Scott Gordon...Apologetic? Apostate? or Apologetic-Apostate.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Scott Gordon of FAIR attempts to address issues concerning the LDS Church preisthood ban. One issue that Gordon labels as myth is that one can liken the ban on the blacks and preisthood with that of the Levites in ancient Israel. Gordon denies that such a comparisons exist. However, in putting forth his apologetic drivel Gordon exposes the apostasy he is spiraling into. The LDS Church officially uses the Levites in ancient Israel as an example of God placing restrictions on peoples while not on others.

The Levites provide and example of "bans" but the use of the Levites do not provide a "reason". Perhaps Scott Gordon should be informed of his apparent apostate leanings.

[_bcspace]

Perhaps he knows, not unlike my own admission that I disagree with the notion of a global Flood. And perhaps, like me and the Flood, he considers such disagreement to be non catastrophic.

My main beef with his article is that he does not advance an alternate explanation(s).

[_SteelHead]

Joseph Smith

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

Bc, how are you not saying that the brethren are "out of the way" when you state that you do not believe in the teachings regarding a global flood? EG implying that what they have taught in official and by your standard doctrinal sources is incorrect; meaning "out if the way".

[_bcspace]

Bc, how are you not saying that the brethren are "out of the way" when you state that you do not believe in the teachings regarding a global flood?

Because I have not condemned anyone regarding this. Indeed I have actually stated that it is not unreasonable for the Church to hold the view of a global Flood since it is merely going with traditional Christians doctrine, there being no modern revelation on the subject that I know of.

[_Buffalo]

Bc, how are you not saying that the brethren are "out of the way" when you state that you do not believe in the teachings regarding a global flood?

Because I have not condemned anyone regarding this. Indeed I have actually stated that it is not unreasonable for the Church to hold the view of a global Flood since it is merely going with traditional Christians doctrine, there being no modern revelation on the subject that I know of.

You know that's not true.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/8?lang=eng

Moses 8

29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its away upon the earth.

30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will adestroy all flesh from off the earth.

[_SteelHead]

Bc,
Does the brethren teaching it over the pulpit of conference and the global flood being published in the ensign and current manuals not rise to the rubicon of modern revelation?

[_Drifting]

Bc,
Does the brethren teaching it over the pulpit of conference and the global flood being published in the ensign and current manuals not rise to the rubicon of modern revelation?

It does, but bcspace has openly admitted apostasy on this issue.

[_bcspace]

You know that's not true.

Still seems to be true. Moses is ancient, not modern scripture. The modern interpretation of it also does nothing to narrow the scope of the Hebrew "earth" which could be local.

[_Buffalo]

You know that's not true.

Still seems to be true. Moses is ancient, not modern scripture. The modern interpretation of it also does nothing to narrow the scope of the Hebrew "earth" which could be local.

It's a modern revelation. Joseph received it through pure revelation, not based on any extant manuscript, while correcting the errors of the Bible.

[_bcspace]

Still seems to be true. Moses is ancient, not modern scripture. The modern interpretation of it also does nothing to narrow the scope of the Hebrew "earth" which could be local.

It's a modern revelation. Joseph received it through pure revelation, not based on any extant manuscript, while correcting the errors of the Bible.

Yet the much of the ancient text survives and the question remains unanswered.