Still_Small_Voice Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 I'm not sure I understand your point.I made it clear from the beginning that my post wasn't meant to be doctrinal at all, as the Journal of Discourses isn't doctrine. I also was very clear that it wasn't a scriptural interpretation; rather it was a historical oneElphabaI know that all of the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine. But focusing on the historical point you brought out something interesting that Brigham Young taught on and I thought I would expand on it for whoever desired to read it. What I wrote before is doctrine that the church recognizes."The Apostle John taught that “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22). The Son, in turn, will call upon others to assist in the Judgment. The Twelve who were with him in his ministry will judge the twelve tribes of Israel (see Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). The Nephite Twelve will judge the Nephite and Lamanite people (see 1 Nephi 12:9–10; Mormon 3:18–19). President John Taylor said the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles in our own dispensation will also judge us." --Gospel Principles, Chapter 46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snipe123 Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 I know that all of the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine. But focusing on the historical point you brought out something interesting that Brigham Young taught on and I thought I would expand on it for whoever desired to read it. What I wrote before is doctrine that the church recognizes."The Apostle John taught that “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22). The Son, in turn, will call upon others to assist in the Judgment. The Twelve who were with him in his ministry will judge the twelve tribes of Israel (see Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). The Nephite Twelve will judge the Nephite and Lamanite people (see 1 Nephi 12:9–10; Mormon 3:18–19). President John Taylor said the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles in our own dispensation will also judge us." --Gospel Principles, Chapter 46There, I knew someone would find something on the subject from this dispensation, and not even from some obscure unknown source (haha), but right there in Gospel Principles...Love that! Great job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still_Small_Voice Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 There, I knew someone would find something on the subject from this dispensation, and not even from some obscure unknown source (haha), but right there in Gospel Principles...Love that! Great job!I have been blessed to have been called as the Gospel Principles teacher in my branch. There is so much light and knowledge in this book. I grateful to have received this calling as I know I am learning more than anyone in the entire class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted September 26, 2007 Report Share Posted September 26, 2007 ElphabaI think its very difficult to know the mindset of people from history. I disagree with your charectorization of Brigham Youngs mindset mainly as it goes against what he and others have preached about baptism for the dead being a gateway to the CK. Frankly I think BY was a lot less crusty than he had the right to be. Nevertheless I found your post interesting and shows you have done your homework even though we come to different conclusions.Issacs post (partially quoted below) makes much more sense to me historically and doctrinaly and is the way I understand the "mindset" of BY's to have been when he said itLet me explain it this way: "If [Paul] was verily a prophet [apostle], and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"Do you now have a problem with this statement? If you reject the testimony of Paul, then you do not accept his teachings regarding the blood of Jesus etc...which led you to Christ in the first place and which provides salvation...This is what is meant by that quote...If you reject Josephs claim(testimony) that he restored the Gospel and reject such teachings as baptism etc, then there are consequences if they are true...again, this is not saying that Joseph Smith provides salvation...it is his message, if believed and followed, that does...Just like Pauls message if believed and followed provided salvation to his hearers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snipe123 Posted September 26, 2007 Report Share Posted September 26, 2007 ElphabaI think its very difficult to know the mindset of people from history. I disagree with your charectorization of Brigham Youngs mindset mainly as it goes against what he and others have preached about baptism for the dead being a gateway to the CK. Frankly I think BY was a lot less crusty than he had the right to be. Nevertheless I found your post interesting and shows you have done your homework even though we come to different conclusions.Issacs post (partially quoted below) makes much more sense to me historically and doctrinaly and is the way I understand the "mindset" of BY's to have been when he said itHey mnn,Are you sure you quoted what you meant to in this post? Not understanding how the quote from my post relates to this topic? Not being critical, just wondering if you made a cut/paste error there...hahaha...just watching your back man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Hey mnn,Are you sure you quoted what you meant to in this post? Not understanding how the quote from my post relates to this topic? Not being critical, just wondering if you made a cut/paste error there...hahaha...just watching your back man... Yes, that was what I wanted to quote, perhaps it could have been stated better, so I'll give it a try:Anyone saying if you don't believe Joseph's message you won't make it to the CK, would be the same as saying if you reject Pauls message you won't make it to the CK, or if you reject Peters, or James or Johns message you won't make it to the CK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snipe123 Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 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.Hey Doc, I am currently writing a rather extensive paper on the subject of this thread...particularly discussing the arguments made on both sides...Though not meant to be the bulk of the paper, I remembered this little quote you posted here and was wondering where you got it from and if you can point me to similar statements and or a good read on textual variants/errors/deletions etc that have been found etc...particularly if they are non-Mormon sources...any help would be aprreciated...I am planning to post the paper on Helium.com and will likely post a link to it on this thread...feedback would also be appreciated since I do value your opinion and find that we are usually in the same camp...Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Steuss Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Hey Doc, I am currently writing a rather extensive paper on the subject of this thread...particularly discussing the arguments made on both sides...Though not meant to be the bulk of the paper, I remembered this little quote you posted here and was wondering where you got it from and if you can point me to similar statements and or a good read on textual variants/errors/deletions etc that have been found etc...particularly if they are non-Mormon sources...any help would be aprreciated...I am planning to post the paper on Helium.com and will likely post a link to it on this thread...feedback would also be appreciated since I do value your opinion and find that we are usually in the same camp...Thanks!Bart Ehrman’s books are probably going to be your best "one source" stop for this sort of thing (I particularly like The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration although most people I know like Misquoting Jesus).Bruce Metzger (in "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography" on page 74) talks about the “Fool and knave…” thing. I’m sure you can find an online something-or-other for it.Kerry Shirts has a little compilation here on the coruption of scripture. And this is a really good resource showing that despite the errors, etc., the reliability of the New Testament text is pretty darn tootin' good.Hope these help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleTruthSeeker Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Bart Ehrman’s books are probably going to be your best "one source" stop for this sort of thing (I particularly like The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration although most people I know like Misquoting Jesus).Bruce Metzger (in "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography" on page 74) talks about the “Fool and knave…” thing. I’m sure you can find an online something-or-other for it.Kerry Shirts has a little compilation here on the coruption of scripture. And this is a really good resource showing that despite the errors, etc., the reliability of the New Testament text is pretty darn tootin' good.Hope these help.Don't you mean Bruce Metzger and Bart Erhman?? I thought it was only Bruce M. Metzger who wrote this lol....The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Steuss Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Don't you mean Bruce Metzger and Bart Erhman?? I thought it was only Bruce M. Metzger who wrote this lol....The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and RestorationOops... Thank you for the correction. Credit is needed where credit is due. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeOnaPlate Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Oops... Thank you for the correction. Credit is needed where credit is due.Ouch credibility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Steuss Posted October 15, 2007 Report Share Posted October 15, 2007 Ouch credibilityYou assume I had any to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.