Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

InCognitus

Members
  • Posts

    2,445
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

2,411 profile views

InCognitus's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

4k

Reputation

  1. When you said that Ephraim would be allotted the entire world (in your post on February 29), you weren’t positing a theory if the Book of Mormon was true. It had nothing to do with the claims of the Book of Mormon. We were discussing Jacob’s blessing to Ephraim in Genesis 48:19, where it says that his seed “shall become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19). It was in response to this quote from me: So how can “a multitude of nations” be crammed into the little land area allotted to them by Joshua? They can’t. So obviously the little land area allotted to them by Joshua was only a portion of their overall inheritance. And these lands of inheritance aren’t exclusive. They weren’t exclusive during Bible times, so why should it be that way in the future? Exactly right. First of all, I have never said that verse 10 applies to multiple servants. I only said that about verse 12, where it says “the Lord” shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. “The Lord” will do that through his servants. Second, your interpretation that verse 10 only applies to Christ is problematic from the standpoint that you and I both agree that the gathering of Israel has already begun to some degree (and you didn’t address that portion of my comment above). Isaiah 11 says (in verse 10) that the “root of Jesse” shows up and an ensign is raised, and the Gentiles shall seek it, and then in verse 11 it says, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”. In other words, there is a direct correspondence with the root of Jesse showing up and the gathering of Israel beginning shortly after that. So I’ll ask the question again: Since the gathering of Israel has already begun, when did Jesus show up to begin this gathering? Was it on April 3, 1836, at the Kirtland temple? Or do you have something else in mind? How can Isaiah 11:10 be talking about Christ since the gathering of Israel has already begun? Not for individuals, but a blessing to a tribe is different (as it was in Genesis 48-49 and Deuteronomy 33). Those blessings are to the future of those tribes as a people, as is obvious from the context (Gen 49:1) and scope of those blessings (they were reiterated to the tribes over 400 years later by Moses in Deuteronomy 33). Those blessings extend to the tribes and their posterity. And the birthright blessing to Joseph is clearly seen as extending to the tribe in the future in Jeremiah 31:9. The “one portion above thy brethren” was given to Joseph, not specifically to Ephraim, although it extends through Ephraim in his inheritance. In the reallotment of the lands in Ezekiel 47:13-14, it says “Joseph shall have two portions”. Joseph was given the "double portion" birthright blessing (as pertaining to his sons Ephraim and Manasseh), but Ephraim was placed as the firstborn among the tribes of Israel when Ephraim and Manasseh they were adopted by Jacob (i.e. "And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben [replaced by Ephraim] and Simeon [replaced by Manasseh], they shall be mine." (Genesis 48:5)). As for what it means, a birthright is the right of inheritance of the firstborn, which normally includes land and other things. We’ve already had this discussion related to Exodus 19:5-6. (See our prior discussion on this from June 23, June 29, June 30, July 4, July 6, July 16, July 18, and July 24, 2023.) Did Exodus 19:5-6 include women? Since you never found any examples of women being included in the priesthood in Bible history, why would it be different in the reinstatement of that same priesthood opportunity today? Could second- and third-borns serve in the temple without being priests? They would be priests, just not the high priest ("ha- kohen"). But again, your prior comment about the “lands of inheritance around the world” had nothing to do with a “theory that the Book of Mormon was true”. I addressed that earlier. We were talking about the blessings given to Joseph by Jacob in the Bible, not the Book of Mormon. Would you say the same of the lands of inheritance around the world on the theory that the Bible is true? And it’s really easy to disprove claims like: “Based on what the Bible says about the land of inheritance in many places, there is no mention of land outside of Israel”, and “the Old Testament indicates Jerusalem is the only place where God put his name”, because all it takes is one contrary example to prove those claims wrong. As for the land of inheritance, I already pointed out that Psalm 37 (which was written to Israelites and Israel at the time of David) says in multiple places that the righteous “shall inherit the earth” (Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34), and it will be an inheritance that “shall be for ever”. There is no exclusion there of any of the tribes of Israel in this inheritance. As for the claim that Jerusalem is the only place where God put his name, it should be no surprise that none of the verses you referenced support your claim, as none of them indicate that Jerusalem is the only place that God ever did or will ever put his name. Furthermore, in my post on March 16, I referred to Deuteronomy 12:5 and 21, and Deuteronomy 14:23-25 in connection with where the Lord will “put his name”, and those verses are in reference to the tabernacle set up at Shiloh, as noted in Joshua 18:1. And the tabernacle set up at Shiloh is not in Jerusalem (it's 19 miles north). And in my post on April 7, I also pointed out that true believers are even said to have “the Father’s name written in their foreheads” (Rev 14:1). This is more than sufficient to disprove the notion that “Jerusalem is the only place where God put his name”. I’ve already answered this exact same “rationale” from you in my post on August 8, 2023. Read it again. My answer is the same. Also see my post on August 24, 2023.
