Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
theplains

The reasons for the flood

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There are specific things we are specifically told not to reveal. The rest of it we are not to reveal either except occasionally in the right environment in the right spirit at the right time and then only in generalities.

You have curly not listened to the instructions, I have not revealed anything in which I covenanted to keep to myself.

You make such a pathetic claim.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

You committed to the board not to post it if nowhere else:

• Do not post sacred LDS temple content or links to LDS temple content

How pathetic, a claim. I have revealed nothing in which I have covenanted to keep secret.

Just pathetic, your lack of understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

How pathetic, a claim. I have revealed nothing in which I have covenanted to keep secret.

Just pathetic, your lack of understanding.

The board rules do not state don't post just temple content that has been covenanted not to share, but refer to sacred temple content.  If you believe there is any temple content that is not sacred, I could see a protest, but I suspect the moderators include all temple content under that label.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

The board rules do not state don't post just temple content that has been covenanted not to share, but refer to sacred temple content.  If you believe there is any temple content that is not sacred, I could see a protest, but I suspect the moderators include all temple content under that label.

again, your and Nahor's claim is pathetic. But go ahead and report my post.

I revealed nothing so sacred as to not post here. If what I said is so scared as to not post here then nearly all LDS doctrine is too scared to post here.

So just go ahead and report my post.

How pathetic. totally pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

again, your and Nahor's claim is pathetic. But go ahead and report my post.

I revealed nothing so sacred as to not post here. If what I said is so scared as to not post here then nearly all LDS doctrine is too scared to post here.

So just go ahead and report my post.

How pathetic. totally pathetic.

Patheticism is best pathetically exemplified by the pathetic childish need to pathetically call pathetically pathetic people pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Patheticism is best pathetically exemplified by the pathetic childish need to pathetically call pathetically pathetic people pathetic.

And you certainly resemble that remark.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

And you certainly resemble that remark.

Are you 12?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are you 12?

Hey, you started this so that. So that puts your maturity the one in question.

Share this post


Link to post

My take on this exchange:

1) I usually defer to The Nehor because satire and parody are very much needed in any serious discussion and he's pretty damn good at it.

2) I don't know the temple content, but in co-eternal's signature I see the phrase "philosophy of men mingled with scripture" which I have seen used on this board many times. I've even used it myself, because of its ubiquity, when talking to mfbukowski about his combination of Mormonism and pragmatism. Is that the quote in contention?

3) It's a bit weird to see people arguing like this over temple content, which is to Mormons the most sacred yes?, in a rather puerile way (not pointing any fingers directly)

4) co-eternal isn't Anon's sock puppet. Too rational.

5) By the way, St. Nicholas slapped Arius during the Nicene Council because of his heretical views about Christ. Ah, the good ol' days.

6) Are we talking about the flood..?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My take on this exchange:

1) I usually defer to The Nehor because satire and parody are very much needed in any serious discussion and he's pretty damn good at it.

2) I don't know the temple content, but in co-eternal's signature I see the phrase "philosophy of men mingled with scripture" which I have seen used on this board many times. I've even used it myself, because of its ubiquity, when talking to mfbukowski about his combination of Mormonism and pragmatism. Is that the quote in contention?

3) It's a bit weird to see people arguing like this over temple content, which is to Mormons the most sacred yes?, in a rather puerile way (not pointing any fingers directly)

4) co-eternal isn't Anon's sock puppet. Too rational.

5) By the way, St. Nicholas slapped Arius during the Nicene Council because of his heretical views about Christ. Ah, the good ol' days.

6) Are we talking about the flood..?

Thanks for your comments.

Amen to comment 1.

As to comment 2, there’s more temple content at issue than the one you referenced.

Re comment 6, perhaps we can all take a deep breath, read and ponder the 2nd commandment for a moment, and return to the discussion of the flood.

Just sayin

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My take on this exchange:

1) I usually defer to The Nehor because satire and parody are very much needed in any serious discussion and he's pretty damn good at it.

2) I don't know the temple content, but in co-eternal's signature I see the phrase "philosophy of men mingled with scripture" which I have seen used on this board many times. I've even used it myself, because of its ubiquity, when talking to mfbukowski about his combination of Mormonism and pragmatism. Is that the quote in contention?

3) It's a bit weird to see people arguing like this over temple content, which is to Mormons the most sacred yes?, in a rather puerile way (not pointing any fingers directly)

4) co-eternal isn't Anon's sock puppet. Too rational.

