is the pope teaching work for the dead

[Casen]

majick275:

The “proof” of my assertion here is that what I claimed is still in the standard works of the LDS church. Canonized scripture vs. repeatedly incorrect Apostle = I still maintain my original position on this.

I was only pointing out that your interpretation of that scripture is considered heresy and cited only one example where LDS leaders have proclaimed it as such.

The scripture you quoted is indeed still in the standard works but your interpretation is false. The couple sealed in the temple must ALSO have the ordinance sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (read the verse again) for the blessings spoken of to be in effect… something that may take place much later… or never. Simply being sealed in the temple does not mean the couple can do any sin short of murder yet still achieve exaltation. That’s why McConkie called the false doctrine you’re repeating here a heresy. I think most LDS married in the temple understand they must still do more before their exaltation is assured.

 

[majick275]

I hear you but I don’t see much room for interpretation as that scripture would appear to be very clearly worded. Furthermore, Bruce Mconkie is not someone that I think is very credible in determining what is or isn’t heresy. His own teachings have so many times been “corrected” that it’s difficult for me to figure out which of his words are even considered doctrine by LDS.

Technically he is a heretic. (although a repentant one).

There is also the matter along this same line of those who have had their calling and election made sure. That kind of takes the sealing to the “next level” yet appears at least to also bolster this principle.

 

[Casen]

majick275:

There is also the matter along this same line of those who have had their calling and election made sure. That kind of takes the sealing to the “next level” yet appears at least to also bolster this principle.

Yes, I think you’re moving in the right direction with the “calling and election made sure” doctrine, which we could discuss. I just want to clarify for those reading that it is something separate from a temple sealing.

 

[majick275]

You are absolutely correct.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

Furthermore, Bruce Mconkie is not someone that I think is very credible in determining what is or isn’t heresy. His own teachings have so many times been “corrected” that it’s difficult for me to figure out which of his words are even considered doctrine by LDS.

Technically he is a heretic. (although a repentant one).

Do you know… I wasn’t aware until last night (9/29) that McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrines” (of which I have a 1966 printing) was ‘banned’ from further publication after it first saw the light of day: and yet there is, at least, a 1966 and a 1993 printing of which I am aware. I only read the story of the publication and the ban on corrected editions through 1959, I believe, so, obviously, at some point the ban was lifted (presumably with the 1,067 doctrinal errors corrected?) as I can’t imagine that the book could have been reprinted without McConkie’s permission.

Regardless of the errors in “Doctrines” I think McConkie is to be commended for at least attempting to put into one volume basic Mormon doctrine - I realize, now, that such a work would, necessarily, be a continual work-in-progress and would need annual updating but it would certainly serve to answer questions that both LDS and non-LDS have about the beliefs of the Mormon church.

 

[majick275]

Joseph SMith had the school of prophets, Sidney Rigdon (with Smith’s approval) had the lectures on faith. Brigham Young had the Journal of Discourses and Orson Pratt (with BY’s approval) wrote the seer. Joseph Fielding Smith had doctrines of Salvation and Mconkie wrote Mormon Doctrine. All along There have been LDS leaders who saw a need for something like a catechism. They have tried to develpo such and each time it has been thrown out. There is no school of prophets, the lectures on faith were removed from the “standard works”, The JoD and Seer are out of print and not talked about in polite LDS circles. Doctriens of salvation has been pushed off tot he side as one mans speculation. (een though that man was supposedly a prophet) and Mormon Doctrine has been repeatedly denounced. (even by its author).

Why is it so wrong to clearly define LDS doctrine? Is it like the Temple Ceremony? (which has no textbooks, reference materials , instructors or even an opportunity for discussion) Is it a case of the emperors new clothes? Or just a case of deliberate obscurity so that anything can be “redefined” later from “further light and knowledge”? or is it really possible that God, after 1800 years of leaving the entire world in spiritual darkness still didn’t give us the “fullness” of the gospel?

I think it points to a false religion with far too much to hide waging a professional marketing campaign.

 

[sara888]

****I have a simple question.

Faith is part of Salvation, and commadment keeping is part of Faith

How can any Christian claim commandment keeping has nothing to do with Salvation.??