  2. That there were poor during Solomon's time is indicated by Solomon's writings about the poor (i.e. Proverbs 22:22 is one of many examples). But Solomon's taxation system contributed to the problem (1 Kings 5:13-18 as an example). And 1 Kings 12:1-4 describes the agitation the Israelites had over the burden of heavy taxation and forced labor under king Solomon. So there was definitely poverty during that period of time. As Stargazer has already explained, the temple at Jerusalem was different given that it was constructed for operation under the Mosaic law. But even so, the temple was seen as important enough in Christian times, so much so that Luke both begins and ends his gospel in the temple. Do you mean after the temple was destroyed in 70 AD? (It didn't exist anymore). But if you mean before that, the book of Acts includes numerous visits to the temple and Paul returned to Jerusalem to go to the temple (Acts 21:26-30). But it was not for the same reasons we go to the temple today.
  3. I already addressed this question (indirectly) in my post on March 19, although not a clear as I could have said it. Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. And Jesus conferred upon each of his apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. Peter (who was the presiding leader of the church at that time) was the only person on earth authorized to exercise all those priesthood keys until the time of his death. And this would be how it applied to the verses in Matthew 18. This was my point, but it also shows that this was not intended "for all believers". The same goes for the gifts of the Spirit. You can't just take those verses to mean that anyone can do all of what is said there to the eleven apostles, the signs have a specific context. Regarding my comments on Luke 9:49-50, you said: I'll repeat what I said last time (since you are asking the same question again): "The Bible doesn’t say how the person in Luke 9:49-50 received his authority." Where did I focus on the disciples who had rebuked him? (I didn't). And did I say he didn't have the authority to do what he did? No. So why are you making up an argument to attack that I did not make? (That's known as the "straw man" logical fallacy, by the way). So I'm going to repeat what I said last time. Since the Bible doesn't say how the man received his authority, we can treat this example in one of two ways: Do we do what you are doing, and assert that the person received the authority directly from God by believing he had the authority without any biblical support whatsoever? Or do we look at the rest of the Bible and see that this same “power” was given by ordination to others, like the way it was given to apostles and elders all through the New Testament? I say the biblical approach is much more reasonable. I realize you believe this. I just don't find any biblical support for that approach (and I've looked). The Bible doesn't provide the complete details, but clearly Paul and Barnabas viewed the apostles at Jerusalem to be the authority on those matters given what we find in Acts 15 (especially verses 2-4 and 22-29). Obviously Jesus did when Paul had his vision on the road to Damascus. Jesus rebuked Paul for persecuting him and his people, and afterward Paul testified to others of his vision and conversion and to the reality that Jesus is the Christ and his resurrection (as any of us would certainly do under the same circumstances). The additional apostles do emphasize the fact that the office of apostle was intended to continue on in the church until "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God". And you acknowledge here that the apostles had to be "acknowledged as such by the early Church", which is exactly what I have been saying. CV75 addressed this already above. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure the moderators have their reasons, there are board rules (and I've been trying to warn you about that by having multiple login names). I'm going to be busy this week anyway, I have a business trip all week and a talk to give in Sacrament meeting next Sunday. So I'll be out as well.
  4. I know I've already commented on what you said above, but I've been in the process of preparing a talk for Sacrament meeting next Sunday (I'm going to be out of town this week so I can't procrastinate), and I came across this statement from (then) President Gordon B. Hinckley from an April 1998 Conference address: "Now, in conclusion I wish to make an announcement. As I have previously indicated, in recent months we have traveled far out among the membership of the Church. I have been with many who have very little of this world’s goods. But they have in their hearts a great burning faith concerning this latter-day work. They love the Church. They love the gospel. They love the Lord and want to do His will. They are paying their tithing, modest as it is. They make tremendous sacrifices to visit the temples. They travel for days at a time in cheap buses and on old boats. They save their money and do without to make it all possible. They need nearby temples—small, beautiful, serviceable temples. Accordingly, I take this opportunity to announce to the entire Church a program to construct some 30 smaller temples immediately....." As has already been said by others, I think this sends a positive message to people in this situation to provide to them easier access to temples.
