Jump to content

RevTestament

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RevTestament

  1. I am glad there are others willing to discuss this issue, so am glad you brought it up. However, before discussing further, I want to nail down a few things. By "this culture" do you mean the "pure unquestioning" culture of follow the leader? Having had some exposure to Catholicism, I believe they probably have even more troubling religious history to deal with than we do. There are several things I think one must do to overcome "this culture" as you call it. 1. You must be willing to search for the truth. If the truth really is our moniker, we must be willing to endure a little cognitive disonance in order to find it. Here, I don't necessarily mean some obscure facts - these can change according to the state of present archaeological findings, etc. I mean more spiritual truths. 2. For instance "this culture" as I see what you are saying accepts authority as "truth." I do not. I accept that those in authority may err. They have authority to tell us to do one thing, when later it is seen to be erroneous. We have to start realizing this is just not so. It is a nice comfortable little package to believe your leaders will never lead you astray, and the Church has taught that to its members, but I simply do not believe that. I have simply come to accept that leaders are imperfect with the exception of Christ, and err. That doesn't make the gospel untrue, but as we grow, and begin to see this for ouselves, it does present a challenge to many, and they become "disillusioned" due to the reality of their prior perceptions, and their new reality. I did not teach our children Santa Clause exists, because I did not want to teach them a reason to distrust me - no matter how "innocent" it seems. I didn't want to give them "Santa Claus" syndrome - the point where reality crashes their prior perceptions - including of me. I feel the Church has taught a version of Santa Claus. For a good while it worked until we continue to learn more. The primary song "follow the prophet" is a perfect example of this.... and I think of this as the culture you are talking about. Bucking that makes you a pariah... an outsider.... etc. Does that mean I reject the Church President? No. I accept that the Church has given him authority. But, I do believe that the president does not necessarily know the way any better than me, and in fact forged my own way. I am not endorsing that for others, and am not telling them to reject Church leadership nor to believe anything different than what they have taught. I am just saying that I am comfortable outside of that culture. I still believe the Church has the "true gospel" but have come to accept that does not necessarily mean that all its past teachings have been true. As I perceive it, this culture is alive and well in the Church. For example it is even in the temple worthiness questions... "[not a precise quote] do you believe or teach anything different from Church teachings or doctrine." Well, of course I do. If I give an example of this, I will probably get admonished not to pursue it further. I for example have talked about Eden in this forum, and how I do not believe Eden was in America. To challenge that perception "breaks" things. People start to get upset. Some may become diillusioned. I see it as a necessary thing in order to seek truth out and build upon it. I don't see myself as being able to pursue truth further if my underlying perceptions are false. Others see a little crack, and throw up their hands in disgust saying to themselves, I have been deceived, and led astray. They stop attending, etc. I do not think of the Church as true. "The Church" is a community of people. People are faulty sinners. The gospel is true, and built upon true scriptural principles. I do not feel obligated to follow prior interpretations. How to do that without becoming disillusioned is not easy, and to me is what makes the gospel hard. If we accept the yoke, and proceed in the right direction, the task becomes "easy." Are we communicating at the same tree here? Again, I am unsure of "the culture" you are talking about. Is it a culture of "follow the leader" or a culture of truth seekers? I don't know that the Church has any express policy that you must follow the leadership, but it is certainly ingrained in the culture. From my perception we must stop discouraging members from asking questions. Seeking after spiritual truth requires us to ask questions and seek after answers. I just went to my son's graduation where I listened to a speaker say how we must encourage questions to learn, yet I still see that there is a culture of discouraging any questions where Church leaders have spoken. We should not make members who choose to do this pariahs. If in this process, they end up becoming inactive, we should not shut them out of our families and friendships. Is that "the culture" you are talking about? Instead, let us openly share how we have grown. How we have overcome similar obstacles - because many of us have. Many of us may be content just to follow. I am quite grateful to the Church for teaching me correct gospel principles on which to build a lasting faith. To the extent that I have not come to believe everything the Church has previously taught does not make me angry, because I have never had the perception that the Church is perfect or that leaders are perfect. Has it caused me to struggle? Yes, I have struggled with understanding the atonement. I have struggled with understanding various parts of scripture. I have taken from what I perceive as true, and built upon it, instead of having the expectation that all input from the Church is true, and getting my beliefs[in Santa Claus] dashed, becoming disillusioned, and/or angry. Because of this I can give my testimony that the restored gospel is true, and that the Church is doing the Lord's work through us imperfect followers, and may be subject to correction from time to time. I do not see myself as that correcter. That is for the Lord to do. I just live my beliefs, and to the extent that is the light, I believe people may eventually follow. I do not demand the Church change for my perceptions of reality and interpretations. I have to be content with living those myself. That is how I maintain an enduring faith without imposing on others or even destroying the very thing that pointed me in the right direction, and gave me an enduing faith is God's word.
