InCognitus

Doctrine and Covenants section 133 is why I was saying it is happening now and in the way I described, and no, it's not just the remnant of Joseph which is the tribe of Ephraim. Verses 8-16 (of section 133) describe the gathering process that is happening right now. And verses 17-35 describe the events that occur when Jesus returns and all the nations of the earth become one. Did you happen to watch or read the 2018 Worldwide Devotional for Youth, where President Nelson and his wife, Wendy, spoke to the youth? There's a full transcript at this site. Sister Nelson recounted an experience she had on June 15, 2013, when she and President Nelson were in meetings at Moscow, Russia. In that little gathering of Saints she said there were representatives from every tribe of Israel in attendance. And President Nelson said: This is happening here and now, we need to participate and be prepared for what will be made known.

But this is the whole point. Where are we finding the lost tribes? They are being recovered from the nations, which also includes the Christian denominations of the world. Are we going to say, "Yes, you can join our church, but forget those weird records that you have. We don't need those because truth only comes from the restored gospel". That would be a really dumb attitude, especially given where Joseph Smith said we should be looking for truth.

I think it is exactly that, Jesus the eternal teacher. Just because other churches do things doesn't mean it is the way that Jesus trained his disciples to do things. We've already discussed this. Mormon, the person who abridged the text, was using "filled" in 3 Nephi 18:4-5 in the same sense as Jesus taught in 3 Nephi 20:8 The Bible tells us the same thing: "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) This is not about eating a meal, it's about being filled spiritually.

I thought I did answer this. Specifically to what I "expect to find" in other denominations that I can't find in the standard works or the restored gospel, I can't really answer that because I don't know what we may find. But I do know that Joseph Smith didn't limit his scope to truths found only within the standard works or the restored gospel, and he specifically said it is more than what is found in the Bible (i.e. "anywhere else"). If we are closed minded about limiting truths to those found in the standard works or the restored gospel, we will not be prepared to recognize the new truths when they are made evident. But I will speculate a bit. At some point we expect to find records from the tribes of Israel that were scattered abroad. What if those are recovered and come to us by way of other Christian denominations? Also, the question of there being truths outside the restored gospel is circular reasoning to some extent, since Joseph Smith defined "Mormonism" as embracing all truth wherever it is found. So by definition the restored gospel encompasses all truth, but it may not originate from within our organization.

You aren't being clear on who is your sample population for the "majority" or "minority". Consequently, I think the point that Smiley McGee was trying to make went right over your head, causing you to lambast him by saying he was making "snarky" and "immature" statements. But I think you completely misunderstood him. And then you wonder why some people down vote your response. You say "If people are being upheld by the majority as have the true and correct teachings or views, then the odds are extremely high that they are in error". You say this as if it is axiomatic. But what "people"? What is your data set? Smiley McGee's point was that the majority attending general conference sustain their leaders. It's not until you put the people that attend general conference into the world population that you can try to make your point. Smiley McGee's other comment about a fundamentalist group was to counter your response, and you missed his point again. The point being, that even a small fundamentalist group can have one hundred members in the world population and can be wrong. He said, "Think of how right they must be with less than a hundred members." I don't think he wasn't trying to be snarky, he was showing that your logic doesn't hold up. And, obviously what you were asserting is not always true, as explained below: It's possible that our nation has crossed the line defined in verse 27 above. But let God be the judge of that. We will soon know.

Agreed. When Joseph Smith talked about finding truth in other Christian denominations, I don't believe he was limiting that to truths derived from the Bible. He didn't qualify it at all and I don't think we should either. We put limits on our ability to see truth if we prejudice ourselves with invalid assumptions. And your statement about other faiths not having access to truths that aren't also within the restored gospel and true and living Church is potentially problematic, if for no other reason than the fact that Joseph Smith defined "Mormonism" as encompassing all truth wherever it is found. And Joseph specifically said truths beyond the Bible: "we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation.... with all our hearts, all things whatsoever is manifest unto us by the highest degree of testimony that God has committed us, as written in the old and new Testament, or any where else, by any manifestation, whereof we know that it has come from God: and has application to us, being adapted to our situation and circumstances; age, and generation of life" (quoted in my post here, from Letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, Mar. 22, 1839) This is very true. This is a good example, but I don't think it quite reaches the definition of an aggressive zealot (as defined earlier).