  5. It's late and I'm sleepy, and I haven't even watched this video yet, but my sister just sent me a text telling me that the guy (his name is David) who has the YouTube channel, "52 Churches in 52 Weeks" got baptized this week! The point of his YouTube channel was to visit a different church every week for an entire year and talk about his experience in his video. I started wondering about the guy when he visited a different ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than once and attended General Conference a year ago this month, and I posted about that last year: I watched a few of his videos for some of the various churches he visited, but obviously the Latter-day Saint encounters were of the most interest to me. But here is his latest video: He says in a comment, "One thing I didn't address is the future of the channel. I do hope to visit various churches in the future while diving into LDS, though will need to be very strategic and wouldn't plan to be 52 consecutive weeks. Travel, expenses, and time would be too much. I'll address further in the future."
  6. But none of the above has anything to do with the portions of the Savior's sermon that are parallel to the sermon on the mount. As the manual Religion 275 manual states: "3 Nephi 12:1–16, 43–45; 13:1, 5–7, 16–18, 22–24, 33; 14:1–5, 21–27 - Christ’s sermon at the temple in Bountiful teaches us how to be like Him". The sermon on the mount portion doesn't start until chapter 12. That the Book of Mormon version is differing from Matthew on those verses shows that the Book of Mormon account is far more aware of the context of that sermon than was included in Matthew. The Book of Mormon account reads as follows in those verses: "And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?" (3 Nephi 13:25-26) Compare the above to the context that Luke includes for this same portion of the sermon, in Luke 12:22-24, where Jesus shifts his focus of his discussion from "the innumerable multitude of people" that had gathered (Luke 12:1) to his disciples: "And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?" (Luke 12:22–24) Yes, Matthew left that part out. But there is clearly an indication that Jesus shifted his audience in the account provided by Luke. This commentary explains it quite well, from Joseph F. McConkie, Robert L. Millet, and Brent L. Top, volume 4 of Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon:
  7. Do you believe the tabernacle was also extravagant (as commanded by the Lord), with the overlay of pure gold for the ark of the covenant, and the mercy seat of pure gold, and the two cherubim of gold, and the table of shittim wood overlaid with pure gold, and the pillars of wood overlaid with gold and their hooks of gold, and the altar of incense overlaid with pure gold etc. etc.? (See Exodus 25-26, 28, 30). Are you suggesting there were no impoverished people in that region? Israel had commandments regarding the poor among them going back to the beginning (i.e. Exodus 23:11). And years later, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, it says "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it... And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land." (2 Kings 24:11–14) And in 2 Kings 25:12, when more of the people were carried away into Babylon, it says "But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen." (2 Kings 25:12) (Jeremiah 40:7 says something similar).
  8. This has been my point all along, that there is a gathering that occurs prior to them returning to their own lands. It happens when the tribes of Israel are taught the gospel and come to Christ and come to recognize who they are. I also don’t believe all Israelites need to become Christians before being gathered back to their land, but the people among the lost tribes need to recognize who they are somehow, and coming to Christ is one of the ways they do that. Previously you did not accept that view, but now I see that you recognize that has to be the case. I also realize you don’t believe places like America are lands of inheritance, although you did recognize that Ephraim would basically be allotted the entire world (in your post on February 29). So what's the difference? I see it mentioned in the Old Testament seminary manual. Some believe Ishmael and/or Zoram were Ephraimites and the Mulekites were of Judah. If the stick of Joseph is a reference to the Book of Mormon, then what is the testimony of Ephraim in it? Where does the Old Testament seminary manual say that the two writing tablets do NOT represent the two nations? (Hint: They don’t). This is what the Old Testament Institute manual says about this topic: Notice that the manual doesn’t say that this interpretation is “wrong”, it says “such an interpretation is by no means complete”. That’s exactly what I said: “such an interpretation is incomplete, because the two writing tablets have further meaning than merely representing the two nations. They also represent the testimony of the two nations.” And this is what the Old Testament Seminary manual says about it: “When the twelve tribes of Israel were divided into two kingdoms, the Northern Kingdom was ruled by the tribe of Ephraim and the Southern Kingdom was ruled by the tribe of Judah. When all of the Lord’s people receive the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, the twelve tribes will be reunited.” (Old Testament Seminary Student Material, p. 731) It goes on to say: Both manuals make it clear that Ephraim is the representative tribe of the Northern Kingdom and not necessarily the subject matter of the witness contained on the writing tablets, and the “stick of Joseph” is for the descendants of Joseph (not limited to the tribe of Ephraim). In the case of the Bible, we have some ancient manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew that can be viewed for translation purposes. Different translators used them to produce various English equivalents. In the case of the Book of Mormon, we have to rely on it being a translation from Reformed Egyptian into English and other languages but the original was reportedly taken back to heaven. The Dead Sea Scrolls did not increase my testimony of God or change my view of God's involvement