Question for Mo Experts

[malkie]

You’re killing me,MG. In order for my worldview to work, I don’t need a thing from god. And what Mormon quotes the NIV instead of the KJV? Was that a move of convenience or what?

That’s really not much of a response. Just a deflection.

Regards,
MG

OK - breaking my self-imposed "no direct engagement" rule to point out that that’s really not much of a response. Just a deflection. I'm disappointed.

Now, back to normal operation.

[MG 2.0]

That’s really not much of a response. Just a deflection.

Regards,
MG

OK - breaking my self-imposed "no direct engagement" rule to point out that that’s really not much of a response. Just a deflection. I'm disappointed.

Now, back to normal operation.

I had already given a rather lengthy response. He pretty much blew it off.

Shutting down the conversation because I referred to the NIV?

C’mon.

I was rather disappointed. It’s not the first time that I’ve been making some argument/point and then a rather inane comment/sidetrack takes place to blow it all up.

Silly thing is, it usually works because others let it pass.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

President McKay sweat it out beseeching the Lord to reveal an answer to the priesthood ban and authorize him to reverse it. President McKay admitted that the Lord told him it wasn’t time. Can you imagine how McKay felt knowing the ramifications of this revelation from the Lord?

A lot of folks would have showered praises on him if he would have received another revelation. No doubt.

The interesting question here would be, did President McKay think that God was leading the church into grievous error?

I doubt it.

He simply followed the Lord’s will. Did he have questions as to why the time wasn’t right. I’ll bet he did.

Regards,
MG

Here's the Church's 1949 statement:

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.


You're saying this statement was God's will. Right?

//

By the way, is "God does not have an obligation" your opinion or Church doctrine?

That statement is as painful to read now as when I first read it. The racism inherent in the need to explain “redeeming a race” is horrible.

[Morley]

President McKay sweat it out beseeching the Lord to reveal an answer to the priesthood ban and authorize him to reverse it. President McKay admitted that the Lord told him it wasn’t time. Can you imagine how McKay felt knowing the ramifications of this revelation from the Lord?

A lot of folks would have showered praises on him if he would have received another revelation. No doubt.

The interesting question here would be, did President McKay think that God was leading the church into grievous error?

I doubt it.

He simply followed the Lord’s will. Did he have questions as to why the time wasn’t right. I’ll bet he did.

According to you, God had 1969's First Presidency under McKay say this:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”


A decade later, your version of God would instruct the Church to say that the discrimination by the Church toward Blacks was indeed something "which originated with man," and that God really had nothing to do with it. Oh, and forget that pre-existence stuff.

Why wouldn't God just answer his prophet's sincere questions? I can't imagine a good, just God who wouldn't.

[malkie]

OK - breaking my self-imposed "no direct engagement" rule to point out that that’s really not much of a response. Just a deflection. I'm disappointed.

Now, back to normal operation.

I had already given a rather lengthy response. He pretty much blew it off.

Shutting down the conversation because I referred to the NIV?

C’mon.

I was rather disappointed. It’s not the first time that I’ve been making some argument/point and then a rather inane comment/sidetrack takes place to blow it all up.

Silly thing is, it usually works because others let it pass.

Regards,
MG

If that's what it was I might agree with you.

Perhaps if you had explained upfront why you used the NIV rather than the KJV it might have helped.

Otherwise it looks as if you're using the NIV, rather than the version of the Bible that the church approves of, because the NIV seems to support your PoV while a plain reading of the KJV does not.

That looks like a deflection - or a "dodge and weave", if you like.

[MG 2.0]

Perhaps if you had explained upfront why you used the NIV rather than the KJV it might have helped.

Otherwise it looks as if you're using the NIV, rather than the version of the Bible that the church approves of, because the NIV seems to support your PoV while a plain reading of the KJV does not.

It does.

The NIV is also sort of hybrid between word-for-word and thought-for-thought approaches to translation.

https://faithfoundedonfact.com/the-5-mo ... nslations/

I guess I figured those on this forum would realize the balanced composition of the NIV and would accept that at face value rather than going all nit picky.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Perhaps if you had explained upfront why you used the NIV rather than the KJV it might have helped.

