jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 God honors agency, which might mean He leads us where we are inclined to go at the moment, and that may or may not be the optimal place. So, you're saying David T's stay in the LDS church may be temporary?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 So, you're saying David T's stay in the LDS church may be temporary? I haven't acquainted myself with David T's story, but obviously I believe that, as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's kingdom on earth, it is the optimal place. 1
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I haven't acquainted myself with David T's story, but obviously I believe that, as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's kingdom on earth, it is the optimal place. I know, Scott. Do you think that God might find that somewhere other than the LDS church might be optimal for someone to accomplish God's plans for him or her? That's my wife's conviction, and I'm inclined to agree with her.
David T Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 I haven't acquainted myself with David T's story, but obviously I believe that, as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's kingdom on earth, it is the optimal place. I was baptized February 28, 2004. Tomorrow is my 10 year Churchiversary*. I have no plans for this to be temporary. * I was confirmed on February 29, which I don't get to observe too often 3
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I was baptized February 28, 2004. Tomorrow is my 10 year Churchiversary*. I have no plans for this to be temporary. * I was confirmed on February 29, which I don't get to observe too often In all seriousness, I'm glad you have found peace and fulfillment in the LDS church. That means it's where you should be. 1
california boy Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I remember as a kid, sitting in seminary and the instructor telling us about how the Book of Abraham came about. He told us that Joseph received these papyrus and discovered that they were the actual writings of Abraham. That God had directed these ancient writings into the hands of Joseph so that the writings of Abraham would be able to be restored and read in our time. I though as a student, what are the odds of the actual writings of Abraham written 6000 years ago finding their way to Joseph Smith on the American continent. But then with God, nothing is impossible. I accepted what was carefully explained to me. The teacher also explained that the original papyrus had been lost, probably burned up in the Chicago fire. I thought, what a shame. If those fragments were still around, it would be concrete proof that what Joseph Smith claimed was in fact true. Finding those original papyrus would be undeniable evidence of the divinity of the work Joseph was involved in. But perhaps God himself destroyed the papyrus so that we would have to walk in faith. Finding the original papyrus ended up being one of the worse things rather than the best things to help my faith. I have heard the various "explanations", but they all ring as false and counter to what I was taught when the papyrus were "lost". It is a hard thing to get past. I certainly look at the church differently. Now I view the church not as what it claimed to be, but solely on the goodness and comfort so many people have found living it's principles. One has to discard some of the claims of Joseph Smith, but be able to embrace so many of the wonderful concepts he taught and introduced that are unique to Mormonism. You can't throw out everything that is good because of some issues. You have to embrace the part that works for you. It is a different paradigm. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I know, Scott. Do you think that God might find that somewhere other than the LDS church might be optimal for someone to accomplish God's plans for him or her?My first impulse was to answer no. Our ultimate divine potential is only to be realized by following the path found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But then I thought of Thomas L. Kane, who lived during Brigham Young's time. He was a great friend and benefactor to the Church. I doubt he would have been as effective a benefactor had he joined the Church. For him to accomplish what he did, he had to do it from his position as a non-Mormon. The best thing for Thomas L. Kane personally would have been to unite himself with the Latter-day Saints. In the end, I have no doubt God would have been able to raise up someone else in Kane's place had it been necessary to do so because of Kane's joining the Church.