with the house of Israel. You didn’t really answer my question. You refer to various known Bible manuscripts and related texts but they are all about the Bible lands and are related to existing scripture. And that isn’t really addressing the reality of God’s possible involvement in other nations with the scattered tribes of Israel, or that God is the same God today as he was in Bible times and would work with people today in the exact same way he did in Bible times and give more scripture. Yes, we will at some point. You are drawing assumptions again from verses out of context. John was writing about his gospel when he wrote what’s in John 21:25, and he wasn’t addressing the “sufficiency” of his gospel as it applied to all the works of God and his Son or even to the “sufficiency” and totality of the canon of scripture, because he says nothing of the sort. Rather, he was only writing of events related to the ministry of Jesus Christ within his time. He wrote enough that we might believe in Jesus Christ and have life through his name, but John makes it clear elsewhere that there is much more to what God offers, and even more to teach the people of the church than what John wrote in his epistles (2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13-14 for example). Those aren’t the kinds of covenants the title page is talking about. There are 154 references to “covenants” in the Book of Mormon. The covenants being referred to in the Book of Mormon (and on its Title Page) are the covenants made with Abraham and his seed, as well as to the house of Israel. Those covenants include them being gathered again in the latter days. The Book of Mormon makes that quite clear, and there are not many Christian groups today, other than the Latter-day Saints, that recognize those ancient covenants. And they are covenants that are still valid. Regarding my discussion of the context of Isaiah 11:10-12 where I said that the "he" in verse 12 is Christ [the Lord] doing those things through a servant (or servants) in the hands of Christ, you said: Short of Jesus returning to the earth for his second coming and doing this personally, how do you propose that Jesus would be doing this already? You’ve already agreed in prior posts that the gathering of Israel has already begun to some degree. So how is Jesus the sole servant doing this right now without the assistance of Christians? Biblically speaking, the Lord frequently causes things to happen according to his will through his servants, i.e. 1 Kings 8:53: “For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord God.” In the latter days the Lord has been gathering Israel in the same way he brought them out of Egypt, speaking his word through his servants and sending his servants out to gather Israel. I believe Joseph Smith is the most likely candidate to be that person, yes. Yes, I did see it. But what are your thoughts on the church's teaching about the literal changing of the blood into the blood of Abraham? I don’t have any particular thoughts about it. They speak for themselves. I answered this previously (see my post on March 16). I said, “the firstborn son was given a right to the priesthood in ancient Bible history prior to Israel breaking the covenant that God made with them on Mount Sinai. This isn’t explicitly taught in the Bible, but it is part of Jewish tradition that this was so.” There are hints of this in the Old Testament (like with the priests of Exodus 19:22 and the other references elsewhere in this post), but it mostly comes from sources outside the Bible. And the Jewish sources I quoted demonstrate that this belief is not “peculiar to the LDS faith”, as you claimed. I don’t have any direct belief related to your question above. We simply don’t have that information. But Joseph received this same kind of blessing from the Lord as did Benjamin and Naphtali, because in verse 16 (using the NIV translation) it says Joseph is blessed “with the best gifts of the earth and its fullness and the favor of him who dwelt in the burning bush.” The Lord favors Joseph. Yes, you quoted the verses (just as I did). Can you see how this is greater than all the other blessings? Joseph is blessed here in everything he does and even in his posterity, and even with favor from the Lord (the one whose presence was in the bush). That verse doesn’t specify specific land boundaries, but I believe his land inheritance is the same as what Jacob bestowed upon Ephraim in Genesis 48:19, saying that his “seed shall become a multitude of nations”, basically covering the entire world, as you agreed in your post on February 29: The "entire world" covers everything. Yes, and it’s the “one portion above thy brethren” birthright that was given to Joseph through Ephraim in place of Ruben among the tribes of Israel (Genesis 48:5 and 22). This verse actually says that “Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of them [Judah]”, which is a fulfillment of Genesis 49:5-7 (they are scattered in Israel). Otherwise, what’s your point in quoting this? Yes, two portions to Joseph (among the “twelve” tribes) which establishes that he (as a tribe) was given the double portion birthright blessing. Again, you aren’t considering the actual promises and are limiting your views to the land allotted at the time of Joshua. Clearly there is more to the inheritance of Joseph than that land area, considering that he would “become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19) and that he received “one portion above” his brethren (Genesis 48:22). And this doesn't account for the re-allotment of the land as described in Ezekiel 47 and 48. You did acknowledge previously that Joseph’s inheritance would be to all the world, so you really can’t discount America as being part of that. So, after everything you posted above to those three questions I asked in my prior post, do you believe the promises of God related to Joseph and Ephraim? If you do, then you should see that those blessings of Joseph obviously surpass the blessings of his brethren because Joseph (as a tribe) had the birthright. This “right” belongs to the firstborn, and it says, “Firstborns had a special role in the sacrificial service”, but nowhere does it say that none of the