Mysteries of the Kingdom

[freedomforall]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, thanks for your reposting of those scriptures.

You may want to know that quotes from any other than the four standard works is not scripture. You have been deceived into thinking they are. Note that most of the time when scripture is being referenced, a book, chap. and verse is supplied so you can look it up yourself. Notice that no scripture has been provided, only non standard quotes not related to scripture. The book has information that is not canonized, nor is it to be digested as fact.
Be careful not to be taken in by anyone not willing to provide scriptural evidence that would corroborate any claim found in this book, because a good share of the time, they cannot.

I own the book "Doctrine of Eternal Lives" and on the second page, is declared that the book is not an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...and that it does not necessarily represent the views of the LDS church. It also states that the everything written therein is the responsibility of the author, an author who has no name. These facts should be a huge, red flag of caution to you.

Again, be very prudent in making sure of what you want to believe. This book is full of far out quotes, but not from scripture, if not seldom.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, thanks for your reposting of those scriptures.

You may want to know that quotes from any other than the four standard works is not scripture. You have been deceived into thinking they are. Note that most of the time when scripture is being referenced, a book, chap. and verse is supplied so you can look it up yourself. Notice that no scripture has been provided, only non standard quotes not related to scripture.
Be careful not to be taken in by anyone not willing to provide scriptural evidence, because a good share of the time, they cannot.

I own the book "Doctrine of Eternal Lives" and on the second page, is declared that the book is not an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...and that it does not necessarily represent the views of the LDS church. It also states that the everything written therein is the responsibility of the author, an author who has no name.

Again, be very prudent in making sure of what you want to believe. This book is full of far out quotes, but not from scripture, if not seldom.

Out of the best books ...
And what is better than the writings of the prophets of God.
So just give it a rest dude, you are not the truth cop here.
There is not anything in the book that is not in harmony with the scriptures.
There are many places where one may think that (policingofall certainly believes that),
but there are things in the scriptures that Brigham calls "hollow toadstool stories"
- not the truth out of mercy (so people link policingofall won't blow a gaskett)
I would admonish anyone to always have a study companion, the spirit.

[HappyCamper8]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, thanks for your reposting of those scriptures.

You may want to know that quotes from any other than the four standard works is not scripture. ...The book has information that is not canonized, nor is it to be digested as fact.

The difficult thing for me though is that some stuff in the canon is considered NOT scripture in the LDS Church, decided by people who also themselves have said things that we are now supposed to take with a grain of salt since ITS not canon. Becomes very difficult for me to wrap my head around at times.

For example, the teaching that certain stuff in the canon is NOT scripture. Should that be taken with a grain of salt since it in and of itself is NOT canon?

Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around all this...

[sandman45]

Joseph was wrong? seriously? he SAW visions and had Angels minister to him.. if anything more of the recent leaders are wrong about THEIR interpretation of scripture.

[HappyCamper8]

Joseph was wrong? seriously? he SAW visions and had Angels minister to him.. if anything more of the recent leaders are wrong about THEIR interpretation of scripture.

Sorry! Wasn't trying to imply anything by my comment, just putting my thoughts out there. I keep hearing canon is law. Just trying to show how in my mind, things aren't as black and white. Just trying to figure things out. No offense meant by it.

[freedomforall]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, thanks for your reposting of those scriptures.

You may want to know that quotes from any other than the four standard works is not scripture. ...The book has information that is not canonized, nor is it to be digested as fact.

The difficult thing for me though is that some stuff in the canon is considered NOT scripture in the LDS Church, decided by people who also themselves have said things that we are now supposed to take with a grain of salt since ITS not canon. Becomes very difficult for me to wrap my head around at times.

For example, the teaching that certain stuff in the canon is NOT scripture. Should that be taken with a grain of salt since it in and of itself is NOT canon?

Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around all this...

I have provided opportunity to read many verses related to how important scripture is. All of them, ie, Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Bible are considered canon, and are for our profit and learning.
Many authors write, and have written, books on Gospel topics, however, they are not official canon even though they may insert scripture passages. This partly because a person may write their own interpretation and be in error. It is still up to the reader to confirm scripture and see if scripture and man's writings are in unison.

Articles of Faith 8
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Scriptures, Preservation of

Scriptures, Value of

Scriptures, Study of

I hope this answers your concern.

Can you provide passages of scripture not considered to be canon?

[HappyCamper8]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, thanks for your reposting of those scriptures.

