Cheers!:)
Posted on 09/15/2007 11:47:41 AM PDT by restornu
Careful, you are trying to carry LDS doctrine to its logical conclusion which can be dangerously impossible. LOL LDS doctrine teaches that every human on earth are the spiritual offspring of "Heavenly Father" and one of his wives. In that respect, we are all at least half-brothers and half-sisters. If you are a faithful temple Mormon here on earth, then one day you will eventually become a god of your own planet with your own wives (spiritual sisters and half-sisters). Where will your other wives come from if you only had 1 on earth? Don't know, but it wouldn't be your spiritual daughters. How can a physical person have sexual relations with a spirit? While LDS doctrine doesn't go in that direction, it does hold that God is a physical man and produces spirit babies by having relations with physical women. How physical relations produces non-physical, spiritual children has never been explained to me.
The only place in LDS doctrine that I'm aware of where incest is taught as part of the plan is with the "immaculate conception". LDS prophets and leaders have taught that Heavenly Father had normal physical relations with Mary, which produced the Christ child. This would mean that God had relations with one of his spirit daughters and that Jesus is the result. Now, you certainly won't find that teaching in the BoM and it won't be brought up much, but it HAS been taught as LDS doctrine. I once got into an argument with a Mormon who swore up and down the wall that I didn't know what I was talking about, and that it was a disgusting accusation. A few weeks later this person admitted to me that the topic came up in the Sunday School at the LDS Church and was explained to have happened exactly as I told her was the teaching.
Not only do we excommunicate them: Our crack Ninja-like band of assassins, the Danites, eliminates them.
Which reminds me: You wrote earlier that "All LDS stuff is by definition propaganda." I do not disagree, but I was wondering where you found that definition. (None of the dictionaries I own list actually lists "all that LDS stuff" as a synonym for propaganda.)
Our Danites, Ninja-like, will surely want to track down and eliminate the dictionary editor who spilled the beans about "LDS stuff" being defined as propaganda. We cannot have that kind of thing getting out.
But rest assured, the Ninja-like Danites will not being coming after you. They have guaranteed me that you are safe so long as you cooperate.
Disagree totally.
If your kid attends a vacation Bible school of church X, you can be assured that church will promote the doctrines (propaganda) of church X.
You as a parent should be aware and beware.
My query was made to make sure that there was no hidden agenda, and that the work was scholarly and could be duplicated and/or verified.
"I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18).
In your oun words, what does this verse mean?
If god is "unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" how can he change?
I believe no matter what form God takes his doctrine and the laws of his Kingdom never changes and neither does his counsel to be received into that Kingdom
You tell me how did Jesus change one he was a divine spirit and the only begotten Son of Heavenly Father in the Flesh, after he did the will of His Father in heaven, he received his Glory of a resurrected body of Flesh and Bone.
1 Tim 3
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
And what Glory did Jesus received it was he Glory his Heavenly Father gave unto him which is exaltation!
Jesus being the only begotten Son of Heavenly Father, his parentage was God the Heavenly Father eternal and his mother was Mary the mortal.
Jesus is Alpha and Omega
Were there not dimensional changes taking place from one kingdom to another kingdom as described in 1 Tim 3?
For each kingdom there is a set of laws that must be obeyed or one could not reside there.
Good one Logo. Almost you had me convinced, but, knowing the twisted Mormon ways, I chose to believe the opposite of the opposite minus the truth squared, and came up with...
Cheers!:)
Thank you for your report on the DNA video MHG it is appreciated!
LDS site.
Is it legit, or is it LDS propaganda? ~ Mrs.Z
***
Disagree totally.
If your kid attends a vacation Bible school of church X, you can be assured that church will promote the doctrines (propaganda) of church X.
You as a parent should be aware and beware.
