Jump to content

Bobbieaware

Limited
  • Posts

    2,791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bobbieaware

  1. 47 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    JarMan is simply trying to account for the BofM in terms of scientific and technical knowledge available in or about the 17th century.  He is doing that because the BofM translation uses Early Modern English, and so may have originated in the 17th century.  It cannot have originated in the 19th century (where the anti-Mormons ordinarily put it).  To my mind it is an interesting thought-experiment, Bobbie, and it may even clarify difficult parts of the text.  It may also be a blind alley.  However, this is a dialogue and discussion board, and we shouldn't get upset if someone starts a thread suggesting approaches of which we do not approve.

    Thank you, Robert. My perplexity came to an end when, just a short while ago, it finally came to my attention that JarMan is another in an apparently growing number of Church members who believe the Book of Mormon is scripture in some sort of vague, metaphorical (😉), Aesop’s Fables sort of way, while simultaneously believing its text is heavily littered on virtually every page with brazen and preposterous lies.

    Now that I’ve come to this realization, I will no longer be attempting to converse with JarMan because we don’t have enough in common to be able to have meaningful dialogue. That being said, I may attempt to converse with others who participate on his threads, but I’ll be very careful to leave any direct references to JarMan out of my comments so that he’ll be less likely to engage with me. Fare well, JarMan.

  2. 2 hours ago, JarMan said:

    This board is not a place for bearing testimony or for ridiculing somebody else's testimony. I don't like reporting people to the mods but your constant haranguing makes the prospect very tempting.

    Did you not first ridicule my testimony of the ‘orthodox model’ of the Book of Mormon, and by implication the testimonies of all the others  who believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, when you said that such testimonies don’t fit in with the “REAL WORLD,” as if those who believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the spiritual realm are deluded fools?. My post was simply offered as the logical antedote to your rather arrogant and dismissive testimony that the Book of Mormon is fake because an uninspired world that knows not the ways of the Spirit says it is. Fair is fair. 

  3. 1 hour ago, JarMan said:

    Ironically you are making the same argument against me that Galileo's opponents made against him. The argument is essentially that observation and reasoning cannot possibly contradict your (or, in his case, his opponents') personal understanding of the scriptures. Galileo countered this argument in several ways. For one, he showed that there are multiple ways to view scripture. He didn't grant his opponents or the church the exclusive right to interpret scripture and then impose that interpretation on him. Such an argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority. He also showed that scripture could be alternately interpreted in a way that fit his theories. And even though the alternate interpretation was not the orthodox interpretation, it fit the real world much better. That's where we are with the Book of Mormon. The orthodox model simply does not fit the real world.

    And your view of the Book of Mormon does not fit in with the Church. But that’s nothing new because the things of God have always been considered laughably false foolishness to the natural man who relies on the arm of flesh.

    I’m wondering why someone who thinks as you do believes anything at all about the Book of Mormon (if you still in fact do believe anything at all about it) if so much of it is nothing but pack of whopping, bald-faced lies. Talk about building one’s spiritual life on a foundation of shifting sand!

    Modern science says its an impossiblity that the rotting corpse of one Jesus of Nazareth could have been raised from the dead into a state of glorious immortality and eternal life. Is this most foundational and critically important of all Christian doctrines also another lie that doesn’t “fit with the real world”? If you do believe the bodily resurrection of Christ is just another lie, what’s the point in wanting to be identified as a Latter-day Saint? 

  4. 9 hours ago, JarMan said:

    The Book of Mormon only mentions opening a hole (singular). It never mentions opening both at the same time. That's not to say it's not possible, but it doesn't seem like the intent was to use both simultaneously. There are some practical problems with this design, as well. First, I doubt that air circulation could be accomplished as intended. What would probably end up happening is movement in and out of the tube but none from the cabin to the tube or from the tube to the cabin. The reason is that the movement of air in the tube produces a negative pressure relative to the air in the cabin that would be equal at both holes. There would be no way for the air to escape since  a negative pressure in the cabin would prevent it. There are a couple of ways to solve this. One would be to make the tube into a venturi pipe such that its diameter was restricted as it passed one of the holes. This would cause a larger negative pressure at that hole than at the other hole so that air would come out of the cabin near the restricted hole but go into the cabin near the unrestricted hole. The problem with this, though, is that you would tend to recirculate the same air from one hole to the next. A better design would be to have a single hole leading to the tube and then a second hole (or multiple holes) in the roof of the cabin. I would also put a restriction in the tube near the hole to create maximum velocity of the moving air and, therefore, a negative pressure large enough to do some real circulation. But now we are describing a design that doesn't seem to be supported by the text.  