  2. I believe the differences extend a little further. More than these, I believe more importantly that we do not believe the Son is eternally begotten. That is one of my main differences with Catholicism. I have to go with the scriptural version that the Son was begotten when the Father said to Him "Thou art my Son. This DAY I have begotten thee." I believe this is central to what Christ was teaching us as so aptly pointed out by Smac, and is central to truly understanding not only the scriptures, but the nature of God. However, to say the Church has a concrete answer at present, I think would be stretching things. To solely focus on the first three points I think plays into their hands a little bit. There are some more minor differences, but this will suffice for now.
  3. You won't be getting any scholars on TikTok to challenge you is more like it. Your evidence for where YHVH came from, and how it is dated? Are you relying partly on Hebrew scripture and poetry for this assertion? By further inland in the Arabian peninsula do you mean Midian and Edom area? The true land of Sinai, where God told Moses the name YHVH? From the local Midianite vernacular/Semitic speech? Maybe. By the time of Moses it was used generically in the Semitic languages. I am not debating its earlier usage, or how the word came to be. Yeah, we've been over this before, and I know, scholars are never wrong, and never change their minds.... well except in this case. Um.. except it is seen in mines in the Sinai peninsula, and elsewhere as it began to develop. I agree that the Phoenicians rapidly developed it. Seemingly more rapidly than Israel. It is a word that developed from the semitic El. Spellings may differ. It doesn't matter. I realize that the Phoenicians had a developed economy and "state" before the Israelites, which were still largely living a nomadic lifestyle in the hill country of Canaan, and so didn't leave any earlier evidence of their alphabet in the region of present day Israel, which is what you and scholars rely on. I realize this has been the position of scholars for some decades now. Scholarly speculation.... much like speculating on whether the chicken or the egg came first. Yes, the vav means "peg" as you say, and was typically pictured as a tent stake. That suffices in meaning. If you want to say that they hadn't invented the "nail" yet, fine. Tent stake will suffice. And yes, the yod began as a pictograph of an arm, and the word yad means "hand." Wow, we agree on something. Yes, basically, all these letters began as a pictograph, and so had a "meaning" or a mind picture associated with them. To say they didn't have a meaning is pretty bold when it is pretty obvious that mind pictures of each letter is how the pictogram system developed. They definitely did have a meaning in mind as they wrote the pictures, and it is even seen in Hebrew words as you so aptly demonstrate. Thank you. No. Actually Yahweh is an artificial pronunciation created after the Middle Ages by Gesenius. You will not find the Yahweh pronunciation in antiquity nor in ancient Hebrew works. You will find Yehovah spelled exactly like that not only in the most ancient Masoretic texts but also throughout many other ancient Hebrew works. Yes, it is not spelled that way a whole lot in the Masoretic texts because they substituted other vowels to remind the reader not to pronounce it, because these were apparently commissioned works for the general Hebrew community. Sometimes the vowels of elohim were used, but often elohim is used with YHVH in the scriptures because you wouldn't want to remind the reader to say elohim in that instance because they would be forcing elohim elohim to be read. Anyway, we have been over this before as well, and Yahweh is a made up reading which appears nowhere anciently. I will try to get a reference to support that the original Masoretic text was penned by a Karaite. As I recall the family line supported it. Yep. And believing in "yahweh" is complete mythology. LOL.
