10 facts

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes--so, you base it on your understanding of what the Bible should be based on what you understand of history.

Perhaps you can qualify your statement when you say "understand of history". Are you using this phrase to mean interpretation of history? If that is the case what exactly did you have in mind?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Perhaps you can qualify your statement when you say "understand of history". Are you using this phrase to mean interpretation of history? If that is the case what exactly did you have in mind?

I mean how you understand history. So, if something came to light about history, would you change your beliefs? Lets say a new m****cript was found that was closer to the time of Christ that was different than the Bible you believe today...would you change what you believe?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I mean how you understand history Lets say a new m****cript was found that was closer to the time of Christ that was different than the Bible you believe today...would you change what you believe?

So now you are not talking about actual history but specualation?

This whole topic started when you brought up the Apocrypha and questioned why it was not included in the canon of scripture that we have today. What evidence do you have that supports including this as canon--especially since your own standard works do not include it AND the fact that Joseph Smith owned a KJV Bible that included the Apocrypha and he ripped it out of his own Bible?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So now you are not talking about actual history but specualation?

This whole topic started when you brought up the Apocrypha and questioned why it was not included in the canon of scripture that we have today. What evidence do you have that supports including this as canon--especially since your own standard works do not include it AND the fact that Joseph Smith owned a KJV Bible that included the Apocrypha and he ripped it out of his own Bible?

I offer no evidence to whether or not it should be included in the canon. The question becomes who decides and determines what should be in the canon. You seem to think it is history--what has been accepted historically. But wouldn't that argument support both you and the Catholics as these books have been around historically and who was to decide that they should not be included? How do you know what is right concerning them? It appears your only answer is to look to history. But I have seen "history" change over time as new insights and artifacts come to light.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I offer no evidence to whether or not it should be included in the canon.

Then why on earth did you even bring this up since you have no proof at all that these books should be included in the canon.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The question becomes who decides and determines what should be in the canon. You seem to think it is history--what has been accepted historically.

I don't think history is what decides the canon I think God is the one who determines what is in the canon.

Now some questions for you. What books should be in the canon that are not in the current canon? What books do you think should be removed.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Oh, I don't think a "church" saves you. But I find it interesting that you believe a person can attend a Catholic church and still be saved as long as they reject the tenants of the Catholic church. So to you what the Catholic church teaches is not Christian...just as you believe what the LDS church teaches is not Christian, right?

Julie, what you don't seem to know is that there are Christians within the Catholic Church, they're called, Evangelical Catholics. These people profess the same as any other Christians; that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior, repent of their sins, have faith in Christ, believe that he died on the cross and rose again on the third day. In the Roman Catholic Church, those who accept that praying to idols is necessary, going to confession is necessary, doing Hail Mary's etc. are necessary that the Pope is infallible are NOT Christian! You know that God told us to not worship any graven image nor have any false gods. We know what happened to the Israelites because they melted down all their gold and made a golden calf all the while Moses was speaking with God at the burning bush and receiving the Law.

And sorry Julie, what your church teaches is not Christian since you worship a Christ that never existed. My Christ was always God. He was not anyone's brother. He didn't attain his position in heaven by progressing and progressing til BANG! one day he woke up and he was God. He is not part of a gang of gods either. There is but one God.

Answer this question if you can. If the God we worship progressed over and over til he became the God we worship, is there not a God who He must worship if progression is a constant? Can you see how confusing this idea is? Where does it stop? Is there some really, MIGHTY God out there? If that were so, why don't we know about him and why aren't we worshipping him since he is the highest God there is?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I don't think history is what decides the canon I think God is the one who determines what is in the canon.

Now some questions for you. What books should be in the canon that are not in the current canon? What books do you think should be removed.

If God determines what should be in the Canon, then how do you know who God inspired....why reject the Council of Trent?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by neverending

Answer this question if you can. If the God we worship progressed over and over til he became the God we worship, is there not a God who He must worship if progression is a constant? Can you see how confusing this idea is? Where does it stop? Is there some really, MIGHTY God out there? If that were so, why don't we know about him and why aren't we worshipping him since he is the highest God there is?

Ummm, I think you mistake what I believe God to be or who He is.