    The main problem I have with this model, though, is that the engineering principles are way beyond what could have been known by the Jaredites. In fact they are more than a hundred years more advanced than Galileo's time. I realize we could make the argument that the Lord told them how to make the boats and they blindly followed, not understanding what they were doing. But it seems more likely to me that the design was based on 17th Century science since every part of the description of the boats' design and operation would have been known scientifically at that time.

    Here you go again not allowing the Book of Mormon provide its own answers, Why do you insist that the Jaredites couldn’t have known about certain engineering principles, as if the then current state of scientific advancement was the only source technical knowledge available to them, when the record’s narrative plainly testifies that the Jaredites were able to bypass secular sources of scientific knowledge because the unique design of the barges was revealed by direct revelation from God? 

    Aside from its primary importance as another sacred witness that Jesus is the Christ, the Book of Mormon’s constant recurrent theme is its laser focus on the absolute necessity of men receiving continual divine revelation or, in its absence, being left in the dark. How can one who believes the Book of Mormon is a true sacred history of a real ancient people insist that the record cannot be accepted at its own word and on its own terms? 

    16 And the Lord said: Go to work and build, after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built. And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did go to work, and also his brethren, and built barges after the manner which they had built, according to the instructions of the Lord. And they were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water.

    17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish.

    18 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, I have performed the work which thou hast commanded me, and I have made the barges according as thou hast directed me. (Ether 2)

    I must admit I just don’t get what it is you’re trying to accomplish. 

     

  5. 7 hours ago, JarMan said:

    The Book of Mormon has burning at the stake for heresy. That's not found in the Old Testament but is almost exclusively found in medieval Eurasia.

    What in the world makes you think King Noah and his henchman, whom the Book of Mormon describes as heretical apostates who perverted the right way of the Lord, would be sticklers to administer the death-by-fire provisions of the law of Moses only as prescribed in the scriptures? On this one point alone your suggestion completely falls apart. I find it interesting you are willing to entertain the incredibly remote possibility that the Book of Mormon was written by a 16th century Dutchman (REALLY?) but reject out of hand the idea that some Old Testament era apostates could pervert the prescriptions of the law of Moses to serve their own wicked ends. This reminds me of the Savior’s warning concerning those who “strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.”

  6. 15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

    Zombie thread, but was reading something completely unrelated about a 1st century heretic being burned at the stake in Kashmir (India). I was reminded of this thread. Got to looking for other examples and there are quite a few on the entertaining "Death by Burning" wiki. For example:

    Under 6th-century emperor Justinian I, the death penalty had been decreed for impenitent Manicheans, but a specific punishment was not made explicit. By the 7th century, however, those found guilty of "dualist heresy" could risk being burned at the stake.[42]

    image.png.456649f946d659cea7584b1586f6f681.png

    Execution by fire is prescribed in the Mosaic Law.

     

    "If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you." -- Leviticus 20:14

     

    "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." -- Leviticus 21:9

     

    "Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." -- Genesis 38:24

     

    "He that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath. ... And Joshua ... took Achan ... and his sons, and his daughters ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire." -- Joshua 7:15, 24-25
  7. 5 hours ago, Fireweed16 said:

    My family has been "inactive" for the past year and a half now. We love the gospel we just don't love going to our church ward. We live in a small town filled with my spouses family. My spouse gets anxiety about their image in there family's eyes. Without going to great detail it is extremely hard on our family. When we went to church it was a struggle every Sunday. We eventually stopped going and within 2-3 weeks a huge weight lifted from our shoulders. Fast forward a year and half and we miss going to church however we do not want to attend our home ward.

    Does anyone have any suggestions or advice? Are we able to change wards? Our current bishop is not a very understanding person. 