5) By the way, St. Nicholas slapped Arius during the Nicene Council because of his heretical views about Christ. Ah, the good ol' days.

6) Are we talking about the flood..?

 

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Thanks for your comments.

Amen to comment 1.

As to comment 2, there’s more temple content at issue than the one you referenced.

Re comment 6, perhaps we can all take a deep breath, read and ponder the 2nd commandment for a moment, and return to the discussion of the flood.

Just sayin

1) I don't take ad hominems as satire or parody, it is a crutch used to signal they are out of rational arguments but don't know better than to stop arguing.

2) You are correct, the only thing I have said that has anything to do with the temple ceremony is as you have said. How ever I did say something about truths hidden in plain sight in the endowment but that does not reveal any content of the endowment ceremony.

3) It is even more weird, from the perspective of a practicing LDS to see other supposibly practicing LDS demonstrate such ignorance of what they practice and intolerance to those to those who demonstrate knowledge of what they practice. (Mind you, this is not the first time or topic Calm and Nehor have exhibited this same type of response to my posts on topics I which have done considerable research.)

4) Not only am I not Anon's pupil, I am no ones puppet - Thanks for the compliment, rational and reasonable are what I am.

5) Didn't know that.

6) well I was, but ...  I find it difficult to have rational and reasonable arguments (as in debate type presentation of aurguments and rebuttals) with the ill equipped with opinions based on conjecture and assumptions.

There are so many topics I would like to discuss, exchange Ideas, teach and learn but, well it seams that those who post the most have the least to say.

I would much rather discuss the real Garden of Eden story.

Or how the atonement actually accomplishes what Christ says it does/will. 

Or what is the true nature of the Sealing Power.

Or the the process the earth goes through starting with the fall ending in it's celestialization

Or why the argument between Evolution and Creation is mote because they are both wrong.

But I find that what to many really wish to discuss is the failings they see in other people.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, co-eternal said:

Hey, you started this so that. So that puts your maturity the one in question.

I was not debating who started it. That was just a juvenile response devoid of wit.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, co-eternal said:

 

1) I don't take ad hominems as satire or parody, it is a crutch used to signal they are out of rational arguments but don't know better than to stop arguing.

2) You are correct, the only thing I have said that has anything to do with the temple ceremony is as you have said. How ever I did say something about truths hidden in plain sight in the endowment but that does not reveal any content of the endowment ceremony.

3) It is even more weird, from the perspective of a practicing LDS to see other supposibly practicing LDS demonstrate such ignorance of what they practice and intolerance to those to those who demonstrate knowledge of what they practice. (Mind you, this is not the first time or topic Calm and Nehor have exhibited this same type of response to my posts on topics I which have done considerable research.)

4) Not only am I not Anon's pupil, I am no ones puppet - Thanks for the compliment, rational and reasonable are what I am.

5) Didn't know that.

6) well I was, but ...  I find it difficult to have rational and reasonable arguments (as in debate type presentation of aurguments and rebuttals) with the ill equipped with opinions based on conjecture and assumptions.

There are so many topics I would like to discuss, exchange Ideas, teach and learn but, well it seams that those who post the most have the least to say.

I would much rather discuss the real Garden of Eden story.

Or how the atonement actually accomplishes what Christ says it does/will. 

Or what is the true nature of the Sealing Power.

Or the the process the earth goes through starting with the fall ending in it's celestialization

Or why the argument between Evolution and Creation is mote because they are both wrong.

But I find that what to many really wish to discuss is the failings they see in other people.

1) You still do not grasp what an ad hominem attack even is.

2) Wrong. Quoting snippets from the temple ceremony is verboten in the LDS faith and you used quite a few snippets.

3) You are a paragon of knowledge while claiming Catholicism was formed around Sumerian deities.....really?

4) Not sure that was a compliment. Said you were more rational then Anon. That is like being a better person then Hitler. It is a good thing but it is not something anyone should put on their resume or brag about.

6) it must be wearying for you to descend from your ivory tower of enlightenment to have to deal with us filthy ignoramuses.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1) You still do not grasp what an ad hominem attack even is.

2) Wrong. Quoting snippets from the temple ceremony is verboten in the LDS faith and you used quite a few snippets.

3) You are a paragon of knowledge while claiming Catholicism was formed around Sumerian deities.....really?

4) Not sure that was a compliment. Said you were more rational then Anon. That is like being a better person then Hitler. It is a good thing but it is not something anyone should put on their resume or brag about.

