How does it make sense that a god would require such careful reading of
scriptures? Wouldn't he want us to be able to read them and learn from
them "straight up"?
@Red Corvette,The power of thinking through the lens of reality ....
we can all be happier, more prosperous, and more generous, and most of all less
judgmental of others through the simple act of love. Religious texts,
doctrines, revelations, and prophecies ...Karl Marx said it best.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
So many of you get so tied up on this subject.You're emotionally
getting in a know over fictional stories meant to instruct and guide written by
men. That's right, everything you've discussed thus far was written
Sometimes when people place a lot of importance on individual words as if the
scriptures were a Nostradamus quatrain to be deciphered, I wonder why we
can't try to understand the message rather than getting hung up on how
it's said. A translation can't always carry every nuance of meaning
from the original, because sometimes words in the original have several meanings
or connotations that aren't found together in any word in the language into
which it is being translated. As to the JST, it was done in the first half of
the 19th century. The use of words in the English language has changed since
then. Sacred writings can give us so much more light if we try to understand the
principles they teach rather than getting hung up on individual words.
No fit in SGShould investigators exercise the type of caution Dr.
Peterson was talking about when reading LDS scripture? Absolutely. I was
taught that from the get go.We read to understand.
unless you can translate ancient greek and hebrew, I dont' see what
business someone would have taking a "literal" view of the bible.
Perhaps this may provide thought to LDS people why others not of their faith
question what is in written in the Mormon Scriptures. Are investigators
of the LDS to read Mormon scriptures with caution, as well?
I agree with the main idea presented in this article. I think religious texts
should be important for anyone, even if you don't agree with the religion
that considers the text sacred. The Bible and Quran have both had a lot of
influence on the World (both secularly and religiously). The Book of Mormon, if
it is what Joseph Smith and millions of others claim it is, could be considered
the most important book in the history of the world. Even just from a secular
perspective, it has had a fair amount of influence on the world. So all three
books are important.On a different note, I agree that the placement
of the books in the picture probably had no intentional hidden meaning. It is
just how the photographer placed them. No offense was intended, but
unfortunately there are many people who are far to willing to take offense when
none is intended.
It is always entertaining, though not often beneficial, how some here love to
make one an "offender for a word", or to "strain at a gnat and
swallow a camel" in relation to how some view all things LDS. You know who
you are. AN illustration: The placement of the Book of Mormon on the
top in the photo has do mean the Book of Mormon is superior. But it could mean
that it is the newest contribution to Sacred texts. Or it could mean that the
Bible is more foundational, or it could mean nothing at all. Some just always
have to put the Mormons down. They cannot see the good in anything Mormon. Well
did the Savior speak of them...
Capella posted: Is this placement of the Book of Mormon on top of the other two
of any significance?So, are you implying that placement of the Book
of Mormon means we give it more creedance than the Bible? Then what does it
mean when the Holy Bile is listed first at the LDS website? Or the first of the
four books in the quad? ;-)
"Sacred texts are deeply important"- to whom? Obviously to the
adherents of that religion. This is why Mormonism is vetted seriously on its
doctrines, not its lifestyle or charity. Muslims live a religious lifestyle,
pray in public uncompromisingly, have an austere charity and missionary program,
and protect their founder's dignity with their lives. Fanaticism does not
equate with similarity or veracity of claims.This is why it is
important to look carefully at the meaning of the words in the text as to their
original language. When Jesus says "You will know them by their
fruits", what is the "fruit"? If it's just membership growth
or charity, Islam has all denominations beat.If it's
discipling, mentoring, and sharing the original message, then that's what
Christ meant. Because the Apostle Paul went to great lengths to emphasize this
in all new countries in which he evangelized: 'Do not accept another
gospel, another apostle, another Jesus'.This is why Biblical
believers are exacting in who they accept as fellow believers in "the Body
of Christ". Just having some similarities, a religious lifestyle, charity
and evangelism means nothing. It's what gospel, what salvation, what Jesus
Dadof5sons- Excellent comment on the cultural taboo of a book on top of the
Qur'an.Here's a Biblical taboo: Other books on top of the
Holy Bible. Is this placement of the Book of Mormon on top of the other two of
any significance? I would say there is no coincidence in the
photographer's mind, in a LDS publication.Here are some further
interesting facts about the doctrines of all three books:1- Each one
shares some similarities with the others on particular topics.2-
All three have distinct differences in their doctrines of salvation,
justification, exaltation, forgiveness, rewards for charity and good works,
prayer times, communion, tithes and giving, eternal destination, the Atonement
of Jesus Christ, the efficacy of the Blood and Cross of Jesus Christ, the
Creation of the world, the essence of God and the Godhead, Judgment Day, angels
and demons, the person/works/diety of Jesus, and the validity of Jesus as
Messiah.I agree wholeheartedly with Hamblin and Peterson that
"sacred texts deserve careful attention". That is the entire argument
that Biblical purists have with non-purists. You can share, borrow, live
Biblical. You cannot tweak it and still claim purity.
