Elias, or in other words - I've changed the title...

[_gdemetz]

You're right, I don't like the answer for several reasons. Number one, you didn't address my question as it related to D&C 110. Number two, it is not consistent with the knowledge which Joseph Smith clearly showed on numerous occasions. Number three, it's not consistent with what even some other non Mormons know about the usage of the term Elias.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Maybe you don't understand Mormon doctrine or the scriptures. The scriptures as well as Mormon doctrine teach that there are many gods. The three you mention are the three which preside over us.

No, I understand Mormon doctrine and scripture pretty well--seminary student, institute student, returned missionary, BYU student, etc. The difference is that I see no point in limiting my mind and imagination with the irrationality of religious orthodoxy.

And he didn't noticed that none of them use two different name for one person, as the KJV for Elijah+Elias?

The Chinese translation of the KJV uses different names, too.

[_ludwigm]

And he didn't noticed that none of them use two different name for one person, as the KJV for Elijah+Elias?

The Chinese translation of the KJV uses different names, too.

And the Swedish one, too. But this doesn't make that those names refer to two different person.

I don't know, how many KJV user know that Elijah and Elias are the same. I can say, I don't care either.
Mormons should handle them as two different (and a lot of other eliases), because their ignorant prophet said so. And it is written. And it is cemented into the principles.

As I said before, the Elias card is on the base level of the doctrine - which can not be fixed through a dozen generations of the prophets - and that Elias card should be maintained at whatever cost.

[_madeleine]

Madeline, once again you are showing your ignorance here. Do you think that God has to limit Himself to only one book of scripture?! The Bible itself quotes other books as authoritative! The Bible itself prophesies of other books: "truth will spring out of the earth" (see also Ezekiel 37)! Does it state anywhere in the Bible that it is the last and only authoritative scripture?! No, on the contrary, it states that there will be a restitution of all things, and if it is truly a restitution of all things, then that restitution would also include lost scripture!!!

Ludwig can't even answer my question. He just asks me another question. I will just state that Joseph Smith was not the ignorant person that he tries to portray him as. He was very self educated. He knew a lot of Hebrew, etc., and he also reviewed many translations of the Bible. In fact, he stated that the German Bible was the best translation, better than the English!

Hebrews 1
1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets;
2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,

What is scripture, but the Word of God revealed? who is the Son, but the Perfect Word of God who has made known to us, in Him, with Him and through Him, the desires of the Father for His children? What do you think He left out, exactly?

Your foundation is one of sola scriptura, with a qualifier (we have more scripture than you). Catholics are not sola scriptura.

[Guest]

Are you saying that your unprovable, supernatural belief system is true while all other unprovable, supernatural belief systems are false? That doesn't seem particularly fair. It also reeks of spiritual intolerance.

Hmmm, I don't think I know you, how is it you think you know me, and know me well enough to give an insult? Childish lashing out?

If you are asking what I believe, it is this. God created us for no other reason than His love for us. His desire is our love in return. He endowed his creation (us) with reason, freedom, and a desire to know Him. All religious, or spiritual practices, exist only because God has created us in the way that He has. I certainly don't hold any belief that God has messed up.

At the heart of the Christian claim is Jesus Christ, who is in His Person, Truth revealed. Christ died for all, not just me, not just Catholics.

Scripture reveals to us the will of God, which is really quite simple, His desire for us to be His. "I will be your God and you will be My people."

I have studied some of the Sutras of a Hindu Yogi, and had in my mind at one time thoughts of conversion to Hindusim. For myself, I could never get past the belief that the divine is inside myself, and the numerous gods of Hindusim weren't something I could believe.

All are on a journey in their own life. Each is finding their way. All belong to God, there isn't one person who does not. I leave judging the person to God. Only He knows their hearts.

But neither am I a person with syncretic beliefs, and I am not a relativist. One who believes the wishy washy notion that everything is truth, thereby declaring a belief that nothing is false. Such a view to me is not even rational.

Because it is God who has put into our hearts a desire for Him, all who seek Him are seeking Truth. Most, if not all, have it in some measure or form. It is not intolerance to say, the fullness of Truth is found in a Person, Jesus Christ. It is a statement that comes from the Reality of that Person.

[_MCB]

Sure, assuming you’re comfortable with the We’re-Right-Everybody-Else-Is-Wrong attitude that forms the basis of all monotheistic religions. But I’m pretty sure that type of mindset causes far more problems than it solves. I mean, is there any reason to believe spiritual intolerance is any less inexcusable than racial- or gender-based intolerance?

Sigh. You are assuming wrong. Although others may be wrong in their beliefs, they have the choice to continue in those beliefs, so long as they do not try to impose them on me.

I think you are picking an argument just for the sake of arguing. I believe that Scripture and Catholic Tradition are sacred. I do not force others to adhere to my definitions and capitalization practices. I use them to express my beliefs.

[_madeleine]

Ok. The Apocrypha, The book of Judas (recently found), the Book of Mary Magdalene, The Gospel of Thomas?

Hi, I'm Catholic, we call the Apocrypha the deuterocanonicals. They are scripture. It is Protestants who removed them from the Bible.

The other three you site are gnostic writings, and no, would not be scripture.

[_MCB]

Setting the boundaries. One can use "Scripture," "their sacred writings [or literature]," and "pseudo-scripture", without using egregiously offensive terms, or erring in the other direction, implying spiritual relativity.

[_Quasimodo]

Hi, I'm Catholic, we call the Apocrypha the deuterocanonicals. They are scripture. It is Protestants who removed them from the Bible.

The other three you site are gnostic writings, and no, would not be scripture.

They are Christian (regardless of how you see them) and they are scripture to those that believed in them (regardless of how you see them). The non-Christian writings I listed earlier are also scripture to the adherents of those religions.

[_MCB]

Have you really explored the Nag Hammadi library? http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html It gets as far out as the King Follett Discourse. That is not Christian. Just because others believe that soemthing is scripture and we do not, does not mean that we should be forced to call it Scripture. Neither does it give us license to call it garbage. Others' sacred writings are worthy of reading and study. If we did not read them and study them, we would not have any way of judging their value, other than a fundamentalist rejection of things unexamined.