6) it must be wearying for you to descend from your ivory tower of enlightenment to have to deal with us filthy ignoramuses.

1) ad hominem is where you attack the messenger instead of the message - as in "a puppet of Anon" or "are you nuts"

2)  Prove it - list them all - you've made the claim, put up or shut up.

3) google, if you know how.

4) Anon is mor rational than you.

6) well, if you put it that way, yes

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

3) You are a paragon of knowledge while claiming Catholicism was formed around Sumerian deities.....really?
 

Practically all precepts of the Roman Catholic religion contradict
the Bible repeatedly. In this article, we are going to examine a few
Roman Catholic doctrines and compare them with the Authorized Version of 1611 of the Bible. The Roman Catholic church is the largest cult in the world and most preachers will not openly say so because it is so
large.
 
 
No, Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. 
Christianity is properly defined by certain doctrines that are revealed
in the Bible.  It is not defined by simply saying that as long as you
believe in Jesus, you're a Christian.  Mormons believe in Jesus, but
their Jesus is a brother of the devil in the pre-existence.  The Jesus
of the Jehovah's Witnesses is Michael the Archangel. So, just saying you
believe in Jesus doesn't make you a Christian.  This is why the Bible
tells us who Jesus really is--God in flesh, creator of the universe. 
Likewise, there are essential doctrines; and if any of those essential
doctrines are violated, then a church would only appear to be Christian
but not really be Christian.  What are those doctrines?  The Bible tells
us.  Let's take a look.
 
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is the only source of salvation for sinners. The Bible teaches the LORD Jesus Christ is the only Saviour.
Catholics are taught that the Catholic Church forgives sins. The Bible teaches that forgiveness comes directly from God through faith in Christ, not through church membership or sacraments.
Catholics believe the lie that Baptism saves. Water baptism saves nobody. Salvation must precede water baptism.
The Vatican claims Peter was The Rock upon whom Christ founded His Church. The Christ of the Holy Bible disagrees.
Popes claim they are infallible. The Holy Bible declares all men are corrupt. Only God is infallible.
Roman Catholic Priests and Leaders are infallible. This blasphemy is clearly exposed by recent publicity.
The Catholic Sacraments are essential for salvation. Nobody is saved by sacraments, but through faith in Christ alone.
The Catholic Church is the only correct interpreter of Scriptural doctrine. The Holy Spirit is the only Interpreter man needs.
Transubstantiation; God is formed into a wafer-biscuit at the priest's command. This unbiblical idolatrous blasphemy is taken from Babylonian sun worship.
The Eucharist keeps from sin. Only genuine heart faith in Christ takes away sin.
The Virgin Mary is a co-redeemer and saviour. This hideous blasphemy puts Mary into the Trinity, and breaks her heart.
 
When we talk about God we often need to talk about him in parts. Because
God is so big and our brains are so small, we need to be able to talk
about him in manageable chunks. That is why we sometimes talk about the
doctrine of the Trinity, or of Christ, of the church, of creation, and
so on. However, because God is one and presents himself to us as a
person, Jesus Christ, he is not reducible to those different parts; all
these parts impact on and affect each other. You can’t change your
doctrine about Jesus without it affecting your doctrine of the Trinity,
for example. That is why when we learn and teach about God we study in a
systematic way—so we can understand God best through an integrated and
coherent system of truths, not isolated ideas.
 
The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in
Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman
Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of
the
so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor
Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. Although Christianity
was not made the official religion of the
Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D.,
Constantine,
from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of
simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was
slowly
turning over the reins of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome.
However,
the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his
priesthood
until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the
title the
emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus –
a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine's
titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex
(Vicar of Christ and
Bishop of Bishops).
 
Catholic Church Built on Paganism
 
 
If you read the Word of God you will find no scripture to support the
use of symbols or images or statues in our faith. In fact, God even
warned
us not to use images in His law.
 
Exodus 20:4-5 ...'Thou shalt not make unto thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or
that is
in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou
shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy
God am a
jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto
the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.'
 
And yet the Roman Catholic church is FULL of these images and symbols
and statues. And the leaders of this church have gone so far as to
REMOVE the second
commandment from the Catholic Catechism. Why is that? Because the Roman
Catholic Church is built upon PAGANISM and WORSHIP OF FALSE GODS. And
the people of
the Catholic Church need to be woken up to this fact.
 