My query was made to make sure that there was no hidden agenda, and that the work was scholarly and could be duplicated and/or verified.~ Mrs.Z
***************************************************************
Part IV: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Technology
from The Dead Sea Scrolls: Questions and Responses for Latter-day Saints
by Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks
pp. 39–40
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=225
Overview of Recent Involvement
of Latter-day Saints
with Dead Sea Scrolls Scholarship
http://byubroadcasting.org/deadsea/book/introduction/overview.html
Putting the Pieces Together:
DNA and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Scott R. Woodward
Scott R. Woodward is associate professor of microbiology at Brigham Young University. This chapter is a revised version of “Analysis of Parchment Fragments from the Judean Desert Using DNA Techniques,” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 215–38.
http://byubroadcasting.org/deadsea/book/chapter7/intro.html
Decipherers of Dead Sea Scrolls Turn to DNA Analysis for Help
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CEFD91231F93BA15750C0A963958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
DR. SCOTT WOODWARD
Professor, Researcher
Scott R. Woodward is currently a Professor of Microbiology and faculty member of the Molecular Biology Program at Brigham Young University. He received his Ph.D. degree in genetics from Utah State University in 1984. He did postdoctoral work in molecular genetics at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the University of Utah. At the University of Utah, he discovered a genetic marker used for the identification of carriers and the eventual discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He was also involved with the identification of other gene markers for colon cancer and neurofibromatosis. He joined the faculty at BYU in 1989. While at BYU he has been involved with the Seila, Egypt excavation team, directing the genetic and molecular analysis of Egyptian mummies, both from a commoners’ cemetery and from the tombs of the Egyptian Royal mummies. His research interests include the reconstruction of ancient and modern genealogies using DNA techniques with samples from all over the world, the tracing of human population movements by following gene migrations (including both Old and New World populations) and the DNA analysis of ancient manuscripts including the Dead Sea Scrolls. He has been the Scholar in Residence at the BYU Center for Near Eastern Studies in Jerusalem and a visiting professor at Hebrew University. His work has been featured both nationally and internationally on numerous programs, including GOOD MORNING AMERICA, Discovery, and The Learning Channel.
http://www.thirteen.org/pressroom/release.php?get=154
Of course you disagree.
You ask about church doctrines on an anti-mormon thread, and expect to get a truthful answer from those who know everything about the LDS church that they learned from some with an agenda. Excuse me, the thread began as a serious article about the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comment two and six had degenerated into an anti-mormon thread. Speaking of agendas.
If you send your child to vacation bible school and you are concerned at all about doctrine, why would you send them to a school run by a church not your own, and if you do what do you have to say about what they teach? Absolutely nothing, but children will believe their parents, so the concern shouldn’t be too great IMHO.
***You ask about church doctrines***
No, I did not ask “about church doctrines”, I asked if doctrine was part of the presentation.
Big difference.
You missed the point entirely about the vacation Bible school analogy.
What I was looking for was provided, (without fur flying), by “restornu”.
Thank you “restornu”.
That was what I was looking for.
“This is just another example of “The Brethren” changing Joseph Smith’s story to make it more consistent and to remove (retroactively no less) all of the holes in Joseph’s story.”
Actually, I’d say that it’s another example of how enemies of the church will manipulate and distort things to their liking, while ignoring contrary evidence.
http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Nephi_or_Moroni
Nephi or Moroni
Criticism
The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was ‘making it up as he went along.’
Response
Critics cite a variety of sources that repeat the Nephi claim. The key point to understand is that there is really only one source that claims Nephi; the other sources which mention Nephi are merely citing this one source, thus perpetuating the error.
These facts have not been hidden; they are readily available in the History of the Church:
In the original publication of the history in the Times and Seasons at Nauvoo, this name appears as “Nephi,” and the Millennial Star perpetuated the error in its republication of the History. That it is an error is evident, and it is so noted in the manuscripts to which access has been had in the preparation of this work.[1]
Sources which mention Nephi
The claim that the messenger was “Nephi” derives from only one source: the Manuscript History of the Church
* This document was then reprinted in the Times and Seasons:
He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God has a work for me to do, and that my name should be had for good and er that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. [italics added][2]
It should be noted that Joseph had turned the editorial duties of the Times and Seasons over to John Taylor because of other demands on his time. It is therefore unlikely that Joseph saw this published version prior to its publication.
