Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

About InCognitus

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

95 profile views
  1. Another book that is specific to your question is: Personalities in the Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith History, compiled and edited by George M. McCune, B.A., J.D., Hawkes Publishing Inc., 1991. The sole purpose of the book is to provide 141 biographies of the men and women named in the D&C revelations. But I found that there are biographies included in most of the D&C commentaries, and the online resources abound (like those already linked in this thread).
  2. I said, "one of the reasons I asked is because you seemed to be implying that the "scholar thesis" on those scriptures supported a particular view, one that you also seem to share, and I wanted to know if you had read the articles at all for yourself, and what you thought about them with respect to your view." (Heavy emphasis on the word "seemed" ). That's why I asked you the question, because your actual view (whatever that view was) wasn't clear to me, nor was it clear to me what you thought those "scholar thesis" were stating. But you seemed (to me) to be siding with that thesis based on your statement here: Because of what you said above, I wondered if you had actually read the "scholar thesis" on those scriptures and carefully considered them yourself (since that's the topic of this thread), so that's why I asked if you could summarize what you thought they were saying and I asked what was your actual position relating to them. I was confused on where you stand on any of it, so that's why I asked. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are a homosexual or what I am (or not). I am relatively new to these boards, so I don't even know your background very well. And what you say about being willing to acknowledging sin for what it is is interesting. We all have sins. I have sins and strive to overcome them. But none of us would be able to admit we even have sins of our own if we were only willing to see them in someone else. Isn't it a bit unfair for you to assume that I'm only willing to acknowledge them in you? I have no idea what your sins are (and I really do NOT want to know! So please don't tell me! ) And you don't really know me either, do you? As for Ephesians 4:11-14, Paul is stating the purpose of having the specific organization of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers. It is to be there "Till we all come in the unity of the faith". That's not a prophesy, nor is it a contradiction, it's simply a statement of their purpose. And the alternative is to be tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine. And isn't that exactly what happened after that organization was removed? And the restoration reestablished that leadership and organization to the church "till we all come to a unity of the faith". Thanks for your response.
  3. My takeaway is that whoever reads these seven scriptures will interpret them to mean what they want them to mean. I don't have a position. Any interpretation could possibly be right. All could possibly be wrong. The Bible doesn't present a clear answer to anything. There is not even a clear understanding how we got the Bible. Were these men that wrote the Bible speaking for God? Or, like some statements by modern prophets, were they men of their own time. In the end, each of us have to trust God. Put our faith in Him. If you believe in God, then you have to believe He will guide you. Scriptures only give us the things to pray about. I asked my question for several reasons (some of which I may share at a later date), but one of the reasons I asked is because you seemed to be implying that the "scholar thesis" on those scriptures supported a particular view, one that you also seem to share, and I wanted to know if you had read the articles at all for yourself, and what you thought about them with respect to your view. But if your point is only that anyone can interpret the Bible and try to make it say whatever they want, then that has been said by a few others in this thread already. People often use or misuse, or ignore or emphasize, verses from all over the Bible for different purposes. But God knows the answers. And I think that's why he called prophets and apostles to lead us. I realize that it is somewhat circular to use a scripture that can be interpreted to make this point, but isn't this the very reason that scripture says that apostles and prophets are to continue? They are to be here until "all come in the unity of the faith", so that we will not be like "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive". (Ephesians 4:11-14) What you are describing is the "every wind of doctrine" issue that this verse is addressing, and the solution to that problem is that God sends his apostles and prophets. We need to listen to them.
  4. I'll ask you the same question I asked Teancum. Relating to the discussion of these seven verses, what exactly is your take away from "what other religions and other Biblical scholars think [these verses mean] as has been outlined in this thread"? Could you please briefly summarize (in a couple of sentences) what you understand these articles and discussions to be saying that helps whatever position it is that you see they support?
  5. That is a fairly blatant dismissal of substantive scholarship on the subject. Serious and sincere question: What exactly do you understand the "substantive scholarship on the subject" to be saying? Can you summarize here what you think it is telling you?
  6. The Romans 1:26-27 verse seems to address this: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