    Talk to your ward’s Bishop or, if that doesn’t work for you, have a discussion with your Stake President and tell whichever of the two you choose about your situation and concerns. If there’s any one place in the world where interpersonal relationship problems, such as yours, have a decent chance of being worked out for the better it’s the Church of Jesus Christ. Don’t allow worry or fear to prevent you from moving forward toward a solution that will enable you and your family to heal and keep your sacred covenants.

  8. 6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

    Freely give.  What do you think this man was living his good life for??  The Kingdom of heaven is at hand...and to whose hand is it being given if not the very faithful.  The cruelty of your God is not mine.

    Was it not your point that the Lord would never be so cruel as to promise mere mortals they will be able to raise the dead? Yet in the verse I quoted he did make that very promise. Was Christ being cruel when he promised his mortal followers they would have power to raise the dead?

  9. 1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

    What is really unheard of is a Patriarch that would say such a thing.  This man lived his life to be able to do this.  What happens is a cruelty that I don't think God is capable of.

    Oh but you’re wrong. God is capable of doing the very “cruel” thing you say he is incapable of doing. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the eternal God, Jesus Christ. made the exact same promised to his followers. 

    And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

    Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, RAISE THE DEAD,, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

    raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (Matthew 10’

  10. 41 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

    He felt exactly as you explained.  As a faithful man, he felt he had failed..not just to himself..but to his mother.  Yeah..that works...maybe he will try again someday.

    It’s not unheard of for the Lord to test his.children by allowing us to be in situations where the most logical thing to do is to stop believing, to test our faith to see if we, like Job, will continue to believe in spite of the strongest temptations to stop believing.

  11. On 2/8/2018 at 2:25 PM, Jeanne said:

    There is an ex-mormon that I am familiar with that receied in his patriarchal blessing that someday...should he live faithful..that he would raise the dead.  Ugh.  So he diligently lived the gospel..went on his mission to return home and marry his wife in the temple.  He was faithful in raising his young family and went above and beyond in his callings...his younger brother died and finally his quest in living and serving was to bear fruit.  Prepared and humbled...he went to the mortuary and with the power of the Holy Priesthood asked God in faith to raise his brother.

    In all of this, his mother waited with patience, confidence and prayerful faith for her son to arrise...

    What say ye.

    I say how about considering the following possibility? He didn’t live faithfully and therefore lost his opportunity to fulfill the blessing.

    Living faithfully is remaining true to the Lord no matter what may come. If he attempted to raise the dead by the power of God but didn’t succeed, he should have said to himself, “there may have been no success this time, but if I continue to remain faithful and true to the Lord In spite of this disappointing setback, eventually I will obtain the kind of mighty living faith that’s needed to be able to raise the dead by the power of God.”  In other words, the first time he made the attempt could have been a test from the Lord to see if he would continue faithful and serve him wholeheartedly, with a firm belief in his promises, even if his first attempt wasn’t successful. By walking away from the Lord and his promises, the young man demonstrated his faith was weak at the time he gave the blessing, faith that surely wasn’t powerful enough to fulfill the wonderful promise given to him.

    I’m quite sure there are thousands of others who have blessed the sick without success, yet they were unshaken and remained faithful and true to the Lord. The following disciples of the Lord remained faithful and true despite their initial failure.

    18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

    19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

    20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

    21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17)

     

  12. 32 minutes ago, Gray said:

    Sorry, I don't find your interpretation to be realistic. What can I say?

    It’s a well-know fact that this is the way the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have worked together for a very long time. There is even an account where one lone holdout apostle wouldn’t agree to allow a prominent excommunicated member to be rebaptised, but even though the other 14 did most earnestly agree to allow the rebaptism to take place it never happened. There has to be total unanimity among the presiding prophets, seers and revelators of the Church or nothing is going to happen. Items under consideration not unanimously agreed upon are put aside for possible later consideration.

  13. 5 minutes ago, Calm said:

    Curious as to why you are quoting yourself.  Did you mean to edit and hit the wrong button?

    Thanks. Didn’t realize it happened until you pointed it out. Wish I could delete it but edit is no longer available on that post.

  14. 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    What I am saying is that we should always engage the actual words of the NT, and their interpretation by historically important figures.  Does St Augustine have a point?  You don't engage his view.  What sort of power and authority do the saints on Earth exercise as the Kingdom of God, or his priesthood?  How may they have the power to bind and loose on Earth, and simultaneously in heaven?  Now.  How are they the Body of Christ?  Now.  What does the NT in fact say on such matters?  Does that conflict with our theological opinions?  Are our modern formulae too pat?  Too timid?  Are they absurd?  Do we really understand the Sitz im Leben der alten Kirche?