* In England, the Church’s Millennial Star printed the same article, perpetuating the error:
He called me by name and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. [italics added][3]
* This idea was repeated further in the same volume:
Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi, which has finally opened a new dispensation to man, and commenced a revolution in the moral, civil, and religious government of the world...[italics added][4]
* The Millennial Star and Times and Seasons accounts then served as the source for Lucy Mack Smith’s book (note that this information was inserted by editors and was not originally provided by the Prophet’s mother):
He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi...[citing] Times and Seasons, vol. iii., p. 729. Supp. to Mil. Star, vol. xiv., p. 4.[italics added][5]
* And, the Pearl of Great Price, published in England and not yet canonized, drew on the Millennial Star’s versions, citing “Times & Seasons, Vol. iii, p. 726, &c.” (p. 36).
He called me by name and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi.[italics added][6]
* Finally, Thomas Bullock’s journal refers to the Times and Seasons as his source for the story.[7]
Thus, a single error in the Manuscript History had a ripple effect through several published accounts of the vision. These accounts are not independent ‘proof’ that Joseph was changing the story; they all depend on a single error.
Sources which mention Moroni
In contrast to the single source’s error above, there are multiple independent sources, edited by Joseph Smith and others (some hostile), which demonstrate that the story about Moroni was well-known to members of the Church and enemies:
* D&C 27:5 - 1830–1835
Behold this is wisdom in me: wherefore marvel not for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel [modern edition D&C 27:5][8]
* Mormonism Unvailed - 1834, reprinted as History of Mormonism in 1840 [anti-Mormon work]
After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)[9]
* Messenger and Advocate - 1835
I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites…and I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age, saw also, before he hid up the same unto the Lord, great and marvelous things, which were to transpire when the same should come forth[10]
* Elder’s Journal - July 1838
For those holy men are angels now. And these are they, who make the fulness of times complete with us. And they who sin against this authority given to him...sins not against him only, but against Moroni, who holds the keys of the stick of Ephraim. (italics added)[11]
* Elder’s Journal - July 1838
How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?...Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me and told me where they were and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the book of Mormon.[12]
* D&C 128 (labelled 104 in 1844 edition) - 1844
And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. (D&C 128:20).
Conclusion
This is not an example of Joseph changing his story, but a detail being improperly recorded by someone other than Joseph, and then reprinted uncritically. Clear contemporary evidence from Joseph—and his enemies, who would have seized on any inconsistency had they known of it—shows that Moroni was the named messenger.
It is not surprising that Joseph’s associates made the error, since Joseph also had contact with Nephi during the restoration:
* “Who was it that administered to Joseph Smith? Moroni and Nephi, men who had lived upon this continent.”[13]
* “Afterwards the Angel Moroni came to him and revealed to him the Book of Mormon, with the history of which you are generally familiar, and also with the statements that I am now making pertaining to these things. And then came Nephi, one of the ancient prophets, that had lived upon this continent, who had an interest in the welfare of the people that he had lived amongst in those days.”[14]
* “If you will read the history of the Church from the beginning, you will find that Joseph was visited by various angelic beings, but not one of them professed to give him the keys until John the Baptist came to him. Moroni, who held the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim, visited Joseph; he had doubtless, also, visits from Nephi and it may be from Alma and others.”[15]
Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt understood the problem more than a century ago, when they wrote in 1877 to John Taylor:
“The contradictions in regard to the name of the angelic messenger who appeared to Joseph Smith occurred probably through the mistakes of clerks in making or copying documents and we think should be corrected. . . . From careful research we are fully convinced that Moroni is the correct name. This also was the decision of the former historian, George A. Smith.”[16]
Endnotes
1. [back] Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 1:11–12, footnote 2. GospeLink
2. [back] “History of Joseph Smith (continued),” Times and Seasons 3/12 (15 April 1842): 753. off-site GospeLink
3. [back] Anon., “History of Joseph Smith From the ‘Times and Seasons’,” Millennial Star 3/4 (August 1842): 53.