You may want to know that quotes from any other than the four standard works is not scripture. ...The book has information that is not canonized, nor is it to be digested as fact.

The difficult thing for me though is that some stuff in the canon is considered NOT scripture in the LDS Church, decided by people who also themselves have said things that we are now supposed to take with a grain of salt since ITS not canon. Becomes very difficult for me to wrap my head around at times.

For example, the teaching that certain stuff in the canon is NOT scripture. Should that be taken with a grain of salt since it in and of itself is NOT canon?

Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around all this...

I have provided opportunity to read many verses related to how important scripture is. All of them, ie, Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Bible are considered canon, and are for our profit and learning.
Many authors write, and have written, books on Gospel topics, however, they are not official canon even though they may insert scripture passages. This partly because a person may write their own interpretation and be in error. It is still up to the reader to confirm scripture and see if scripture and man's writings are in unison.

Articles of Faith 8
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Scriptures, Preservation of

Scriptures, Value of

Scriptures, Study of

I hope this answers your concern.

Can you provide passages of scripture not considered to be canon?

I believe the Joseph Smith Translation says “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.” Yet they are canon... That's part of what I was trying to explain before when voicing my concerns a few weeks ago.

[freedomforall]

Joseph was wrong? seriously? he SAW visions and had Angels minister to him.. if anything more of the recent leaders are wrong about THEIR interpretation of scripture.

Sorry! Wasn't trying to imply anything by my comment, just putting my thoughts out there. I keep hearing canon is law. Just trying to show how in my mind, things aren't as black and white. Just trying to figure things out. No offense meant by it.

Here is a viable way to get good, solid and trustworthy information. For example, if a person yearns to be a millionaire, he doesn't go and ask a chef, an auto mechanic or a telephone lineman how to accomplish being independently wealthy. One goes and asks a millionaire how to be rich.

Similarly, one can go about asking many people the same question, and get many close, but different answers. So that person is no better off than when he was before. The scriptures are there to learn and internalize their message. Of course, prayer, pondering and repeated study truly helps in gaining knowledge.

In the Book of Mormon, we are told to "feast upon the word" multiple times.

And here is a very good one:

Matthew 4:4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

So one must ask themselves just where is the words from God going to be found. And where are authors of books going to get their resources when writing about doctrinal topics?

Please don't let false notions boggle your mind. Study the word of God, and then compare what you hear with scripture. Scripture trumps all else.

[freedomforall]

I believe the Joseph Smith Translation says “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.” Yet they are canon... That's part of what I was trying to explain before when voicing my concerns a few weeks ago.

Song of Solomon

Sometimes called Canticles (as in Latin) or Song of Songs (as in Hebrew). Whether Solomon is actually the author is doubtful. The composition has many beautiful phrases and lyrical prose, often quoted in nonreligious literature. The JST states that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.” Both Jews and Christians have at times been reluctant to accept it into the canon of scripture because of its romantic content but have permitted it on the basis of its being an allegory of God’s love for Israel and of the Church.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/song- ... n?lang=eng

I would suppose that when one seeks out information directly regarding their salvation and how to obtain it from within canon, that which the Holy Spirit confirms in one's mind is what one should be most concerned about.

Why? Because all scripture is not of any one man's private interpretation. See 2 Peter 1:20

JST 2 Peter 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures is given of any private will of man.

So prayer and seeking is essential.

[HappyCamper8]

Joseph was wrong? seriously? he SAW visions and had Angels minister to him.. if anything more of the recent leaders are wrong about THEIR interpretation of scripture.

Sorry! Wasn't trying to imply anything by my comment, just putting my thoughts out there. I keep hearing canon is law. Just trying to show how in my mind, things aren't as black and white. Just trying to figure things out. No offense meant by it.

Here is a viable way to get good, solid and trustworthy information. For example, if a person yearns to be a millionaire, he doesn't go and ask a chef, an auto mechanic or a telephone lineman how to accomplish being independently wealthy. One goes and asks a millionaire how to be rich.

Similarly, one can go about asking many people the same question, and get many close, but different answers. So that person is no better off than when he was before. The scriptures are there to learn and internalize their message. Of course, prayer, pondering and repeated study truly helps in gaining knowledge.

In the Book of Mormon, we are told to "feast upon the word" multiple times.

And here is a very good one:

Matthew 4:4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

So one must ask themselves just where is the words from God going to be found. And where are authors of books going to get their resources when writing about doctrinal topics?