  7. The problem with the Greek word arsenokoítai (in 1 Corinthians 6:9) is that Paul's letter seems to be one of the first uses of the word. Consequently there aren't a lot of ancient uses of it from which we can get a good context for the meaning. Walter Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, which normally provides a good list of other ancient texts to compare, only provides the following sources: Fortunately, with the internet, we can find a lot of these sources online, but I had a hard time finding a couple of them in English. But the ones I looked up were not very helpful, because the context doesn't give us much that is different than 1 Corinthians 6:9. For example, here's the one from Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica, Book VI, 10, 25: This really doesn't help us at all. But I did find a fairly detailed discussion on the meaning of arsenokoítai on the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange site, here: What did Paul mean by “Arsenokoitēs”? Was he condemning homosexual activity as we know it today? One of the answers includes the following: You can read further in the link above if you are interested. All the other lexicons I referenced confirmed that arsenokoítai is a compound word, including the Strong's dictionary: ἀρσενοκοίτης, arsenokoítēs ; g733 From ἄρῥην {g730} and κοίτη {g2845} Mean a sodomite KJV abuser of (that defile) self with mankind TGL 75 Note BDAG: a male who has sexual relations with another male (Α ἀρσενοκοίτης–ἀρσενοκοίτης Note) The two separate words that form this word are these: ἄρῥην, árrhēn or ἄρσην, ársēn ; g730 From probably from αἴρω {g142} Mean male (as stronger for lifting) KJV male, man TGL 75 (Α ἄρῥην–ἄρῥην TGL) And: κοίτη, koítē ; g2845 From κεῖμαι {g2749} Mean a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm KJV bed, chambering, × conceive TGL 352 (Κ κοίτη–κοίτη TGL) And that's enough for me to explain why it's difficult to get people to agree on the translation
  8. A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation. This approach to the "Why did God allow the fall" question has always seemed to me to be a horrible view of God's character. It portrays a God that boosts his ego (i.e. it is more "God-glorifying" for God to do one thing or another) by allowing something horrible to happen to his creation so that he can be the hero and save his creation from the very thing he allowed to happen to begin with. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, God's whole work and "glory" is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. He is not selfishly trying to demonstrate how great he is by creating situations to make him look better, but he is a God of love and his whole "God-glorifying" purpose is to increase his family, by lovingly providing the opportunity to others to be partakers of and share in the same "glory" that he has. This is why God promised eternal life "before the world began" (Titus 1:2). He called us "to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim 1:9). And this is why Jesus prayed to the Father for his disciples, and asked that they be given the same glory that Jesus received from the Father: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:21-22). Also, I don't think the linked article is giving a completely accurate consideration of the point of the "felix culpa". St. Thomas Aquinas states that human nature is "raised to something greater after sin":
  9. I'll throw in my 2 cents to this discussion Another way I view this is to consider the commandment that Jesus gave us in Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Why did Jesus command us to be "perfect" (complete) before he atoned for our sins and overcame death to redeem us from the fall? He is asking us to start on the path that leads to fulfilling that commandment. It is the path of progression. With regard to the fall, we could not really progress in God's plan without having the ability to choose to follow God of our own free will, and we could not really choose unless there was an alternative choice available. The fall brought about all those possibilities. We just need to all choose wisely now that we are here.
  10. I've never understood this view as well, especially considering that scripture says that Jesus was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:19-20), to be the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). So obviously providing our means of salvation after the fall was all part of God's plan from the very beginning. He very much knew it would happen and planned for it. It was his plan A, not Plan B. I enjoyed your comments. Thank you.
  11. You are right, thank you. My mistake. I was going off of the OP statement that the proposal "would ban Utah-licensed mental health professionals from using conversion therapy — such as trying to turn a gay child straight or alter a minor’s gender identity." And the article linked in the OP indicates that the 60% suicide rate is for LGBT individuals, so I was going the wrong direction. Elsewhere I have seen some statistics on the claims of the proposed ban related to the gender identity issue, and I was basing my response on those assumptions.
  12. 'Nuff said. Where is the study that came up with that percentage? According to this American Academy of Pediatrics study, female to male transgender adolescents have a 50% suicide rate: They offer these conclusions: So this study indicates that transgender adolescents are a "vulnerable population" in general and are at high risk for suicidal tendencies even as "transgender adolescents". I'm not sure that conversion therapy does anything to increase that risk. Do you have a study that says the risk is increased?
  13. That helps, thank you. In view of Galatians 3:29, do you see the believers in Christ to be partakers of any of the promises given to Abraham that involve inheritance of specific lands?
  14. The “everlasting hills” are where his “branches” by a “well” run over the “wall”. The American Cordillera chain of mountains runs all the way from the top of North America to the southern tip of South America, and it fits the bill.
  15. It seems to me that all the prophets and apostles have used logic and reason to some extent. Paul was an educated Jew and was trained in logic and reason, and so that shows more in his writings than in some other writers, perhaps. Similarly, President Nelson's background as a heart surgeon helps him view the principles of the gospel in a unique way, and that comes across in his methods of teaching.
  • Create New...