Otherwise it looks as if you're using the NIV, rather than the version of the Bible that the church approves of, because the NIV seems to support your PoV while a plain reading of the KJV does not.

It does.

The NIV is also sort of hybrid between word-for-word and thought-for-thought approaches to translation.

https://faithfoundedonfact.com/the-5-mo ... nslations/

I guess I figured those on this forum would realize the balanced composition of the NIV and would accept that at face value rather than going all nit picky.

Regards,
MG

Typical deflection - call someone a nit-picker, and then you don't have to engage with what they actually said, or take any responsibility for your failure to be upfront about what you were doing, which was using a non-church approved version of scriptures because it helped your case.

Why would you expect the regular members of the forum to be familiar with a website like Faith is Founded on Fact? Would you expect members of the church to be familiar with the website, since it is not a source of information that is approved by the church?

And since you seem to quote them approvingly, should we accept what they have to say about other things, or are you only using a selective quotation that supports your PoV, while ignoring other ideas that they hold to be "founded on fact"?

by the way, does the LDS church "realize the balanced composition of the NIV and would accept that at face value"?

[malkie]

Can someone remind me - did I have any reasons to not interact with MG in the past?

Have I learned my lesson this time?

Just for fun - this should give you a clue about whether cherry-picking from a non-church-approved website is not a recommended activity for faithful LDS:

As we consider the question of Christian vs Mormon, we will find some big differences. And we will get to them very soon.
...
Many Latter Day Saints think of themselves as Christians, while most Christians do not regard LDS as Christian.

This is because Latter Day Saints regard the Book of Mormon more highly than the Bible. So you could say they read things in the Bible through Mormon-colored glasses.

As a result, LDS doctrine on salvation is different from orthodox Christian doctrine.

LDS salvation is regarded as works-based, where orthodox Christian salvation is based on grace.

I'd more expect a critic to quote from this website than a faithful LDS.

YMMV

[MG 2.0]

It does.



I guess I figured those on this forum would realize the balanced composition of the NIV and would accept that at face value rather than going all nit picky.

Regards,
MG

Typical deflection - call someone a nit-picker, and then you don't have to engage with what they actually said, or take any responsibility for your failure to be upfront about what you were doing, which was using a non-church approved version of scriptures because it helped your case.

Why would you expect the regular members of the forum to be familiar with a website like Faith is Founded on Fact? Would you expect members of the church to be familiar with the website, since it is not a source of information that is approved by the church?

And since you seem to quote them approvingly, should we accept what they have to say about other things, or are you only using a selective quotation that supports your PoV, while ignoring other ideas that they hold to be "founded on fact"?

by the way, does the LDS church "realize the balanced composition of the NIV and would accept that at face value"?

It’s interesting that this is evolving into a he said/she said argument on Bible translations. I show that a reputable translation of the Bible translates James 1:5 in a way that supports an alternate view which demolishes the heretofore limited interpretation of fundamentalist critics and you folks go ballistic.

Crazy stuff.

But then as I mentioned to one poster an alternate translation serves to repudiate the worldview that those in this forum have that God is under some kind of determinate obligation to answer ALL questions at any given moment when a question is asked. Throw out the whole line upon line, precept upon precept doctrine of communication from God.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/king-james-Bible-re ... anslations

Biblicists in the church and others are free to ‘study it out for themselves’. We are not under the same limitations as fundamentalist critics.

Members all over the world use various Bible translations.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/pag ... s?lang=eng

I presented the NIV because…as the page I linked to describes…it takes a more balanced approach to translation. Who can argue with that? Oh yes, fundamentalist critics hellbent on promoting a worldview of their owm making.

Sorry to be so harsh, but sometimes you folks crack me up with your dogmatic views in regards to subject matters that you don’t even believe in.

How rich.

James 1:5 (NIV)
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

Generously =more

Not all.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Can someone remind me - did I have any reasons to not interact with MG in the past?

Have I learned my lesson this time?

How condescending.

Regards,
MG