others can hold the priesthood. And the fact that the firstborns had a “special role” implies that others had a role of some kind. So, you are merely assuming that none of the others can hold the priesthood without any evidence. Yes, the verses above indicate that God intended for Israel to be a “kingdom of priests” and not just limiting the priesthood to the Levites, as was done later on. It is true that “Israel” is also called God’s firstborn in Exodus 4:22, because “Israel” as a people were the firstborn of the people of God. But in the context of that verse, the northern and southern kingdoms did not even exist yet, so it would be wrong to use that verse out of context to try to explain why the northern kingdom (Ephraim, which is sometimes called “Israel”) is called the “firstborn” over 850 years later at the time of Jeremiah when Judah was being taken captive by the Babylonians. I think the Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers, speaking about Jeremiah 31:9, puts this in its proper context: “Ephraim is my firstborn.—Ephraim stands here, as often elsewhere (e.g., Hosea 11:3; Hosea 11:12; Hosea 13:1; Hosea 13:12) for the whole northern kingdom of the Ten Tribes, of which it was the most conspicuous member. The term ‘firstborn’ is used, as an echo of Exodus 4:22, as marking out Ephraim as the object of the special favour of Jehovah, the birthright of Reuben having been transferred to the sons of Joseph (1Chronicles 5:1). The prominence of Ephraim over the other tribes is conspicuous throughout the whole history (Judges 12:1-3). The prophet apparently recognized it as taking its place once more in the restored unity of the people, when the king should be of the house of David, Jerusalem the centre of worship, Ephraim the leading tribe. (Comp. the contemporary prophecy of Ezekiel 37:19.) It is not without interest to note how the northern prophet looks to Judah as more faithful than Ephraim (Hosea 11:12), while Jeremiah turns from the sins of the princes and priests of Judah to look with hope on the remnant of Israel.” God’s firstborn was not Levi, rather, Levi took the place of the firstborn’s right to the priesthood: “And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.” (Numbers 3:12–13) God’s firstborn is still Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9). I don’t find anywhere that the priesthood was limited only to the firstborn, but rather the firstborn had a special role in the sacrificial service. It’s not the piling on alone that’s the problem. Remember, as your webpage says, “confusion arises when scripture is taken out of context”. You and your webpage present only one side of what the Bible says about Ephraim and Judah (and from primarily one part of Israel’s history), and don’t even acknowledge the promises that are made to Ephraim as well as Judah, both from the beginning and in the future. It’s a hypercritical objection to Latter-day Saint doctrine that causes a severe one-sided misreading of scripture. Instead of trying to find flaws with Latter-day Saint teachings or focusing on the differences between Latter-day Saint teachings and Protestant beliefs, you should try the positive approach taken by the Bereans, where they searched the scriptures to see “whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11 – they searched to find out if the things Paul taught were true, not to find fault with what he said). If you are searching only to find fault, it may prevent you from seeing what the scriptures actually say and lead to serious error. (A thread where you tried to pick apart what President Nelson said concerning the events that transpired on the mount of transfiguration comes to mind). That they are given the land of Israel doesn’t negate the other promises made to some of the tribes, where they inherit other lands as well. Remember, there is more to some of their promises than just the land of Israel as you agreed with regard to Joseph (inheriting the entire world, essentially, which does not specifically exclude America). Again, your whole assumption about Jesus being the only high priest is based on picking and choosing information about the high priest in Old Testament times. You are thinking only in terms of the post exilic function of a high priest under the law of Moses. Remember, prior to Israel breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai, the firstborn son of every family functioned as the High Priest of their family. So there were multiple high priests at that time. And during this period Moses prepared and sanctified many “priests” (Exodus 19:22) who were to later go up to Sinai with Moses, where Moses further prepared them (Exodus 24:1-8) until at last: “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.” (Exodus 24:9–11). These were obviously high priests, because this privilege of going into the presence of God was later only afforded to the high priest. And not only that, but there is good indication that the function of the high priest was changed when the priestly code was established in the post exilic period, because prior to that time there are indications where there was more than one high priest, like when Abiathar and Zadok were high priests at the same time under David and Solomon. Here are some examples where Abiathar and Zadok simultaneously bore the title "ha- kohen": 2 Samuel 8:17: “And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe”. 2 Samuel 19:11: “And king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests”. 2 Samuel 19:11: “And king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even to his house.” 1 Kings 1:7–8: “And he conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah, and with Abiathar the priest: and they following Adonijah helped him. But Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and Nathan the prophet, and Shimei, and Rei, and the mighty men which belonged to David, were not with Adonijah.” 