It is the New American Bible, a Catholic translation (the translation used in Mass in the USA). usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation3.htm
I believe he quoted the NIV, which you also quoted above.
Progressive? Wow–not a term I’d use to describe LDS. RLDS, however, yes.
It still says that Jesus was before creation. Did you read the subsequent verses?
I don’t think Mormons use it because it’s archaic. I was just saying it is archaic.
Hence the wording “archaic translations, if one exists.”
Neither of these verses suggests that the Son is created. Colossians explicitly says “all things were created through him and for him,” which would not be possible if he himself was a mere creature. (This is why JWs, who do believe the Son is a mere creature, are forced to add a word to the passage in their own translation: “all [other] things were created…”) Similarly, Revelation 3 says he is the origin or principle (arche) of creation. This is consistent with the Catholic faith.
The original 1611 KJV includes the deuterocanonical books. The KJV currently used by the LDS lacks them.
sablouwho is correct in saying that argumentum ad populum (a.k.a. argumentum ad numeram or the “bandwagon fallacy”) is a logical fallacy. That the Utah-based LDS church has more members than the CC(RLDS) does not inform anyone which is truer, if either is “true” at all.
Okay, let me express that differently. Here is a quote from Joseph Smith written in his well-known Wentworth Letter:
How is it one of the ‘offshoots’ owns the Temple Lot?
I don’t think this can be reasonably claimed. “Our missionaries are going forth to different nations” is written in the present tense, meaning the missionaries have already been sent as of Joseph Smith’s writing. So any Smith-based group can claim this. The CC(RLDS), furthermore, has churches and/or outreaches in the places Smith mentioned: Germany, Israel, a few countries that are home to "New Holland"s, Australia, a number of countries in Asia (the “East Indies”), and shows no signs of stopping their missionary expansion. More than half their active members of the church speak a language other than English as their first language.
Thank you Parker for expanding on your answer for my sake, I appreciate it.Salouwho,
I certainly mean any person who is familiar with the promptings of the Holy Spirit in their personal life, and recognizes those promptings as opposed to the other kinds of influences or inner thoughts and feelings that are distinctly different than the promptings of the Holy Spirit. This would not be excluded to the LDS (nor do all LDS necessarily have the promptings of the Spirit), but will completely match the criteria explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2.
It is an individual case situation, one-to-one: the Holy Spirit directly communicating to the individual person, and the individual person recognizing this and knowing that they are being “led” and “guided” and “prompted” with knowledge of something they would otherwise not know or with guidance to do something they would otherwise not do.
Thanks for asking for the clarification. I sincerely appreciate that.
You pretty much took the words right outta my mouth, aspirant!
For the sake of argument, let’s say the JS statement from the Wentworth letter is prophetic. Well, um, history isn’t “finished” yet!, so just because the LDS currently has more adherents than CoC (RLDS), it does not necessarily follow that this will always continue to be the case going forward in time. Granted, it may be unlikely that the CoC (RLDS) will “overtake” the LDS in sheer numbers, but it wouldn’t be unheard of. God seems to often favor the underdog. (David and Goliath, anyone?)Ignore the “our missionaries” bit. It is the prophecy that followed that I was interested in. The “missionaries” were sent then (and are being sent now); that was not the prophecy. The prophecy was what followed that statement. That is what is being fulfilled, and has been, only by the LDS Church. Here is another prophecy of Joseph Smith you might like to consider:
Do you know anything about the recent history of the CoC (RLDS) Church? If you knew, I doubt you would talk like that! They are in total disarray, and losing support and membership. After the initial split, they emerge as the strongest contender to challenge the LDS Church. All the rest are not even worth mentioning. And for a time they continued to be a reasonable challenger to the LDS Church. But as our Church continued to grow stronger, they got weaker and posed less of a challenge. They also had some internal problems. They were split between the liberal wing and the conservative wing. The liberals basically don’t believe in anything at all! For them doing religion is just a term of convenience. And they were always in the driver’s seat. They comprised the leadership, and made decisions for the rest, like it or not! After the name change, there was a big split, and the conservatives went their own way, and stopped paying tithing and donations to the main church which was led by the liberals. With the revenues drying up, they were (and still are) in dire financial difficulties, and their church began to collapse onto itself. They were saved (from what I have heard) by large estate left for them by a wealthy member of their church. But they are still in serious trouble, and from what I hear, they are surviving with the help of financial support from the LDS Church (O the irony of it!). They are sitting on top of a lot of real estate, artifacts, and records that have great historical value for the LDS Church, and I don’t think it is in the interest of the LDS Church that they should collapse entirely, so they are helping them as much as possible to survive. So do you still think that they might be fulfilling the prophecy of Joseph Smith in the future?
