339 replies to this topic

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 12 November 2010 - 12:11 PM, said:

This shows that you don't understand my point. You're still apparantly trying to argue that the word when used  in two different cases should be evidence for two different distinct theological meanings of the words.

While not an exact grammatic equivalent, here's an example of what it appears you're arguing in English.

There are two phrases:

• John gave the book to me.
• Bill gave me the book.

Using the logic you're trying to work on the difference in Greek cases, we should understand the word 'book' to clearly mean something different in both cases. You would be using the difference in those phrases to prove that something substantially different was meant by the 'book' that John gave, as opposed to the book that Bill gave.

This is the essence of what you are arguing based on the difference in Greek cases. It's an illogical argument.

But how do you know that there isn't a difference in meaning by the difference in placement?

Clearly IN ENGLISH there is no difference in meaning by the difference in placement.  That doesn't mean that in Greek there is no difference.  Now, maybe in Greek there is no difference in the meaning intended to be conveyed. I will admit that possibility. And if so then I am clearly wrong.

But the fact that there is a difference, may not be as insignificant as you and Rob think.  It isn't that I don't trust Rob . . . . .  well yes it is.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

Christians have authority fundamentally due to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

Can you provide a specific example of where the Holy Ghost bestowed authority (rather than a call)?

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Excellent job explaining the significance of case endings. Bravo!

USU78, on 12 November 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

In a prior life, I studied linguistics.  The case endings that were mentioned are present in a whole lot of languages, including Middle and Old English.

Those case endings make it possible to move things around in sentences without losing meaning.

Man bites dog means something in English, but it's different from Dog bites man.

If you have the endings, you can recognize who's doing the biting and who's getting bit regardless how the words are put together in the sentence.

Think of one of the few words in English that retains the ending:  Who/Whom.  Who bites the dog vs. The dog bites whom.  Whom is in the accusative (direct object) case:  Who is in the nominative (subject) case.  Thus meaning is not changed, though grammar, which gives meaning to what the words mean when put together in a sentence, is.

Nothing formal/informal about this.

[Hick Preacher]

TAO in quotes-

Hick in quotes where noted

Quote

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:
<<<<<Yes, TAO what you say stimulates thinking. This is a choice I make. I could just ignore anything that you write that I do not like, but I like to read what you have to say.>>>>>

Quote

<<<Good, I just wanted to make sure - I don't like having people think one thing is happening when I'm really doing another. I didn't want to deceive you into why I was asking questions I already knew.>>>

OK and-
Often any piece of knowledge can be reviewed, so show aspects in a new way.

TAO says

Quote

<<<However, the oldest 'somewhat' Bible-like thing we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are dated about 2 centuries before Christ. The next oldest thing identified is a millenium later - in the 10th Century AD, the Aleppo Codex. However, neither of these is close to the creation date of the original texts. Also, for the DSS, the most commonality they have is 1/4 of the text, and that's for Psalms. Considering it's still too far from when the texts were wrote, it is very easy to see that changes WERE made, and they were quite numerous too.>>>

Scholars work to reconstruct the most accurate text possible.  Old Testament texts are reflected in the New Testament. So we can see how the Apostles of Christ interpreted the Old Testament.  And of course most significant is how the Savior Himself explained the religion of Abraham.

Many religious people of this day, do not realize the process , and history of how a modern Bible came to be.  And many people belong to religious traditions that are holding on to certain fables on what the Bible is really about, and its nature.

Quote

<<<Alas, the Aleppo Codex in the 10th century AD (7 centuries afterward) leaves plenty of time for changes to occur, does it not?>>>

Here is a link      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex
(of course a wiki link does not represent what is necessarily accurate in a comprehensive manner. But I like a wiki because if indicates the relative popularity of certain subjects, ideas, people and topics).

Scholars keep occupied with issues related to your comment.  The informational condition of a text that is many generations from an original is complicated.  From certain kinds of editing,  interpolations, deletions, and even mistakes, the clues to the development of the Hebrew religion and its various branches can be revealed.  

Finding old texts with changes in not a bad thing, rather it is a good thing. It provides insights into the past, and why we are the way we art today, and how me can make improvements.  

