Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's great, I hope to learn a few things from you then. I'll try to find the Bible passages I am referring to. In the meantime, here's a non-scripture question. Do you happen to know if the Marriott hotel chain owned by the LDS church itself or is just a corporation headed by LDS folks? We stay there exclusively and there is Book of Mormon in the drawer.
J. Willard Marriott Sr., the founder of Marriott International and his descendants J. Willard Marriott Jr. and Richard Marriott are all LDS; however, the LDS Church has no involvement in the chain. Many LDS business owners will, if the business format makes it logical to do so, will display the Book of Mormon. My dentist is LDS, and along with a variety of magazines, he also has the Book of Mormon on his waiting room table. My wife and I owned an audio bookstore for many years, and we prominantly displayed LDS audio products.
J. Willard Marriott (Deceased)
(1900-1985)
Founder, Marriott Hotels
J.W. Marriott, Jr.
Chairman, Marriott International
re: geneologies: Timothy 1: "As I urged you... stay in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless geneologies. These promote controversies rather than God's work...
false doctrines, geneologies in the same sentence. There's another, still looking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlemur
Hey guys,
I think what moonliner may be referring to is 1 Tim. 3-4 which states: "(3) As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, (4) nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."
As I read this, I think Paul was writing to Timothy regarding errors that he left for Timothy to correct in Ephesus which were primarily Jewish in nature. It may have revolved around unbound speculation regarding genealogies and various interpretations of the Law. This served to cause many a dispute in the households and did not promote "house order" in connection with the focus of a believers life being in the Word of God and not human speculation. Does that help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeantL
Yes, it does. I had always viewed this from the perspective of endless genealogical arguments connected to proving or disproving kinship to the House of David and the extreme importance the Jews placed on this topic. As is known, many still dispute Christ's lineage to the House of David, which if true, would rule Him out as the Messiah, in that prophecy states the Messiah must come from the House of David.
As I stated, I cannot say for sure what this particular passage means, but it's probably related to the endless obsession of establishing a lineage to the House of David. I don't interpret this to mean performing genealogical research to be wrong or an indicator of a false doctrine.
Wow I should come to this forum more often. I seem to have missed an awful lot.
There is so much I would like to answer but for starters I'll just add something regarding the subject of these secret hoards of food for Mormons.
If I can just clarify the actual truth here. As members of the LDS church we are encouraged to be self sufficient and self reliant and that includes having a back up store of food for times of need. This can be situations such as unemployment when we have little spare cash to go shopping for food but can fall back on our storage and thus not have to rely on state welfare.
However, something which is often overlooked by non-Mormons is the fact that we fast once a month on the first Sunday and the money saved is donated to the church Welfare fund which is also used to help members in times of need - but not only members. A heck of a lot of LDS aid goes to non LDS people. Where there are floods famines earthquakes and other natural disasters our church is often first on the scene providing food and necessary medical supplies, all provided out of the church welfare fund. It's no big secret. We just don't make a song and dance about it and boast about our good works though.
. But the Bible is pretty clear in saying that IT is the full and complete word of God and if someone tries to present additional "Words of God", that is how you will know they are not "good guys". Even though I only believe that parts of the Bible are divinely inspired, this is still a troublesome issue for me. I need clarification.
I think this is a little bit of misunderstanding due to misinterpretation or misquoting.
Yes, absolutely 100% if a religion comes along and tries to teach that Jesus, Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost are entirely different from what the Bible says and portrays their teachings as different then I wholeheartedly agree that that is how to tell that they are not 'good guys'.
Unfortunately people assume that the Book of Mormon teaches something entirely different to the Bible without ever having actually read it. What does it say about Jesus? Well it says that he was born of a virgin, that he atoned for our sins, that he was crucified and rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Pretty much the same as the Bible isn't it? So what about what he taught? Well it tells us that he taught people to love one another, to forgive one another, to pray to their Father in Heaven (note to their Father, not to him). He preached exactly the same things to the Nephites that he preached to the Jews. So where's the contradiction there? He also healed the sick and performed miracles - same as the Bible.
I'm afraid that I do see contradictory teachings to Biblical teachings in many churches though - the Trinity being a classic example. The Bible does not teach the concept of the Trinity and yet so many churches which claim to be based on the Bible do precisely that.
Now, when it comes to the point about "do not add to this book" that has been accurately explained by someone who isn't even a current member of the LDS church. As was so rightly pointed out the Bible didn't exist for the first few hundred years of Christianity. There were many gospels and scrolls and collections of writings from which people taught. Amongst these was the Apocalypse or Book of Revelation. Interestingly some of the other parts of the Bible were probably written at a later date than the Book of Revelation. When John wrote that nothing should be added to the words of 'this book' the book he referred to was the Book of Revelation, and the reason why he made such a point about nothing being added to it (or indeed taken from it) was that by doing so it would render the meaning impossible to understand.
