Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Scripture Project Updates


But now hold your peace, study my word which hath gone forth among the children of men and also study my word which shall come forth among the children of men, or that which you are translating, yea, until you have obtained all which I shall grant unto the children of men in this generation, and then shall all things be added thereunto.
—D&C Section 5, Restoration Edition (11:22 LDS Edition)



The committee working on the scripture project has posted a very helpful update. Click on the image to view the PDF, or visit www.Scriptures.info and look under the "Conferences" menu.



9 comments:

  1. They have changed the "Conferences" Menu to say "Scripture Project" instead.
    Thanks,
    Matt Linsley

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doesn't this sound just like the Nicene Council (it does to me)? "OK, we have here a bunch of books (or "revelations" in this case) claiming to be scripture. Let's put it to the vote to see what will make the cut for official scripture." Common consent has never been God's pattern for determining truth or establishing doctrine. No matter how many people vote to declare it. It's LDS correlation all over again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you need to become better informed about the project as it progresses. I recommend reading the more recent additions of the Scriptures Project Updates Newsletter at the following link so you can become better informed before offering misplaced criticism.

      http://scriptures.info/Home/Conferences

      Also, equating LDS correlation with common consent is likewise a mistake. LDS correlation is always dictation--orders come from the top and everyone else complies. None of the rank and file members have any input into any decisions made in correlation. Voting, in that setting, is merely symbolic and makes no difference whatsoever. There is no common consent in anything LDS.

      Delete
  3. Is anyone familiar with the Covenant of Death mentioned in Isaiah? I would be very careful with this new covenant for what you are actually doing is covenanting that you come under the stewardship of your leader, Denver Snuffer.

    All prophets and leaders can fall ... man is fallible, but the Lord Jesus Christ will never lead you astray. How many have pleaded with the Lord to know whether you are to do this covenant? If you just "feel" good about it, I would recommend setting aside emotion and cry unto the Lord with all your heart to know His will for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why on earth would you think this is the Covenant of Death mentioned in Isaiah?

      The scriptural record is full of God making covenants with his people, and it is certainly valid to offer such a covenant with God through a messenger He sends. It is NOT a covenant with the messenger; it is a covenant with God.

      I don't know of anyone who has any intention of making a covenant with Denver Snuffer--and Denver clearly rejects the idea as well. So to assert otherwise is simply based on fear and ignorance.

      Delete
    2. I could ask you the same Adrian? Why on earth are you going to make the covenant when the scriptures have been modified by man and not God? Taking out the Song of Solomon is huge ... Joseph did make mistakes and just because he thought that the Song of Solomon was not "inspired" he could have done that as a man and not as a prophet. Any Old Testament scholar will tell you how huge the Song of Solomon is regarding the marriage relationship symbolism of the Bride and Bridegroom. It goes deep ... very deep but one must be familiar with the O.T. and its mysteries. For instance, does anyone know why John the Baptist had to be the authorized High Priest to baptize Jesus? Temple priests always had to present the sacrifice and wash it and inspect it as a valid and worthy sacrifice. What did John do? He baptized (washed) Jesus, presented him as the true lamb of God, worthy. etc etc. Everyone wants to dismiss the O.T. whereas it has huge mysteries that are manifested in the NT re: Jesus.

      Changing the name of the Pearl of Great Price and adding Denver's revelations is an abomination. Why not just do a book called "Book of Denver Revelations"? But still if anyone makes this covenant with these new scriptures of Denver, you will be under his stewardship and not the Lord's. It is just like the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. The Covenant of Death is that you lose your right to see God face to face and if you covenant that Denver is your leader (by proxy - by receiving his revelations as scripture) you are separating yourself further from God.

      Delete
    3. Hi Anonymous--

      In the contest between Joseph Smith and OT scholars, I'll take Joseph every time. Scholars are often in error but seldom in doubt. And yet, what scholar has duplicated Joseph's achievements, or received what Joseph had? The tools of the scholar are ill suited to discover the mysteries of God.

      The Pearl of Great Price was originally compiled and named by Franklin Richards in 1851. Its content has changed markedly since then. Why would it be an abomination to change the name Franklin Richards selected?

      And if we actually believe in continuing revelation, what on earth would be wrong with including new revelation for consideration in the scripture project?

      Could you give any scriptural references that support the terms you've defined for the Covenant of Death?

      Also, could you speak to King Benjamin's covenant, offered through a mortal, that brought his people into Christ's family?

      Delete
  4. You are not well versed in the Old Testament then. Covenanting that you accept Denver's revelations as scripture puts you under his stewardship. And if he is not a true prophet, then the covenant of death is that you get him as your leader and not God. That you spiritually are cut off from seeing the face of God until you repent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, is the issue Denver, or is it any man? Is it OK to receive Joseph Smith's revelations as scripture? What about John? Paul? Mormon? Nephi? Alma? Moroni? Because if the issue is simply that we must not accept the writings of a man, then we must categorically reject all scripture. But I don't believe that's your point. If I'm reading you correctly, your point is against Denver, and not against revelation in general. Is that correct?

      King Benjamin's people received a covenant through him that made them children of Christ. Was that a covenant of death with King Benjamin?

      Delete