05-09-2007, 11:01 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
The comments from "my boy" clearly indicate that Brigham Young was not obeying the Word of Wisdom while making those statements.
Quote:
Remarkable! |
|
05-10-2007, 12:25 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Quote:
|
|
05-10-2007, 05:05 AM | #33 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by pelagius; 05-10-2007 at 05:12 AM. |
|||
05-10-2007, 01:13 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
It is consistent with what BRM thought of himself, however. I have said before that we have to be careful in demonizing an apostle and that it is probably not appropriate to do so. Still, it is hard to escape drawing conclusions about the kind of personality that would presume to publish a definitive work on Mormon Doctrine knowing full well that the prophet and his brethren in the quorum disapproved. The tone of that letter (I had never seen it before) certainly didn't change my thinking on that count.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo Last edited by UtahDan; 05-10-2007 at 02:08 PM. |
|
05-10-2007, 01:47 PM | #35 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-10-2007, 02:24 PM | #36 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
Where does BRM get that God has been ruling the universe for less than 2,555,000,000 years. What is the significant of that number? (iotw, why did he choose that one). That's actually not a long time. Less than the earth is old. You would think God's rule is older than the rocks of the earth. Maybe not. |
|
05-10-2007, 02:27 PM | #37 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
My faith isn't that strong on the 2.5 billion number. |
|
05-10-2007, 04:30 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
I'm actually surprised that BRM used it with such apparent confidence if I have correctly identified the source as WW Phelps. I mean it is a pretty oblique reference. It's hard to imagine the Joseph Smith wasn't WW Phelps' source given the Book of Abraham context, but WW Phelps doesn't spell out the larger context beyond the Book of Abraham. For example, Phelps doesn't explain why the date isn't in the Book of Abraham itself.
|
05-10-2007, 06:38 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|