Quote

<<<Ok, that's good, I was hoping this would be the conclusion you would reach. The value of books like the Bible, BoM, and others isn't truly in the interpretation of texts - it's in what the spirit tells you. The books are there simply to get you to think, to use the spirit - it's the spirit that actually matters.>>>

I would say that both what the scripture says, and what the spirit tells us matters.
It is true that we can read a certain passage over and over for years, and one day we read it again, and the spirit gives to us new and added meanings to that same passage.  This kind of epiphany phenomena  is facilitated by a number of factors, like life experiences, a current life situation, obedience to God’s commands, prayer life,   ones state of health, a comprehensive scripture study, discussion of religious topics with other people, healthy relationships with other people,  and of course the whisperings of the spirit.

These things all work together. But anyway your comment seems to reflect a philosophy of the Word of God.  The word of God can be scripture, the spoken word of an inspired person, a godly action upon another person, the performance of a good deed toward another person based on divine command, and of course the Spirit of God guiding you, or communicating to you.  And of course comprehensively or ultimately, the Word of God is the force that holds all things together and makes things work the way that they do.

Quote

<<<One thinks that it may be because one was part of the LDS church at a time XD.>>>>

I was a pretty good Mormon, successful at being an LDS person.

There are few people that are know as ‘anti-Mormons’(aka critics of the Church ) that were really fully Mormon in his/her life time.

  Most who are in the ministry to Mormons, draw from written literature about Mormonism.  This is OK, but does cause trouble with Mormons.

Mormonism has critical  non-verbal aspects, so in order to really know about Mormonism you have to have actually lived it out.     I lived it, was married in the Temple, attended faithfully, had many good callings, and was successful at doing  living the Mormon life.

As a faithful and active Mormon,  I had a profound revelation, that lead to a quest, I wrote a book in the defense of Mormonism at one point, I consulted with Van Hale a couple of times, Reed Durham many times, and others.  But Eventually,   I became an Evangelical.  Nevertheless, I am not a common type of Evangelical Christian.

Quote

Quote from Hick
Yes I would agree. But also when we have a collection of Books and we see a trend or teachings, and we see patterns and principles, we can use that as a standard to judge other writing that claim to be from God, and the meaning of certain impressions we get to determine if that impression is a revelation from God, or from some other source.

Quote

<<<But my point is - why even judge by other books when we could judge by the spirit instead. Books may mislead us. The spirit will not. I was having a conversation about this verse with Valentinus yesterday.



Quote

Quote

John 3:8
The awind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the bSpirit."

It's talking about trusting the spirit - we shouldn't lock the spirit in by forcing it to comply to certain books - we should let it be free - and let us be taken by the wind, wherever it comes and goes. If we put our trust in books, we cannot follow the spirit to the degree we could if we did not.>>>>

The Spirit of God will not mislead us.

Yet there are other spirits in this world.
There are Spirits that are 400 thousand years old who originate back to when the primordial waters of creation were made.  These creatures are unseen, yet are believed to be around us in the environment of this world. They are much smarter than we humans as we live in our mortal state.  They can trick us and  they have an axe to grind against us.   The keys to detecting teachings of these other spirits are found in various places in the scriptures.   And then there is sin our ancient foe. Even LDS people have recognized that things can trick people, sin, false spirits and so forth.
This Idea is even found in the Hymn of Luther as sung here:

Quote

<<<

Quote Hick quote
Sounds like you are describing the Preparatory Gospel as opposed to the Fulness of the Gospel

Quote

Yes, I think that may be the case, but the point I was making perhaps was that the books are part of the Pr

eparatory Gospel, whereas the Spirit is of the Fullness of the Gospel.  >>>



Yes the Preparatory Gospel of Mormon is found in the Book of Mormon.
(Even though it is said it contains the fullness of the Gospel—it is really the ‘fulness of the Preparatory Gospel’(—this is evident from a comprehensive study of Mormonism, LDS, RLDS and FLDS variations--- certain FLDS Book of Mormon versions say that the Book of Mormon contains ‘the fullness of the preparatory gospel)

The Bible also contains what Mormonism considers the Preparatory Gospel.
This Preparatory Gospel is managed or conducted by the Aaronic Priesthood under the direction of its highest office the Ward Bishop.

   The Mormon  blessing called “The Gift of the Holy Ghost”  however, is part of the Melchezedic Priesthood and falls under the mystery of godliness.  This “The  Gift of the Holy Ghost” part of Mormonism  is outside of the Preparatory Gospel and is libel NOT to be found fully described in the Preparatory Gospel documents ( Bible and Book of Mormon).