Because we know God the Father by Jesus Christ---I'll explain my belief regarding God in terms of Jesus Christ. We learn that Christ is the express image of the Father and is the Son of the Father. His very nature is identical to His Fathers. He is like Him in every way. In this way, He is one with God and is from ever lasting to ever lasting.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

But we also learn that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhead from the beginning.

Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So, there are two ways to think of Jesus Christ. One, He was part of the Godhead prior to his coming to earth and was chosen from the beginning to be our Savior.

The second way is to recognize that, although part of the Godhead prior to his birth, he also came to earth, was born, suffered for our sins, died and was resurrected---and is so doing, was exalted.

Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

Act 2:3 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

So, this "progression" that you speak of---Christ went through it--and yet was the Son of God---always One with God in nature. Yet, went from not having a physical body to having a physical resurrected bodies. And he beckons us to come follow Him.

That "some mighty God" you speak of?--It is God the Father. That is what He taught Abraham--that He is greater than all.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

If God determines what should be in the Canon, then how do you know who God inspired....why reject the Council of Trent?

Because these books are not canonized in the Jewish Bible nor are they accepted by the Jewish community as scripture.

Now are you even going to get around to answering my question? Which books do you think should be included in the Bible that are not in your current KJV? Which books are in your KJV that should not be there?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Because these books are not canonized in the Jewish Bible nor are they accepted by the Jewish community as scripture.

Now are you even going to get around to answering my question? Which books do you think should be included in the Bible that are not in your current KJV? Which books are in your KJV that should not be there?

So, it is the Jews that determined your scripture? Even though they rejected Christ? And this body of men is who you believe you should follow when it comes to scripture? That they were inspired to the will of God?

It is easy for me to answer your question. Books considered scripture are those written by and determined to be included by prophets--or those appointed by God to reveal to man the will of God.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, it is the Jews that determined your scripture? Even though they rejected Christ? And this body of men is who you believe you should follow when it comes to scripture? That they were inspired to the will of God?

Jesus was a Jew and it was the same canon that he used. He accepted it as scripture and if books were missing He certainly would have made note of it. Don't you think?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

It is easy for me to answer your question. Books considered scripture are those written by and determined to be included by prophets--or those appointed by God to reveal to man the will of God.

Since it is easy for you to answer then perhaps you can finally answer my questions that I have asked you over and over again.

Which books are not included in the current lds Bible that should be there?

Which books are in the current lds Bible that you think should be removed?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Since it is easy for you to answer then perhaps you can finally answer my questions that I have asked you over and over again.

Which books are not included in the current lds Bible that should be there?

Which books are in the current lds Bible that you think should be removed?

I have been very patient with you BigJ. Please answer these questions.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Since it is easy for you to answer then perhaps you can finally answer my questions that I have asked you over and over again.

Which books are not included in the current lds Bible that should be there?

Which books are in the current lds Bible that you think should be removed?

Billy, these are very good questions. I would like to ask one more. If JS was a prophet, was called by God to restore His Church; then why don't the LDS use JS's translation of the Bible? Why do they continue to use the King James version? WHY?

[neverending]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, it is the Jews that determined your scripture? Even though they rejected Christ? And this body of men is who you believe you should follow when it comes to scripture? That they were inspired to the will of God?

It is easy for me to answer your question. Books considered scripture are those written by and determined to be included by prophets--or those appointed by God to reveal to man the will of God.

Then Julie, why does your church still use the King James version of the Bible and not JS's translation? Certainly if he were called by God to restore His church, that translation should be the most accurate, wouldn't you say? Your answer to Billy is untrue. LDS have a prophet, have had many prophets so you ALL should be using JS's translation.
Wasn't what JS did good enough? Isn't his translation correct, after all JS saw God and Jesus Christ, was ordained to be the founder of your faith. certainly God wouldn't lead him astray with rewriting the Bible would he?

[neverending]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Ummm, I think you mistake what I believe God to be or who He is.

Because we know God the Father by Jesus Christ---I'll explain my belief regarding God in terms of Jesus Christ. We learn that Christ is the express image of the Father and is the Son of the Father. His very nature is identical to His Fathers. He is like Him in every way. In this way, He is one with God and is from ever lasting to ever lasting.






