LDS and the bible vs BOM

  • Thread starter Thread starter hs_hopeful
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
iepuras said:
While anecdotal, this was my experience as well. I totally knew about Brigham Young’s polygamy. Everyone knew. I sort of knew Smith was a polygamist, but it was rarely discussed and I really had know idea as to the extent of Smith’s polygamy. I guessed he had maybe a dozen or so wives, not 30+. Nor did I have a clue about his stealing of other men’s wives or the teenagers when he was in his mid-30’s. Ew. There was far more discussion about how great his marriage to Emma was. No one really wanted to discuss Smith’s polygamy. I admit I was in denial about it. Polygamy was always a huge struggle for me.
Click to expand...
Denial was my experience too, I was convinced it was a lie at first. I experienced all five stages of grief.
 
I know there have been various editions of the Book of Mormon published since the beginning of the LDS church, and am wondering if the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price have also been altered.
 
hs_hopeful said:
I know there have been various editions of the Book of Mormon published since the beginning of the LDS church, and am wondering if the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price have also been altered.
Click to expand...
The short answer is yes. The D&C used to be the Book of Commandments In 1835 significant redactions, deletions, and additions of new material to the older revelations occurred to reform the book into a much larger body of work, what is now known as the D&C, which has changed very little since then.

The pearl of Great price changes can be found here: Linkified! They are significant and some of them are relatively recent.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Yes, they should, but there is still no way to know whether or not a person should receive communion. 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes, and then add Eucharistic ministers and it becomes even harder.

It is hard to imagine a parish where a priest knows people are not Catholic but gives them Communion anyway - perhaps it is a small parish in a small town.

(I think you may have misunderstood my previous post. I was agreeing that we don’t have temple recommends but that the EO have a very strict policy that would be similar, in a way).
 
lax16 said:
Yes, and then add Eucharistic ministers and it becomes even harder.

It is hard to imagine a parish where a priest knows people are not Catholic but gives them Communion anyway - perhaps it is a small parish in a small town.

(I think you may have misunderstood my previous post. I was agreeing that we don’t have temple recommends but that the EO have a very strict policy that would be similar, in a way).
Click to expand...
I see what you mean now, thanks.
 
Whew…but you have almost 2000 year old gap between the bible and Joseph Smith…outside the Holy Land and foundations of various ancient churches established in antiquity…along with the Early Church history…there is consistency of belief and practice, albeit different rites in various regions…most complicated if you look at all the apostolic churches and their derivatives…between Latin and Orthodox Churches…

Joseph Smith’s and whoever else was with him in putting the Book of Mormon definitely had such a different perspective and practice…
 
(sorry to insert this request in the middle of this thread, but it’s an appropriate thread to ask. Anyone got a copy of that letter from, I believe it was a secretary to Pres. Hinckley, where it re-affirms that the LDS church stands by it’s contention that the HIll Cumorah in NY is the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the BoM? If so, can you re-post it, please. Thanks 🙂 )
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Marie5890 said:
(sorry to insert this request in the middle of this thread, but it’s an appropriate thread to ask. Anyone got a copy of that letter from, I believe it was a secretary to Pres. Hinckley, where it re-affirms that the LDS church stands by it’s contention that the HIll Cumorah in NY is the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the BoM? If so, can you re-post it, please. Thanks 🙂 )
Click to expand...
This?
 
Marie5890 said:
Yes, TwoPekin. 🙂

Thank you. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, the TBMs have long since abandoned this thread, but let me fill in on their behalf… “The letter is taken out of context… That was just the Prophet’s opinion, not doctrine… The Prophet isn’t infallible like the Pope is… Also, instead of addressing the issue in a clear manner, let’s redirect the thread to talk about the time in 492 AD when Pope Snuffy kicked a puppy out of malice. Why does Catholic doctrine support animal cruelty?”

Is that about right? 🙂 Sorry, that was snarky but hopefully slightly funny.
 
JaminB123 said:
Well, the TBMs have long since abandoned this thread, but let me fill in on their behalf… “The letter is taken out of context… That was just the Prophet’s opinion, not doctrine… The Prophet isn’t infallible like the Pope is… Also, instead of addressing the issue in a clear manner, let’s redirect the thread to talk about the time in 492 AD when Pope Snuffy kicked a puppy out of malice. Why does Catholic doctrine support animal cruelty?”

Is that about right? 🙂 Sorry, that was snarky but hopefully slightly funny.
Click to expand...
But don’t their prophets talk to their god face to face? So how are they wrong?
 
SteveVH said:
There may be much more going on in this scene than most realize and it has nothing to do with Noah’s kids finding him naked and laughing about it. According to Dr. Tim Gray and Jeff Cavins it is a lot more serious than that. In their book “Walking with God” it is explained that the Hebrew expression “to look upon the nakedness of your father” actually meant to sleep with your father’s wife. Ham didn’t go in and see Noah laying naked. He saw Noah passed out from being drunk and proceeded to commit incest with his own mother, the wife of Noah, most likely raping her. When Shem and Japheth hear about it they go back into the tent to cover up their poor mother.

The story makes a lot more sense with this understanding. Remember, when Noah awakens and finds out what has happened who does he curse? He doesn’t curse Ham, rather he curses Canaan, who has not yet even been born. He is cursing the fruit of the incest. This wouldn’t make sense otherwise. And this probably didn’t happen just because Ham was some pervert. It was a power grab. He wanted to lay claim to the leadership of the family and the blessing was suppose to go to Shem, his older brother.
Click to expand...
If Ham had sex with his mom (uncovered his nakedness), how did his brothers cover his nakedness with a cloth? That makes no sense based on the context of the story. This theory was invented by some protestant in the 19th or 20th century, and while I usually find Hahn’s stuff good, this interpretation was found nowhere in Church history for the first 1900 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top