1 Kings 4:4: “And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host: and Zadok and Abiathar were the priests”. So there is really no Old Testament precedent for the idea that Christ “is the one and only High Priest” in New Testament times. In fact, through his atonement, Jesus makes it possible for us to be unto me a kingdom of priests unto God, and an holy nation (Exodus 19:6), so that there are many high priests who can pass through the veil and enter the holy place, very much like the time prior to Israel breaking their covenant with God when Moses was preparing the elders of Israel to go up and see God (Exodus 19 and 24). It is Ephraim (the single tribe) that represents the other nine tribes in that context (which also explains why Ephraim is called the “firstborn”), as it was explained in the two commentaries I quoted in my last post. I don’t have any information on this other than what God promised that tribe in those blessings. Obviously, God had something more in mind in those promises than what we know about, which is why we can’t put limits on what we think these tribes will inherit. It’s certainly more than what got allotted to Zebulun when Joshua divided the lands. And I’ll quote you again on this one from your post on February 29: Where do you see the land inheritance of America being excluded in a promise that he would allotted the entire world? Do you view Joshua being given a "charge" the same as Joshua being ordained a priest? He laid hands on him for the ordination, the “charge” means to commission or appoint him. The Brenton translation of this verse (Numbers 27:23) from the Septuagint reads: “And he laid his hands on him, and appointed him as the Lord ordered Moses.” And from the NKJV: “And he laid his hands on him and inaugurated him, just as the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses.” And from the NASB20: “Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses.” Parts of 2 Nephi chapter 3 are references to Joseph Smith, that is true. But that’s not all you are “just saying”. You’ve offered nothing new to support your misconstruing of the meaning of those verses, and the Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual certainly doesn’t support your interpretation that Joseph Smith is of the lineage of Lehi, so why would you even quote it? As explained before, you are misconstruing the phrase “rise up…among them” (in verse 24) to mean being of the lineage of those people, and that view is not supported from the context. This was answered already above.
  9. There’s a difference between “teachings of Christ” and directives given by Jesus to the men he called to represent him. And I’m saying that it is dangerous to take verses out of context and assume that if Jesus says something to one person, then it applies to all. The context generally gives us clues about how the teachings or directives apply. We know from other verses that these gifts of the spirit apply to other people as well (Acts 2:1-18, 1 Corinthians 12-14). So this doesn’t help your case for trying to make Mark 16:17-18 apply to everyone. Do you drink poison and handle snakes? If not, why don’t you apply Mark 16:17-18 the same way to those items? The Bible doesn’t say how the person in Luke 9:49-50 received his authority. So, we can treat this example in one of two ways: Do we do what you are doing, and assert that the person received the authority directly from God by believing he had the authority without any biblical support whatsoever? Or do we look at the rest of the Bible and see that this same “power” was given by ordination to others, like the way it was given to apostles and elders all through the New Testament? I say the biblical approach is much more reasonable. But I understand why you might prefer the non-biblical approach, because otherwise how will you support any claims to authority? But this goes against your whole argument, because Paul goes on to explain that not everyone has each of these gifts given to them. He compares the church to a body that has many members. The body has ears, eyes, a nose, etc., and every member is different. He even points out that not all are apostles or prophets or teachers or workers of miracles or have the gift of healing, as you assume by taking Mark 16 out of context. And the fact that these gifts come from the Holy Spirit doesn’t negate that some of them are bestowed through blessings of ordination, like what Paul wrote to Timothy: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Timothy 4:14) Except you have no scripture to back up that claim. It’s a non-Biblical idea, made-up to try to legitimize the schisms from Catholicism. Yes, they were not authentic followers because they tried to assume they had authority simply by believing. They believed they could cast out demons in the name of Jesus, but they couldn’t. Isn’t that the same approach you are taking? Ananias had not ordained Paul. Paul was called [ordained] of God (Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1). In a similar way, John the Baptist was called [ordained] from the womb; baptized with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15). To be “called” is not the same as being “ordained”. As Jesus said, “many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14). And none of the verses you provided say that Paul was ordained by God. In fact, Romans 1:1 shows that Paul refers to being set apart unto the gospel of God, which recalls a situation similar to the incident in Acts 13:1-3 where Paul and Barnabas were set apart for the ministry. As for 1 Corinthians 1, it says Paul was “called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God”. We can again look to Acts 13:1-3 and see that both Paul and Barnabas were called by the Holy Ghost and “set apart… for the work whereunto I have called them”, and they were ordained by the laying on of hands. This was definitely “through the will of God”. Do you want to try again? All of this has already been addressed earlier in my post. Jesus called Paul. But do you have a verse that says Jesus ordained Paul? No. Did Paul “seek” the calling? On the contrary, he was preaching against Jesus until he was set straight. So who gets to be the one to decide if you are interpreting and sharing the scriptures accurately? You? You say you don’t need someone like Peter or Paul to authorize your teachings, but how would you know? You teach that Jesus ordained Paul without a shred of scriptural support. You teach that Mark 16:17-18 applies to everyone instead of just the eleven individuals that Jesus was addressing (with the snake handling and poison drinking included), which is contrary to what Paul taught later in 1 Corinthians 12. This kind of thinking leads to what Paul referred to as being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine”, and he explained that the very thing that prevents that from happening is the authorized leadership that you seem to reject. As he explains in Ephesians 4:11-14: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” And why did he give them? “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” And how long did he intend for us to have them? “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” And what does this prevent? “That we henceforth be no more 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” Are we in the unity of the faith yet? It doesn’t matter what I think about Paul meeting with Peter. What matters is why did Paul feel the need to include his going to meet with Peter in his defense, to the Galatians, for his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ? It seems like such an incidental thing to include unless it meant something to Paul in his defense of his authority, for that is what Paul was trying to establish.
  10. There is a difference between Jesus talking to “disciples” in a generic sense, and the twelve disciples that he chose and ordained as apostles and gave them power. All followers of Christ are disciples, but not all are chosen to be his apostles, and you shouldn’t confuse the two. As it says in Matthew 10: “And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease….. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:1, 5-6) The verses above don’t apply to all disciples, but only to the twelve that Jesus chose and ordained. And it is dangerous to take verses out of context like you did, where you assume that the same authority applies to everyone, or you may end up just like the seven sons of Sceva thinking you have authority that the demons didn't recognize at all (i.e. "And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?") And it is quite clear that in both Mark 16:17 and Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus is only speaking to the “eleven” apostles: “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven… And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world….” (Mark 16:14-15) “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain… And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying… Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…” (Matthew 28:16-19) I’m not saying that Jesus couldn’t command others (including women) to do the same thing (I certainly believe he has at different times), but you can’t make that call just from reading those verses out of context. This still doesn’t explain why Paul thought it was important to say that he went to see Peter when he was trying to establish his authority to the saints at Galatia, some of which were accusing him of teaching a different gospel than Christ taught so that his message would appeal to the Gentiles. You post offhand and offtrack red-herring comments like the above, and you wonder how it is that I know you are the same person as theplains, marineland, TheTanakas, and telenetd. How could anyone ever question it? The quote you posted is from Moroni’s fourth visit to Joseph Smith, not the first vision, by the way. Acts 9:15-20 - “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. There’s no mention of ordination at all in the passage above. Do you want to try again? Ananias laying hands on Paul to heal him (by restoring his sight) is not an ordination. Again, there is a big difference between us going out on our own and sharing and preaching the gospel message with others (we all can do that), and a person who is called and set apart and ordained as an official representative of Christ’s church to preach the gospel. There is order in Christ’s church. Jesus said to his twelve apostles, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” (John 15:16). “And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils” (Mark 3:14–15). “Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.” (Luke 9:1–2) As Paul taught to the Ephesians, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11), and not all are apostles or called by the church and set apart to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 12:28-29). If there was no authority required by Peter to preach, then why do the verses I quoted above say that Jesus gave them the authority to do just that? When Paul had his vision, he rightly preached what he learned and what he witnessed to others, just as any of us would. But he wasn’t authorized as an official representative of Christ’s church until he was called and sent out later (as Acts 13:1-3 partially shows). And this is the very thing that Paul was trying to establish in his letter to the Galatians in his defense of his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. I think the aspect of ordination applies primarily to individuals seeking a formal role within the church structure, such as serving as an elder or teacher. This is just wrong. This isn’t something that an individual “seeks”. Remember, Jesus said “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you”. Paul wrote to Titus that there “are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Titus 1:10–11). Those are among the kind of people who “seek” to preach to others. And in the same letter, Paul told Titus to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Titus 1:5). These offices are not sought by the individuals, nor are they assumed simply by believing one has the authority, rather they are appointed and ordained by those who are in authority, the God chosen leaders of the church. As explained above, there is a big difference between Paul preaching of his conversion and his vision experience to others (the mere turn around of his attitude toward Christ’s church would definitely get attention and be a witness to the power of Christ on its own), and Paul being called to the ministry as he was later on. The former requires no authority, but the latter definitely does as the verses I listed above demonstrate.