But we also learn that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhead from the beginning.






So, there are two ways to think of Jesus Christ. One, He was part of the Godhead prior to his coming to earth and was chosen from the beginning to be our Savior.

The second way is to recognize that, although part of the Godhead prior to his birth, he also came to earth, was born, suffered for our sins, died and was resurrected---and is so doing, was exalted.







So, this "progression" that you speak of---Christ went through it--and yet was the Son of God---always One with God in nature. Yet, went from not having a physical body to having a physical resurrected bodies. And he beckons us to come follow Him.

That "some mighty God" you speak of?--It is God the Father. That is what He taught Abraham--that He is greater than all.

Julie, since I don't believe your Book of Abraham, then we'll have nothing in common to refer to. Nothing is ever said to Abraham in the OT that God was greater than all. So, now what do we do with Isaiah when he said these things? "I am the LORD, and there is no other besides me: and there are no gods. I'm strengthening you, although you have not acknowledged me.." (Is. 45:5)
And what of Isaiah 43:10? ""You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."

Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Isaiah 44:8, "Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Seems to me that God was very definite that He knew NO OTHER gods, nor were there any other but Him. LDS idea of progression is just that, an idea. There is NO scripture found in the Bible that supports that idea. I can agree that God is greater than ALL things, I can not agree that my God is greater than all other gods because there are no other gods. Where is your reference?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Ummm, I think you mistake what I believe God to be or who He is.

Because we know God the Father by Jesus Christ---I'll explain my belief regarding God in terms of Jesus Christ. We learn that Christ is the express image of the Father and is the Son of the Father. His very nature is identical to His Fathers. He is like Him in every way. In this way, He is one with God and is from ever lasting to ever lasting.

But we also learn that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhead from the beginning.

So, there are two ways to think of Jesus Christ. One, He was part of the Godhead prior to his coming to earth and was chosen from the beginning to be our Savior.

The second way is to recognize that, although part of the Godhead prior to his birth, he also came to earth, was born, suffered for our sins, died and was resurrected---and is so doing, was exalted.

So, this "progression" that you speak of---Christ went through it--and yet was the Son of God---always One with God in nature. Yet, went from not having a physical body to having a physical resurrected bodies. And he beckons us to come follow Him.

That "some mighty God" you speak of?--It is God the Father. That is what He taught Abraham--that He is greater than all.

Don't stop with just half of what God says about His nature.. Make it all fit.. When Jesus said that God is spirit, did he really mean that God has a spirit? That He has a physical body as Jesus does or did he mean that God is spirit? That a spirit hasn't a body of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).. If He had a physical body wasn't Jesus wrong in saying that we must worship Him is spirit? If He has a body of flesh and bone, why can't we worship Him in flesh? The LDS meaning of John 4:24 is flawed.. We don't worship God in the flesh because God the Father is not flesh, He is Spirit.. Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. Is He invisible like a spirit is invisible or visible like a tangible man?

“The Father,” said Joseph Smith, “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. …” (D&C 130:22) By LDS logic doesn't that mean that the Holy Ghost (Spirit) also has a tangible Body that can be seen? After all He is spirit. According to the flawed logic of the LDS seen in John 4:24 the Holy Ghost has a physical body as tangible as man's. Yet in all the Scripture the Holy Spirit is never seen, He like the Father are represented by differing manifestations.. The Father is said to be a consuming fire (Heb 12:29). In Psalm 91:4 it is said that God covers us with His feathers, and under His wings we find refuge. Does that mean that God is some kind of a giant bird? Is God Like these things, YES, but is he limited to being just these things? NO.. To understand what He is you have to read the whole of the Scripture and understand that Jesus is God and in the physical representation of the Father who is INVISIBLE.. Smith didn't have a single point of authority to teach that the Father has a body as tangible as man's. He doesn't because just like Smith saying that the Holy Ghost is Spirit Jesus said that same thing about the Father.. Smith is wrong saying that the Father is tangible.. Jesus is right..