My little explanation may be why using Bible scriptures to establish the nature of this Mormon Melchezedic  Priesthood “Gift of the Holy Ghost” may be useless when applied to Mormonism. That is to say, in Mormonism,  it is not supposed to be in the Bible to begin with

Quote

<<<Hehe, it has to do with my Autistic mind - I try to predict how one is going to respond to my responses before one does. That's why I enjoy making people think so much.

I'll contribute more later, I've gtg. >>>

Well I will try and surprise you then-

Hick-

[cdowis]

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

Christians have authority fundamentally due to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

This was a fundamental difference with the Catholic church and Martin Luther.  He had to explain where he got the authority to administer the ordinances, so this is pure Lutherism -- the priesthood of the believers.  No ordination necessary.

Now, if you can show us specifically where this is taught in the Bible.  Note that the espistles were written to those already members of the church, so show us how this applied to someone just being baptized, a new member before they were ordained.

For example, the LDS church consists of a lay priesthood, as was in the early church.  But they are still formally ordained.

Edited by cdowis, 12 November 2010 - 01:04 PM.

[Thunderfire]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 12:51 PM, said:

Can you provide a specific example of where the Holy Ghost bestowed authority (rather than a call)?

The anointing of Mary, mother of Jesus and Elizabeth, the mother of John?  What happened to them can definately be seen as the "authority" to accomplish a great and marvelous work!

But then, we need to acknowledge how we are applying "limited definations" to our words.  A call is also a bestowal of the authority to fulfill the call.  In essence, when ever God gives a task for someone to complete (the call), the authority to fulfill that call is also given.  

I understand that this entire discussion is striking at long held beliefs and nothing will change except how our long held beliefs are being exposed and laid bare.  I am relieved that (in my opinion) we are being faced with the prospects that it's not about us.  Rather it is always about Jesus.

[USU78]

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 12:35 PM, said:

It been a while but, ancient Greek alters nouns to signify roles which are not indicated in an English translation.

Correct:  There are a few others (both in Latin and Greek and beyond) beyond nominative, accusative, dative and genetive . . . ablative and locative, for example.  Indo-European endings and a lot of those cases disappear in English both through the use of prepositions and just through sheer cussed laziness.  Old languages are fun.

[cdowis]

Thunderfire, on 12 November 2010 - 01:16 PM, said:

The anointing of Mary, mother of Jesus and Elizabeth, the mother of John?  What happened to them can definately be seen as the "authority" to accomplish a great and marvelous work!

Are you saying that she held the priesthood?  Can you give us specific examples of where she exercised priesthood authority.  This discussion is getting very interesting.

[Hick Preacher]

Double POST

Edited by Hick Preacher, 12 November 2010 - 01:49 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 12:51 PM, said:

Can you provide a specific example of where the Holy Ghost bestowed authority (rather than a call)?

The ability to do Gods works that God called you to do, and have God in you and with you in doing those works is all about having God’s Power and Authority. In Christianity there are several kinds of authority that was placed onto Christians. Likewise the Holy Ghost has various offices or functions that it imparts to the various members of the body of Christ that provides that power and authority.  There is Charismatic Authority that comes directly from God from Heaven, and there is Social and Legal Authority, and Authority that comes from being a Son of God.

We some of this worked out as Jesus tells his Apostles that they too will be able to do God’s works, by having God dwell in them ( by way of the Holy Ghost).

Quote

John 14:
10  ... words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
12  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.15  If ye love me,k eep my commandments.16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Just as Jesus was sent, from God with  authority, via the Spirit—to do the Works of God,
Jesus  sends  his Apostles with Authority by the Spirit of the Holy Ghost. This gave them authority over a specific set of things, as they were sent.

Quote

John 20:21  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The Power and Authority to Preach, another office of the Holy Ghost was to come at  Pentacost.

Quote

Acts  of the Apostles
1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth

The Power and Authority to rule in the Church, to be an overseer is also another office regulated by the Holy Ghost.

Quote

Acts of the Apostles
Chapter 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood

JN 14:10 included for context

Edited by Hick Preacher, 12 November 2010 - 02:18 PM.

[Lightbearer]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 01:58 PM, said:

The LDS Church has been perpetuating this falsehood ever since Joseph Smith and continues to do so today in a doctrinal manual that all Mormons are currently studying. Again, honest and sincere people can disagree about many things, but I cannot see any plausible way of denying that in this instance Joseph Smith and the LDS Church is simply wrong.