Please don't let false notions boggle your mind. Study the word of God, and then compare what you hear with scripture. Scripture trumps all else.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that scripture is words of God written down by men. Some point along the line, people called it canon after compiling it. Somebody had to decide what is canon I guess. (Before that happened, I guess all was?)
Example. Would you study the Songs of Solomon? If not why? It's canon, so it should trump all. However, Joseph Smith in JST stated it's not. I'm assuming JST is considered canon? If so, one book is canon, saying the other is not scripture, even though it is canon. See the circle?

I get it that this is example is what some might call "an extreme example", but I hope it shows the issue. We had a modern leader say a piece of canon is not actually scripture! Even though somebody in the past said it was!

[freedomforall]

I get it that this is example is what some might call "an extreme example", but I hope it shows the issue. We had a modern leader say a piece of canon is not actually scripture! Even though somebody in the past said it was!

Is the Song of Solomon pertinent to your salvation?

If it is, then ask God for further light and knowledge concerning it.

If it isn't, then you might just let it go and find the words coming from God's mouth. They are all over in the panoply of scripture.

[HappyCamper8]

I get it that this is example is what some might call "an extreme example", but I hope it shows the issue. We had a modern leader say a piece of canon is not actually scripture! Even though somebody in the past said it was!

Is the Song of Solomon pertinent to your salvation?

If it is, then ask God for further light and knowledge concerning it.

If it isn't, then you might just let it go and find the words coming from God's mouth. They are all over in the panoply of scripture.

It's good points. Truth is, don't know if it is. Never cared to study it much since JST says it's not scripture.

The fact that scripture is interpreted so differently throughout so much of time points to the fact we will never come to a consensus of what it all really means. I suppose discussion is fruitless in the grand scheme of things. I think it's all been "discussed" to death for hundreds of years and nothing has been agreed upon. Not sure what I was hoping to gain by asking and putting myself out there.

I do have a question for you though. Do you believe Songs of Solomon are scripture?

[freedomforall]

Out of the best books ... would the prophet say the book you are sponsoring is a "best book"? Better yet, have you asked him?

And what is better than the writings of the prophets of God. The answer is as plain as a stool in a pool...depends on where they come from, if they're not accepted by church leaders, they are not canon. Try teaching this stuff in church and see how far you get with it!

So just give it a rest dude (you first), you are not the truth cop here. And you're not? Almost every post I enter is followed by a comment from you. What does this mean, dude2? It means that you are policing all my words and making every attempt to thwart my messages. Get real, evennnn! And let's get something straight, I am Mr. Dude. Do you need a rest? You seem @-)

There is not anything in the book that is not in harmony with the scriptures. So you say? Does your bishop agree with your assertion? Could you stand at the pulpit on Sunday and teach this stuff?

There are many places where one may think that (policingofall certainly believes that),
but there are things in the scriptures that Brigham calls "hollow toadstool stories"
- not the truth out of mercy (so people link policingofall won't blow a gaskett)
I would admonish anyone to always have a study companion, the spirit. The right spirit truly helps, however. Satan can appear as an angel of light.

Are you JWharton? If not, the comparison is exponentially similar. I suppose there are similarities among some of us, strong willed and unrelenting. Only our messages are different. Sad.

[freedomforall]

I do have a question for you though. Do you believe Songs of Solomon are scripture?

I think the church has its own definition of what scripture means. We relate the term scripture to be applied to canon, words teaching us about God and Christ's doctrine, etc.

According to a dictionary, the term scripture has a looser connotation:

Scripture
noun
2.(often lowercase) any writing or book, especially when of a sacred or religious nature.

So, by the church's definition, I would say "yes."

By layperson's definition, I say "no."

Holy Script, or writings from those God calls to write is scripture to be heeded.
Writings not in line with Holy Writ are not considered scripture that one can take to the bank.

The Song of Solomon, IMHO has nothing to do with our salvation, thus is not something to worry about. But this is me, my opinion based on having read scriptures pertaining more to my salvation. This is what's important.

[HappyCamper8]

I do have a question for you though. Do you believe Songs of Solomon are scripture?

Holy Script, or writings from those God calls to write is scripture to be heeded.
Writings not in line with Holy Writ are not considered scripture that one can take to the bank.

This is what makes my head spin trying to figure it all out. I'm really not trying to argue. We both keep talking in circles it seems and I wish I could communicate better so you could see what is such a dilemma to me.
Almost every time you respond to me, your example seems to illustrate my concerns in my mind.

This is what I hear in my mind when I read the response above...

