why aren't prayers answered?

[HappyNIL]

Perhaps praying for the strength to endure the physical pain and the understanding as to why the pain needs to be endured is another approach the family can take.

[Snow]

I disagree. Just because you disagree doesn't make my statements false.

I have no desire to engage in another contentious conversation with you Snow. And in the past it has always gotten contentious .... thus my last post.

So again..... I wish you all the best in your search for answers and I'm out of this tread.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's that you made statements that are factually untrue. For example you said that God never interfere with one's agency. If one believes that scripture is true, not saying that you do, but if one does, God, then, interferes all the time. There are 14 passages in the Bible where God hardens people's heart. God often - a lot - interferes with people's agency by killing them and thus not allowing them to be agents.

I don't see why you need think that someone not agreeing with you is contentious but okay.

[Backroads]

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's that you made statements that are factually untrue. For example you said that God never interfere with one's agency. If one believes that scripture is true, not saying that you do, but if one does, God, then, interferes all the time. There are 14 passages in the Bible where God hardens people's heart. God often - a lot - interferes with people's agency by killing them and thus not allowing them to be agents.

I don't see why you need think that someone not agreeing with you is contentious but okay.

Yes, but many of those passages of hardening people's hearts are considered incorrectly worded. If you are going to argue against Mormons, you also need to accept that we believe in some changes.

[Snow]

Yes, but many of those passages of hardening people's hearts are considered incorrectly worded. If you are going to argue against Mormons, you also need to accept that we believe in some changes.

What "WE" believe?

The Church has an approved canon of scripture. It represent our official doctrine. Joseph Smith reworked his King James translation into the JST but the Church has not recognized it as canon. For us, the JST is commentary; useful, but not official and hence not doctrinal.

[Backroads]

What "WE" believe?

The Church has an approved canon of scripture. It represent our official doctrine. Joseph Smith reworked his King James translation into the JST but the Church has not recognized it as canon. For us, the JST is commentary; useful, but not official and hence not doctrinal.

Fair enough, but I personally do believe the JST to be legitimate and so do many other Mormons. I also highly doubt the Church is going to boot me for believing so. Many Mormons do consider the JST to be inspired, so it's going to be just as factual as the KJV.

[Snow]

Fair enough, but I personally do believe the JST to be legitimate and so do many other Mormons. I also highly doubt the Church is going to boot me for believing so. Many Mormons do consider the JST to be inspired, so it's going to be just as factual as the KJV.

I guess it all depends on who you think is more qualified to know what was originally intended and written - the original authors or someone living 2 to 3 thousand years later working off an English translation instead of the original languages.

[bytor2112]

What "WE" believe?

The Church has an approved canon of scripture. It represent our official doctrine. Joseph Smith reworked his King James translation into the JST but the Church has not recognized it as canon. For us, the JST is commentary; useful, but not official and hence not doctrinal.

So the JST Matthew and the JST references are....not canon?

[Backroads]

I guess it all depends on who you think is more qualified to know what was originally intended and written - the original authors or someone living 2 to 3 thousand years later working off an English translation instead of the original languages.

I will admit I have only read a couple translations of the Bible... do all original Biblical sources blame God? I have a friend who swears another version does not blame God in the Exodus scriptures.

[Snow]

I will admit I have only read a couple translations of the Bible... do all original Biblical sources blame God? I have a friend who swears another version does not blame God in the Exodus scriptures.

Here's a link where you can check various versions:

Exodus 9:12,Exodus 10:1,Exodus 10:20,Exodus 10:27,Exodus 14:8 NASB - And the LORD hardened Pharaohs heart - Bible Gateway

I'd, like you, would tend to agree with JS instead of with the original authors in this case.

[pam]

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's that you made statements that are factually untrue. For example you said that God never interfere with one's agency. If one believes that scripture is true, not saying that you do, but if one does, God, then, interferes all the time. There are 14 passages in the Bible where God hardens people's heart. God often - a lot - interferes with people's agency by killing them and thus not allowing them to be agents.