Of course you cannot see it, because if you were to agree with Joseph and the Church you would realize that you are not saved, that the Holy Ghost has not part of what you are about. I wonder if the words of Jesus Christ is a lie?

Quote

(John 14:16-26) "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

I think it is obvious that Peter had a testimony of the Holy Ghost, yet Jesus was speaking of a greater gift than just the spirit of God bearing witness... the gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to that companionship after baptism. The world cannot receive it, why? Because it is not worthy of it. It takes faith in Jesus Christ, repentance and baptism by those authorized of God to administer His ordinances. Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a witness, but is also a sanctifier of those who have kept the covenant they make with God at baptism, then it cleanses us from sin and we are justified by that gift, which the world can never have until they repent and do what God has commanded them. That is not apparent to those who rely solely on the Bible as an innerrant book without believing in the power of God to reveal things which are hidden from the world. I realize that quoting from other sources than the Bible is offensive to you but I do so that you might understand the LDS perspective on these things:

Quote

(2 Nephi 31:6 - 13)"And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? Know ye not that he was holy?  But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments. Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove. And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them. And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me.  Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father? And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son. And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel."

This summarizes the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins before one can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I realize this does not really help you, because all you are trying to do is score retorical points in the vain hope that you might convince some ignorant and weak member to abandon the true faith... good luck with that, but I would prefer to stick with Joseph and the LDS Church because they are the ones with the words of Jesus Christ, not your strained interpretation of the Bible.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 01:47 PM, said:

<SNIP>

HP,
I don't have time right now to go through this with you. Perhaps someone else will do so.  If not I will be back no earlier than Sunday.

God bless.

Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

You wrote:

Lightbearer, on 12 November 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

Of course you cannot see it, because if you were to agree with Joseph and the Church you would realize that you are not saved, that the Holy Ghost has not part of what you are about.

Typical ad hominem: instead of addressing my argument, you dismiss what i say because I'm not part of your religion. I know some of your brethren here wince with embarrassment at this sort of tactic.

You wrote:

Quote

I wonder if the words of Jesus Christ is a lie?

Of course not. I agree with what Jesus said in the Gospel of John. But this has nothing to do with the fact that Joseph Smith claimed that Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized, when Luke plainly says he received that gift before he was baptized.

You wrote:

Quote

I think it is obvious that Peter had a testimony of the Holy Ghost, yet Jesus was speaking of a greater gift than just the spirit of God bearing witness... the gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to that companionship after baptism. The world cannot receive it, why? Because it is not worthy of it. It takes faith in Jesus Christ, repentance and baptism by those authorized of God to administer His ordinances. Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

That is exactly what Acts 10:44-48 reveals is not what is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And look, for centuries Christians repented of their sins, had faith in Jesus Christ, and were baptized, without the LDS Church and its priesthood. Were those people who sincerely repented and believed in Christ unworthy of the gift of the Holy Ghost? I think you'll have a hard time making a plausible case that they were all unworthy. On the other hand, if at least some of them were not unworthy of the gift, why didn't Christ restore the priesthood to the earth sooner so they could receive the gift?

You wrote:

Quote

I realize that quoting from other sources than the Bible is offensive to you....

Not at all. Quote whatever you like.

You wrote:

Quote

I realize this does not really help you, because all you are trying to do is score retorical points in the vain hope that you might convince some ignorant and weak member to abandon the true faith... good luck with that, but I would prefer to stick with Joseph and the LDS Church because they are the ones with the words of Jesus Christ, not your strained interpretation of the Bible.

Since you completely ignored my argument, engaged in an ad hominem criticism of me instead of my argument, and wrapped up your post by impugning my motives, I would dare to suggest that perhaps you are the one who is trying to score rhetorical points instead of engaging the issue at hand.

[Thunderfire]

cdowis, on 12 November 2010 - 01:34 PM, said:

Are you saying that she held the priesthood?  Can you give us specific examples of where she exercised priesthood authority.  This discussion is getting very interesting.

Please go back and re-read what I wrote.  Here is what I wrote again:  The anointing of Mary, mother of Jesus and Elizabeth, the mother of John? What happened to them can definately be seen as the "authority" to accomplish a great and marvelous work!

