DiscussMormonism.com

I was thinking about how it almost seems like the older the book that is being discussed as "God's Word", the more authority it seems to have.

Why would that be?

In Biblical times, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.
Sacrificing animals was pleasing to God <aside: He liked us destroying His creation?>
All the animals lived withing walking distance of Noah's house.
It was OK to have slaves.
It was OK to kill as long as "God" told you to.
People could be possessed with 'demons'.

In the Middle Ages, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.
The world was flat.
You could only be saved through the 'official' - read Catholic - church.

In Joseph Smith's time, people believed:

It was possible to find buried treasure by looking at rocks in your hat.
It was OK to have slaves.
It was OK to have multiple wives if "God" told you to.

It seems to me that if God really gave us a mind that He would want us to use to its fullest potential, then earlier ideas that contradict what we know now, i.e. the sun is not the center of the universe, should be discarded as more knowledge and education become available.

The idea that just because something is old gives it more credibility seems awfully foolish, or at least shortsighted, to me.

ozemc wrote:I was thinking about how it almost seems like the older the book that is being discussed as "God's Word", the more authority it seems to have.

Why would that be?

In Biblical times, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.
Sacrificing animals was pleasing to God <aside: He liked us destroying His creation?>
All the animals lived withing walking distance of Noah's house.
It was OK to have slaves.
It was OK to kill as long as "God" told you to.
People could be possessed with 'demons'.

In the Middle Ages, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.
The world was flat.
You could only be saved through the 'official' - read Catholic - church.

In Joseph Smith's time, people believed:

It was possible to find buried treasure by looking at rocks in your hat.
It was OK to have slaves.
It was OK to have multiple wives if "God" told you to.

It seems to me that if God really gave us a mind that He would want us to use to its fullest potential, then earlier ideas that contradict what we know now, I.e. the sun is not the center of the universe, should be discarded as more knowledge and education become available.

The idea that just because something is old gives it more credibility seems awfully foolish, or at least shortsighted, to me.

Yes, it is funny how that works, but it seems to be human nature. We revere the words of the founding fathers much more than our current crop of political clowns. And it doesn't matter how profound a political message is, it will never measure up to those of previous generations. Same with art. An artist can't give his work away, but when he dies, all of a sudden his work is considered genius. I'm not sure why we put our ancestors and their ideas on a pedestal.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:

ozemc wrote:I was thinking about how it almost seems like the older the book that is being discussed as "God's Word", the more authority it seems to have.

Why would that be?

In Biblical times, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.
Sacrificing animals was pleasing to God <aside: He liked us destroying His creation?>
All the animals lived withing walking distance of Noah's house.
It was OK to have slaves.
It was OK to kill as long as "God" told you to.
People could be possessed with 'demons'.

In the Middle Ages, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.
The world was flat.
You could only be saved through the 'official' - read Catholic - church.

In Joseph Smith's time, people believed:

It was possible to find buried treasure by looking at rocks in your hat.
It was OK to have slaves.
It was OK to have multiple wives if "God" told you to.

It seems to me that if God really gave us a mind that He would want us to use to its fullest potential, then earlier ideas that contradict what we know now, I.e. the sun is not the center of the universe, should be discarded as more knowledge and education become available.

The idea that just because something is old gives it more credibility seems awfully foolish, or at least shortsighted, to me.

Yes, it is funny how that works, but it seems to be human nature. We revere the words of the founding fathers much more than our current crop of political clowns. And it doesn't matter how profound a political message is, it will never measure up to those of previous generations. Same with art. An artist can't give his work away, but when he dies, all of a sudden his work is considered genius. I'm not sure why we put our ancestors and their ideas on a pedestal.

Well, some ideas are worth saving, such as the Declaration and the Constitution.

But, the idea that something that someone once wrote down saying "it's God's Word" is better because it's old, is kinda silly to me.

Quite frankly, I like the idea the Jesus was an alien!

Age has nothing to do with the validity of Scripture. There is an argument to be made that some of it as much more applicable than others.

The best scripture is the stuff you get yourself and write down, tends to be the most relevant.

LDS are virtually unique in having canon created within the last 200 years.

The Nehor wrote:The best scripture is the stuff you get yourself and write down, tends to be the most relevant.

Like Bishop Koyle's visions and the Prophet Onias's revelations in the Second Book of Commandments?

Blixa wrote:

The Nehor wrote:The best scripture is the stuff you get yourself and write down, tends to be the most relevant.

Like Bishop Koyle's visions and the Prophet Onias's revelations in the Second Book of Commandments?

Good heavens, I had forgotten about Bishop Koyle. When my wife's grandmother passed away, her aunt sent us a letter saying that she had willed to us 100 shares in a gold mine. Of course, I had never heard of the Relief Mine, but when we got the "certificate," which was a mimeographed couple of pages of lofty prose congratulating us on believing in Bishop Koyle, I did a little research.

Boy, was I disappointed.

I think it might have something to do with an unhealthful respect for the dead (at least, that would be a component of the phenomenon).

I mean, look how it was suddenly not ok to insult Jerry Falwell the moment he died, but it was open season on the guy while he was alive. What, is he gonna look down on us and say, "Wow, I just died over here. Talk about adding insult to injury!" It doesn't really make much sense, when you think about it.

Blixa wrote:

The Nehor wrote:The best scripture is the stuff you get yourself and write down, tends to be the most relevant.

Like Bishop Koyle's visions and the Prophet Onias's revelations in the Second Book of Commandments?

No the stuff i write.

Ozemc – my comments are in bold

In Biblical times, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.

False. Ptolemy's framework had the earth as the center of the universe.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... totle.html

In the Middle Ages, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.

False – see above

The world was flat.

False see

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

You could only be saved through the 'official' - read Catholic - church.

False. Not true with the Eastern Orthodox!

I suggest that you need to do more reading!

Richard

richardMdBorn wrote:Ozem – my comments are in bold

In Biblical times, people believed:

The sun was the center of the universe.

False. Ptolemy's framework had the earth as the center of the universe.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... totle.html

So are you arguing Ptolemy was correct?