I don't see why you need think that someone not agreeing with you is contentious but okay.

Snow out of curiosity, can you provide an example where God was the one that hardened someone's heart and they didn't do it of their own free will?

[skippy740]

What "WE" believe?

The Church has an approved canon of scripture. It represent our official doctrine. Joseph Smith reworked his King James translation into the JST but the Church has not recognized it as canon. For us, the JST is commentary; useful, but not official and hence not doctrinal.

If it is bound in leather and produced by the LDS church as scripture, then it is scripture. The topical guide, Bible dictionary, chapter headings, footnotes, index... it all constitutes scripture... unless and until new revelation is given to the contrary.

Joseph Smith said that the Songs of Solomon aren't inspired writings and it says so in our scriptures.

This doesn't mean there aren't "errors of men" in these additional helps, but they are canonized for our use, profit and learning.

If you believe in continuous, ongoing revelation to help us understand and clarify the scriptures... then it is canon and doctrinal.

[Backroads]

Snow out of curiosity, can you provide an example where God was the one that hardened someone's heart and they didn't do it of their own free will?

Well, heck, Pharoah was a perfectly nice and congenial man who was practically begging the Israelites to leave with his blessings...

[Dravin]

The topical guide, Bible dictionary, chapter headings, footnotes, index... it all constitutes scripture... unless and until new revelation is given to the contrary.

It doesn't seem to think so:

It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Dravin

[HiJolly]

If it is bound in leather and produced by the LDS church as scripture, then it is scripture. The topical guide, Bible dictionary, chapter headings, footnotes, index... it all constitutes scripture... unless and until new revelation is given to the contrary.

Joseph Smith said that the Songs of Solomon aren't inspired writings and it says so in our scriptures.

This doesn't mean there aren't "errors of men" in these additional helps, but they are canonized for our use, profit and learning.

If you believe in continuous, ongoing revelation to help us understand and clarify the scriptures... then it is canon and doctrinal.

Well.... I do believe in continuous, ongoing revelation BUT I totally disagree with your opinion concerning what is canon. Totally. TG, Dictionary, Chapter headings, footnotes, index -- none of it is scripture. Neither are General Conference talks.

So there!

HiJolly

[pam]

Well, heck, Pharoah was a perfectly nice and congenial man who was practically begging the Israelites to leave with his blessings...

Thank you Snow.

[Snow]

Snow out of curiosity, can you provide an example where God was the one that hardened someone's heart and they didn't do it of their own free will?

Exodus 421 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

[Snow]

If it is bound in leather and produced by the LDS church as scripture, then it is scripture. The topical guide, Bible dictionary, chapter headings, footnotes, index... it all constitutes scripture... unless and until new revelation is given to the contrary.

Joseph Smith said that the Songs of Solomon aren't inspired writings and it says so in our scriptures.

This doesn't mean there aren't "errors of men" in these additional helps, but they are canonized for our use, profit and learning.

If you believe in continuous, ongoing revelation to help us understand and clarify the scriptures... then it is canon and doctrinal.

You are completely contradicting yourself.

You say every bound in leather and produced by the Church is scripture. The Songs of Solomon are thus scripture. Then you say JS said that the SoS isn't inspired. However 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is God-breathed (inspired), meaning that SoS is inspired.

So what's it going to be? Inspired or not. You can't have it both ways.

Besides which, you are factually wrong. You are just making up that our scriptures say that SoS is not inspired.

... and, you are also just making up that everything in the Standard Works - bible dictionary, chapter headings, etc, is also scripture. It's not nice to make things up.

[Clarity_over_agreement]

Read the Talk :Tragedy or Destiny

By Spencer W. Kimball

Its really eye opening

[skippy740]

You are completely contradicting yourself.

You say every bound in leather and produced by the Church is scripture. The Songs of Solomon are thus scripture. Then you say JS said that the SoS isn't inspired. However 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is God-breathed (inspired), meaning that SoS is inspired.

So what's it going to be? Inspired or not. You can't have it both ways.