Agreed. Our iron rod is our iron rod, but what if new information causes us to reconsider our interpretation of the scriptures in a way that doesn't contradict the scriptures? I asked this before, and you didn't answer: What about having different opinions on how to interpret scripture and doctrine? Where does that fit in your view? Do you think different opinions on scripture [interpretation] and doctrine fit within the church? What do you think Joseph Smith had in mind when he used sectarian Christianity as an example of places where we should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up? He certainly expected to find truth in them, or he wouldn't have made the statement that he did, right? I'll answer for myself: There is much to learn about the scriptures from people that see things differently than we do. This goes back to the quote I provided from Joseph Smith about proving contraries. Sometimes people who believe differently than we do put way more emphasis on a particular point of doctrine from scriptures than we do, or even believe doctrines that focus on some verses in the Bible and not others, ending up with a view that is completely wrong (from our point of view). They may be wrong in doing this, but there are truths about the scriptures that we can learn from them by trying to understand how they derive their doctrines from the scriptures, and sometimes this helps us expand our own understanding of our own doctrines. For nearly fifteen years I attended a weekly Bible study group where there were anywhere from three to ten other men participating, and I was the only Latter-day Saint in the bunch. I learned many things from the other participants in that group, including the realization that some other faiths believe things that are quite similar to what we believe. I also saw the love and humility and sincere desire to follow Jesus Christ in some of the participants. We had a few disagreements, but those also led to greater understanding of one another when we hashed things out. We stopped our regular meetings with COVID hit, but I still communicate with one of them regularly. And through it all I gained greater insight into my own faith and the doctrines of the Church. Sure, sometimes despised, rejected, maligned, and derogatorily mischaracterized, but not always. Some had great success in spreading the gospel (I'm thinking of people like Ammon in the Book of Mormon). Those that show love for their fellowman often have the greatest success, even as they stand firm and unwavering in their teachings. But as Jesus said, "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?" (Matthew 10:25). Name calling can sometimes go with the territory. But that's very different than actually behaving like an aggressive zealot. Can you show me where Jesus was ever called anything like an aggressive zealot?

I agree with this. We need to build upon the true principles that we already hold. What sources would be good or bad here? Science? The "best books"? The Presbyterians, Baptists, or Methodists? (I'll add Mennonites and Catholics too just because ) What about having different opinions on how to interpret scripture and doctrine? Where does that fit in your view? Do you think different opinions on scripture and doctrine fit within the church? This is true. Ok, so do you really think that a person has to be either an anti-Mormon or an aggressive zealot to not be lukewarm on this board? Wouldn't the Savior's way, of showing love and kindness for others and being zealous for teaching the gospel be the best approach? You know I'm saying there is a difference between being zealous and a zealot, right? But being firm and unwavering in their defense of the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel is not the same as being an aggressive zealots.

Just when you thought it was safe to put away your snow shovel... SNOW 46 I think that number (46) is accurate (assuming I counted correctly) of the number of snow days since last fall in the Salt Lake City area (including today), based on this site. Yes, it's SNOWING AGAIN TODAY!!! (I'm going back to Arizona )

I have a question for you based on these teachings from the Prophet Joseph Smith (and I'm sure you've seen these before, so this should be familiar to you): And: And finally: Now for my question: Given the teachings of the Prophet quoted above, what do you see to be the difference between what Joseph Smith says about being open to truth wherever it may be found, compared to "individuals being open minded", or as you said, an "individual open to all kinds of teachings and philosophies"? None of the above. Look at the context of the verse that you quoted (to the Laodiceans): The verse is talking about works (in this case it's about being prideful and covetousness) and being "zealous" in doing good works. How do you think this applies to people on this forum? Can a person be "zealous" in living the principles of the gospel and in demonstration of the love and kindness demonstrated by the Savior and not be an aggressive fanatic in going about it?

The person said, "participants on this board are pretty fair and balanced". You are misconstruing that to mean "open minded" and "open to all kinds of teachings and philosophies". NOT the same thing.

Why would you take a lesson quote about Jesus and his mortal experience in relation to his Heavenly Father as we have it in the scriptures, and extrapolate that to "Heavenly Mother"? We don't know anything about Heavenly Mother and what things went on before that, so why ask us to make something up? Yes, just like those who overcome will sit on the same throne as God (Revelation 3:21). It's not a higher throne, not a lower throne, but the same throne as Heavenly Father's throne. And just like the same "glory" that Jesus received from his Father is given to the disciples (John 17:20-23). It's the same "glory", the same "power", the same "exaltation". Read the lesson you linked: "In Doctrine and Covenants 93:1–20, we learn about Jesus Christ, His relationship with Heavenly Father, and how we can receive 'a fulness of the glory of the Father' (D&C 93:16) as He did." Just because the lesson is focusing on the relationship of Jesus and his Father, it doesn't mean that others don't have this same fulness of glory (i.e. the Holy Spirit). In fact, the whole point of the lesson is how "we can receive a fulness of the glory of the Father".

But Jesus was neither a Zealot (by that definition) nor aggressive. People were offended by Jesus and his teachings because some of what he taught went against their traditions and their pride. But Jesus taught with kindness and love, not with fanaticism and aggression.

zeal·ot noun 1. a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. ag·gres·sive adjective ready or likely to attack or confront; characterized by or resulting from aggression. "he's very uncooperative and aggressive" pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so. "we needed more growth to pursue our aggressive acquisition strategy" I think you're confusing standing for true principles and boldly teaching the truth with fanaticism and aggression.