"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees;
incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons,
use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage,
turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan
origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine
John Henry 'Cardinal Newman' p.373)
 
Question: "What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church?"
 
 
Answer:
The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death,
resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The
Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died
for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that
the true origin of the Catholic Church?
 
On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal
that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of
Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the
papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary,
the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as
co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their
prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition
and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the
teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament,
what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
 
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by
the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed
after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD
313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325,
Constantine called the Council of Nicea
in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned
Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at
that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have
seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the
results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully
embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and
practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors
promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman
paganism.
 
The Church of Rome
Hislop considers the Church of Rome during the start of Catholicism and
into the Dark Ages. The symbol of the Church of Rome became the woman
with a cross in her left hand, and a cup in her right. It was said that
"the whole world is her seat." During the Dark Ages, the Bible was
sealed and unknown to the common man. People were forced to believe
like the
church
believed. The priests reserved the right of teaching
the faith, and the clergy sold dispositions of the true faith of
Christianity. They practiced celibacy and priest craft, and held a
mysterious power of dominion over the faith. Some did not even realize
that they had simply adopted the pagan customs of the ancient mystery religions.
 
It is not difficult to see how some of the traditions of these ancient
gods carried over into Christian Rome. Even in the first century, poems
confused the story of the divine father, mother, and son with the story
of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. In Japan, Spain, and India, there were
legends of three-headed gods which some confused with the trinity
of the Godhead. In many lands, mother-worship prevailed and was supported
by citing Genesis 3:15 as proof that the mother would bruise the heel
of Satan, and that she indeed had power over him. The Messiah is
sometimes seen as only a mediator between the goddess and mankind, instead of as a savior.
 
Mystery
A primary example of the analogies drawn between the Babylonian mystery
religions and Roman Catholicism is the practice of incorporating
certain well-kept secrets that are available to only a select few. Rome
insured that the common man was studiously kept in the dark, as did
Babylon. Throughout the years, Catholicism has become known for a
priesthood which seems to include only members of the clergy. By
discouraging the reading of the Bible in the common language of the
people, the
church
has also discouraged personal Bible study among its
non-clergy members. This in turn has tended to teach the laypersons to
become very dependent upon the clergy for Bible truths, and even for
access to God. This hardly seems in step with the priesthood of the
believer (1 Peter 2:5, 9), where we are all encouraged to enter into the
mind of God through His revealed Word.
 
Confession
Even the confessional had its roots in Babylon. All the people were
required to make secret confessions to the priest in a prescribed form,
if they were to be admitted, or initiated, into the "mysteries" of
their religion. They were commanded to keep secret about these
mysteries. Later, the Church of Rome began requiring the same type of
confession for admission to the sacraments. Even the symbol of the Halo
of Madonna was originated in Babylon as a disk symbol of the sun god.
 
 

To quote just  a few .......

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1) You still do not grasp what an ad hominem attack even is.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
  1. 1.
    (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
    "vicious ad hominem attacks"

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+ad+hominem&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Share this post


Link to post

Before you unequivocally trust those sources about Catholicism and take them as proven, fair, and well thought out I would encourage you to ask yourself what the writers of those articles would say if writing about the LDS faith and whether you would also uncritically accept anything they say about the LDS faith.

Those who write slapdash articles about Catholicism tend to be equally kind to our faith and equally accurate. Why would you trust one and not the other?

And why speculate? Is this a good article? https://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons-Christians.html

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, co-eternal said:
ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
  1. 1.
    (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
    "vicious ad hominem attacks"

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+ad+hominem&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Okay, now work on application. I have targeted what you have said. Ad hominem attacks are attacks divorced from what is said. Speculating about someone being a sock puppet is not ad hominem. It is based on what you said.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

4) co-eternal isn't Anon's sock puppet. Too rational.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

4) Not sure that was a compliment. Said you were more rational then Anon. That is like being a better person then Hitler. It is a good thing but it is not something anyone should put on their resume or brag about.

 

Just to be accurate , 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

The Roman Catholic church is the largest cult in the world 

😂

A Mormon is going to toss the c word at the Catholic Church? You are quite the character. I was pretty sure Mormons took a dim view of the cult label, since you’re usually on the receiving end of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

To quote just  a few .......

I can't believe that you would use those sites. Are you actually LDS?