Now when the Bible was compiled as a collection of books (or library) there were many disputes about what should or should not be included. If you check out different Bibles you will find some which contain books which others don't have - the Apocryphal texts - so who has the "added to" and who has the "taken from" version if you believe the quote in Revelation to refer to the whole collection? Surely you must see that it cannot possibly mean more than the individual book itself.
Interestingly when people bring up this subject they conveniently overlook a similar verse in Deuteronomy 4:2. Well, if we were to ignore everything which came after that we'd have a pretty thin Bible with nothing about Jesus Christ in it at all, wouldn't we?
I think this is a little bit of misunderstanding due to misinterpretation or misquoting.
Yes, absolutely 100% if a religion comes along and tries to teach that Jesus, Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost are entirely different from what the Bible says and portrays their teachings as different then I wholeheartedly agree that that is how to tell that they are not 'good guys'.
Unfortunately people assume that the Book of Mormon teaches something entirely different to the Bible without ever having actually read it. What does it say about Jesus? Well it says that he was born of a virgin, that he atoned for our sins, that he was crucified and rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Pretty much the same as the Bible isn't it? So what about what he taught? Well it tells us that he taught people to love one another, to forgive one another, to pray to their Father in Heaven (note to their Father, not to him). He preached exactly the same things to the Nephites that he preached to the Jews. So where's the contradiction there? He also healed the sick and performed miracles - same as the Bible.
I'm afraid that I do see contradictory teachings to Biblical teachings in many churches though - the Trinity being a classic example. The Bible does not teach the concept of the Trinity and yet so many churches which claim to be based on the Bible do precisely that.
Now, when it comes to the point about "do not add to this book" that has been accurately explained by someone who isn't even a current member of the LDS church. As was so rightly pointed out the Bible didn't exist for the first few hundred years of Christianity. There were many gospels and scrolls and collections of writings from which people taught. Amongst these was the Apocalypse or Book of Revelation. Interestingly some of the other parts of the Bible were probably written at a later date than the Book of Revelation. When John wrote that nothing should be added to the words of 'this book' the book he referred to was the Book of Revelation, and the reason why he made such a point about nothing being added to it (or indeed taken from it) was that by doing so it would render the meaning impossible to understand.
Now when the Bible was compiled as a collection of books (or library) there were many disputes about what should or should not be included. If you check out different Bibles you will find some which contain books which others don't have - the Apocryphal texts - so who has the "added to" and who has the "taken from" version if you believe the quote in Revelation to refer to the whole collection? Surely you must see that it cannot possibly mean more than the individual book itself.
Interestingly when people bring up this subject they conveniently overlook a similar verse in Deuteronomy 4:2. Well, if we were to ignore everything which came after that we'd have a pretty thin Bible with nothing about Jesus Christ in it at all, wouldn't we?
First, love the name. Second, you are going to have to prepare yourself because when dealing with mormon threads, you'll be reading mostly misquotes and misinterpretations primarily from non members and former members. It really is an eye opener for me. It also causes me to reflect on how I was ever able to receive such a clear answer to my prayers about the church being true in spite of the venom towards the church. Very few folks come on the boards because they sincerely want to know and ask questions about the church. Mostly, they want to tear the Book of Mormon and everything lds down. When you correct them, they get angry. If you're wondering what I mean, look at other mormon threads. And I always wanted to go to England.
Last edited by annibelle; 01-14-2008 at 10:09 PM..
Reason: additions
If that's what we believe, why does it surprise you when we don't deny it?
We shouldn't deny it, but we shouldn't be surprised that there is opposition. The scriptures tell us to expect it. But I don't think that all opposition is evil, or even bad. We can learn a lot by arguing our beliefs and some people will read what we have to say and it may mean something to them.
And you know, most people are sincere, so I prefer to treat them as if they were. Even (especially) if they are misguided.
We shouldn't deny it, but we shouldn't be surprised that there is opposition. The scriptures tell us to expect it. But I don't think that all opposition is evil, or even bad. We can learn a lot by arguing our beliefs and some people will read what we have to say and it may mean something to them.
And you know, most people are sincere, so I prefer to treat them as if they were. Even (especially) if they are misguided.
That's good advice. What you say is so true. I was totally opposed to the lds church before I joined and now look, Im lds. So I understand what you're saying all too well. Say a prayer for me. Im going to take your advise to heart and try to remember.
Last edited by annibelle; 01-16-2008 at 07:14 PM..
Reason: additions
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