Jesus is just part of the Godhead, in Him is the FULLNESS of God.. There is one God and Jesus is the fullness of that God (Col 2:9).. There is no other God that fulfills Jesus.. He is the fullness all by Himself. as are the Father, and the Holy Spirit.. There was never a times when Jesus was made to Progress. He did not do so as the Savior in His atonement for the sins of the world. He fulfilled the purpose of God for His mortal life.. You are right Jesus was always God.. There was never a time when He wasn't so. He was never Born of the Father in a premortal world..There was no council of the "Gods" where He as a mere spirit child of the "Gods" as chosen to be the Savior.. Since he has always been God He chose to enter mortality and come save us from our sins.. He chose. he was never appointed, ordained, or chosen to take on such a duty.. Jesus called Himself the Son of Man.Again I ask is that all He is? or is He also the Son of God? If he can be both of those things He can also be the THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE.. Instead of chopping Him up, why not allow that he is all these things that are ascribed to Him personally and to Him as God in general?

My God is greater than all.. He is greater than Man, greater than all His creation, and He created all things.. By teaching that the LDS plan of salvation is one eternal round then the Father, was once a man as Smith did teach (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305) Is the one eternal round the teaching that through obedience to all His laws and performance of all required ordinances that we advance to the same level He was when He procreated the spirits of all men, and formed the world as a place for us to complete our mortal probation? Will we not cause those of our spirit children to also advance to that level of power and authority, One eternal round? If that is the case has God been eternally God or was He a mere spirit and then physical creation of another god? Stop trying to hide the weird briefs of mormonism and tell us the full truth just once.. You understand that a half truth is still nothing more than a full lie.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

It is easy for me to answer your question. Books considered scripture are those written by and determined to be included by prophets--or those appointed by God to reveal to man the will of God.

Since this is easy for you and the fact that I am going to give you an easy question--you should have no trouble answering this one.

Are Solomon’s Song of Songs inspired writings?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Since this is easy for you and the fact that I am going to give you an easy question--you should have no trouble answering this one.

Are Solomon’s Song of Songs inspired writings?

Ask a prophet . Or that's right, you don't know any that are alive.

Here is your answer---from a prophet.

Sometimes called Canticles (as in Latin) or Song of Songs (as in Hebrew). Whether Solomon is actually the author is doubtful. The composition has many beautiful phrases and lyrical prose, often quoted in nonreligious literature. The JST states that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.” Both Jews and Christians have at times been reluctant to accept it into the canon of scripture because of its romantic content but have permitted it on the basis of its being an allegory of God’s love for Israel and of the Church.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Ask a prophet . Or that's right, you don't know any that are alive.

Here is your answer---from a prophet.

So Songs of Solomon is NOT inspired. Why do you have it in your Standard Works? Why not removed it if your prophet says that it is not inspired?

(see LDS Bible Dictionary https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/song-of-solomon)

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So Songs of Solomon is NOT inspired. Why do you have it in your Standard Works? Why not removed it if your prophet says that it is not inspired?

(see LDS Bible Dictionary https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/song-of-solomon)

Because it is the King James version, which we use. I am sure there are some copyright issues as well.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Because it is the King James version, which we use. I am sure there are some copyright issues as well.

But the LDS church has the power to make up their own translation or even use the JST and since the JST doesn't have the Song of Solomon you wouldn't need to change a thing as far as canon.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But the LDS church has the power to make up their own translation or even use the JST and since the JST doesn't have the Song of Solomon you wouldn't need to change a thing as far as canon.

Actually, copyright law would prohibit them from doing so. I think they would have to follow suit of so many other "Christian" Bibles and change quite a bit of the Bible to get around that.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Actually, copyright law would prohibit them from doing so. I think they would have to follow suit of so many other "Christian" Bibles and change quite a bit of the Bible to get around that.

I was talking about a completely new translation incorporating the JST and dropping the Song of Solomon. Why not since Joseph has such an extensive revision to work with.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I was talking about a completely new translation incorporating the JST and dropping the Song of Solomon. Why not since Joseph has such an extensive revision to work with.

I think in order to avoid copyright infringement, it would take way more changes than the JST and dropping one book. I looked this up once and it takes fairly significant changes---which is why I think so many newer Bibles use very different language and the translations are quite different. Joseph Smith did for less extensive work than these newer Bibles.