Holy Script, or writings from those God calls to write is scripture to be heeded.
Writings not in line with writings from those God calls to write (which is scripture) are not considered scripture that one can take to the bank.

The reason being is that Holy Writ in my mind has become subjective. Who decided what is Holy Writ? I know, I know, you'll say God did. But where did God say that? Where did God say Songs of Solomon is Holy Writ, or Matthew is Holy Writ, or Alma is Holy Writ?

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Out of the best books ... would the prophet say the book you are sponsoring is a "best book"? Better yet, have you asked him?
And when you asked him, what did he say?
However, I can tell you what they would say, they would approve. A major source for the book is the JOD. The First Pres. approved its publication. Not only that, the church paid for it's compilation and publication. Many of the other sources are preserved in the Church Archives
And btw I didn't sponsor it, just offered a link to it

And what is better than the writings of the prophets of God. The answer is as plain as a stool in a pool...depends on where they come from, if they're not accepted by church leaders, they are not canon. Try teaching this stuff in church and see how far you get with it!
I taught priesthood for 14 years and I did teach some of it. It has been 10 years since I taught and I still have many brothers telling me they miss my teaching. I still answer questions from them.

So just give it a rest dude (you first), you are not the truth cop here. And you're not? Almost every post I enter is followed by a comment from you. What does this mean, dude2? It means that you are policing all my words and making every attempt to thwart my messages. Get real, evennnn! And let's get something straight, I am Mr. Dude. Do you need a rest? You seem @-)
Doug started this thread to see if anyone could answer some of his questions. Twice you have gone on major rants against this doctrine. You have constantly criticized The greatest prophet next to Christ and his closest and most loyal friend. Not Mr. Dude at all, just dud. But you are kind of right on one thing, it is us that could use a rest, from you.


There is not anything in the book that is not in harmony with the scriptures. So you say? Does your bishop agree with your assertion? Could you stand at the pulpit on Sunday and teach this stuff?
I don't know, I've not talked to him much. But my Group Lead definitely does. He approached me one day and wanted to share something amazing that he had learned. When I told him I knew it, he said I'm not surprised, I thought you might. This guy was called as a Bishop when 26 and served for a few decades.
Well, lets see, Joseph told us that Adam was an Exalted Resurrected being when he came to the Garden. And the Scriptures clearly confirmed that.
So there is at least one thing. If you would take the time, you would find they all do.
In general, no, I would not teach it over the pulpit, that is not the place for this kind of doctrine, there are two many (like you) that are not ready for it.


There are many places where one may think that (policingofall certainly believes that),
but there are things in the scriptures that Brigham calls "hollow toadstool stories"
- not the truth out of mercy (so people link policingofall won't blow a gaskett)
I would admonish anyone to always have a study companion, the spirit. The right spirit truly helps, however. Satan can appear as an angel of light.
I am sure you can tell us all about him, you have certainly spoken with that kind of spirit here more than once.

Are you JWharton? If not, the comparison is exponentially similar. I suppose there are similarities among some of us, strong willed and unrelenting. Only our messages are different. Sad.
You have a way to mathematically compare people? That's amazing. Tell us more.
I don't know JWharton, must be one of your friends?
What is sad is that I revel in the words of Joseph and Brigham and you deny them.

[freedomforall]

I do have a question for you though. Do you believe Songs of Solomon are scripture?

Holy Script, or writings from those God calls to write is scripture to be heeded.
Writings not in line with Holy Writ are not considered scripture that one can take to the bank.

This is what makes my head spin trying to figure it all out. I'm really not trying to argue. We both keep talking in circles it seems and I wish I could communicate better so you could see what is such a dilemma to me.
Almost every time you respond to me, your example seems to illustrate my concerns in my mind.

This is what I hear in my mind when I read the response above...

Holy Script, or writings from those God calls to write is scripture to be heeded.
Writings not in line with writings from those God calls to write (which is scripture) are not considered scripture that one can take to the bank.

The reason being is that Holy Writ in my mind has become subjective. Who decided what is Holy Writ? I know, I know, you'll say God did. But where did God say that? Where did God say Songs of Solomon is Holy Writ, or Matthew is Holy Writ, or Alma is Holy Writ?

Click on link: Scriptures, Value of

Scriptures, Study of

Did I mention to read the word so you'll get your answer?

Joseph Smith had revelations given to him, we know as the Doctrine and Covenants.

The bible was written centuries ago, yet we gain a lot of God's word in it.