Sara****

I dont see how anyone can seperate them.

 

[sara888]

**Majick, Well said, I concur.

I believe if anyone really researched Joseph Smith, they would see how much evidence justifies him as a false prophet and his flawed bizzare teachings as false doctrine .**

**
Sara**

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

Joseph SMith had the school of prophets, Sidney Rigdon (with Smith’s approval) had the lectures on faith. Brigham Young had the Journal of Discourses and Orson Pratt (with BY’s approval) wrote the seer. Joseph Fielding Smith had doctrines of Salvation and Mconkie wrote Mormon Doctrine. All along There have been LDS leaders who saw a need for something like a catechism. They have tried to develpo such and each time it has been thrown out. There is no school of prophets, the lectures on faith were removed from the “standard works”, The JoD and Seer are out of print and not talked about in polite LDS circles. Doctriens of salvation has been pushed off tot he side as one mans speculation. (een though that man was supposedly a prophet) and Mormon Doctrine has been repeatedly denounced. (even by its author).

Why is it so wrong to clearly define LDS doctrine? Is it like the Temple Ceremony? (which has no textbooks, reference materials , instructors or even an opportunity for discussion) Is it a case of the emperors new clothes? Or just a case of deliberate obscurity so that anything can be “redefined” later from “further light and knowledge”? or is it really possible that God, after 1800 years of leaving the entire world in spiritual darkness still didn’t give us the “fullness” of the gospel?

I think it points to a false religion with far too much to hide waging a professional marketing campaign.

I was really surprised to learn that the two apostle’s who review Mormon Doctrine found some 1,067 ‘errors’ in the book - how does someone like Bruce McConkie get to the position of a General Authority without the ability to get something right? I know that GA’s have been excommunicated for one reason or another but McConkie wasn’t even excommunicated even for the 1,067 reasons - he just received a rebuke and that only after a lot of behind-closed-doors meetings with other GA’s. And it seems that the book was, at first, favorably and popularly received by Utah-based LDS church members at the time of its publication,

I wish, now, that I knew the story of what happened between 1959 and 1966, when the copy I have was published. In 1950 it was decided, and McConkie obeyed the decision, that the book was no longer to be published in first or amended positions. Obviously someone gave in (or up) as the book was reprinted (although I’ve no idea what changes were made from the 1958 (1959?) edition through the 1966 edition through (what I believe to be) the present 1993 edition.

The JoD is still available - although in facsimile format - but the whole set sells for about $600 if you can find it. I missed a chance (by ignoring my own ‘reminder’) to buy “The Seer” which was up for bid by auction on Deseret Book .com.

The “Lectures on Faith” are available online…

helpingmormons.org/TLC_Manti/RefLibraryFolder/RefLibraryIndex.htm#anchor1346002

…and I suppose that’s one ‘problem’ for today’s LDS church - with the Internet long suppressed or ‘forgotten’ documents have been resurrected and those (like myself - heck, even LDS members themselves, I suppose) who want to read the history of the church and the teachings of the church today have access to documents that would have been available only at great cost twenty years ago.

I am so glad that the Catholic Church understands the Internet - understands that modern communication can be used for good as well as evil… many amongst our separated brethren (the one’s who seem to have the majority of air-time on cable!) seem ignorant of that fact. It was quite telling, for example, when I searched the mormon.org site for information on the “cross” and on “crucifixion” I came up with… nothing. Nothing can often speak volumes…

 

[ben_dy]

Casen:

Yes, I think you’re moving in the right direction with the “calling and election made sure” doctrine, which we could discuss. I just want to clarify for those reading that it is something separate from a temple sealing.

OK. I’ll bite…

…what in the world is a (the?) “calling and election made sure” doctrine? You can only clarify that it is something separate from a temple sealing if you let us know exactly what it is you’re discussing!

(Venting a bit of frustration that I am not proficient in Mormonese, I suppose…)

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Joseph SMith had the school of prophets,

He did not.

Sidney Rigdon (with Smith’s approval) had the lectures on faith.

He did not.

Brigham Young had the Journal of Discourses

He did not.

and Orson Pratt (with BY’s approval) wrote the seer.

