Epoch changing significance of "Mormon Doctrine"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well, guess who headed up the Bible Dictionary committee? BRM. Geeze, somebody who was full of himself, don't you think? Anxious to see his words in print.

All the same, it contradicts the pervasive attitude around here that Mormon Doctrine is an unreliable source of ... well, doctrine. McConkie didn't sneak those entries into the Bible Dictionary under cover of night.

Originally Posted by Archaea

You and I have a major disconnect in how God works. I do not believe God intervenes with the frequency you do.

Thus, I don't believe actions allowed by God are necessarily inspired by God, even those including the selection of his leaders. God allows his authorized servants to call others. Sometimes he may intervene to disallow somebody and sometimes, I allow he may actually select somebody, but oft times he just relies upon the good judgment of those who he has allowed to operate for the Church.

The prophet uses his best judgment and is inspired where God absolutely requires it of his prophet. The prophet may be subtlely spiritually educated and guided, but not in the manner you profess.

Thus, it's not impressive for somebody to state, "but he's an apostle." The actions of an apostle may have the authority on behalf of the Church, but it's still different. God would act perfectly and men will not.

You're welcome to believe what you wish, obviously. It simply sounds like projection to me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

All the same, it contradicts the pervasive attitude around here that Mormon Doctrine is an unreliable source of ... well, doctrine. McConkie didn't sneak those entries into the Bible Dictionary under cover of night.



You're welcome to believe what you wish, obviously. It simply sounds like projection to me.

If you understand what projection is in psychoanalytical terms, you just misused it.

Bible Dictionary is NOT doctrine, but a reference source dear friend.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you understand what projection is in psychoanalytical terms, you just misused it.

Bible Dictionary is NOT doctrine, but a reference source dear friend.

I'm not really interested in another semantical debate--didn't the "creed" debate wear you out?

Re: projection. You know what I mean.
Re: doctrine. You know what I mean.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think what every member of the church has to decide is whether or not God directs his prophet, or whether the prophet follows his own whims until God removes him.

Did a little quick searching on the Internet (a poor LDS research resource if ever there was one, sadly) and discovered this little quote on Wikipedia (if you are Cali Coug, stop reading now): "Much of the Bible Dictionary included with the Church's publication of the Bible in 1979 borrows from Mormon Doctrine. For example, the entry for 'Abraham, covenant of' in the Bible Dictionary is exactly the same as the entry for 'Abrahamic covenant' in Mormon Doctrine except for one paragraph. Many other Bible Dictionary entries teach identical concepts with closely paralleled wording as corresponding entries in Mormon Doctrine."

Funny, I never heard this mentioned on Cougarguard. But I sure have heard the 1000+ figure repeated ad infinitum.

I fail to see your point. Are you arguing that we should highly regard the book because it contains some truth or even a lot of truth? That simply makes it all the more dangerous. 1000 true statements mixed in with 1 false statement appear to make the false statement a true statement.

The book shouldn't have been written. Sure, it contains a lot of truth, but the danger of publishing the falsities it contains (and almost must contain by its nature) far outweighs the marginal benefit it provides.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think what every member of the church has to decide is whether or not God directs his prophet, or whether the prophet follows his own whims until God removes him.

Did a little quick searching on the Internet (a poor LDS research resource if ever there was one, sadly) and discovered this little quote on Wikipedia (if you are Cali Coug, stop reading now): "Much of the Bible Dictionary included with the Church's publication of the Bible in 1979 borrows from Mormon Doctrine. For example, the entry for 'Abraham, covenant of' in the Bible Dictionary is exactly the same as the entry for 'Abrahamic covenant' in Mormon Doctrine except for one paragraph. Many other Bible Dictionary entries teach identical concepts with closely paralleled wording as corresponding entries in Mormon Doctrine."

Funny, I never heard this mentioned on Cougarguard. But I sure have heard the 1000+ figure repeated ad infinitum.

It had been discussed on CG. He did the Bible Dictionary and the footnotes. You speak of CG as it is one voice, which never is the case. If I could speak for CG, though, I would say that WE equally dislike the McConkie tainted Bible Dictionary and footnotes as we do Mormon Doctrine.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

It had been discussed on CG. He did the Bible Dictionary and the footnotes. You speak of CG as it is one voice, which never is the case. If I could speak for CG, though, I would say that WE equally dislike the McConkie tainted Bible Dictionary and footnotes as we do Mormon Doctrine.

I'd have to go back but isn't our "bible dictionary" just a minor reworking of an existing, out of date, concordance? I can't remember which one, but it's not very good, from a scholarly standpoint.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I fail to see your point. Are you arguing that we should highly regard the book because it contains some truth or even a lot of truth? That simply makes it all the more dangerous. 1000 true statements mixed in with 1 false statement appear to make the false statement a true statement.

In that case, you may want to just toss out the entire Bible.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The book shouldn't have been written. Sure, it contains a lot of truth, but the danger of publishing the falsities it contains (and almost must contain by its nature) far outweighs the marginal benefit it provides.

I'm not sure what the measuring stick is that you're using to make such a judgement, but if the Wikipedia source (biographer Dennis Horne) is to be believed, then large swaths of the book ended up inside your very own Quad. Seems like the benefit is more than marginal to me.

Originally Posted by jay santos

It had been discussed on CG. He did the Bible Dictionary and the footnotes. You speak of CG as it is one voice, which never is the case. If I could speak for CG, though, I would say that WE equally dislike the McConkie tainted Bible Dictionary and footnotes as we do Mormon Doctrine.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'd have to go back but isn't our "bible dictionary" just a minor reworking of an existing, out of date, concordance? I can't remember which one, but it's not very good, from a scholarly standpoint.

CG would probably be one voice, if it weren't for the few of us out here in the wilderness. The rough coat of camel's hair gets itchy sometimes though.

Actually, it's amusing to see what people are willing to discard about their religion. Today I learned that the Bible Dictionary is "tainted" and "not very good." I wonder what tomorrow will bring ...

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'd have to go back but isn't our "bible dictionary" just a minor reworking of an existing, out of date, concordance? I can't remember which one, but it's not very good, from a scholarly standpoint.

I actually quite like the bible dictionary.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by creekster

I actually quite like the bible dictionary.

My last post was mostly hyperbole for Tex's sake. I like the bible dictionary but you can see McConkie's prints on it, and there are a few items I don't like about it, where that is obvious. Especially related to grace/works issues...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

In that case, you may want to just toss out the entire Bible.

You are comparing the Bible to Mormon Doctrine? One is scripture, one is not; even so, I think we can all agree that any points that are false/incomplete/vague in the Bible HAVE created a tremendous amount of confusion and strife and, where such matters are within our control (like here), we should avoid mixing large portions of truth with small portions of falsity to limit further confusion and strife. Would you disagree?

I'm not sure what the measuring stick is that you're using to make such a judgement, but if the Wikipedia source (biographer Dennis Horne) is to be believed, then large swaths of the book ended up inside your very own Quad. Seems like the benefit is more than marginal to me.

If this is true, it makes Mormon Doctrine all the more useless, does it not? The best information, according to you, has already been incorporated into the Quad. Of what benefit is Mormon Doctrine then?