To quote just a few from the exact sites you just used ....

from jesus-is-lord.com, under the "cults" section:

Quote

Mormonism takes people straight to hell.

from C***.org:

Quote

Yes, Mormonism is a non-christian cult. Mormonism denies the doctrines that make Christianity what it is, and it substitutes their new and different doctrines that are not taught in the Bible.

from gotherefor.com:

Quote

Nevertheless the differences are considerable and currently make it impossible for us to see Mormonism as anything other than a radical departure from Christianity. 

from eaec.org, under the "cults" section, webpage called "Cult of Mormonism":

Quote

Mormons belittle the Bible because their beliefs and practices are totally inconsistent with it. 

from gotquestions.org:

Quote

Question: "Are Mormons Christians? Are Mormons saved?"

Answer: Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity. In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult.

from christiandataresources.com:

Quote

The Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible and of Christians, but the literal brother of Lucifer in the 'premortal existence'

Got any other anti-Mormon sites you can quote for us? :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, co-eternal said:
Even the confessional had its roots in Babylon. All the people were
required to make secret confessions to the priest in a prescribed form,
if they were to be admitted, or initiated, into the "mysteries" of
their religion. They were commanded to keep secret about these
mysteries

I guess the temple recommend interview (prescribed questions) and the temple itself (admitted into the mysteries) are Babylonian, too?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Got any other anti-Mormon sites you can quote for us? :) 

I'm sure you know them all, but I have read many.

All these have some truths and some falsehoods. You have to read both and discern for yourself which is which.

I presented these to show that there is considerable evidence as to what I have said that is easily attained - rater than just responding "are you nuts".

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

I presented these to show that there is considerable evidence as to what I have said

No, you quoted from ridiculous websites that are not credible in the least. That is not considerable evidence. That is sloppy research.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

"The Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible and of Christians, but the literal brother of Lucifer in the 'premortal existence' "

Yep, this one is indeed true, at least partially. All inhabitants of this earth, mortal or spirit, are spirit sons and daughters of God. That includes Lucifer and Christ, so yes, Lucifer/Satan is Christ's spirit brother and he is also our spirit brother, just as Christ is.

 

If find it interesting to read criticisms of the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day-Saints that actually come right out of the Bible. Isn't that then a criticism of the doctrines of the Bible.

Edited by co-eternal

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By theplains
      I had a question on these verses.
      Abraham 3:4 - "And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the 
      manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one 
      revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years 
      according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the 
      Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob."
      Abraham 3:5 - "And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that 
      which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest 
      in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth 
      above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as 
      to its number of days, and of months, and of years."
      What is the context and meaning?
      Thanks,
      Jim
    • By theplains
      I had some questions on these verses.
      Abraham 1:11 - "Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who 
      were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham."
      What does it mean that royalty existed in the loins of Ham but not in the sons of Noah's
      other sons?
      Abraham 1:20,23-24 - "And the Lord broke down the altar of Elkenah, and of the gods of the land, 
      and utterly destroyed them, and smote the priest that he died; and there was great mourning 
      in Chaldea, and also in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood
      ... The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the 
      daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is 
      forbidden; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons 
      in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land."
        
      How does Pharaoh signify king by royal blood when Egypt signifies that which is forbidden?  How 
      was the curse preserved in Ham when 1:11 says royalty came from the loins of Ham?
      Thanks,
      Jim
    • By theplains
      This passage seems a little confusing so I have a few questions based on its meaning.
      Abraham 1:3 says, "It [the priesthood] was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers,
      from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the
      present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers
      unto me."
      Is priesthood the right of the firstborn or is this passage talking about two different things (the priesthood +
      the right of the firstborn)?
      If these are two separate things, what is the right of the firstborn?
      If they are the same things, why is the priesthood a right not available to the second or third born sons?  In
      the Book of Mormon, why are priests ordained regardless of whether they are the firstborn of their father or
      not (Mosiah 11:4-5)?
      Thanks,
      Jim
    • By theplains
      I had a few questions on this passage in Moses.
      Moses 6:55 says, "And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even
      so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to
      prize the good."
      How were Cain, Abel, and Adam's other children conceived in sin?  How did sin conceive in Abel's heart as
      he was growing up?
      Thanks,
      Jim
    • By theplains
      Moses 6:10 says, "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after
      his own image, and called his name Seth."
      Of all the sons born to Adam, why is there only a reference to Seth being born after Adam's own likeness
      and image?
      Thanks,
      Jim
×
×
  • Create New...