LDS Scripture Question

[twopekinguys]

First of all, let me say I know very little about all of the in’s and out’s of the LDS scripture.

If I understand correcly, LDS use the Bible (KJV or JST), Doctrines and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the Book of Abraham.

Also, if I understand correctly, you refer to the King Follett Discourse for “guidance”, but it isn’t part of your cannonized scripture.

Now, with that being said, I ran across an interesting article:

ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

I am having trouble with some of the things quoted in the article.

“Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”

“Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?” he asked. “It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”

How can someone in this position, and apparently backed by LDS leadership (It is on and LDS website after all) say that something that is considered canonized scripture by the LDS, not be “central” in your beliefs, and basically defend only a small portion of it?

I’m just confused on this. As a Catholic, we believe ALL scripture is central to our beliefs, and all scripture should be defended.

I’m not looking for a fight with this, I am just truly trying to understand the reasoning.

 

[RebeccaJ]

 

[aquabatix]

I think it comes down to not defending what cannot be defended. That’s it.

 

[zerinus]

First of all, let me say I know very little about all of the in’s and out’s of the LDS scripture.

If I understand correcly, LDS use the Bible (KJV or JST), Doctrines and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the Book of Abraham.

Also, if I understand correctly, you refer to the King Follett Discourse for “guidance”, but it isn’t part of your cannonized scripture.

Now, with that being said, I ran across an interesting article:

ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

I am having trouble with some of the things quoted in the article.

“Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”

“Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?” he asked. “It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”

How can someone in this position, and apparently backed by LDS leadership (It is on and LDS website after all) say that something that is considered canonized scripture by the LDS, not be “central” in your beliefs, and basically defend only a small portion of it?

I’m just confused on this. As a Catholic, we believe ALL scripture is central to our beliefs, and all scripture should be defended.

I’m not looking for a fight with this, I am just truly trying to understand the reasoning.

I think you have mixed up (and misunderstood) a lot of stuff in there. Firstly that speaker is not an official spokesman of the Church. He is Mormon scholar of Egyptian studies. Even FARMS (at which he was speaking) is not an official arm of the Church. If you have an issue with what he says, you have to take it up with him, not with us or with the rest of the Church. Second, I think that his problem is more a lack of communication than anything else. He appears to be contradicting himself in what he is saying, which suggests that he has difficulty getting his ideas across. Mormonism also allows considerable freedom of thought for its members. They don’t have to “toe the line” in everything. I personally don’t agree with some of the things he has said; but it may be that he just isn’t communicating his ideas very effectively. And in either case, he is not speaking for the Church, and he is not “badked by the leadership of the Church”.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think you have mixed up (and misunderstood) a lot of stuff in there. Firstly that speaker is not an official spokesman of the Church. He is Mormon scholar of Egyptian studies. Even FARMS (at which he was speaking) is not an official arm of the Church. If you have an issue with what he says, you have to take it up with him, not with us or with the rest of the Church. Second, I think that his problem is more a lack of communication than anything else. He appears to be contradicting himself in what he is saying, which suggests that he has difficulty getting his ideas across. Mormonism also allows considerable freedom of thought for its members. They don’t have to “toe the line” in everything. I personally don’t agree with some of the things he has said; but it may be that he just isn’t communicating his ideas very effectively. And in either case, he is not speaking for the Church, and he is not “badked by the leadership of the Church”.

I will agree that he seems to be contradicting himself. I also agree that he may be having difficulty expressing what he is saying, but don’t you think as an apologist, that is part of his job so to speak?

I also understand that the church gives you some latitude in things, but don’t you think this would be out of what would be considered reasonable?

Did you notice in the upper right portion of the webpage where it says, “Authorized News Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”?

That tells me that either an editor is not doing his/her job, or the church does not disagree with what he is saying, since this is the "Authorized News Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut though.

 

[zerinus]

I will agree that he seems to be contradicting himself. I also agree that he may be having difficulty expressing what he is saying, but don’t you think as an apologist, that is part of his job so to speak?

I also understand that the church gives you some latitude in things, but don’t you think this would be out of what would be considered reasonable?

Did you notice in the upper right portion of the webpage where it says, “Authorized News Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”?

That tells me that either an editor is not doing his/her job, or the church does not disagree with what he is saying, since this is the "Authorized News Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut though.

Church News is a newspaper owned by the Church; and it is doing what a newspaper should do: report an event impartially as it took place.

 

[twopekinguys]

Church News is a newspaper owned by the Church; and it is doing what a newspaper should do: report an event impartially as it took place.

I guess I am just suprised that since this is a church owned newspaper that there isn’t some sort of rebuttal from the church leadership, or PR office stating that he is not being accurate.

Impartial reporting or not (which I personally don’t believe exists anywhere), it just seems to me the lds would want to nip it in the bud before the misconception grew.