  4. Well, as I see it, he saved it from inevitable doom as a progressive, left echo chamber.... kinda like CNN. I think he will manage to save Twitter if it doesn't get sued into oblivion... He is at least presently headed in the right direction against the tide. In "news" circles Fox has managed to do that, although I don't see any of the large networks relaying reliable news anymore. They are all like a dash of events with opinionated mega-phones. I believe there are enough people interested in reality to keep Twitter afloat. I agree about he government thing. Right now I see Twitter being limited to democracies. It would be cool though, to hop on Twitter and talk to anyone around the world with instant translation about anything. I'm thinking it is going to happen sooner than later...more interesting than the "metaverse."
  5. I can actually understand that, but from what I have seen thus far, it is the blind leading the blind, while making a mint. I actually do have a facebook account, although to date I haven't used it much. I believe Musk's plan is to grow Twitter into an all/everything app, which will be available on his phone, and used around the world through his satellites - even outdoing Facebook and TikTok combined - we shall see. If that happens, I will probably be using that. At present I actually kind of like Musk, but time will tell. Power and wealth typically corrupt. Maybe he will get something going before that happens...
  6. Oh, please. I hope not. All we need is new sect.... I assure you Catholicism does teach of a sinless Mary... she had to be sinless to deliver a pure birth don't ya know... I won't bother to take up the subject further here. Suffice it to say I brought it up because I do believe in original sin, but not in the doctrine that teaches we are under it, and babies are damned without baptism, and Mary had to be somehow exempt from it, etc. In Catholicism Mary was so pure, she can intercede for us... Anyway, I do not wish to be unduly critical here. I was just bringing up some points about the calendar... Of course we know when the restored Church was founded. Maybe arrival in the SLV would be appropriate to memorialize. Anyone have opinions on other dates?
  7. Christ Himself inferred David had written a certain Psalm, and many Psalms are attributed to him. Although perhaps not all. I beg to differ from you. I believe David is responsible for "writing" the Torah. Before him, it was oral, and the alphabet was not concrete enough. David was the first who had the willingness and the means to hire scribes to do it, and noted it in the Torah, in Deut which states it is the duty of the King to write the law. The scriptures attribute many of the Psalms to David, and they are written that way. Clearly, David would not have allowed something to get written and kept which was not properly attributed to him. BTW nice dodge... but no cigar.
  8. "The kingdom identified as the one lasting forever has never been identified with any certainty." My Church has adopted their own view on this, but you will note that it comes in a day after the steel legs - of course the Roman Empire was split in two basically at the time of Constantine - ie the two legs. Then the toes fit nicely into the 10 kingdoms that conquered the western half of the empire, and became the modern European nations. Many of them are still around in their original form: the Visigoths of Spain, the Suevi of Portugal, the Franks of France, the Saxons of England, the Bergundians of Bergundy, etc. This of course leads to the conclusion that this kingdom came after the early Church. I don't view it as an earthly Church, however, because no earthly Church is going to last forever. For me it is a heavenly kingdom made without hands. Daniel 12 actually takes us to these days, and not the time of Christ, because Daniel 11 has been misinterpreted so as to try to force that conclusion - which of course makes the vision fail. Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, and one, which you note, has been interpreted many times in different ways, however it is not futile to seek after understanding if God has revealed things once sealed. Do the Anabaptist sects have a view towards Rev 12 where the Church is forced into the wilderness for 1260 days, or 42 months, or a time, times and a half? You may have noted that 42 x 30 = 1260, and a time, times and a half is a preservation of the Hebrew timing of things preserved from Daniel 7, and means 3.5 years or 42 months? There are not a lot of spirits who have a true taste of curiosity, and willingness to search after truth. I find you to be one of those. I share your desire, but in actuality most are quite closed minded. Despite my own church's tenet taken after Paul to search after truth found at the end of the last article of faith: "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things," I myself am sometimes ambivalent about encouraging people to search for truth, because I think many people are not grounded enough, and get led astray. Nevertheless, that is the only way to find truth, and Joseph Smith himself encouraged it - although with a mind towards seeking it through God. I think that is the secret, because men are lost, and are constantly falling away. Nevertheless, there will come a day when the Church will stop schisming, and there will only be one Church, but it is some centuries away.