I guess my only question is, where would Jesus fit in that scale of individuals? He's not "anti", and he's not an aggressive zealot. So where does he fit?

But that verse says they're neither (they are unremarkable, they are only lukewarm and thus spew worthy). What is your point exactly? MustardSeed was saying we have all kinds on this board and are fairly balanced.

Re: "FARMS quoting itself: This is, in my opinion, a vague and unfair criticism, especially if we are talking about FARMS Review of Books. Much of that publication dealt with reviews of books and articles that were critical of the Church, and we all know that many those criticisms are often repetitive. It saves time to refer to other articles and sources that have already dealt with a particular criticism. This would be like criticizing the FAIR website for linking to itself for answers that have already been given.

Can you show me anywhere in the entire Bible where the resurrected Jesus appeared and administered the sacrament in front of an entire crowd of people, and he was at the same time training the twelve disciples on how to administer the sacrament? If you can't find anything like that in the Bible, then how can you compare this to the procedure in the Bible? In the Bible, Jesus FIRST gave the bread and wine to his twelve apostles privately (Matthew 26.26-27), showing them how to do it. THEN later the twelve apostles gave it to multitudes (Acts 2:42). In the Book of Mormon Jesus FIRST gave the bread and wine to the twelve disciples, showing them how to do it, THEN the disciples gave the bread and wine to multitudes. It's exactly the same procedure, but the only difference is that the resurrected Jesus was there personally in front of the multitude at the same time he was training his disciples. How do you know whether the passage you provided isn't talking about being filled in a spiritual sense? It doesn't say it's not a spiritual sense. But you are interpreting it in a physical sense. Since their history was written after the fact by compiling the records (See 3 Nephi 26:12-14), do you think Mormon (the editor) would not have used being "filled" in the same sense that Jesus explained it in 3 Nephi 20:8? In that verse, Jesus clearly is talking about partaking of the very bread and wine that they were eating and drinking in 3 Nephi 18:9 and 3 Nephi 19:13. Jesus explained how they were "filled". So we have your interpretation compared to Jesus. The way the Book of Mormon described the process was for two special occasions when Jesus was teaching them how to administer the sacrament. He had to explain it to the twelve disciples first so that they would know how to give it to the multitude, and he used the same pattern as used in the Bible. After Jesus was gone they didn't continue this same process (see Moroni 4 and 5, and Moroni 6:5-6). It was only while Jesus was training them that this happened. The bread isn't already broken in a Latter-day Saint ward. The priests stand up at the beginning of the sacrament hymn, and they begin breaking the bread while the congregation is singing the hymn. In the Book of Mormon, they didn't describe it as a meal anywhere in the text. And they were only "filled" in a spiritual sense, as Jesus clearly explained.

I'm stuck in a loop. How do I get out? I think I understand what is meant by "one eternal round" now.

And a very fine post indeed!

Go figure! It could be read that way if taken out of context. The rest of it qualifies how the creation was done (in the same way humans were created, which were from the dust).

It seems to me that Maccabees 7:28 is teaching the exact opposite of creation ex-nihilo. It says: "I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being." This verse says the human race came into being in the exact same way that heaven and earth were created, and Genesis tells us that "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7). It can't be talking about creation from absolutely nothing, but it has to be talking about creation from relative non-being into being (i.e. from unformed matter into the object of creation). Furthermore, Wisdom 11:18 (or Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, depending on your Bible version) states that the "almighty hand... made the world of matter without form", making it clear that the world was created from unformed matter. All of the statements about creation prior to the time of Taitan are either too ambiguous (where one needs to read into the verse creation ex-nihilo) or clearly teaching the opposite of creation ex-nihilo. One early Christian example is Clement of Rome, who says: "For thou through thy operations didst make manifest the eternal fabric of the world; thou, Lord, didst create the earth." (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 60:1)

And... they walked into a bar, with a Mormon. (I really thought you were starting a joke).

But you are talking about her character if she is, as you "call" it, trying to bait you, entrap you, and is playing mind games with you. She says she's not doing that. I believe her, as I understand her line of questioning. You are either accusing her of dishonesty or questioning her mental state (if she doesn't realize that she's entrapping or baiting you then how can it be entrapment or baiting? That's just silly). Are you talking about posts that disagree with your point of view? Or true hostility toward you? Can you please provide an example? Joseph Smith said, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Sometimes we need to ask hard questions to understand the truth, even if the questions seem to undermine our views. That goes for all of us. My mind works that way. I have learned many things about the beliefs of others and have gained insights into truths from the scriptures that I would have never come to on my own without asking questions that I think undermine the other person's views. But I do that in all honesty with the intent to understand their point of view. Quit thinking of this as winning or losing an argument. Think of it as an honest enquiry of truth. You have nothing to fear from her questions if you love the truth.

I know, you've already made your "call". So why waste your time looking at her character history when you've already made up your mind?