Besides which, you are factually wrong. You are just making up that our scriptures say that SoS is not inspired.

... and, you are also just making up that everything in the Standard Works - bible dictionary, chapter headings, etc, is also scripture. It's not nice to make things up.

Page 856 of the LDS KJV (in the footnotes): "Note: The JST manuscript states that The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings."

Article of Faith:8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Let's get back on point: You said that God will change someone's heart against their will - per the scriptures in Exodus. Do you believe that the JST footnotes are part of our instruction and learning?

Or do you think that the translations of the Bible have been perfect all along prior to the JST manuscripts?

I will take the word of the latter day prophet to help us interpret the scriptures, over the work of man's thought of what they thought scriptures were supposed to say.

One of the 14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet: A living prophet is more important than a dead prophet.

[skippy740]

Exodus 421 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Footnote: JST Ex 4:21... and I will prosper thee: but Pharaoh will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go.

[skippy740]

You say every bound in leather and produced by the Church is scripture. The Songs of Solomon are thus scripture. Then you say JS said that the SoS isn't inspired. However 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is God-breathed (inspired), meaning that SoS is inspired.

When it is written in the scriptures that there is an "exception", then apply the exception as it is intended.

Here's another one:

Title Page*

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Even the most correct book of scripture can have faults and mistakes of men!

But everything* written within the bound pages is meant for our profit and learning.

* Everything as it is written. SoS is written as part of the KJV of the Bible, but it not considered "inspired writings". (Since I have to spell everything out for snow.)

With the way this thread is going, the next thing you're going to tell me is that you "cannot add to or take away from the Bible."

Edited August 30, 2011 by skippy740

[john doe]

MODERATOR WARNING!!!

This makes two threads I'm very close to closing because someone can't seem to play well with others. The nit-picking and general rudeness will stop or there will be changes in site membership status. It is possible to disagree or help someone see that they are mistaken without being a jerk about it. If you can't play nice you will be asked to share your opinions somewhere else.

[Snow]

Page 856 of the LDS KJV (in the footnotes): "Note: The JST manuscript states that The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings."

And....?

Article of Faith:8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Exactly what word or words are you alleging are incorrectly translated? Please be specific.

Let's get back on point: You said that God will change someone's heart against their will - per the scriptures in Exodus.

No - that's not what I said.

Do you believe that the JST footnotes are part of our instruction and learning?

Yes - what's your point?

Or do you think that the translations of the Bible have been perfect all along prior to the JST manuscripts?

No -what's your point.

I will take the word of the latter day prophet to help us interpret the scriptures, over the work of man's thought of what they thought scriptures were supposed to say.

One of the 14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet: A living prophet is more important than a dead prophet.

1. I notice that you are using the writing of one dead prophet to refute another dead prophet.

2. Prophets come and prophets go. The vast majority author no scripture and contribute nothing to our official doctrine. On the other hand, canonized scripture, all of it composed by dead prophets, lasts forever, so it all depends on what you mean by "important."

3. I don't much care for the 14 Fundamentals - written by another dead prophet. I follow Christ, not Ezra Taft Benson.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Snow

[Snow]

Footnote: JST Ex 4:21... and I will prosper thee: but Pharaoh will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go.

Moses: "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

[Snow]

When it is written in the scriptures that there is an "exception", then apply the exception as it is intended.

Please quote SCRIPTURE, not footnotes. The SCRIPTURE I quoted said "all", not some.

Here's another one:

Title Page*

Even the most correct book of scripture can have faults and mistakes of men!

But everything* written within the bound pages is meant for our profit and learning.

We are talking about the Bible, not the BoM.

Tell me why you refute scripture, but believe non-scriptural footnotes?

* Everything as it is written. SoS is written as part of the KJV of the Bible, but it not considered "inspired writings". (Since I have to spell everything out for snow.)

I don't know if it is inspired or not. I do know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has canonized in our Standard Works.

With the way this thread is going, the next thing you're going to tell me is that you "cannot add to or take away from the Bible."

I have no idea what that means.