Then I added:  But then, we need to acknowledge how we are applying "limited definations" to our words. A call is also a bestowal of the authority to fulfill the call. In essence, when ever God gives a task for someone to complete (the call), the authority to fulfill that call is also given.

By your question to me, (in my opinion) this proves what I stated in that we ONLY equate the terms "authorty and call" as priesthood.  Mary WAS called and given the authority to accomplish the work entrusted to her.  We are in a day and time when some ONLY believe the priesthood can receive any form of authority or call to serve God in a profound way.  

So what I said is true that we have very limited definations to our words which are limiting to us.  It needs to be seen how we are also seeking to limit God as to who he gives authority (or a call) to fulfill his work.

Edited by Thunderfire, 12 November 2010 - 02:46 PM.

[TAO]

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

Often any piece of knowledge can be reviewed, so show aspects in a new way.

Agreed.

Quote

Scholars work to reconstruct the most accurate text possible.  Old Testament texts are reflected in the New Testament. So we can see how the Apostles of Christ interpreted the Old Testament.  And of course most significant is how the Savior Himself explained the religion of Abraham.

Many religious people of this day, do not realize the process , and history of how a modern Bible came to be.  And many people belong to religious traditions that are holding on to certain fables on what the Bible is really about, and its nature.

Here is a link      http://en.wikipedia....ki/Aleppo_Codex
(of course a wiki link does not represent what is necessarily accurate in a comprehensive manner. But I like a wiki because if indicates the relative popularity of certain subjects, ideas, people and topics).

Scholars keep occupied with issues related to your comment.  The informational condition of a text that is many generations from an original is complicated.  From certain kinds of editing,  interpolations, deletions, and even mistakes, the clues to the development of the Hebrew religion and its various branches can be revealed.  

Finding old texts with changes in not a bad thing, rather it is a good thing. It provides insights into the past, and why we are the way we art today, and how me can make improvements.  

Nevertheless, scholars can only do so much - we will never know precisely what the original texts were like.  They have been altered - yet we can only detect so much.  They will never be able to fully restore those texts, save by a miracle of God.  Luckily, I believe a miracle of God happened through the BoM - which doesn't happen to be corrupted.

We also have the JST - but that isn't fully complete yet - Joseph was clearing interpretations through the JST constantly during his life - and so there may be more that has not yet been revealed.

Quote

I would say that both what the scripture says, and what the spirit tells us matters.
It is true that we can read a certain passage over and over for years, and one day we read it again, and the spirit gives to us new and added meanings to that same passage.  This kind of epiphany phenomena  is facilitated by a number of factors, like life experiences, a current life situation, obedience to God’s commands, prayer life,   ones state of health, a comprehensive scripture study, discussion of religious topics with other people, healthy relationships with other people,  and of course the whisperings of the spirit.

These things all work together. But anyway your comment seems to reflect a philosophy of the Word of God.  The word of God can be scripture, the spoken word of an inspired person, a godly action upon another person, the performance of a good deed toward another person based on divine command, and of course the Spirit of God guiding you, or communicating to you.  And of course comprehensively or ultimately, the Word of God is the force that holds all things together and makes things work the way that they do.

Nevertheless, the spirit is more whole.  The OT and NT don't contain the fullness anymore now that they are altered.  We can trust somewhat in them - but they will never be as sturdy of an iron rod as revelations of the spirit.  The spirit is fully trustable - while sometimes, the OT and NT don't portray what they did originally.

Quote

I was a pretty good Mormon, successful at being an LDS person.

There are few people that are know as ‘anti-Mormons’(aka critics of the Church ) that were really fully Mormon in his/her life time.

Lol, don't let anybody call you an anti-mormon.  Anti-Mormons are obsessive and unreasonable.  You're neither - so you don't fit in that category.  Sometimes I think anti-mormon is applied to liberally, but then again, there are those who say it should never be used at all, but I think there are some situations where it is appropriate.

Quote

Most who are in the ministry to Mormons, draw from written literature about Mormonism.  This is OK, but does cause trouble with Mormons.

Mormonism has critical  non-verbal aspects, so in order to really know about Mormonism you have to have actually lived it out. I lived it, was married in the Temple, attended faithfully, had many good callings, and was successful at doing  living the Mormon life.