    Back to basics. Do you find the following 3  interpretations of Colossians 2:9, as found in the Church New Testament Seminary Student Manual, the Church’s New Testament Backgrounds compendium, and Jeff Lindsay’s Mormanity Blog  to be inaccurate and/or deficient in any way?

    1) Speaking of Jesus Christ, Paul testified, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” This phrase indicates Jesus Christ is fully divine and possesses the full power of godhood. (New Testament Seminary Student Manual)

    and...

    2) For in [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9.) Some have interpreted this passage to mean that the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are the same person, or three persons in one. Paul is anxious to combat the heretical notion that Christ was not a physical being and that his bodily suffering, death, and resurrection were only fictional. In countering this false notion, and in order to emphasize the supremacy of the Savior above man and angels, Paul teaches that the fulness of the Godhead’s glory, honor, and power is in Christ physically, or bodily—that is, nothing is lacking in the Savior that requires man to seek some other source or means of salvation. (New Testament Backgrounds)

    3) Bodily. I like that word. The physical, tangible body of the Resurrection, the one that witnesses handled and saw and that Christ declared and showed to have flesh and bone, not spirit alone, still exists. In the real and tangible body of Christ, the fullness of God's glory and power exists. He is real and, as Paul said, looks just like His Father, for He is "the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). And wonderfully, we are created in that physical image, sons and daughters of our very real Father in Heaven. (Mormanity)

     

  15. 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    Augustine divided them into the City of God and the City of Man, while only God knows who his true saints are -- the actual Body of Christ, His Church (the Kingdom of God on Earth, which carries his full authority).

    I realize my last post was kind of muddled and my central point not made nearly as clearly as I would have liked, so I’ll try to be brief and crystal clear. If I get the jist of what you seem to be saying, it is that the Apostle Paul’s expression ‘all the fullness of deity” refers not just to those exalted divine beings who are fully worthy of worship because they fully possess the power to create, redeem and save, but the same description also equally applies to those imperfect beings (the members of the earthly church) who worship God in the hope that they too will one day become exalted divine beings who are fully worthy of worship. If I state your position correctly, does this mean you believe that just as all the fullness of deity now resides in Christ bodily that that same fullness of deity now resides bodily in the saints while they are yet in a state of great imperfection? Just trying to make sure I understand you.

  16. 9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

    Getting back to your original question: How can a man can expect to be able to explain anything substantial and edifying to a son about the LDS priesthood when he himself believes virtually nothing about the LDS religion is literally true and when it comes to the rest of Mormonism he pushes back hard on virtually every other point?

    The Lord warns each one of us that “if ye have not the Spirit ye shall not teach.” This not only means we should not endeavor to teach without the Spirit, but that if we do try to teach the things of God without the Spirit we won’t succeed.

    Now I’ll switch gears and address the wonderment and any perplexity felt about the priesthood’s so-called “superpowers:” The scriptures teach us If a priesthood holder sincerely strives by the power of the Spirit to live the kind of clean and holy life God wants him to live, and if he believes in his God with nothing doubting, he will then be able to do the works of God and perform miracles in the name of God. The superpowers of the priesthood  — if that’s how one wants irreverently refer to them — are unleashed by personal righteousness and by a firm belief in the existence and holiness of God without doubting.

    How one who has almost nothing but doubt when it comes to the divine authenticity of the LDS Church can hope to be able to teach a child about a divine principle that can only be realized if one has no doubt seems to be an impossible task. Perhaps the best tact would be to admit that he doesn’t believe but has a sincere hope that his son can.

     

  17. 2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

    I truly appreciate your measured responses. That being said, I thought I made myself clear when I specified it’s only those believers who are exalted to the fullness of Godhood who can properly be referred to as beings in whom dwells all the fullness of deity bodily. While those who have not yet been resurrected and exalted as Gods may be of the divine race, and while they may also be well on the way to becoming Gods, it isn’t until they become fully one with the Father and the Son, and share fully in all their divine attributes, that they can rightly be referred to as Gods who possess all the fullness of deity bodily.