4. [back] Anon., “”The Millennial Star. August 1, 1842,” Millennial Star 3/4 (August 1842): 71.
5. [back] Lucy [Mack] Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and his Progenitors for Many Generations, (London: Latter-Day Saints’ Book Depot, 1853), 78–80.
6. [back] Franklin D. Richards (publisher), The Pearl of Great Price, 1st edition (Liverpool: R. James, South Castle Street, 1851), 40–41.
7. [back] Primary source for this needed
8. [back] Doctrine and Covenants 50:2 (1835 edition); received August 1830, written September 1830 (See History of the Church, 1:106, nt. 3).
9. [back] Eber Dudley Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834), 277.
10. [back] Oliver Cowdery, “{{{article}}},” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1:7 (April 1835): 112. off-site
11. [back] David W. Patten, Elder’s Journal 1:3 (July 1838):42 (see also Millennial Star 1:126).
12. [back] Joseph Smith, Jr., Elders’ Journal 1:3 (July 1838): 42–43.
13. [back] John Taylor, “God’s Purposes Unchangeable,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, G.F. Gibbs, and others, (29 July 1877), vol. 19 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1878), 82.
14. [back] John Taylor, “How a Knowledge of God is Obtained,” Journal of Discourses, reported by George F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and others, (7 December 1879), vol. 21 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1881), 161.
15. [back] George Q. Cannon, “Discourse...,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans and John Grimshaw, (5 December 1869), vol. 13 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1871), 47.
16. [back] Letter, Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith to John Taylor, 18 December 1877; cited in Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith: Autobiographical and Historical Writings (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 1:277, nt. 1.
Funny how some would rather believe the Internet, than members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I shake my head at times, the beliefs that some sites says that we believe, I’ve never heard of...
Because they believe the Church established by Christ 2,000 years ago fell completely away from his teachings within a century or so of his death, Mormons argue that only a thorough "restoration" (and not a simple "reformation") of the true Church and its holy doctrines would lead man to salvation. Joseph Smith organized this "restored church" in 1830. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints preaches a belief central to most religions: one must know the true nature of God. "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 345ff).
No Christian disputes the absolute necessity of knowing the nature of God (to the extent our reason, aided by grace, can apprehend this great mystery). Indeed, the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations have been united in a constant belief in the supreme God as almighty, eternal, and unchanging. Mormons have not been favored by similar clarity from their self-described "prophets" who receive "direct revelation" from the gods.
You may wish to ask these Mormons to consider the following authoritative statements by their earlier and present prophets.
1. In an early book of "Scripture" brought forth by Joseph Smith, the creation account consistently refers to the singular when speaking of God and creation: "I, God, caused . . . I, God, created . . . I, God, saw. . . . " The singular is used 50 times in the second and third chapters of the Book of Moses (1831).
2. In another of Smith’s earlier works, the Book of Mormon (1830), there are no references to a plurality of gods. At best, there is a confusion, at times, between the Father and the Son, leading at times to the extreme of modalism (one divine person who reveals himself sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son) or the other extreme of "binitarianism," belief in two persons in God. The Book of Mormon also makes a strong point for God’s spiritual and eternal unity (see Alma 11:44 and 22:10-11, which proclaims that God is the "Great Spirit").
3. Another early work of Smith is the Lectures on Faith (1834-35). There is continual evidence that the first Mormon leader taught a form of bitheism: the Father and the Son are separate gods. The Holy Spirit is merely the "mind" of the two.
4. At about the same time, we begin to see a doctrinal shift. Smith had acquired some mummies and Egyptian papyri. He proclaimed the writings to be those of the patriarch, Abraham, in his own hand, and set out to translate the text. His Book of Abraham records in chapters four and five that "the gods called . . . the gods ordered . . . the gods prepared" some 45 times. Smith thus introduces the notion of a plurality of gods.