As a faithful and active Mormon,  I had a profound revelation, that lead to a quest, I wrote a book in the defense of Mormonism at one point, I consulted with Van Hale a couple of times, Reed Durham many times, and others.  But Eventually,   I became an Evangelical.  Nevertheless, I am not a common type of Evangelical Christian.

I think you'll come back sometime, be it in this life or the next ;-).

Quote

The Spirit of God will not mislead us.

Yet there are other spirits in this world.
There are Spirits that are 400 thousand years old who originate back to when the primordial waters of creation were made.  These creatures are unseen, yet are believed to be around us in the environment of this world. They are much smarter than we humans as we live in our mortal state.  They can trick us and  they have an axe to grind against us.   The keys to detecting teachings of these other spirits are found in various places in the scriptures.   And then there is sin our ancient foe. Even LDS people have recognized that things can trick people, sin, false spirits and so forth.
This Idea is even found in the Hymn of Luther as sung here:

As someone who Satan tries to tempt by sounding like the Holy Ghost - I am someone who knows this.  However, his voice doesn't sound quite the same - it's desperate, and prideful.  When I hear it, I turn straight away, and focus on God.  I read my favorite scriptures in 3 Nephi and Ether.  And I pray humbly and long to God.  And soon, Satan has to leave - he can't stand the Lord.

I have found that praying always in one's heart tends to make these temptations and tricks happen much less often.  Indeed, that verse in Alma talking of it, was the second lesson the Lord taught me, following the first, which was learning to have faith in something I had not seen.  If we just focus on God, by praying always, and remaining humble, no trick or temptation will take us off the path.  Our eyes will remain single to God and his son.

Quote

<<<Preparatory Gospel, whereas the Spirit is of the Fullness of the Gospel.  >>>

Quote

Yes the Preparatory Gospel of Mormon is found in the Book of Mormon.
(Even though it is said it contains the fullness of the Gospel—it is really the ‘fulness of the Preparatory Gospel’(—this is evident from a comprehensive study of Mormonism, LDS, RLDS and FLDS variations--- certain FLDS Book of Mormon versions say that the Book of Mormon contains ‘the fullness of the preparatory gospel)

The Bible also contains what Mormonism considers the Preparatory Gospel.
This Preparatory Gospel is managed or conducted by the Aaronic Priesthood under the direction of its highest office the Ward Bishop.

   The Mormon  blessing called “The Gift of the Holy Ghost”  however, is part of the Melchezedic Priesthood and falls under the mystery of godliness.  This “The  Gift of the Holy Ghost” part of Mormonism  is outside of the Preparatory Gospel and is libel NOT to be found fully described in the Preparatory Gospel documents ( Bible and Book of Mormon).

My little explanation may be why using Bible scriptures to establish the nature of this Mormon Melchezedic  Priesthood “Gift of the Holy Ghost” may be useless when applied to Mormonism. That is to say, in Mormonism,  it is not supposed to be in the Bible to begin with

.

Actually...  http://new.lds.org/s....37?lang=eng#36

The Melchezdik Priesthood DID exist in the BoM.

Also, whenever 'holy order' is mentioned in the BoM, it's referring to the Melchezdik Priesthood.

Also, one of the Nephi's (forget which one) was given the sealing power, which is of the Melchezdik Priesthood.

Quote

Well I will try and surprise you then-

Hick-

Acutally, the model system is supposed to err sometimes - that's how it fixes itself.  It gets exponentially more accurate over time.  It's kinda like this graph:

The more time it is given, the closer to a perfect representation of the person it is.  The more experiences I have with the person, the more reliable it becomes - even moreso than a normal person's, though it starts off lower than a normal person's.

Sorry if it seems a brief response - it's just I accidentally deleted it once already, so I had to retype it somewhat, but it wasn't as good as the first one =P.

[Ahab]

Rob,

Do you agree or not agree that the phrase "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is a phrase that has more than only one meaning?

If you do, do you see how someone could correctly say Cornelius received "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in one sense, while also saying he didn't receive "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in another sense, with the key being in correctly understanding what that person meant when he said that?

I can, and if you need me to explain it to you, just ask me.  Or better yet, just ask God to explain it to you.

[Rob Bowman]

There once was a man named Jack Jones. Jack claimed to be the oracle of God and the founder of the one true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days. According to Jack, in these last days the Lord has no use for ordinances or rituals; they were tolerated among the Jews in the first century but have since been done away. No one ever needed to be baptized to be forgiven of sins, and no one ever needed to have hands laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit, and now these blessings are available only to those who reject such rituals and accept the Spirit-only gospel of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days.

