Mormons getting their own planet come Judgement Day? Can someone elaborate on this?

[Czarcasm]

@missyzilly

If more people read the bible they would see that . God does not care what group or church you go to. He said the meek will rule.

How much of the Bible have you read?

[newcomer]

@Monty

I guess I’ll just address one thing you’ve touched on there. The “Mormon Bible” is the Bible accepted by Protestant Christians.

Cite?

It’s more like tolerated due to a degree of change that happened overtime.

Or, as Gopnik says in The New Yorker:

Then again, almost every American religion sooner or later becomes a Gospel of Wealth. Forced into a corner by the Feds, Young’s followers put down their guns and got busy making money—just as the Oneida devotees who made silverware for a living ended up merely making silverware. (The moneymaking activities of the major churches hardly need outlining.) Christmas morning is the American Sabbath, and it runs, ideally, all year round. The astonishing thing, and it would have brought a smile to Nephi’s face as he and his tribe sailed to the New World, is that this gospel of prosperity is the one American faith that will never fail, even when its promises seem ruined. Elsewhere among the Western democracies, the bursting of the last bubble has led to doubts about the system that blows them. Here the people who seem likely to inherit power are those who want to blow still bigger ones, who believe in the bubble even after it has burst, and who hold its perfection as a faith so gleaming and secure and unbreakable that it might once have been written down somewhere by angels, on solid-gold plates.

I, Nephi

[Monty]

@newcomer

Cite?

Does this particulare cite clue you in?

It’s more like tolerated due to a degree of change that happened overtime.

Or, as Gopnik says in The New Yorker:

I, Nephi | The New Yorker

Let’s see…a practicing member of the faith in question just provided you a link to the Holy Bible, the partiuclar version of which is the 66-book version generally accepted by Protestants, on that faith’s website’s scriptures section. You may now scroll up and notice what said practicing member asserted. You, on the other hand, provided a link to a news magazine. Last I heard, that magazine had not been elevated to the status of scripture in the faith under question.

Since you evidently are not that versed (couldn’t resist that pun) in what does and does not constitute scripture for the faith being discussed in this thread, perhaps you should refrain from making comments until you have gained such knowledge. Mind you, that’s just a suggestion.

[Rhodes]

I’m not sure what missyzilly’s point is, exactly. But I had assumed that she meant “Mormon bible” as a common slang term for the Book of Mormon. And of course she is incorrect; the Book of Mormon does say that:

@Book of Mormon

And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

And I’m sure it’s coincidence, not plagiarism, that accounts for the similarity between this and:

@The Mormon (KJV) Bible

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

But while the meek may inherit the earth, only those who learn the [del]secret[/del] sacred [del]passwords[/del] names and [del]handshakes[/del] tokens get to become gods of their own planets.

[newcomer]

@Monty

Does this particulare cite clue you in?

Let’s see…a practicing member of the faith in question just provided you a link to the Holy Bible, the partiuclar version of which is the 66-book version generally accepted by Protestants, on that faith’s website’s scriptures section. You may now scroll up and notice what said practicing member asserted. You, on the other hand, provided a link to a news magazine. Last I heard, that magazine had not been elevated to the status of scripture in the faith under question.

Since you evidently are not that versed (couldn’t resist that pun) in what does and does not constitute scripture for the faith being discussed in this thread, perhaps you should refrain from making comments until you have gained such knowledge. Mind you, that’s just a suggestion.

I may not be fully versed in the Book of BS that is any book of faith, but in the universe of rational thought I’d like to get a clarification - is your suggestion that certain similarities at the verse level found in Book of Mormon to those in Bible is a sufficient proof that Protestants accept the Book of Mormon?

Because, if you cared to read through the article - but I know you didn’t - you’d notice that Protestants accepted Mormon’s holy verse so much they (Mormons that is) had to move all the way to the Frontier of Utah and some even to Mexico. Not to mention the way Illinois Protestants accepted Mormon founder.

[Rhodes]

@newcomer

I may not be fully versed in the Book of BS that is any book of faith, but in the universe of rational thought I’d like to get a clarification - is your suggestion that certain similarities at the verse level found in Book of Mormon to those in Bible is a sufficient proof that Protestants accept the Book of Mormon?