and, are you sure? There’s a lot of “truth of God going forth” out there
I don’t know the details, but apparently not. They occupied their local churches and stopped paying allegiance (or money) to the main church. There are (former) members of their church who know a lot more about this than I do. If you can find one of those they can tell you a lot more about this than I can.
It is neither! The terms “conservative” or “liberal” don’t apply to the LDS Church. It is category all its own! Many of their policies however may be regarded by others to be “conservative”—e.g. traditional families, moral behavior, modesty in dress, anti-abortion etc.
Certainly you are more “up” on the details of the CoC than I am, but yes, to answer your question, I do have a passing knowledge of some of the recent goings-on.
Well, since I don’t believe it is actually a prophecy in the first place, what do you think my answer is going to be?So do you still think that they might be fulfilling the prophecy of Joseph Smith in the future?
Don’t forget that we are talking about the testimony of the Holy Ghost here, not just about any kind of “conviction”.
Yes, I know. I am not sure why you think I forgot this, though.
But in a post upthread you explicitly used the word “progressive”.
I will try and find that post # if I can so you can reference it.
ETA: The post is # 414. In that post, zerinus said (bold is my emphasis)
That said, I do not really know what zerinus meant here in his/her employment of the word “progressive.” Usually it tends to have a connotation that is associated with a non-conservative approach.
You may think you are being “logical,” but you are anything but. You are throwing a bunch of terminology around, and thinking that you are being “logical”. If you stopped trying to be “logiccal,” you might actually do better!Yes, I know. I am not sure why you think I forgot this, though.
Here, it seems you are relying on a logical fallacy called begging the question. (or perhaps circular reasoning).
Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. **Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. **This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”
- Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
- Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
So, to say that “the Holy Ghost will not, and indeed cannot, bear witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon in conjunction with any other Church than the LDS Church. Why? Because it is the only one that is true.” appears to be circular logica and/or begging the question.
Well, actually, the “logic” that you have used appears to be a fallacy, so it really can’t be applied to anyone, (Mormon or not), who wishes to be logically consistent. This is not to say that I doubt that you believe as you do, however. Rather, I am only questioning (some of) the *explanations *that you are offering in this forum which appear to be illogical and thus cannot really be used by those who value logical reasoning as a part of their faith.
ETA: Just wanted to add that I have seen logically fallacious arguments made by Catholics on these forums as well (and people of other faiths, or no faith, to boot). I want to be clear that I don’t think that this is something that is unique to LDS. If someone argues that the RCC is “true” because of X, and X is a logical fallacy, I am not going to buy that statement either.
I have noticed that there seems to be a correlation between how “fundamentalist” (I am referring to a mindset that applies to ANY religion, rather than the phenomenon of Fundamentalist Protestants) one is in one’s religious beliefs, and how much one is prone to making logical fallacies to support those beliefs. It just so happens that a majority of LDS people (at least most of the ones that I know personally, and most of the ones I’m familiar with on CAF) tend to be of this mindset and therefore seem to use logically fallacious statements quite often.
But I’ve seen fundamentalist reasoning in other faiths as well. Including the Jewish tradition from which I hail. And most definitely in among some Catholics here on CAF. IOW, I have trouble buying into this kind of reasoning no matter where it is coming from!