One day, Jack was explaining this doctrine to his devoted congregation. He explained to them that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit before Peter and John came to Samaria, and therefore of course before Peter and John laid hands on any of the Samaritan believers. More than a century later, members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days repeatedly quoted with approval Jack's comments about the Samaritans. Leaders of the church, including Jack B. Jones VI, quoted Jack's statement as the authoritative interpretation of the Samaritans' reception of the Holy Spirit. No one in Jack's church ever questioned it; why should they? Jack was the oracle of God. Each member of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days knew in the deepest place in his heart that Jack was the oracle of God.

Then one particularly obnoxious anti-Jack dared to suggest that Jack's comment contradicted what Acts 8 says about the Samaritans. This professional anti-Jack claimed that in Acts 8 the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit until after Peter and John came to Samaria and laid hands on the Samaritan believers. The anti-Jack really crossed the line in suggesting that anyone who was honest would have to admit that Jack was wrong: Jack said the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit before Peter and John laid hands on them, but Acts 8 says the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit after Peter and John laid hands on them. Obviously, the arrogant anti-Jack concluded, one cannot accept both statements; one of them is wrong. Naturally, the anti-Jack assumed that Jack was the one who was wrong.

Loyal, faithful members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days -- labeled "Jackals" by the nefarious anti-Jacks -- quickly pointed out several reasonable explanations. Perhaps Luke was in error; after all, the Bible is not without error, as its unfortunate statement about baptizing people of all nations (Matt. 28:19) illustrates. Then again, perhaps Luke did not err but later copyists made a mistake in copying that portion of Acts. One budding scholar among the so-called Jackals suggested that there was a translation error; perhaps what Luke said is that the Samaritans "took advantage of the Holy Spirit" when the apostles laid hands on them; in other words, that they had already received the Holy Spirit before the apostles even showed up, but when the apostles laid hands on them the Samaritan believers took full advantage of the spiritual power they had received. Another member asked if there wasn't some difference between the expression "receiving the Holy Spirit" and "received the Holy Spirit." Still other thoughtful members of the church argued that what Luke meant by "receiving the Holy Spirit" was something different from what Jack meant by the same expression. What Jack meant was receiving the indwelling presence and power of the Spirit. What Luke meant, these church members explained, was receiving the Spirit as manifested in the apostles--connecting with their experience of the Spirit by having the apostles touch them. All of the members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days, however, knew deep down in their hearts that whoever was mistaken, if anyone at all was mistaken, it wasn't Jack!

The anti-Jack, mired in unbelief, arrogance, and pride, would not accept any of these perfectly reasonable explanations. After all, to admit that a "Jackal" might ever be right would be the end of his professional career as an anti-Jack! So the anti-Jack stubbornly insisted that none of these explanations was acceptable. He argued that Jack had never said anything about Acts 10 being in error, miscopied, or mistranslated (indeed, he pointed out, Acts 10 reads the same in Jack's New and Improved Bible as it does in the old King James). He raised objections against the other suggested explanations as well. Of course, we all know that he wasn't really trying to convince the "Jackals" of anything; he was really just trying to impress his fellow anti-Jacks. Not being willing to look into the deepest part of his heart to know if Jack is the oracle of God, the anti-Jack is doomed to continue to intellectualize the Bible and rationalize his faith instead of accepting Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus of the last days.

This story is taken from Silly Anecdotes To Interest Reasonable Eggheads by Archie Robertson. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely intentional.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 12 November 2010 - 02:59 PM.

[calmoriah]

USU78, on 12 November 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

In a prior life, I studied linguistics.  The case endings that were mentioned are present in a whole lot of languages, including Middle and Old English.

Those case endings make it possible to move things around in sentences without losing meaning.

Man bites dog means something in English, but it's different from Dog bites man.

If you have the endings, you can recognize who's doing the biting and who's getting bit regardless how the words are put together in the sentence.

Think of one of the few words in English that retains the ending:  Who/Whom.  Who bites the dog vs. The dog bites whom.  Whom is in the accusative (direct object) case:  Who is in the nominative (subject) case.  Thus meaning is not changed, though grammar, which gives meaning to what the words mean when put together in a sentence, is.

Nothing formal/informal about this.