He did not.

Joseph Fielding Smith had doctrines of Salvation

He did not.

and Mconkie wrote Mormon Doctrine.

He did!

All along There have been LDS leaders who saw a need for something like a catechism.

There have not.

They have tried to develpo such and each time it has been thrown out.

It has not.

There is no school of prophets, the lectures on faith were removed from the “standard works”, The JoD and Seer are out of print and not talked about in polite LDS circles. Doctriens of salvation has been pushed off tot he side as one mans speculation. (een though that man was supposedly a prophet) and Mormon Doctrine has been repeatedly denounced. (even by its author).

Your critique of LDS becomes more and more absurd by the minute!

Why is it so wrong to clearly define LDS doctrine?

They have.

Is it like the Temple Ceremony? (which has no textbooks, reference materials , instructors or even an opportunity for discussion) Is it a case of the emperors new clothes? Or just a case of deliberate obscurity so that anything can be “redefined” later from “further light and knowledge”? or is it really possible that God, after 1800 years of leaving the entire world in spiritual darkness still didn’t give us the “fullness” of the gospel?

Very amusing!

I think it points to a false religion with far too much to hide waging a professional marketing campaign.

I think that it is a case that you are an apostate from the LDS Church, and you have left yourself with no option but to fight against it by all available means, and try to undermine it whether by hook or by crook, even to the point of absurdity.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgids posts now leave no doubt that they contain no thought or effort just the constant braying to follow Satans word to become like Gods.

As to having one’s calling and election made sure… I have only met one person that would admit to this and he said nothing about it outside the temple and even in it wouldn’t say much. Yuo can find the ordinance online. This is a rare ordinance that is usually only performed on high up church leaders. It is to pronounce that a person’s “calling and elction” has been made sure. It is performed in two parts. The first in the temple (ususally by the prophet) and the second in the home by the person and their wife. This uses the sealing power (mormon version of whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven) to basically guatrantee a persons exaltation. This means that they now know that they get to go to the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom after they die. The only reason they aren’t taken up to heaven like enoch is that they are still needed here on earth to help the rest of us.

 

[Casen]

ben_dy:

OK. I’ll bite…

…what in the world is a (the?) “calling and election made sure” doctrine? You can only clarify that it is something separate from a temple sealing if you let us know exactly what it is you’re discussing!

(Venting a bit of frustration that I am not proficient in Mormonese, I suppose…)

Start with 2 Peter 1:10 but I suggest you read all of 2 Peter to get it in context.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Elder Marion G. Romney explained that to have one’s calling and election made sure means that "*one must receive a divine witness that he will inherit eternal life * (Conference Report, Oct 1965,p.20).

It seems that having one’s calling and election made sure and receiving the Second Comforter are closely associated. Here’s a quote from Joseph Smith on the subject:

"*After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, `Son, thou shalt be exalted.’ When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John…

“Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and the substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions–Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn*.” (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Deseret Book Co. 1979, pp. 150,151)

 

[sara888]

---

LDS Church News, June 20,1998, Pg. 7, “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside of the Church who say Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional Christ. ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.”

The Ensign, May, 1977, Pg. 26, LDS General Authority Bernard Brockbank said, “It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

1. BIBLE: He created all things, including Adam and Eve

Colossians 1:16, "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him… "

John 1:3, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.”

Mormonism: Adam (from the Garden of Eden) is His Father

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, Pg. 50, Brigham Young stated, “When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, The Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.”****

 

[sara888]

**Look at the words of the Mormon testimony. They testify of the church, its authority, its scripture, its true prophet leader. No one talks of a relationship with God through Christ (As Jesus himself points to in Scripture) but their connection to God (and Godhood itself) is only to and through the LDS System. The testimony will override every bit of logic, evidence, or Scriptural truth that would challenge the faith of someone who had been brought through the mind-warp techniques above. It is the same kind of system used on POW’s, the same kind used by the Hard cults, the same techniques used by the New Age mind development programs. They all use it because it works effectively upon every surrendered mind it touches.