Men years and years ago wrote down information on plates, then Moroni sealed them up to God. Then what did God do? He had JS go to the hill and retrieve them and translate the words into English. Then the plates were returned to God. Do you suppose if the books, known as the Book of Mormon, were of little importance, God would put JS and others through hell for nothing ?

The bible has had many plain and precious parts removed by man for whatever reason. The Book of Mormon contains those plain and precious parts.

1 Nephi 13:32,34
32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.
34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb.

So even God wants us to have Holy Writ.

[HappyCamper8]

Sorry, I'm pretty dense. I don't understand your answer. You will have to talk to me like the idiot I am. I think you are trying to say it subtly but I don't understand. Could you give me the answers plainly to these questions?

Who decided what is Holy Writ? Where did God say Songs of Solomon is Holy Writ, or Matthew is Holy Writ, or Alma is Holy Writ? If not God, who did?

[harakim]

Sorry, I'm pretty dense. I don't understand your answer. You will have to talk to me like the idiot I am. I think you are trying to say it subtly but I don't understand. Could you give me the answers plainly to these questions?

Who decided what is Holy Writ? Where did God say Songs of Solomon is Holy Writ, or Matthew is Holy Writ, or Alma is Holy Writ? If not God, who did?

At some point, you have to figure it out for yourself. Unless God tells you, it's just some guy telling you that some other guy said God said so.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Sorry, I'm pretty dense. I don't understand your answer. You will have to talk to me like the idiot I am. I think you are trying to say it subtly but I don't understand. Could you give me the answers plainly to these questions?

Who decided what is Holy Writ? Where did God say Songs of Solomon is Holy Writ, or Matthew is Holy Writ, or Alma is Holy Writ? If not God, who did?

At some point, you have to figure it out for yourself. Unless God tells you, it's just some guy telling you that some other guy said God said so.

The official Canonized Scripture of the Church is determined by the Law of Common Consent.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of Apostles come to agreement.
Then the First Presidency, through their chosen mouth piece, present it at General Conference for a sustaining vote.

There it is, in simple black and white, no seeking special guidance to understand or anything else.
Its is just the way Christ determined his church would function - through Common Consent.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

The official Canonized Scripture of the Church is determined by the Law of Common Consent.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of Apostles come to agreement.
Then the First Presidency, through their chosen mouth piece, present it at General Conference for a sustaining vote.

There it is, in simple black and white, no seeking special guidance to understand or anything else.
Its is just the way Christ determined his church would function - through Common Consent.

So I'm sure someone is going to ask "How does the First Pres. and the quorum come to agreement?"
The answer is, I don't know, they don't tell us much about that. But The scriptures tell us how they
should.
"Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened up unto you"
But know this, Joseph holds the keys to (the right to preside over) this dispensation.
So what ever happens, it is sure to involve him, and possibly Christ also.

[simpleton]

And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

[HappyCamper8]

Sorry, I'm pretty dense. I don't understand your answer. You will have to talk to me like the idiot I am. I think you are trying to say it subtly but I don't understand. Could you give me the answers plainly to these questions?

Who decided what is Holy Writ? Where did God say Songs of Solomon is Holy Writ, or Matthew is Holy Writ, or Alma is Holy Writ? If not God, who did?

At some point, you have to figure it out for yourself. Unless God tells you, it's just some guy telling you that some other guy said God said so.

This is really what I'm trying to say. Thanks.
In other words, scripture can't say scripture is true. (Well it can, but doesn't actually prove it.) If so, other religions could present their scripture and show where it says their scripture is true, because it says it is.

The only way to really know is to have God tell you.

The same goes for ALL theory, doctrine, scripture, ideas etc... Doesn't really matter if it's in canon or not. If something is not in canon, it could still be true. The only way to REALLY know is to have God tell you.

Joseph Smith History
12 ...for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

It's funny how we see the same today even in the LDS church and the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, General Conference etc...

[freedomforall]

What is sad is that I revel in the words of Joseph and Brigham and you deny them.

I'm greatly saddened for your loss.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

What is sad is that I revel in the words of Joseph and Brigham and you deny them.

I'm greatly saddened for your loss.

Your sincerity escapes me.
If you actually were sincere,
you would pay them the respect
they deserve. You would at least
not mock them, and maybe not
even ignore them.

Mockery is one of the lowest
forms of human behavior.
Right there with those the Savior
called a pit of vipers. And like
them, Abraham is not the father
of mockers.

You feel you have to mock me, ok. But
God shall not be mocked.
God's anointed shall not be mocked.