Because, if you cared to read through the article - but I know you didn’t - you’d notice that Protestants accepted Mormon’s holy verse so much they (Mormons that is) had to move all the way to the Frontier of Utah and some even to Mexico. Not to mention the way Illinois Protestants accepted Mormon founder.

I certainly can’t speak for Monty, but his cite pretty clearly shows that the actual Mormon bible is the Protestant King James Version. He seems to be objecting to referring to the Book of Mormon as the Mormon bible, not claiming that Protestants accept the Book of Mormon.

[BigT]

The thing is, the word Bible, when preferenced by an religion, is often used to refer to the religious scripture of that religion. So the Mormon bible would be the KJV + The Book of Mormon + any other books or lists of sayings they use.

But I’d agree that the Book of Mormon itself cannot be called the Mormon bible. It’s merely part of it, and a rather small part, albeit rather significant.

[Monty]

@newcomer

I may not be fully versed in the Book of BS that is any book of faith, but in the universe of rational thought I’d like to get a clarification - is your suggestion that certain similarities at the verse level found in Book of Mormon to those in Bible is a sufficient proof that Protestants accept the Book of Mormon?

Sit down. Tune out any distractions that may be present wherever you happen to be. Now, take a moment and read what I actually posted. That’s all the clarification you need. And perhaps you’d do well yourself to inhabit “the universe of rational thought” before you go off on whatever it was that led you to such a bizarre misreading of my post.

Because, if you cared to read through the article - but I know you didn’t -

You know no such thing. You incorrectly assumed that. In fact, I read the article.

you’d notice that Protestants accepted Mormon’s holy verse so much they (Mormons that is) had to move all the way to the Frontier of Utah and some even to Mexico. Not to mention the way Illinois Protestants accepted Mormon founder.

What?

@Rhodes

I certainly can’t speak for Monty, but his cite pretty clearly shows that the actual Mormon bible is the Protestant King James Version. He seems to be objecting to referring to the Book of Mormon as the Mormon bible, not claiming that Protestants accept the Book of Mormon.

Exactly right. The “Mormon Bible” is the Protestant Bible. The Book of Mormon is not referrred to by any Mormon as “The Mormon Bible.”

[Monty]

@BigT

The thing is, the word Bible, when preferenced by an religion, is often used to refer to the religious scripture of that religion. So the Mormon bible would be the KJV + The Book of Mormon + any other books or lists of sayings they use.

Mormons use the term Standard Works to refer to their canon of scripture. The Standard Works consist of: Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. It should be noted that the KJV Bible is the one directed for use for English. The church leadership has directed the use of different translations, of course, in countries where English is not the prevailing language. For example, in South Korea the New Korean Revised Version (2005 translation) published by the Korean Bible Society, is the text used.

But I’d agree that the Book of Mormon itself cannot be called the Mormon bible. It’s merely part of it, and a rather small part, albeit rather significant.

Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon is considered by any Mormons I know to be “a rather small part” of the Standard Works. But, I think I can safely take your meaning as the Book of Mormon is one of four tomes in said works. Is that a fair appraisal? (I don’t want to be making a bizarre misreading of a post, especially after my comment just upthread!)

[newcomer]

@Rhodes

I certainly can’t speak for Monty, but his cite pretty clearly shows that the actual Mormon bible is the Protestant King James Version. He seems to be objecting to referring to the Book of Mormon as the Mormon bible, not claiming that Protestants accept the Book of Mormon.

I think you’re right. That’s where the confusion stemmed from. Even though, there is in fact Mormon version of KJV Bible so it’s not all so black and white.

[Rhodes]

@newcomer

I think you’re right. That’s where the confusion stemmed from. Even though, there is in fact Mormon version of KJV Bible so it’s not all so black and white.

They use the KJV, and the footnotes cross-reference it to other Mormon scripture and to the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the KJV. Naturally Joseph Smith’s re-translation didn’t involve using source materials; he just inserted a word here and a phrase there to make it match his theology better. The LDS English Bible also contains a Topical Guide and a Bible Dictionary that explains everything in terms of circa-1960’s Mormonism. So yeah, there’s that. All footnotes, appendices, chapter headings, and introductions are considered non-canonical.

[Monty]

@newcomer

I think you’re right. That’s where the confusion stemmed from.

Huh? I was pretty damn clear in my post. You, on the other hand, read it basically backwards.