This newspaper article was sitting on my desk when I came back to the office.
“Change by LDS causes a stir” . . . “The next edition of the Book of Mormon has an introduction indicating a possible change in the religion’s view of Indians.”
– The Post Register, Saturday, November 10, 2007
John Sorensen, Brigham Young University professor emeritus of anthropology is quoted, it “eliminates a certain minor embarrassment in the use of language, that’s all.”
Does this mean that the producers and speakers in the video, DNA vs. The Book of Mormon (Living Hope Ministries, 2003) are not a bunch of idiots, alongside fifteen other colorful nouns used to describe them?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Let me add this as an afterthought: scientific and archeaological and historical assumptions, interesting as they might be, are not the foundations for my faith.
Higher critical scholarship is not my sword.
Higher critical scholarship is not my sword.
So why beat Latter-day Saints with the DNA argument then? Science doesn’t support your faith but no reason not to use (what is purported to be) scientific evidence against Mormons’ faith, right?
In thinking about it, that is why I made this afterthought, John.
You won’t find me posting entry after entry on scientific DNA analysis.
Most DNA scientists make a complete mockery of my adversion to evolution and my love for a more literal interpretation of Genesis to the glory of God.
How many scientists, archeaologists, and historical critics have faith in straightforward statements of scripture? I love hanging around those who do.
You and I both respect sincere faith in scripture. My chief discussion with you would be do our scriptures agree?
I think you would be hard-pressed to find material in the Book of Mormon that doesn’t agree with the Bible, even from your theological perspective. Your quarrel is more likely with the D&C and Pearl of Great Price for what might appear to you and other Evangelical creedalists to be items of theological departure from the post-Council-of-Nicea Catholic philosophy underlying the Protestantism of the Reformation.
The more relevant question is whether LDS teachings agree with the beliefs and practices of the earliest followers of Jesus Christ during the period that the Church was still being led by those holding the proper priesthood authority delegated by Jesus Christ himself while in his earthly ministry, i.e. the Apostles. I like the Catholic argument that this authority passed from the Apostles to the politician Bishops of the second century even though I personally find it tenuous on logical, theological, and historical grounds but at least it gives creedance to Jesus Christ’s emphasis on performing ordinances with the proper priesthood authority around which he explicitly organized his Church, with himself and the Atonement as the chief cornerstone, naturally. In wiping this away, I find that Protestants have removed themselves quite far from the religious life of the earliest followers of Jesus Christ, or saints as Paul and the Apostles called them contemporaneously, even if Protestants maintain allegiance to the Catholic creeds in their interpretation of the New Testament.
Incidentally, both Luther and Calvin seem to have been pretty clear that they were not advocating an abolishment of Priesthood authority. The marginalization of the ecclesiarchy seems to be largely a 20th century Evangelical innovation.
The marginalization of the ecclesiarchy seems to be largely a 20th century Evangelical innovation.
Interesting point. I think there is some truth to that.
Perhaps I should have put it this way instead:
In wiping this away, I find that American Evangelical creedalists have removed themselves quite far from the religious life of the earliest followers of Jesus Christ, or saints as Paul and the Apostles called them contemporaneously, even if such Evangelical creedalists maintain allegiance to the Catholic creeds in their interpretation of the New Testament.
(The point being to distinguish between these American Evangelicals and their Old-World Protestant ancestors.)
I don’t think priesthood authority claims are any more a reason you came to faith in the LDS church than DNA. It’s something you appreciate about your church and bash on Protestants for in hindsight, but it’s not something you build your testimony on.
The LDS church’s claims to priesthood lineage are really pretty weak. It’s just because Joseph said so. You’ve got nothing to go on other than you believe that Joseph was telling the truth.
The LDS church’s claims to priesthood lineage are really pretty weak. It’s just because Joseph said so. You’ve got nothing to go on other than you believe that Joseph was telling the truth.
And yet they’re still stronger than Evangelical creedalists’ claims to priesthood lineage, aren’t they?
And yet they’re still stronger than Evangelical creedalists’ claims to priesthood lineage, aren’t they?
Not really. Protestants believe in the priesthood of all believers. We each have our priesthood lineage passed down to us directly by the Holy Spirit.
So, even if we’re making it up. . . it’s still right on par with Joseph Smith.
A priesthood of all believers does not conform to the pattern established in the New Testament (and the Old Testament) by which priesthood authority is passed by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority.