Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by InCognitus

  1. I see family and relationship with God as one in the same, because our relationship with God is a family relationship. What I say below I have posted before (here), but it's relevant again... When we were studying the Old Testament a couple of years ago, I came across a Jewish tradition regarding the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The tradition is that the Ten Commandments were written on two tablets of stone, with five commandments written on each tablet. The first tablet was said to contain the five laws related to man’s relationship to God, and the second to contai
  2. Yeah, on a boat I think I would be doing that too since there's no pet door that you can close at night. Although you could anchor the boat about nine feet from the dock. That might be enough, unless you have the cat that can teleport or catapult.
  3. There are so many stories I could tell like this, although I'm not on a boat (that would be bad). Cat #1: One of my kids found a pregnant mother cat abandoned at the local community college and brought it home. We raised the kittens she had until they were old enough to give away. One of her kittens grew up to be quite a hunter. She was a small cat, very small framed, but that didn't deter her at all in her hunting skills (I think it may have been an advantage). One day we heard a terrible noise coming from the area where we had our pet door, and the cat was struggling to pull a li
  4. 2 Tim 2:12 "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:" Mat 10:33 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Titus 1:16 "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." Serious stuff here. Given that denying God is done through works, it would seem that acknowledging or believing in God would also come through works or the bearing of good fruit.
  5. That bird was incredibly warped, and I think the cat would have eaten the bird given the chance, but don't let that spoil the moment for you.
  6. Based on an Elder's Quorum study of Elder Oaks' conference talk today, I thought of this picture I had taken of our cat from several years ago. As Elder Oaks says (quoting Jesus from Matthew 5:44):
  7. I'm curious to know your take on the commentary on Genesis 32:25 from Nachmanides (Ramban) found here (it's in Hebrew - and my verse reference is using the verse numbering from the Torah on that website, it correlates to Genesis 32:24 in our KJV). Matthew B. Brown made a reference to this source using the Charles B. Chavel translation of his commentary in a presentation titled, "The Israelite Temple and the Early Christians" given at the 2008 FairMormon Conference (this is the video and this is the transcript). Matthew Brown said (according to the Nachmanides source using the Charles B. Cha
  8. Earlier (in this post) you said "I believe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are distinct beings", and I think you said that the God Jesus worships is the only God of Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6 (correct me if I'm wrong). So if Jesus is a distinct being from his Father and Jesus is "both God and man" (as you say here), is the God Jesus worships a separate being who is also God? We've talked about that so many times now (here, here, and especially here) and you seemed to finally understand it here in this post (quoted below): We've also talked about this next question several
  9. Not for Alexa, but I did try it for "Hey Google". I saw the Church News story on Gospel Voice between Saturday conference sessions and that was the first time I heard about it, so I tried it one time. It worked.
  10. I immediately thought of this thread when I watched comedian John Branyan tell the story of the Three Little Pigs in the language of William Shakespeare. The first minute of the video is on another topic, so if you only want to hear the lead up to and the Three Little Pigs part, forward to about the one minute mark. The Three Little Pigs in Early Modern English:
  11. This is essentially the same principle as is taught in the Bible, James 4:4–8: If people persist in that type of behavior (i.e they "continue in their sin"), then they are being "a friend of the world" and therefore they are "the enemy of God". But Jesus taught us to love our enemies. I'm pretty sure that God will practice what he preaches and love his enemies too, but his judgments are carried out against their behavior.
  12. I know I already responded to your post once, but by total coincidence I was listening to articles from the January 2020 Ensign when I went for a walk this evening, and I listened to this article: "Knowing Is Nice but Not Enough", By Steven C. Harper, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University. The article has several accounts from people who talked to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. As one example, here's a quote from the journals of William McLellin. This backs up what I was saying about the lack of plausibility for the conspiracy claim: Why wou
  13. I think I've said something about this idea previously, but the plausibility of the conspiracy theory (that all of Joseph's friends and family were in on it) falls apart when you test that theory to see if it makes sense through the timeline of history. These same individuals stuck to their testimonies even after some of them left the church, and returned later. Why do that for a fraud? And what was in it for them? Joseph and Hyrum died for that "fraud", and many of those involved suffered greatly for their participation. Why go through all that and never renounce their testimony? That
  14. So if the God Jesus worships is the only God of Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6, then how is it that Jesus is also God? You can believe whatever you choose, but Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6 obviously doesn't teach that men cannot become gods. Otherwise, why would the earliest Christians believe and teach that men become gods? I see Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6 teaching us that we have only one God who is our God and we will never have any other than him.
  15. I always imagined that the great battle at the end of the world would center around an oil crisis.
  16. Can you please explain what you mean by, "I really do not think his piece requires any sort of skill"? I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you saying that the subject matter that he is discussing doesn't require any sort of skill? If that is the case, then why lambaste him for his credentials? As for the "contents" of his piece, you really haven't addressed any of the contents of his article. You claimed he didn't directly compare or quote Clarke, which he did (I cited one of several possible examples to prove that). You claimed his piece is "poorly written", but you refuse to explai
  17. So in other words, in answer to my question about dealing with his specific arguments, your answer is "no", you can't do that. Instead you generalize and give a sweeping dismissal of his article based on nothing more than your own opinion. I gave an example and provided the original source material so you can examine the merit of his argument directly. Why can't you do the same thing? I realize that blanket dismissals are much easier, but isn't doing that directly contrary to your recommendation to not accepting everything at "face value"? You are expecting us to accept your dismis
  18. So deal with his arguments. Explain why he is wrong instead of attacking his credentials. Can you do that?
  19. No, it is more complex than that. Using academic sources as a catalyst to receive inspiration does not mean the process of producing the Bible version is not inspired. Edit: I'm trying to understand your thinking on this. You put me in camp #1 even though I allowed for academic sources in the process. Did you categorize me that way simply because I allowed for some revelation in the process? How much allowance for revelation or use of academic sources puts a person in camp #1 or camp #2?
  20. Deal with his arguments and demonstrate why you think his article is "ludicrous". Attacking the person doesn't deal with what he wrote (and at least he's using his real name, so you can't use that against him). All the cards are on the table. Engage with what he said and explain where you think he is messed up. That's what peer review is all about.
  21. But this kind of false dichotomy distorts reality and forces a person to choose one side or the other, doesn't it? In reality there are a multitude of possibilities, all evident in the Joseph Smith history and in the lives of anyone else who has received revelation from God. Consider the last General Conference, when President Nelson spoke on the gathering of Israel. He said, "I have studied the gathering [of Israel], prayed about it, feasted upon every related scripture, and asked the Lord to increase my understanding." He said he was led to new insight "with the help of two Hebrew sc
  22. I agree (one should not have to force a chiasm) and I think I see what you are saying now (I thought you were referring to how it fit in with what Lund was saying). But I need to think about this some more, and to compare how it read before and after the changes.
  23. Apparently I'm dense. I didn't realize you were just pulling my leg until now. Now I know better
  • Create New...