Look at the subjects of the LDS Testimony. How can anyone irrefutably know that the Book of Mormon is true, when it defies every historic and anthropological kind of evidence. Not only does scientific evidence refute any kind of Book Of Mormon civilization, it give concrete evidence of a totally different civilization in its place. Yet, any faithful Mormon KNOWS it is true.

Every true Mormon will testify that Joseph Smith was/is a true Prophet of God, yet I doubt if one Mormon in a thousand can accurately recite any 5 of this great Prophet’s actual prophecies. Shouldnít that raise some eyebrows?? Wouldn’t you think a church that bases its very existence on a latter-day-prophet would gladly publish an official book that lists every one of his sacred prophecies? Not the Mormons! For good reason!

Not when you understand that almost every prophecy Joseph Smith uttered failed to come to pass. Yet, over 7 million people place their eternal salvation on the line in their testimony that he was/is the one… who reigns in courts on high…to plead their cause above…NO! they are not singing about Jesus…but Joseph Smith**

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

I was really surprised to learn that the two apostle’s who review Mormon Doctrine found some 1,067 ‘errors’ in the book -

There are more than 1,067 errors in that book!

how does someone like Bruce McConkie get to the position of a General Authority without the ability to get something right?

Erring in doctrine alone is not a fault that would bar someone form being an effective servant of the Lord, provided he is humble enough to be teachable, receive correction. Bruce R. McConkie was a very able, talented, committed, kind and good man, with great faith, dedication, and commitment to the service of the Lord; and God chose him, notwithstanding his faults, to high positions of leadership in the Church. These callings come from the Lord, not from men; and God knows what is in peoples’ hearts better than man does. Bruce R. McConkie was sternly reproved for writing his book by none other that President Harold B. Lee, a president of the Church, which caused him a lot of heartache at that time; and in the end it was none other than Harold B. Lee that ordained him to the Apostleship. I have heard from a reliable source that when he was called to be an Apostle, Elder McConkie felt so unworthy of it that he inquired of the Lord to know why He had given him that calling; and the Lord told him that the reason why He had given him that calling was because He had loved his father!

I know that GA’s have been excommunicated for one reason or another but McConkie wasn’t even excommunicated even for the 1,067 reasons -

Erring in doctrine is not grounds for disciplinary action in the Church. Persistently teaching a doctrine that challenges the fundamental position of the Church, after repeated warnings, is grounds for disciplinary action in the Church.

The “Lectures on Faith” are available online…

The Lectures on Faith is also published by Deseret Book. It is not something that the LDS Church tries to hide.

…and I suppose that’s one ‘problem’ for today’s LDS church - with the Internet long suppressed or ‘forgotten’ documents have been resurrected

The LDS Church does not attempt to “suppress” any known historical documents. The LDS Church historical department has the biggest archive of historical data relating to the Church, and it is very cooperative with scholars and historians who approach it for information to do research on Church history. Is the RCC equally forthcoming with historical data from its archives as the LDS Church is?

I am so glad that the Catholic Church understands the Internet - understands that modern communication can be used for good as well as evil… many amongst our separated brethren (the one’s who seem to have the majority of air-time on cable!) seem ignorant of that fact.

That is a strange statement. lds.org is a very comprehensive website.

It was quite telling, for example, when I searched the mormon.org site for information on the “cross” and on “crucifixion” I came up with… nothing. Nothing can often speak volumes…

That is bickering. “mormon.org” is not designed to answer that kind of question. It is designed to teach an investigator the most basic beliefs and doctrines of the LDS Church. Go to “lds.org”, click the “Gospel Library” link, then click on the “HTML (Text)” link, and in the search field type “cross”, and you will soon find this excellent article by Gordon B. Hinckley on the cross.

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Casen:

Start with 2 Peter 1:10 but I suggest you read all of 2 Peter to get it in context…

…Elder Marion G. Romney explained that to have one’s calling and election made sure means that "*one must receive a divine witness that he will inherit eternal life * (Conference Report, Oct 1965,p.20)…

Here is 2 Peter…

[1] Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
[2] May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
[3] His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,
[4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.
[5] For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,
[6] and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,
[7] and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.
[8] For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[9] For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
[10] Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;
[11] so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
[12] Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15] And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
[16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”
[18] we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
[19] And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

How does this book of the Bible teach that a body of the church may declare one’s salvation as assured? Isn’t that usurping the perogatives of Christ the Just Judge?