RE: Ranch Hand, before attempting to use them to validate your point, you
should try to find out the context. Dr. Peterson, The passage almost
certainly refers to “vultures” rather than eagles. .(Mt 24:28
NIV).Wheresoever the carcass is, there will be “eagles”..(Mt
24:28 JST&KJV).Eagle(aetos) also a vulture,These birds gather
where the carcass is, so the judgments of God will descend upon the corrupt
state of humanity. The figure of the Eagle is used in Ezek 17 to represent the
Great Powers of Egypt and Babylon to punish Israel faithless Israel. ...heard an 'angel' flying…(Rev 8:13 KJV&JST), I heard an
eagle=(aetos G 105) that was flying in midair (Rev 8:13 NIV) Modern translations
are helpful.Re: The verb "to wax" is simply an archaic
equivalent of the modern English verb "to grow”?Greek N.T.
*Psygsomai, future passive, made or ”grow cool or cold”.… the love of most *“will grow cold,”(Mt 24:12 NKJV,NIV
).…the love of many “shall Wax cold” (Mt 24:10
JST& 24:12 KJV)
Eagles actually DO eat carrion. How do I know? I live up at Bear Lake. Each
winter we get plenty of Bald and Golden eagles. You'll find them usually
either in the trees or gathered round eating the roadkill deer and rabbits and
the occasional dead sheep or cow out in the field. We had a road kill fawn on
the road 50 meters from our house and enjoyed watching a massive bald eagle come
feast for a number of days along with some crows, ravens, and magpies. Other than that, excellent article and sentiment.
I saw a young eagle this very afternoon swoop down on the road in front of me
and snatch up a bit of road kill.Eagles will eat carrion.Not only should you actually read your verses before attempting to use them to
validate your point, you should try to find out the context in which they were
used. There is an entire world of difference between usage since the time of
those who actually wrote the bible and how we use words today.
in the photo there is a cultural taboo done! The Quran is not to have any other
book on it! just FYI from a person who lived over there for a few years.
Re: sharronaYes, but what kind of eagle? Golden eagles?Bald eagles?
Black-chested buzzard-eagles? Harpy eagles? Gier eagles? There are more than 50
different species of birds known as eagles. Which species was intended?
Sacred texts must be read with caution: Modern translations are helpful:RE: The passage almost certainly refers to “vultures” rather than
eagles.True,Wherever there is a carcass, there the “vultures”
will gather.(Mt 24:28 NIV).Re;: The verb "to wax" is simply
an archaic equivalent of the modern English verb "to grow”.True,Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will
“grow” cold,(Mt 24:12 NIV).The Inspired Version
disagrees, Wheresoever the carcass is, there will be “eagles”..(Mt
24:28 JST)…the love of many shall WAX cold(Mt 24:10 JST)