    I think it’s critically important to understand that Christ and his yet to be exalted followers do not at all hold the same position within your definition of the fulness deity, While the Son is fully one with his Father and the Holy Ghost, and while he may also spiritually dwell within his saints through the Spirit (at least as much as the saints are willing to allow him to do so), the fact of the matter is that the flip side of this — the idea that the fullness of deity does already dwell within his imperfect followers — isn’t at all true.

    The reason why the Savior can correctly  be described as a being in whom dwells all the fulness of deity but the same cannot be said of his saints is because while the saints may be more or less connected to each other through the unifying influence of the Spirit, and while the saints may also be somewhat unified with the Father and the Son through the same indwelling Spirit, the fact is that vast majority of the saints are not at all in the same state of perfection as that enjoyed by the Father and the Son. So it would be quite inappropriate to say that within the as yet unexalted saints dwells all the fulness of deity just because they enjoy a less than perfect relationship with God.. 

    Sorry if my writing is not of optimal clarity. Also sorry if I belabored a point you already believe and well-understand..

    I’m glad to know the words infinite and eternal don’t necessarily have to be defined the way Jung defines them.

     

  18. 25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    How is it that all of us participate in that fulness?  Or at least the body of believers do so.

    "infinite and eternal" here refers to the full coverage of any and all sin which was or could be committed by humans, and applicable permanently.  Easy to say, but not so easy to do, which is probably why Satan bet against it.

    I truly appreciate your measured responses. That being said, I thought I made myself clear when I specified it’s only those believers who are exalted to the fullness of Godhood who can properly be referred to as beings in whom dwells all fullness of deity bodily. While those who have not yet been resurrected and exalted as Gods may be of the divine race, and while they may also be well on the way to becoming Gods, it isn’t until they become fully one with the Father and the Son, and share fully in all their divine attributes, that they can rightly be referred to as Gods who possess all the fullness of deity bodily.

    I think it’s critically important to understand that Christ and his yet to be exalted followers do not at all hold the same position within your definition of the fulness deity, While the Son is fully one with his Father and the Holy Ghost, and while he may also spiritually dwell within his saints through the Spirit (at least as much as the saints are willing to allow him to do so), the fact of the matter is that the flip side of this — the idea that the fullness of deity does already dwell within his imperfect followers — isn’t at all true.

    The reason why the Savior can correctly  be described as a being in whom dwells all the fulness of deity, but the same cannot be said of his saints, is because while the saints may be more or less connected to each other through the unifying influence of the Spirit, and while the saints may also be somewhat unified with the Father and the Son through the same indwelling Spirit, the fact is that vast majority of the saints are not at all in the same state of perfection as that enjoyed by the Father and the Son. So it would be quite inappropriate to say that within the as yet unexalted saints dwells all the fulness of deity just because they enjoy a less than perfect relationship with God.. 

    Sorry if my writing is not of optimal clarity. Also sorry if I belabored a point you already believe and well-understand..

    I’m glad to know the words infinite and eternal don’t necessarily have to be defined the way Jung defines them.

  19. 34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    I tried to explain that the word "Godhead" is a very poor and misleading translation for what is better as Gottheit, etc., and -heit in German does not suggest "head."  There are actually quite a few cases  in which the German scholarship has been badly interpreted by speakers of English (Jehovah is another atrocity).  You apparently missed my poor attempt to correct the "Godhead" mistake.

    No.  It is not limited to God (or a group of gods).  As I pointed out briefly, pleroma "fulness" in the NT refers to the totality of divinity (whatever that is) in both Christ and (since he is in heaven) in his church (as the receptacle of that pleroma) -- the Body of Christ, and not necessarily the basar/corpus of Communion, but rather the body of believers in whom that same pleroma is to be found. However, there is one more problem with that concept, because Greek philosophical norms have it that Christ has the ideal, perfect pleroma (in heaven), which is expressed in ordinary life (on Earth) in less perfect ways.  Heavenly archetypes are merely reflected or expressed by less real phenomena on Earth.  This means, as Carl Jung expressed it, that "since the infinite and eternal possess no qualities," i.e., "both thinking and being cease," the pleroma is therefore "both nothing and everything."

    As you may know, while on Earth, Christ "emptied" himself of all divinity (Philippians 2:7).  This is  known as the kenosis or kenoma, which is the opposite of pleroma.  He did this to subject his will to that of the Father.

