this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Pardon me for jumping to the outrageous conclusion that you would decline to follow counsel you thought was untrue.

Don't let it distract, though, from your explanation about why it's truth for the church, just not truth for you.

We are discussing the JST, to determine if it as current scholarship deems should be considered interesting midrash, or scriptural restoration on par with canon. You now jump up and promote the discussion to something as grand as counsel given in GC, what the hell are you doing?

Have you no shame?

If the Church consisted of persons such as yourself, I could not believe God existed. It would proof positive that God is an evil genius who detests all of us despicable ants. You would be as the Grand Inquisitor condemning all to outer darkness.

Your leap of argument is despicable and beyond reason.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We are discussing the JST, to determine if it as current scholarship deems should be considered interesting midrash, or scriptural restoration on par with canon. You now jump up and promote the discussion to something as grand as counsel given in GC, what the hell are you doing?

Have you no shame?

If the Church consisted of persons such as yourself, I could not believe God existed. It would proof positive that God is an evil genius who detests all of us despicable ants. You would be as the Grand Inquisitor condemning all to outer darkness.

Your leap of argument is despicable and beyond reason.

I think you're overreacting. But I will confess I find the conversation equally as enlightening, to discover that the church consists of people, however a minority, with your views.

Cougarguard may fancy itself a small corner of personal veto to the prophet's words, a personal check against his error (with only Adam-God as its support), but it is true what I said before: if a personal confirmation of the truth will not come, more likely it is a problem with your conduit than his.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Cougarguard may fancy itself a small corner of personal veto to the prophet's words, a personal check against his error (with only Adam-God as its support), but it is true what I said before: if a personal confirmation of the truth will not come, more likely it is a problem with your conduit than his.

Where do you drag up this shit?

Personal veto of the prophet's words? You are perhaps the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever had the displeasure of arguing against. And as a lawyer, I've argued against a boatload.

We who desire to understand truth, try to understand how truth is derived. In examining context, we don't "veto" the words of the prophet, we endeavor to understand the context, the reasons and the how a prophet arrived at a certain conclusion. It is the desire to understand the biases and context which sometimes causes us to believe a fallible human, erred, or possibly erred. That is a huge difference from vetoing by virtue of some position.

And many of us certainly disagree of your understanding of the meaning of prophetic counsel and prophetic observation. You will tend to apply universality with topicality is merely desired. We will debate your constructions as those designed to harm people and to lead people astray. It is youre wooden construction of prophetic observation and counsel which we seek to overcome.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We who desire to understand truth, try to understand how truth is derived. In examining context, we don't "veto" the words of the prophet, we endeavor to understand the context, the reasons and the how a prophet arrived at a certain conclusion.

I don't think I've ever spoken out against this. Seek to understand, by all means. Ask the Lord to enlighten your mind as he enlightened the prophet's, by all means.

But the Lord isn't going tell you, "Sorry, Gordon is wrong. Here's the truth, just between you and me." Just won't happen.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And many of us certainly disagree of your understanding of the meaning of prophetic counsel and prophetic observation. You will tend to apply universality with topicality is merely desired. We will debate your constructions as those designed to harm people and to lead people astray. It is youre wooden construction of prophetic observation and counsel which we seek to overcome.

I think we've strayed far enough from the topic at hand (Lebowski's fault, actually). The JST discussion is done. Push back from the keyboard and call it a night.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

But the Lord isn't going tell you, "Sorry, Gordon is wrong. Here's the truth, just between you and me." Just won't happen.

It would be rare, but he might inform me that. I haven't received that revelation, and I may never do so, but it is within the realm of possibility, just not probability. More likely, he will reveal to me, Tex's interpretation of Gordon's direction is wrong and hateful.

Originally Posted by Tex

I think we've strayed far enough from the topic at hand (Lebowski's fault, actually). The JST discussion is done. Push back from the keyboard and call it a night.

Where did Lebowski come into this?

You started making quantum leaps in logic and it's Lebowski's fault? Do you fault him when you yell at your wife?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Where did Lebowski come into this?

Answer:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nor will he. Tex has painted himself into a logical corner with his "it is not our right to determine truth" stance.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Tex, you just seem to have no shame at all. This topic has been debated for so long and so thoroughly that for you to twist the issue like this mean you are either completely dishonest or a complete dumbass. Or both.

Classic Lebowski "I win, so shut up" post.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Give it a rest already.

On this we can agree. I just said as much to Arch.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Answer:

Classic Lebowski "I win, so shut up" post.

On this we can agree. I just said as much to Arch.

LOL. Yeah. Sure. This was all my fault.

Either way, I shouldn't have let you get to me this morning. I find your posts to be highly offensive at times. But I need to do a better job controlling my temper.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Either way, I shouldn't have let you get to me this morning. I find your posts to be highly offensive at times. But I need to do a better job controlling my temper.

True enough. For someone who admittedly posts things he doesn't believe for the purpose of getting a rise out of people, you should have a tighter reign on your emotions.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're trying to find a quarrel where none exists. Whether Biblical textual criticism or JST textual criticism, all we're talking about here is educated guessing. Probabilities. Likelihoods.

that's exactly my point. you're trying to establish the JST's revelatory authority using the same methods of textual criticism ("circumstantial evidence") that scholars use for Biblical criticism. We don't know how Joseph Smith did the "translation." We only know "probablilities," "likelihoods."

[MikeWaters]

FWIW, we were talking about 1 corinth 15:29 in GD today, and I read the NRSV version as well as the oxford footnote. Two people asked to see my copy of the oxford annotated NRSV.

I'm preaching the anti-KJV gospel, and it's going well.