  9. Gonna keep playing... Here is some more from David, who you claim is worshiping God as a storm god. “Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings.” (Psa. 17:8) “… I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings until the disaster has passed.” (Psa. 57:1) “He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge …” (Psa. 91:4) So is David worshiping God as a bird here? Is God a bird god? Is that why He didn't want the Jews depicting Him in the temple? He appears to be by your logic... He is a bird god and a storm god....
  10. The OT is filled with poetic allusions about God. Picking just one out to prove He was a storm God is silly. I can agree that Yehovah was a heavenly God, so is depicted with heavenly allusions such as "rider on the clouds." We have to deal with the fairly small vocabulary of the Hebrew language, which doesn't even really have a word for spirit, but pictures the spirit in the form of wind... thus, all the allusions to nature depicted in the wind splintering the cedars of Lebanon, blowing the waters, etc. Unlike Caananite gods, Yehovah never allowed the people to depict Him in His House, exactly because He was not a storm god, nor a god of any of those aspects of nature. If anything, the closest He comes to describing Himself is as the sun. And thus Christ is as the brightness of the Sun, but He is not the Sun, and does not want us worshipping the sun. He is as the Sun, in that He gives us life. Many other religions have sun gods because Satan is always trying to steal Christ's glory, but Christ never asked us to worship the sun despite the many biblical allusions to Him as the sun, including His own. Confusing Biblical allusions with pagan ideas is faulty scholarship.
  11. I cannot help it.... When we get one, it will be correcting all the errors which have crept in with Catholicism, beginning with Christmas on Dec 25. Neither is it 2022 years since Christ's birth. It is 2025 years... so even the CE nomenclature is wrong.... Christ was actually born in Sept 3 BC.... so He was born 3 years Before Christ...... well, we will have to change that..... And was crucified on the Passover in 30 AD... not on a Friday 3 years later as Catholicism would have us believe.... Lest I appear too haughty, I have to admit my own Church has made some errors, but we haven't enshrined them in our own calendar as of yet, but I have been feeling the need for a corrected Church calendar... maybe I will work on that... But changing all of recorded English history by 3 years will be very confusing, so I suppose I will have to come up with a new nomenclature.... Interesting suggestion BTW. Obviously the feast of the Immaculate Conception will not be included since we do not believe in the doctrine of original sin nor a sinless Mary. Mind you this is no reflection on you personally.... I find you to be a wonderful person. Perhaps strangely enough, I do believe in original sin.... Sin occurred after the law was given... without the law man was innocent and could not sin under the law... sin is a legal concept of God.
