Enoch we have:Enoch 64: 4 (compare to Matthew 3: 17) Enoch 6: 9 (compare to Matthew 5: 5) Enoch 50: 2,4,5 (compare to Luke 21: 28, Matthew 22: 30 and Matthew 13: 43) Enoch 96: 6,7,25 (compare to James 5: 1 and Luke 6: 24) Enoch 96: 6,7,25 (compare to Luke 12) Enoch 105: 26 (compare to Matthew 19: 28) Enoch 62: 11 (compare to Romans 2: 11) Enoch 38: 2 (compare to Matthew 26: 24) Enoch 19: 2 (compare to 1 Corinthians 10: 20) Enoch 22: 10,12 (compare to Luke 16: 26) Enoch 39: 3,4,7 (compare to 2 Corinthians 12 and Revelation 19: 1) Enoch 46: 2 (compare to Colossians 2: 3) Enoch 9: 3,4 (compare to Revelation 17: 14; 19: 16 and 4: 11. Also Hebrews 4: 13) Enoch 24: 11,10 (compare to Revelation 22: 2, Revelation 2: 7 and Revelation 22: 14) Enoch 85: 2 (compare to Revelation 9: 1) Enoch 60: 13 (compare to 2 Thessalonians 1) Enoch 10: 15,16 (compare to Jude 6, 2 Peter 2: 4, and Revelation 20: 1-3) Enoch 21: 56 (compare to Revelation 30: 1-3) Enoch 79 (compare to Matt 24: 7, 21,22,29,30) Enoch 47: 3 (compare to Revelation 20: 11-13, 15) Enoch 40: 1 (compare to Revelation 5: 11) Enoch 45: 3 (compare to Matthew 25: 31, 32) Enoch 45: 4 (compare to Revelation 7: 15 and 2 Peter 3: 13) Enoch 92: 17 (compare to Revelation 22: 1) Enoch 61: 4-9 (compare to 2 Thessalonians 1: 9, 1 Thessalonians 5: 3, 2 Thessalonians 2: 8, and Matthew 25: 31) Enoch 66: 5-8 (compare to Matthew 13: 42, Matthew 25: 41 and Revelation 20: 10) Enoch 104 (compare to 1 Timothy 4: 12) Enoch 48: 1-7 (John 4: 14 and Revelation 21: 6) Enoch 48 (Galatians 1: 4, 1 John 2: 15) The above are taken from the introduction of The Book of Enoch the Prophet: Translated by Richard Laurence, LL.D. Archbishop of Cashel, (London; Kegan, Paul, Trench&Co., 1883). Also one scholar has noted that: "The influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books taken together." (Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch (London: Oxford U. Press, 1913), p. xcv) There are even Old Testament authors that “plagiarize” each other. For example compare Isaiah 2:2-4 with Micah 4:1-3. Also Obadiah 1:1-4 and Jeremiah 49:14-16. There are a few more from Obadiah 1 and Jeremiah 49, but I’m too lazy to flesh all of them out right now. And from the New Testament we have the epistle of Jude and 2 Peter (I believe it’s chapter 2). Somebody was copying someone (or perhaps both of them were copying a Q source). Then from the OT to the NT, we have such things as the angel in Revelation 2:27 “plagiarizing” the words of Psalm 2:9. John seemed to be the ultimate “plagiarist.” From the Interpreter’s Bible (12:358) there’s this nice insight into John: “John was thoroughly acquainted with the Old Testament, and quoted or alludes to it throughout his book. It has been estimated that 278 verses out of a total of 404 contain references of one kind or another to the Old Testament.... yet in no case does he specifically mention a book of the Jewish scripture...” Also, compare the “hypothetical” involving the widow in Luke 20 (also in Mark 12… maybe Mark was “plagiarizing” Luke) with the Book of Tobit. Even the “Golden Rule” existed within other religions (such as Zoroastrianism) long before Christ said it (perhaps He was “plagiarizing.”) You are right. It was unChristian of me to respond with the same form of vitriol that you used. My apologies. I hold no such position, and thank goodness you aren’t one of those “G-d-breathed” fanatics. It appears we may have found at least a little common ground. However, I do believe that the source is the same for all scripture (would you not agree?). The authors are receiving their inspiration from the same source (whether it be tradition or G-d) and as such one shouldn’t be surprised if common themes and verbiage appear within various texts that claim to be derived from the same source (i.e. Christ and/or G-d the Father and/or the Holy Spirit). How so? Paul is signing his own epistles. I’m not sure how you can equate a given author assigning authorship to himself in an ecclesiastical epistle with scriptural books quoting each other (especially when current Biblical scholarship contests the authorship attribution of some books [such as there being more than one “Isaiah” that wrote the book of Isaiah]) with attribution. And there are such instances in the Book of Mormon where similar verbiage is used to designate the writings of a given scriptural author. And there are also instances where the Bible doesn’t give attribution. It seems to me you are trying to apply a double-standard. So, would you have no qualm if Moroni attributed his words to Paul? Seems to me that would be a huge red flag. This is probably one of those instances where a critic who isn’t actually out to learn but instead coming under the guise of a sincere questioner who actually just wants to debate. If I show there are differences, you will probably claim that it is “changing the Bible” or “contradicting the Bible.” If there are similarities, then of course it is “plagiarism.Here are the passages from Corinthians that you claim are “plagiarized” in Moroni without attribution to Paul: 1 NOW concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. I have gone over the Chapter in Moroni to find this blatant “plagiarism” that you think deserves attribution to Paul. There are a few passages (not exactly what you implied/conveyed by stating verses 1-11 of Corinthians and the entire chapter of Moroni; but maybe that was an oversight on your part) that could possibly be deemed as plagiarism. However the majority of those with striking resemblance have subtleties that give it almost a Midrashic quality. Here is a verse by verse analysis (which I’m sure you’ve already done yourself, but for the benefit of others I hope you’ll bear with me). First, we have verse 1 in the Corinthians passages. The following verse is the closest thing to “plagiarism” within the Moroni chapter that I can find (perhaps you have a different verse in mind?). 19 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the children of men. Hardly damning, and only strenuously plagiaristic. Next; verse 2 of the Corinthians passages. There is no use of the words “Gentiles,” “carried,” “dumb,” “idols,” nor “led” within the Moroni chapter. There is usage of “away” (such as in verses 1, 19, 24, 26), but the context is completely different than that of the Corinthian passage. So, this verse is definitely not plagiarized. In comparing verse 3 to Moroni, I find no usage of “understand,” “no man,” “calleth,” “Jesus” (although it does use “Christ”), “accursed” (I even did a search for “curse” and got nothing within the Moroni text), and nothing saying that “Christ” is the Lord. There is a verse (27) that uses “speaking,” but it says “…even as one speaking out of the dust”. There are also two verses that use “Spirit of God” (8 and 9); however, if you take a moment to read them (which I’m sure you’ve already done), you will see that they are in no way plagiarizing (especially when you consider that it is a phrase from the Old Testament [samuel 19:20 for example]). In verses 6 & 7 (below) there is a theme that someone can know that Christ “is” by the power of the Holy Ghost which is vaguely similar to what Paul is saying in the Corinthian book, but hopefully by comparing