 

[ben_dy]

amgid,

I still haven’t figured out exactly how to quote quotes which have been quoted - - but am I learning to use the smiley faces! Anyway, I don’t have a lot to comment on…

amgid:

There are more than 1,067 errors in that book!

I got the 1,067 number from correspondence between the apostles who were given the task to read and report on the type and number of errors in the book (found, I think, at FAIR). There may well be more than that but that was the ‘official’ number recorded by church authorities in 1959.

amgid:

Erring in doctrine alone is not a fault that would bar someone form being an effective servant of the Lord, provided he is humble enough to be teachable, receive correction. Bruce R. McConkie was a very able, talented, committed, kind and good man, with great faith, dedication, and commitment to the service of the Lord; and God chose him, notwithstanding his faults, to high positions of leadership in the Church. These callings come from the Lord, not from men; and God knows what is in peoples’ hearts better than man does. Bruce R. McConkie was sternly reproved for writing his book by none other that President Harold B. Lee, a president of the Church, which caused him a lot of heartache at that time; and in the end it was none other than Harold B. Lee that ordained him to the Apostleship. I have heard from a reliable source that when he was called to be an Apostle, Elder McConkie felt so unworthy of it that he inquired of the Lord to know why He had given him that calling; and the Lord told him that the reason why He had given him that calling was because He had loved his father!

I have the impression that McConkie was, indeed, a very good man - but I think that the number of errors in his book are perhaps indicative of the confusion that even the most well-taught (or, perhaps, particularly the well taught) LDS members have concerning the doctrine of the church. Indicative of the “I’ve never heard of that/I was never taught that” to “all married men progress to the highest exaltation of the celestial kingdom”, etc. As I’ve said before, I believe that a book - a catechism as the early LDS published for missionaries - would be a very good thing for the LDS church. Surely there exists, somewhere in the hierarchy of the church a body which teaches with authority? They - and not a single GA - should commission such a work so that there would be a greater understanding of the doctrines found within the standard works. As new revelations have been rare in the past century, an appendix could surely be added should new revelations be pronounced. I think that McConkie’s heart was certainly ‘in the right place’ - and I think that he, too, saw the need for such a work: his mistake was not making it a ‘committee’ work with approval by the hierarchy. He wrote the doctrines as he then believed them, and took responsibility for the work and any errors that might be in those pages - that there were so many, I think, is a cry for such a publication as free from error as possible, published under the direction and imprimatur of the first presidency, perhaps. To an outsider looking in it seems that if McConkie could make such a wealth of errors then the ‘average’ Mormon has no hope at all of knowing what church doctrine is (and is not). I don’t mean to criticize anyone involved - I just think it’s a good thing for people to be educated about their religion - and if there exists a teaching authority (as in the Catholic Church, as I presume in the LDS) that education carries much more weight than that written alone by even a high-ranking authority. I realize that the Catholic Church is much larger than the LDS church, but I don’t think there would be a problem drumming up the same number of scholars to write and edit such a publication. NO ONE thought that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would turn out to be the ‘best seller’ that it is - I would bet that if the LDS church would issue such a work, it would find that would be the case as well (heck, I know that I would buy a copy!

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

amgid:

Erring in doctrine is not grounds for disciplinary action in the Church. Persistently teaching a doctrine that challenges the fundamental position of the Church, after repeated warnings, is grounds for disciplinary action in the Church.

That’s as I understand it and understand, too, that McConkie expressed true humility in accepting his discipline and in no way ever placed himself in the position (quite the contrary, as a matter of fact!) of meriting any disciplinary action.

What I don’t know - and you may and might be able to point me in the direction of the information - is how McConkie’s Mormon Doctrines came to be reprinted (presumably NOT in the same 1958-59 text!) in (the dates that I know of) 1966 (the printing which I own, purchased from eBay) and 1993 (the printing date given on an edition available from amazon.com. It was my impression that the books that were sit warehoused in 1959 were destroyed and that it was agreed amongst all concerned that the book would never be printed again, even with the errors corrected. And yet it’s still available (in one form or another).

amgid:

The Lectures on Faith is also published by Deseret Book. It is not something that the LDS Church tries to hide.