  12. McClellan couldn't have picked a worse medium to work on since TikTok is the worst, and he won't be getting me on there to discuss this stuff, but YHWH was not a storm diety from the south. El was not an individual god, but is a generic semitic title, much like the English word "god." It meant something like "the power" and was in many titles and names. It predated the Hebrew language which was a form that came out of Israel's isolation and stay in Egypt. As the Caananites were semitic, you see El used in their word Ba el which appears in the Bible as Bael or Baal. In the Bible YHVH is called El Shaddai, El Gibbor, El Elyon or Elyon the Most High Power. These are actually two different beings, which the early Romanized Christianity and perhaps the disciples themselves did not realize. YHVH was not a storm god, but was a name actually born out of the Hebrew language. The letters of the early Hebrew were actually born out of the Egyptian hieroglyph system, and are still represented in our English alphabet today - for instance the letter A, which was the Hebrew aleph, which became the Greek Alpha. The Hebrew beit became the Greek bet. We still use the Greek names in the word Alphabet, but then we go on to teach our kids new names for each letter. We can actually credit the Hebrews for our own alphabet, as God used them to give us a superior writing system. The invention of the alphabet spread to the Phoenicians and Greeks, and eventually all the Mideast, and then Europe. As I said each of the Hebrew letters had a name and meaning. The letters of YHVH mean Behold/look the hand, behold/look the nail. This was not some foreign name adopted by Israel. The name of God is embedded in the very language of Hebrew, and is unique to them in ancient languages - and by the way it is not Yahweh. It is Yehovah. The German spelling was Jehovah because they would pronounce the J with our Y sound. The Hebrew had no hard J sound. There is no ancient Hebrew spelling Yahweh. Once the Hebrews adopted diacritical marks they had developed a custom of not pronouncing the name, but Karaite Jews did not follow that custom, and would often write the name as Yehovah, which even appears in the oldest Masoretic texts penned by Karaites by the way, and many other Hebrew works, which is how we ended up with the Jehovah spelling in the German works. Myth busted. Enjoy.
  13. From the Jewish perspective, they seem to look at all nations as Gentiles, and Jesus Himself seemed to use it that way. However, I agree with you that the term seems to be applied to the Mediterranean nations, which are identified as the progeny of Japheth. I do not recall the term ever being used to refer to descendants of Ham or Shem. Then we find these are the nations that end up carrying the gospel/teachings of Jesus. These also end up being the people that flock to the Book of Mormon, which the scriptures also call Gentiles. Although the Church has now spread out to encompass peoples throughout the world, it cannot be denied that it started with the "Gentiles" as that term is used in Genesis. Thanks for bringing up this topic. I was recently thinking about it.
  14. Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to aconceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
  15. Sorry, it is part of a much larger work I have been working on, and I am not inclined to release any part of it just yet. It will be a good bit of time yet. I know that is frustrating, so perhaps it is best not to post. I just post from time to time on interpretation/theological issues.
  16. Well, I appear to be in the minority... not too surprised there. I will eventually provide a somewhat detailed belief of my geographical beliefs, but suffice it to say that the BoM is definitely not consistent with a population of many millions in MesoAmerica at the time... nor the description of being sent to a promised land unknown to other nations.
  17. Because man has not understood the work of God. There have been 144,000 given the task of spreading the gospel, yet man has gone astray in every dispensation. Man has thought it must all be accomplished here on thie earth without realizing there have been many many worlds before this one, and will be more after this one to accomplish the task of granting eternal life to all of mankind.
  18. Yes, I believe we are spirit, and that spirit is eternal. Spirit is intelligence and cannot be created. As an example I will refer you to Abraham 3: 18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two aspirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are bgnolaum, or eternal. 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am amore intelligent than they all. There is a dichotomy in the Church about intelligences vs spirit. I use the terms interchangeably, and do not subscribe to spirit babies or spirits being born. Spirits are eternal. See above. I believe Yeshua became our elder brother when He was chosen as the first born when the Father said to Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." You will probably be able to find different views in the Church about the begotten nature of the Son. I don't view it as a settled matter within the Church. However, in the King Follett discourse of Joseph Smith he said basically that Yeshua did exactly what He had seen the Father do, and that included laying down His life for us. That is what I believe our scriptures show. This will happen in a new heavens and a new earth, where this one will not be remembered nor come into mind. This is why Yeshua said those who followed Him would judge the twelve tribes in the regeneration. We also have scripture telling us the abomination of desolation awaits the wicked not only in this world, but the next. However, the Church as a whole has not reached this stage yet. I personally believe Lucifer was a fallen spirit per Isaiah, who fell or rebelled against God in a long ago time and place - even before this world. This is NOT to be taken as Church doctrine but is my personal belief that in that sense Lucifer is an elder of Christ, who was stripped of his priesthood office. All spirits are brothers, just as we are Yeshua's brothers and sisters, so yes, in that sense Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. No need to apologize. These are all quite relevant questions. LDS do not believe angels are some separate class of God's creation. The Greek angelos is a form of the Hebrew Malak, and means the same - messenger. Isaiah teaches about the Malak/messenger of the covenant, which Christians read as Christ. So angels are merely the spirits of men who have received a job as a messenger. In my view they are intelligences and spirits. They are the same.