5. The clearest exposition of this departure from traditional Christian doctrine is seen in Smith’s tale of a "vision" he had as a boy of 14. Both the Father and the Son appeared to him, he wrote; they were two separate "personages." This story of two gods was not authorized and distributed by the church until 1838, after his Book of Abraham had paved the way for polytheism.
6. Readers will notice that the Father is said to have appeared, along with his resurrected Son. In his final doctrinal message, Smith showed how this was possible.
In the King Follett Discourse (a funeral talk he gave in 1844), Joseph Smith left his church with the clearest statement to date on the nature of God:
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens[.] That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, ‘As the Father hath power to himself, even so hath the Son power’—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it."
As the Mormon church has taught since that time, God the Father was once a man who was created by his God, was born and lived on another earth, learned and lived the "Mormon gospel," died, and was eventually resurrected and made God over this universe. As such, he retains forever his flesh-and-bones body.
7. Aside from some temporary detours (Orson Pratt said the Holy Ghost was a spiritual fluid that filled the universe; Brigham Young taught that Adam is the god of this world), the Mormon church has constantly taught that God the Father is a perfected man with a physical body and parts. Right-living Mormon men may also progress, as did the Father, and eventually become gods themselves. In fact, fifth president, Lorenzo Snow, summed up the Mormon teaching thus: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." Snow frequently claimed this summary of the Mormon doctrine on God and man was revealed to him by inspiration. (See Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian?, 60, note 1.)
8. "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." What is stranger than a God who starts off as a single Spirit, eternal and all-powerful; who then becomes, perhaps, two gods in one, and then three; who never changes, yet was once born a man, lived, sinned, repented, and died; who was made God the Father of this world by his own God; and who will make his own children gods someday of their own worlds?
That all believing Christians are shocked and disturbed by this blasphemy may—just may—be nudging the Mormon leadership to soften their rhetoric (if not actually change their heresy). A case in point is an interview with current church prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, published in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 13, 1997. When asked: "[D]on’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?" Hinckley demurred. "I wouldn’t say that. There’s a little couplet coined, ‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’ Now, that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about" (3/Z1).
A surprising admission, as Hinckley seems to disparage the constant teaching of all his prophetic predecessors.
Choose, if you like, any one of these three attacks: on Christians; on the sanctity of life; on God. Ask your Mormon listener to explain the contradictions of his church. Don’t be satisfied with a personal, subjective, emotional "testimony." Demand clarification of confused and contradictory teachings.
When they aren’t forthcoming, be prepared to offer the truth.
posted by NYer
ping
An excellent question.
If you are a Christian, you undoubtedly believe (as I do) that Jesus Christ was and is God and therefore unchangeable.
Nevertheless, Jesus clearly changed. He was born as a baby and grew to manhood. During that time, "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Luke 2:52) Eventually, he suffered death on the cross, rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven.
Hence, Jesus Christ is an unchangeable being who changed. How do we resolve this apparent contradiction?
I believe that the key is the doctrine that God is love (1 John 4:16). Jesus has always been perfect in his love for God the Father and for his fellow men. Likewise, he has always been perfect in faith, hope, mercy, and justice. Although he was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet [he was] without sin." (Hebrews 4:10). In short, he has always been completely good.
Jesus Christ changed physically, but the Godly attributes of his character do not change.
Hello this is not a Romney thread FastCoyote the Title is
DNA and the Dead Sea Scrolls how do the pieces fit
There is no LDS or Romney in this talks article!
Mods why have you allowed this thread to be hijacked by the anti’s LDS & Mitt folks when this Thread is about DNA & DDS?
You answered this question with the quote from Timothy -"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. " This is a Mystery, but it is described in Scripture. It is consistent with Scripture. It doesn't contradict Scripture.
A changing god is inconsistent with Scripture, and is contradicted by the BOM. You have to change the clear language of the BOM - ""I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18). "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles" (Mormon 9:9-10).
You say that these references to God refers to doctrines or laws. Well, that's not consistent with the clear language of Scripture.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Click on my profile page for more guidelines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.