Oh, I didn’t mean to really imply that they were - I didn’t buy the ‘published’ version but rather copy and pasted the lectures and ‘self-published’ it!

As I think I noted in another post, I am quite upset with myself for having missed, by less than a day, a copy of Pratt’s “The Seer” that was up for auction on deseret.com - it sold for $15 and I would surely have paid $20!

amgid:

The LDS Church does not attempt to “suppress” any known historical documents. The LDS Church historical department has the biggest archive of historical data relating to the Church, and it is very cooperative with scholars and historians who approach it for information to do research on Church history. Is the RCC equally forthcoming with historical data from its archives as the LDS Church is?

Now I would, from what I have read, take great issue with those first couple of statements - it has, as I understand it, long been known that some documents have been repressed (including, at times, the Book of Commandments and even the diaries of some pioneers forbidden to their ancestors). It is also my understanding the the documents in the presidents vault are very much ‘off limits’. Now I will grant you that the information I have read concerning the suppression of documents comes primarily from LDS/BYU scholars, some of whom have spoken out publicly on the issue and some whom have chosen to remain anonymous - but even past church historians have clearly stated that some documents are strictly off limits.

As to the historical documents in the Vatican “Secret Archives” I know of none that are not - in one form or the other - open to all qualified scholars. I use the terms “one form” and “qualified” because the Vatican Archives contain, for instance, minute pieces of manuscripts that might contain 3rd century epistles in horrible condition and while someone like, hmm, Bruce Metzger (or document forensic specialists) might have access, you don’t just walk in off the street with a Vatican library card and check out that item: you will likely even be asked to pay for the very finest photograph of such a document. So, yes, I not only think that the Vatican is ‘equally forthcoming’ with documents of historical value, I think that it is far more forthcoming than the LDS church is with documents that are, for the majority, less than two-hundred years old.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

amgid:

That is a strange statement. lds.org is a very comprehensive website.

Again, I am comparing it to the Vatican website - www.vatican.va - there is really no comparison in the sheer wealth of information available there (and in many different languages… some including Latin!). One thing for which I have some sympathy for ‘you guys’, however, is that there are far more ‘pro-Catholic’ websites that act as deposits for true Catholic doctrine and history - I would be willing to bet that there are FAR more ‘anti-Mormon’ websites in the vast World Wide Web than there are ‘pro-Mormon’ sites. This is not to say that there are not a good number of anti-Catholic websites but - per capita - there must be far more anti-Mormon sites. Why this is the case, I admit ignorance - it would be interesting if Google, for example, had an information gathering subsidiary that could look into the ‘why’ of this phenomena.

amgid:

That is bickering. “mormon.org” is not designed to answer that kind of question. It is designed to teach an investigator the most basic beliefs and doctrines of the LDS Church. Go to “lds.org”, click the “Gospel Library” link, then click on the “HTML (Text)” link, and in the search field type “cross”, and you will soon find this excellent article by Gordon B. Hinckley on the cross.

amgid

I don’t mean the observation to be taken as bickering - I have read the Hinckley article (and it’s copy, pasted, and formatted in its own PDF file in my “LDS Info” folder. I think it is more a matter of two somewhat diametrically opposed view as to what constitutes atonement. I was surprised by finding no reference simply because “cross” and “crucifixion” are mentioned in the standard works of the LDS (although “crucifixion” only in the Bible, I think, although the Index of the other ‘three works’ have a reference to “CRUCIFIXION, CRUCIFY (see Cross; TG Jesus Christ, Crucifixion of”

I am glad that the discourse in this message, and it others, has seemed to finally find a civil tone. That said, I am sure that you know that I would you come into the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church (I would not only be happy to have you in my catechism classes, but would even stand as your sponsor! Just say the word!) - just as certain as I am that you would have me (and my fellow Catholics) come into the LDS church. Realizing that neither are going to occur, I feel that we can still converse civilly on differences (and often differences so at odds with one another that there can never be true understanding of the others’ beliefs).