  19. Sure they do. Do not the scriptures teach that He is the "Father of spirits?" We are all spirits, yet have a body. That is how a spiritual entity can have a body. The Father does have a body. What Yeshua was telling us is not that the Father is merely a spirit, but that He is a spiritual being, and we need to learn to communicate with Him spiritually. He, like Jesus, is basically just like us. After all, He created us in His image. Was Yeshua a "spiritual being?" He had a gender. Because they are a remnant of our creation. I believe in evolution. I believe it is the process by which God created man. Sometimes men have more than two nipples. Sometimes our genes are not turned off in time and we develop parts that are formed differently in other mammals. So, sometimes people have more than two nipples. They have vestigial nipples that sometimes even produce milk. Sometimes people have vestigial tails, but for the "normal" people the tail disappears into the sacrum very early in fetal development. Indeed, we still form just like the earliest life did in the oceans - only the "ocean" is in the womb with the same salinity as the ocean.
  20. I don't think it was a hoax or that BYU should have reacted so rashly and defensively. Probably what happened is that the person was yelling cougar....s... and the Duke player heard the last part of that word... and her brain translated the rest. I think she thought she heard something that just wasn't there. It is never heard on a video. What should have happened, is that she should have informed someone there, and BYU should have brought out someone with a recorder to stand in the direction of the alleged insult... assuming that is legal. It certainly would be legal to break out a video recorder.... I'm personally sure the word was cougar, and have seen nor heard anything to convince me otherwise. Without that, you are right... BYU is unnecessarily making itself look bad.
  21. In addition to what has been said, I believe God does not create our spirit. He creates our soul, as it is dependent upon the body. It is basically where God speaks to us - to our spirit. Our spirit is eternal, and cannot be created by God.... I'm sure that is quite a foreign concept to the rest of Christianity, but there are some scriptures to support it. Adam was not a living soul until God breathed Adam's spirit into the body He had formed from the dust. Ecclesiastes says that the body shall return to the dust from which it came, but the spirit shall return to God who GAVE(not created) it. That comes from David (whether or not Solomon wrote it), and David is responsible for a great deal of prophetic scripture in Psalms, and is thus quoted a great deal in the NT - even by Yeshua Himself.
  22. The doctrine of the trinity are not consistent with scripture. Catholics proclaim the Father is spirit, and make El Shaddai the Father in their creeds - yet El Shaddai appears to Abraham and Moses who talk with Him, face to face. He eats with Moses and the seventy elders. The Lord drinks milk prepared by Abraham. Do you have an answer to this apparent inconsistency? Further according to Isaiah 9:6 this son is to be called the everlasting Father - yet your doctrine of the trinity teaches that the Son is not the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity serves to prevent the Son from receiving His rightful inheritance promised to Him in Isaiah....
  23. The scriptures do prove that God is a man, and strongly infer that He was once like us. "God is not a man, that He would lie." The context says He is not the type of man who would lie. "I do nothing of myself, but what I have seen the Father do. Whatsoever He does, the Son does likewise." "The man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil." How is it that God knew evil? The list goes on. ... The Hebrew letters of their name, Yehovah, means, Behold the hand, Behold the nail. ie That's the Father's name too.
  24. I have been in rather large Protestant and non-denominational choirs, and miss those days. The wards of the Church are typically just too small to support such, so we honestly don't get a lot of professionally written music in our meetings. However, there are the occassional "special" numbers often with piano or violin accompaniment, instrumental solos etc. I may have seen guitar one time in all my years of attendance, and instruments like this are going to probably have to be approved by the bishop of the ward. For large Church assemblies, the tabernacle choir and/or a musical guest will usually perform more "professional" music like Handel's Messiah, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...