the two again, you can determine if your previous analysis of plagiarism for verse 3 of the Corinthian chapter was correct: 6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is. 7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever. So far, we have three verses (which from your post are claimed to be plagiarized without attribution) that don’t appear to have been plagiarized. Maybe you have some verses though from your research that shows these are actually plagiarized in the Moroni chapter(?) I guess we can move onto verse 4 now. In the Moroni text we find the following passage: 8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them. So far, this is probably the closest thing to “plagiarism” that I’ve found (perhaps you meant to say verses 4-12 in lieu of 1-12…). There are subtle differences between the themes though. The Greek word diairesis denotes a division or distinction. We find no such parallel about the “gifts” in the Moroni passage. Instead, Moroni seems to only delineate the gifts by saying that there are different ways that they are “administered.” The gifts seem to have no division other than the way they are “administered” (unlike Paul’s usage of diairesis). Also, Paul tells us that the gifts are coming from the same “Spirit,” yet Moroni attributes them not to the “Spirit,” but to G-d Himself. So, although on the surface it appeared we might have a tenuous (at best) case for plagiarism; in reality we have yet another verse that wasn’t plagiarized. Maybe we will find our damning plagiarism without attribution in verse 5. Now, this one seems pretty damning; at least on the surface. In Moroni 8, we have “…different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same G-d who worketh all in all…”, and then in Corinthians we have “And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.” The only problem being that “ways that these gifts are administered” is not the same as “differences of administrations.” “Administrations” (Greek: diakonia) are offices within the church (such as deacons). Although “administered” and “administrations” would appear to be synonymous to the biased axe-grinding mind, they are in actuality not completely synonymous. In verse 6 we find that there are “diversities of operations.” In the Moroni text there is only one use of “divers” (not even “diversities”) and it is speaking about the kinds of tongues. We do however have a similar phrase between Corinthians and Moroni. In verse 8 of Moroni we find “but it is the same God who worketh all in all.” Perhaps this is indeed a case. Then again, maybe the phraseology isn’t so unbelievably uncommon that Paul could be the only source. I’m sure we can agree that the concept of the “same G-d” isn’t exactly something Paul came up with on his own. As for the phrase “all in all,” it is a common idiom (Paul unfortunately doesn’t have a trademark on it). We do have an interesting variant though (why would our scoundrel of a “plagiarist” take the time to change the one word?). Could it be that someone ingrained with a high Christology and pre Deuteronomist Israelite tradition still thought of G-d in anthropomorphic terms in lieu of the more nebulous Greek philosophy that Pauline theology somewhat began to introduce? Of course not, the only correct answer must damn Mormonism and lift up the Bible to its place of idolatrous worship. But, I will grant that the latter half of verse six could be deemed plagiarism. Verse 7. If we look to Moroni verse 8 (again) we will find the potential parallel. In it we read: ”…and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.” Verse 7 of Corinthians reads: ”But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” So, we have “manifestation of the Spirit” which are given (to every man in Paul’s writing, but just “unto men” in Moroni’s) “to profit.” Although the subtleties (and the subject matter) are not necessarily unique to Pauline theology, and the themes and tradition most likely share a common source, I will grant this one as well. Now to verse 8 of the Corinthian passages. We find a commonality with verses 9 and 10 of the Moroni passage: 9 For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom; 10 And to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; The Corinthian passage reads thus: 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; Once again we have similar themes with subtleties which alter the overall context and expand upon it (much like a Midrash). We could strenuously deem this one as “plagiarism” as well. Despite the subtleties and expansion of thoughts (which technically absolve this of the claim to “plagiarism”) I will grant this one as well. However, is it possible that such a theme and concept was existent within Jewish theology (much like the intro to Proverbs or that of Elihu found in Job 34)? In verse 9 of the Corinthian passage we find a parallel passage in Moroni (verse 11). The concepts of healing and faith are not unique to Paul, but I will grant this one as well. In verse 10 we find another Midrash type of scripture within Moroni (verses 12-16). Once again it is taking the concepts and expounding upon them. The author of the Moroni text evidently has a different source than Paul or has a deeper understanding than Paul. However, I will grant this one. Verse 11 of Corinthians has a parallel in verse 17 of the Moroni passages. I would say that this is probably the greatest example where the two texts agree. However, once again there are slight differences. But, I will also grant this one. So, we actually (despite your claims that Moroni 10 so closely resembled Corinthians 1-12 that Paul should have been attributed as the author) have only a handful of verses with subtle differences that actually expound upon the text. Now, I’m sure that the subtle differences between the texts and the (now diminished) plagiarism that you somehow came up with in your personal research and study of Corinthians and the Book of Mormon will likely cause you to decry that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible or some such tripe. In the end though, I don’t see any worse “plagiarism” between the Book of Mormon and Bible passages you mentioned than I do between Enoch and the verses I cited in the introduction to this post. You are more than welcome to continue to employ your double standard though. And there are many within the Bible. Once again it appears you aren’t out to learn but instead apply your double standards in order to debate and demean. Besides the laundry list I already provided (such as Christ directly quoting Enoch 94:8 in Luke 6:24 without attribution)? Well, given that the Gospel of John, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter were most likely written after the Apocalypse of John was written, I’d hope for the sake of all of those Christians lugging those books in their Bibles that it only applies to the Book of Revelation.Are you aware of what Deuteronomy 4:2 says? “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Do you think this is speaking of adding or taking away from the book of Deuteronomy only, or the whole Bible? I would hope that you don’t have a double standard that you utilize as a polemic against those who have additional holy writ.