    Based on what I have just said (above), D&C 20:17 can be seen as a powerful statement meant to be taken as a poetic expression of that archetypal, unchangeable deity -- using formulaic phrases which are not otherwise explained.

    If the term divinity goes beyond the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost to embrace all who ever were or will yet become Gods, it doesn’t change the meaning at all because anyone who becomes a God becomes the perfect embodiment of all divine attributes. It’s by virtue of this understanding of a shared perfect godhood that Christ is able to speak to us in the first person as if he is God the Father.

    21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

    23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17)

    It’s a shame the prophet Amulek wasn’t a contemporary of Carl Jung (his philosophical superior) because then he might have avoided the unfortunate use of the expression “infinite and eternal” when speaking of the nature of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin. It’s truly embarrassing when one realizes the expression ‘infinite and eternal sacrifice’ actually means a sacrifice without any discernable meaning. Hopefully, somewhere along the way the leaders of the Church will be persuaded to change the expression  ‘infinite and eternal’ to ‘finite and limited.’  😉

    10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

    and...

    14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

    So let’s begin the lobbying effort today to get the leaders of the Church to agree to change ‘infinite and eternal’ (I.e. without any discernible meaning) to ‘finite and limited.’ Let’s make Jong proud. And then when we’re done with that we’ll turn our attention to the other unfortunate verse in D&C 20 where the Prophet Joseph Smith makes the same unfortunate mistake when speaking of the divine nature of God.

     

     

  20. 1 hour ago, Exiled said:

    Maybe "opposite guy" is a priesthood calling and lucifer isn't what he is portrayed to be like you say. I wonder how that applies to those pesky "anti-mormons" who always want to say the cup is half empty? Maybe they actually are providing a good service to the saints in making sure there is a definite black and white choice? As God needs Satan, so do Mormons need their anti brethren. :huh:

    The opposing forces within the eternal framework of opposition in all thing are real, not contrived or illusory. God really is the embodiment of all good and is a being of perfect love. Meanwhile, Satan is the embodiment of authentic evil and is filled to the maximum degree possible with genuine implacable hate.

    Existence cannot be affirmed upon pretended opposition, otherwise, as father Lehi said, all things would vanish into nonexistence and God would cease to be God. Just ask the Savior of mankind if the infinite and eternal sufferings for sin and wickedness he had to endure in his atoning sacrifice had their origin in  a cleverly disguised charade with benign actors only pretending to be evil hiding in the background. The one-third host who were cast out of heaven didn’t turn around with a wink and a nod as they descended into hell. And ask any human being who’s been tortured to death by a desperately evil man if wickedness is nothing more than an angel of light wearing a Frankenstein's monster mask.

    This kind of dangerous speculation is what the apostle Paul called “looking past the mark.”

  21. On 2/1/2018 at 11:39 AM, hope_for_things said:

    On Sunday I attended a priesthood and temple prep meeting with my 11 yr old son.  During the meeting the YM president shared a video segment created from an Elder Holland talk he gave back in the year 2000.  Its a story of a little league football practice in Idaho where when one of participants was struck by lightning and was unconscious, a newly ordained 18 yr old Elder gives him a blessing and heals him.  Its very heart felt, and you can watch the roughly 3 minute video production the church made from this talk on the second link.  

    https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/sanctify-yourselves?lang=eng

    https://www.lds.org/youth/video/sanctify-yourselves?lang=eng&_r=1

    As I sat there listening to the meeting and to this talk I was trying to understand what lesson this is teaching my young son, and what an 11 yr old might take away from this lesson.   It immediately made me think of superheros and superpowers.  The message this is likely sending to young people is that when you get the priesthood, you get God's superpower to perform miracles.  How cool is that!  You are so special, that God has given you his super healing power.  The secondary message is that you have to be worthy to use this superpower.  Superman loses his powers around kryptonite and you too can lose your superpowers if you're unworthy.  Lastly if God decides that whatever you used these superpowers on was against his will, then no beuno on those superpowers, because you can't do anything that goes against God's will.  