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 My first impulse was to answer no. Our ultimate divine potential is only to be realized by following the path found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But then I thought of Thomas L. Kane, who lived during Brigham Young's time. He was a great friend and benefactor to the Church. I doubt he would have been as effective a benefactor had he joined the Church. For him to accomplish what he did, he had to do it from his position as a non-Mormon. The best thing for Thomas L. Kane personally would have been to unite himself with the Latter-day Saints. In the end, I have no doubt God would have been able to raise up someone else in Kane's place had it been necessary to do so because of Kane's joining the Church. My wife's example (a good one) is Mother Teresa. There is simply no way she could have accomplished what she did had she been a member of the LDS church. She needed to be in the right place in the right time, and that was within the Catholic faith. As I said, I am in complete agreement with my wife. She actually softened my attitude, as for a short while I was convinced that, because the LDS church isn't actually true, God would not lead anyone to join it. But, as she reminded me, we've both seen people who have been led into the church and, dare I say, out of the church. I leave it to God and figure He knows what He is doing. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) Why do you believe Joseph needed a catalyst to translate the BoA, but not the Book of Moses?The Book of Moses came as part of Joseph Smith's new translation of the Bible (what we today call the Joseph Smith Translation). Not so with the Book of Abraham. It may have been that it would not have occurred to Joseph to undertake a translation of the Book of Abraham had the scrolls not come into his possession. But I hasten to add that I don't endorse any specific theory about the origin of the Book of Abraham and will only say that I believe wholeheartedly it came forth in its authenticity by the gift and power of God, as did other divine scripture that has emerged in this dispensation. Edited February 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 My wife's example (a good one) is Mother Teresa. There is simply no way she could have accomplished what she did had she been a member of the LDS church. She needed to be in the right place in the right time, and that was within the Catholic faith. As I said, I am in complete agreement with my wife. Could not God have raised up someone else to accomplish the same or similar service as did Mother Teresa? And couldn't Mother Teresa have accomplished as much or more good as a Latter-day Saint as she did as a Catholic? She actually softened my attitude, as for a short while I was convinced that, because the LDS church isn't actually true, God would not lead anyone to join it. But, as she reminded me, we've both seen people who have been led into the church and, dare I say, out of the church. I leave it to God and figure He knows what He is doing. I can't accept that God leads people out of the Church, though He may continue to guide them -- to the extent they are willing to be led -- and thus mitigate whatever harm might otherwise result and bring about whatever good things might otherwise not come.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Could not God have raised up someone else to accomplish the same or similar service as did Mother Teresa? And couldn't Mother Teresa have accomplished as much or more good as a Latter-day Saint as she did as a Catholic? I agree with my wife that she was in the right place at the right time, and I don't think it was luck. I can't accept that God leads people out of the Church, though He may continue to guide them -- to the extent they are willing to be led -- and thus mitigate whatever harm might otherwise result and bring about whatever good things might otherwise not come. Obviously, we're going to disagree. I know I'm in a much better place than I was in the church, and despite how painful it was, I'm glad I went through that process. I don't think God is done with me yet, but I have no doubt that I'm on the road where He wants me to be. There's nothing like being at peace, and I never understood that before.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I agree with my wife that she was in the right place at the right time, and I don't think it was luck. I haven't disagreed with this. Moreover, I don't think it negates what I suggested, namely that God could have raised up someone else to accomplish the same or similar service as did Mother Teresa and that Mother Teresa might have accomplished as much or more good as a Mormon as she did as a Catholic. Obviously, we're going to disagree. I know I'm in a much better place than I was in the church, and despite how painful it was, I'm glad I went through that process. I don't think God is done with me yet, but I have no doubt that I'm on the road where He wants me to be. There's nothing like being at peace, and I never understood that before. I'm disinclined to participate in a discussion here about your personal circumstances, John.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I haven't disagreed with this. Moreover, I don't think it negates what I suggested, namely that God could have raised up someone else to accomplish the same or similar service as did Mother Teresa and that Mother Teresa might have accomplished as much or more good as a Mormon as she did as a Catholic. I'm disinclined to participate in a discussion here about your personal circumstances, John. I brought it up only to point out that I think leaving can be good and can be what God wants.