I'd hope that it's number 4... but 'tis true, I've never even been to Germany.

It doesn't appear to me that I am the one limiting and questioning His power.

Dunno. I usually treat this stuff kind of like the Second Coming. I live like it will happen tomorrow, but prepare as if it will happen when I'm old and grey (or perhaps not in my lifetime at all). China dumping all of the US $ that they have could certainly cause us to fall on some hard times.

1. I have been published. 2. I am in a band. 3. I used to live in Germany. 4. I smell like bologna and wet dog...

The housing market is too much of a monolith to simply turn the market on a dime (pun not intended). It might contribute to an eventual recession, but the market in and of itself won’t be the cause of a “crash,” it will be the public’s perceived notions of the market that will cause the “crash.” Right now is actually one of the best times to buy a home (low mortgage rates [if you actually pay your bills on time], and low home prices, as well as market saturation); however, it takes time for the public mindset to switch. Once the public mindset begins to realize that it is actually a good time to buy a home, things will begin to rebound. The overall economy has much more to worry about than the housing market, IMO.

Just be glad they decided to call them a "Stake" instead of an "Out."

I only attended for one year, and I regret not going the full four. But, I had started doing AP classes my Sophmore year, and 5:00am was a little too early for a high-school mind to be sitting listening to theology.

I’m wondering if you are aware of how much the New Testament "plagiarizes" from the Old Testament and many apocryphal sources. I’m also wondering if you have any form of a grasp on what the definition of “plagiarism” is. I suggest you look it up. The portions within the Book of Mormon that “plagiarize” the Bible give a source for the words. Attribution is given to the Author, G-d. Then again, maybe Christ was plagiarizing the book of Tobit, Enoch, Isaiah, Psalms, Job, etc. Why are there chunks plagiarized and hijacked from the Torah within the New Testament? Your qualm is silly at best, and hypocritical at worst. What opinions would these be? How have we not been “honest” about our opinions regarding “the Bible”? Are you aware that the majority of Joseph’s sermons came from the Bible (he hardly ever taught from the Book of Mormon)? Are you aware that as LDS, we work on a four year Sunday School study schedule, and two of those years are devoted to the Bible? Are you aware that the Bible is amongst the canonized "standard works" of the LDS? I would hate to think you are bearing false witness here.