    Is there some deeper meaning here that I could try and teach my child?  What exactly is the point of the priesthood, if its just superpowers to channel God and perform miracles?  For me, as someone trying to appreciate the metaphorical meaning in religion and the components of religion that can inspire me to be a better person, I found myself completely lost in trying to articulate in my mind something of metaphorical value about this whole message.  Even the construct of the Priesthood just seems completely vacuous to me the more I've thought about this in subsequent days.  

    I'm looking for some help, I do try and find the nuggets of value in the church, but this one really left me wanting and scratching my head.  Any suggestions?  

    Getting back to your original question: How can a man can expect to be able to explain anything substantial and edifying to a son about the LDS priesthood when he himself believes virtually nothing about the LDS religion is literally true and when it comes to the rest of Mormonism he pushes back hard on virtually every other point?

    The Lord warns each one of us that “if ye have not the Spirit ye shall not teach.” This not only means we should not endeavor to teach without the Spirit, but that if we do try to teach the things of God without the Spirit we won’t succeed.

    Now I’ll switch gears and apply the wonderment about the priesthood’s so-called “superpowers:” The scriptures teach us If a priesthood holder sincerely strives, by the power of the Spirit, to live the kind of clean and holy life God wants him to live, and if he believes in his God with nothing doubting, he will then be able to do the works of God and perform miracles in the name of God. The superpowers of the priesthood  — if that’s how one wants irreverently refer to them — are unleashed by personal righteousness and by a firm belief in the existence and holiness of God without doubting.

    How one who has almost nothing but doubt when it comes to the divine authenticity of the LDS Church can hope to be able to teach a child about a divine principle that can only be realized if one has no doubt seems to be an impossible task. Perhaps the best tact would be to admit that he doesn’t believe but has a sincere hope that his son can.

  22. 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    Of course it does not mean "exactly" the same thing for the reasons I gave, and we do not quite understand the nature of the pleroma in each case.  What I gave were not "reworkings" of the KJV.

    Of course, as long as you are able to correctly distinguish between figurative and literal in the various texts you read, you will probably get closer to the true meaning in each case.

    What is the difference In meaning between “the whole fullness of deity bodily” and “the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily?”

    In the context of Christianity, what’s the difference between the Christian deity comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and the Christian Godhead comprised of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

    Both expressions simply mean,  “all the fulness of God.” No?

    To you, does the term deity refer to someone or something that’s less than ‘the infinite and eternal God who knows all things and has all power in heaven and on earth?’

     

  23. 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    I'm not sure what Col 2:9 means here, and it uses the technical Greek term pleroma "fulness," which is so popular with the Gnostics, and which is used so obscurely in verse 10 as "fulfillment."  The element "head" in "Godhead" also misleads, since the actual meaning of Greek theotetos is more like Gottheit "Godness, Deity, divinity, divine-nature."  Good modern translators render it more correctly as "In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fulness" (NJB), or "For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" (NRSV).

    Verse 10 continues that thought, saying "and in him you too find your own fulfillment (pleroma), in the one who is the head of every sovereignty and ruling force" (NJB).  By being the body of believers, His Church, the B𐐬dy of Christ, we participate in that same "fulness" (1 Cor 12:12ff, concluding the analogy with the human body there in verse 27 with the statement that we are part of Christ's Body).  Are we literally therefore Christ's body?  Of course not.

    Divine glory seems to be accompanied by light or a strong glow, such as Moses exhibited on his face when he came down from the mount, just because he had been in the divine presence -- so much so that he had to wear a veil (Ex 34:29-35).  Just so, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter, James, and John observed Jesus shining bright, along with Moses & Elijah (Matt 17:2, Mark 9:3, Lk 9:29-32). I see no problem with any degree of extension of that "heavenly light," as you call it, and it is not meant as a metaphor.

    As far as I am concerned, the modern rendering of Col 2:9 you offer means exactly the same thing the King James Version does. I say this because speaking of the infinite and eternal nature of deity in all its fulness is a perfectly acceptable reworking of the King James rendering — they mean the same thing. The only way one might find a difference between the two renderings is if he believes the term deity doesn’t refer to a being who possess all power in heaven and on earth.

    16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

    17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. (D&C 93)

    I’m delighted to learn you don’t believe the supernal brightness of heavenly light that emanates from the bodies of the Father and the Son, and their ability to project that light wherever they will, is not metaphorical. More later.

     

×
×
  • Create New...