I wonder why the person who made that claim made that unwarranted jump.  Perhaps they were confused over thinking it was something like the thou/you issue as opposed to sentence structure.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 12 November 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

This story is taken from Silly Anecdotes To Interest Reasonable Eggheads by Archie Robertson. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely intentional.

You sir, are a work of art. Lol.

[Ahab]

Rob Bowman, on 12 November 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

There once was a man named Jack Jones. Jack claimed to be the oracle of God and the founder of the one true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days. According to Jack, in these last days the Lord has no use for ordinances or rituals; they were tolerated among the Jews in the first century but have since been done away. No one ever needed to be baptized to be forgiven of sins, and no one ever needed to have hands laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit, and now these blessings are available only to those who reject such rituals and accept the Spirit-only gospel of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days.

One day, Jack was explaining this doctrine to his devoted congregation. He explained to them that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit before Peter and John came to Samaria, and therefore of course before Peter and John laid hands on any of the Samaritan believers. More than a century later, members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days repeatedly quoted with approval Jack's comments about the Samaritans. Leaders of the church, including Jack B. Jones VI, quoted Jack's statement as the authoritative interpretation of the Samaritans' reception of the Holy Spirit. No one in Jack's church ever questioned it; why should they? Jack was the oracle of God. Each member of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days knew in the deepest place in his heart that Jack was the oracle of God.

Then one particularly obnoxious anti-Jack dared to suggest that Jack's comment contradicted what Acts 8 says about the Samaritans. This professional anti-Jack claimed that in Acts 8 the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit until after Peter and John came to Samaria and laid hands on the Samaritan believers. The anti-Jack really crossed the line in suggesting that anyone who was honest would have to admit that Jack was wrong: Jack said the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit before Peter and John laid hands on them, but Acts 8 says the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit after Peter and John laid hands on them. Obviously, the arrogant anti-Jack concluded, one cannot accept both statements; one of them is wrong. Naturally, the anti-Jack assumed that Jack was the one who was wrong.

Loyal, faithful members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days -- labeled "Jackals" by the nefarious anti-Jacks -- quickly pointed out several reasonable explanations. Perhaps Luke was in error; after all, the Bible is not without error, as its unfortunate statement about baptizing people of all nations (Matt. 28:19) illustrates. Then again, perhaps Luke did not err but later copyists made a mistake in copying that portion of Acts. One budding scholar among the so-called Jackals suggested that there was a translation error; perhaps what Luke said is that the Samaritans "took advantage of the Holy Spirit" when the apostles laid hands on them; in other words, that they had already received the Holy Spirit before the apostles even showed up, but when the apostles laid hands on them the Samaritan believers took full advantage of the spiritual power they had received. Another member asked if there wasn't some difference between the expression "receiving the Holy Spirit" and "received the Holy Spirit." Still other thoughtful members of the church argued that what Luke meant by "receiving the Holy Spirit" was something different from what Jack meant by the same expression. What Jack meant was receiving the indwelling presence and power of the Spirit. What Luke meant, these church members explained, was receiving the Spirit as manifested in the apostles--connecting with their experience of the Spirit by having the apostles touch them. All of the members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days, however, knew deep down in their hearts that whoever was mistaken, if anyone at all was mistaken, it wasn't Jack!

The anti-Jack, mired in unbelief, arrogance, and pride, would not accept any of these perfectly reasonable explanations. After all, to admit that a "Jackal" might ever be right would be the end of his professional career as an anti-Jack! So the anti-Jack stubbornly insisted that none of these explanations was acceptable. He argued that Jack had never said anything about Acts 10 being in error, miscopied, or mistranslated (indeed, he pointed out, Acts 10 reads the same in Jack's New and Improved Bible as it does in the old King James). He raised objections against the other suggested explanations as well. Of course, we all know that he wasn't really trying to convince the "Jackals" of anything; he was really just trying to impress his fellow anti-Jacks. Not being willing to look into the deepest part of his heart to know if Jack is the oracle of God, the anti-Jack is doomed to continue to intellectualize the Bible and rationalize his faith instead of accepting Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus of the last days.

This story is taken from Silly Anecdotes To Interest Reasonable Eggheads by Archie Robertson. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely intentional.

All of this reinforces my idea that you are doing what you are doing just for fun, and while trying to be funny.

Here you go:  LOL.  

Thank you.

Edited by Ahab, 12 November 2010 - 04:08 PM.