  11. This is a good description of one of them: "And the house, that is, the temple before it, was forty cubits long. And the cedar of the house within was carved with knops and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen. And the oracle he prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of the Lord. And the oracle in the forepart was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof: and he overlaid it with pure gold; and so covered the altar which was of cedar. So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold. And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold." (1 Kings 6:17–22) Do you think that temple sent a negative message to the impoverished people of that community?
  12. I was still able to view it on my phone, but the count column seemed to land in a gray area of the screen (literally)
  13. Did anyone else notice how many times "temples" and temple covenants were discussed in this General Conference? I did a count of the word "Temple" Tuesday evening when the conference transcripts came online (not counting "Temple" in the talk title), and this is what I came up with: Session Speaker Title Temple Sat AM Jeffrey R. Holland Motions of a Hidden Fire 1 J. Anette Dennis Put Ye On the Lord Jesus Christ 8 Alexander Dushku Pillars and Rays Ulisses Soares Covenant Confidence through Jesus Christ 27 Jack N. Gerard Integrity: A Christlike Attribute Henry B. Eyring All Will Be Well Because of Temple Covenants 29 Sat PM David A. Bednar “Be Still, and Know That I Am God” 3 Massimo De Feo Rise! He Calleth Thee Brent H. Nielson A Record of What I Have Both Seen and Heard 6 Jose L. Alonso Jesus Christ at the Center of Our Lives Gerrit W. Gong All Things for Our Good 11 Michael T. Nelson In Support of the Rising Generation Quentin L. Cook Be One with Christ 1 Sat PM2 Shayne M. Bowen Miracles, Angels, and Priesthood Power 3 Steven R. Bangerter Foreordained to Serve Andrea Muñoz Spannaus Faithful to the End Matthew L. Carpenter Fruit That Remains 3 Dieter F. Uchtdorf A Higher Joy Sun AM Ronald A. Rasband Words Matter 4 Susan H. Porter Pray, He Is There 1 Dale G. Renlund The Powerful, Virtuous Cycle of the Doctrine of Christ 1 Paul B. Pieper Trust in the Lord Patrick Kearon God’s Intent Is to Bring You Home 1 Brian K. Taylor Swallowed Up in the Joy of Christ Dallin H. Oaks Covenants and Responsibilities 17 Sun PM D. Todd Christofferson The Testimony of Jesus 2 Taylor G. Godoy Call, Don’t Fall 5 Gary E. Stevenson Bridging the Two Great Commandments 1 Mathias Held Opposition in All Things Neil L. Andersen Temples, Houses of the Lord Dotting the Earth 28 Mark L. Pace It Is Wisdom in the Lord That We Should Have the Book of Mormon Russell M. Nelson Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys 27 Total Mention of the word "Temple" 179 Out of 32 talks, 20 of them talked about the temple one or more times. And the word "temple" was mentioned 179 times in all of General Conference. Edit: Sorry about the formatting for those who try to view this on a smart phone, I tried to skinny it up, and it didn't work out too well.
  14. Of course it comes down to whether or not it is God's will or not, but in the situation with the seven sons of Sceva, it's obviously more than just that, because the demons didn't recognize their authority at all (i.e. "And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?") It's as if the demons were saying, "who are you to command me? You have no authority over me." (Even though they were commanded in the name of Jesus). Given that the context of Mark 16:17 shows that those words were spoken to the eleven apostles (see verse 14), I don't see how you can make that assumption. That's pure speculation. Don't try to twist my words. Paul going to see Peter obviously meant something to Paul in trying to prove his authority to the Galatians, or otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it in his defense regarding the validity of his apostleship, Oh really? Can you show me where the text says that Paul was ordained by Christ on the road to Damascus? None of this answers the question. If the authority to do these things is simply assumed by a believer because they believe in Christ, why then were they ordained and set apart to do those very things they were called to do? And where did the people who ordain them get their authority to call them and ordain them? But then why would Paul find it important to say he went to Peter to tell him of his experience, when Paul was trying to establish his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ to the saints at Galatia? How would conversing with Peter help his case? It doesn't hurt anything, and I'm not mistaken. It helps me to know where you're coming from.
  15. Both of those are often taken out of context to try to assert that all of Brigham Young's talks in the Journal of Discourses are as good as scripture. The context is important. For example, the first one from Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.95, Brigham Young, January 2, 1870: "Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains." Did Brigham Young do that? The second quote also includes the same form of correction and approval process.
×
×
  • Create New...