theplains Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 And I'm even less hopeful that President Monson or any of his successors will bring forth the Book of Joseph any time soon. I'm still wondering if they will ever add anything to the D&C after the last entry in 1978. Maybethe LDS canon is closed after all. Regards,Jim
Anteojito Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) I'm still wondering if they will ever add anything to the D&C after the last entry in 1978. Maybethe LDS canon is closed after all. Regards,JimI think they will. In 15-20 years when the prophet will receive a revelation giving temple blessings to all worthy members regardless of sexual orientation. Edited February 28, 2014 by Anteojito
cinepro Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 I think they will. In 15-20 years when the prophet will receive a revelation giving temple blessings to all worthy members regardless of sexual orientation. How would that be different than the current policy? 1
Anteojito Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 How would that be different than the current policy?So currently gay couples can be sealed in the temple?
cinepro Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) So currently gay couples can be sealed in the temple? Gay members of the Church can currently receive "Temple Blessings" if they are worthy. Including being sealed to a spouse. Edited February 28, 2014 by cinepro
jkwilliams Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Gay members of the Church can currently receive "Temple Blessings" if they are worthy. Including being sealed to a spouse. Yeah, I know more than one gay man who was sealed in the temple. Hasn't worked out so well.
Anteojito Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Gay members of the Church can currently receive "Temple Blessings" if they are worthy. Including being sealed to a spouse.I think you know what I meant
omni Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 The Book of Moses came as part of Joseph Smith's new translation of the Bible (what we today call the Joseph Smith Translation). Not so with the Book of Abraham. It may have been that it would not have occurred to Joseph to undertake a translation of the Book of Abraham had the scrolls not come into his possession. But I hasten to add that I don't endorse any specific theory about the origin of the Book of Abraham and will only say that I believe wholeheartedly it came forth in its authenticity by the gift and power of God, as did other divine scripture that has emerged in this dispensation. To accept the catalyst theory one would also have to accept what would seems to be a regression in Joseph's translation and revelatory abilities. He apparently (I realize there is some debate on this) initiates the translation of the BoM using the plates and then progresses to a point where he no longer physically needs them. After completing the BoM he's able to produce the Book of Moses through direct revelation without the aid of any extant or original documents. In a similar manner, during this same time period he's able to receive revelations for what would later become the D&C. At this point in time - after the production of several hundred pages of scripture - one would expect Joseph to be "at the peak of his game", yet instead we are expected to believe that he needed a completely unrelated (and apparently unbeknownst to him) document as a catalyst to bring forth the BoA. I'm struggling to understand how this makes any sense. 1
cinepro Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 After completing the BoM he's able to produce the Book of Moses through direct revelation without the aid of any extant or original documents. Pretty sure the Book of Moses was produced with the aid of a King James Bible.
omni Posted March 1, 2014 Posted March 1, 2014 Pretty sure the Book of Moses was produced with the aid of a King James Bible.What I was referring to is that Joseph wasn't translating directly from the original source material the Book of Moses would have been written on, in contrast to how the BoA and BoM were translated. Instead he received the book through revelation. One could make the argument that the Bible served as a catalyst for the Book of Moses, but at least there was a direct relation between the two, which can't be said for the papyri and the BoA under the catalyst theory.
cinepro Posted March 1, 2014 Posted March 1, 2014 What I was referring to is that Joseph wasn't translating directly from the original source material the Book of Moses would have been written on, in contrast to how the BoA and BoM were translated. Instead he received the book through revelation. One could make the argument that the Bible served as a catalyst for the Book of Moses, but at least there was a direct relation between the two, which can't be said for the papyri and the BoA under the catalyst theory. If I understand correctly, even those who support a "literal translation/ lost papyrus" theory for the Book of Abraham acknowledge that the actual papyrus would have been a copy made centuries after Abraham died. 1
Helen47 Posted March 1, 2014 Posted March 1, 2014 If the views if archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein and William Denver are valid then there was no Moses, no Exodus and no conquest. If the children of Israel were supposed to have lived in one spot for 30 so years why then is there no evidence ? (pottery, burial sites, etc) Of all the cities Joshua is supposed to have conquered except for 2 cities no evidence of conquest. Young students have access to youtube and will eventually come across this stuff. Should seminary and institute teachers acknowledge these issue?
Recommended Posts