Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[theplains]

Right, because Mormons knowingly and willingly go on inventing lies about God, giving God just pretext to condemn us to hell for it.

 

Come on, man, get off that high horse.

 

My question is about people of all religions. I do not single out Mormons.

 

Jim

[mass168]

I realize you may have not read all the way to the beginning of when I started commenting on this thread. 

 

Back then, I thought I was clear that I did feel mislead by the doctrine of eternal progression, in light of what I see as scriptural consistency issues it raises. What I am doing is offering those ideas to the public, to see if anyone else feels mislead. In my finite understanding, anyone who thinks about it honestly, must feel some of the same things I am feeling, so I am taking a very one-sided stance. I recognize I could be wrong. 

[Mars]

My question is about people of all religions. I do not single out Mormons.

 

Jim

 

I'm not being lied to.

[Mars]

I realize you may have not read all the way to the beginning of when I started commenting on this thread. 

 

Back then, I thought I was clear that I did feel mislead by the doctrine of eternal progression, in light of what I see as scriptural consistency issues it raises. What I am doing is offering those ideas to the public, to see if anyone else feels mislead. In my finite understanding, anyone who thinks about it honestly, must feel some of the same things I am feeling, so I am taking a very one-sided stance. I recognize I could be wrong. 

 

I honestly don't know what to tell you.  I am aware of that scripture you referenced.  Others, too, that reference the same thing.  How do we square them away with God-once-was-a-man?  How do we square them away with the God of the OT vs the God of the NT?

 

In my experience, questions like yours where I saw inconsistencies wound up being conclusions shaped by assumptions and experience.  When assumptions changed and experience did as well, understanding then followed and some inconsistencies utterly vanished.  Others changed and lost teeth.  New ones appeared.

 

I decided that inconsistencies as I saw them were just that, and that I was going to press on down the path I felt God call me to, and resolve inconsistencies on that path.

 

I don't have a strong compulsion to help offer you an explanation on God-once-sinned-but-isn't-supposed-to-change, but perhaps someone else will.  I hope you find what you're looking for.

[JLHPROF]

Moroni 8:18. If He is sinless now, He must have been sinless always? Do you see why I'm getting confused? 

 

You mean

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."

 

Despite our current usage of the word "eternity" is a finite period, not forever.  That is how you can have "eternities", that is how you can move "from eternity to eternity".

Were eternity truly infinite, there would be only one...

 

In my opinion, an eternity should be interpreted as a creation.

[mass168]

You mean

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."

 

Despite our current usage of the word "eternity" is a finite period, not forever.  That is how you can have "eternities", that is how you can move "from eternity to eternity".

Were eternity truly infinite, there would be only one...

 

In my opinion, an eternity should be interpreted as a creation. 

can I ask how you decided that? was there revelation on this? 

[Stargazer]

Apologies to everyone who may have had their "feathers ruffled" so far, I am noticeably new at this, so I appreciate everyone bearing with me. 

 

I have to admit, the idea that it is a mainstream view that we are co-eternal with God did not click with me until now. That further portion of the King Follet that cal posted triggered something in my mind. I will say that is a difficult idea for me to acccept, having been raised with the view that we started at a finite point in time, and we are not co-eternal. And I just cringe at the idea of being able to be equal with God in any manner. And the idea that comes along with it, that he was once as miserable of a sinner as myself, is disturbing. He is described throughout the Bible as being so very glorious and in a sense untouchable from a human perspective. 

 

With that in mind, it obviously becomes a little harder to argue from an LDS perspective that Isaiah 43:10 makes no sense. So I will have to study it further.

 

Well, so do I, because I cannot be equal with God.  Not ever.  He is my Father, and that relationship is eternal as well as Eternal.  As to whether or not He might at one time have been a sinner like myself, I am also uncomfortable with that.  This does not mean anything, however, for my comfort or discomfort with relation to truth is also meaningless.

 

I am sometimes heartened when it comes to what is said about Theosis in the New Testament:

 

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

1 John 3:2

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:16,17

Now, I would hesitate to put a limitation upon God to be able to do anything with me that He chose to do.

[JLHPROF]

can I ask how you decided that? was there revelation on this? 

 

Common sense - if you can have more than one of a time period then it can't be without beginning or end.

As for my opinion on the length of an eternity -

 

“Time is the ocean of existence, filled with elements and life for improvement by man. The presence and absence of the sun give days and nights--and the journey of the earth in her circuit, multiplies seasons and years; and years and ages make eternity; and eternity enlarges the scope of universal pleasure amid the glory of Gods. again it is revealed, that one of our Father’s days in Kolob, is 1,000 years. It is also revealed, that his year is, as we count, 365,000 years. Then a week of his years, by the count of heaven, is 2,555,000,000 years. Two billions, five hundred and fifty five millions of years! Just the length of eternity, as the martyred prophet said” William W. Phelps, Deseret Almanac, For the Year of our Lord, 1852’ pg. 47

 

as reference by Elder McConkie in (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, FOOTNOTES, p.32-33)

 

"All of the prophets who have seen within the veil have known many things that were never preserved and passed on to their posterity and to the residue of men. Joseph Smith and the early brethren in this dispensation knew much that we do not know and will not know until we attain the same spiritual stature that was theirs. This matter of how long eternity has been going on in our portion of created things is one of these matters. The sliver of information that has been preserved for us is found in an epistle of W. W. Phelps, written on Christmas day, 1844, and published to the Church in the Times and Seasons. Brother Phelps speaks of "Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity," in what is a clear allusion to Micah's prophecy that Bethlehem shall be the birthplace of our Lord. "Out of thee [bethlehem Ephratah] shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." the Lord said through that ancient prophet. (Micah 5:2.) Then, in an interpolative explanation of what is meant by "from eternity." or "from everlasting." Brother Phelps says. "And that eternity [the one during which Christ's doings have been known], agreeable to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system [not this world], almost two thousand five hundred and fifty-five millions of years." (Times and Seasons 5:758.) That is to say, the papyrus from which the Prophet Joseph translated the Book of Abraham, to whom the Lord gave a knowledge of his infinite creations, also contained this expression relative to what apparently is the universe in which we live, which universe has been created by the Father through the instrumentality of the Son. The time mentioned has no reference, as some have falsely supposed, to the period of this earth's existence.

 

So you see, when we say God was unchanged from eternity, we really are saying that God is unchanged since the beginning of this creationary period (eternity), a period that runs approximately 2,555,000,000 years.

 

And when this creation is complete and this earth becomes Celestial and we move on to the next creation, a new eternity will begin...from eternity to eternity.

[mass168]

 

This does not mean anything, however, for my comfort or discomfort with relation to truth is also meaningless.

 

Well said. I totally agree with this in regards to absolute truth. I also have no argument with you about when the Bible says we will become like God.

 

I said I was uncomfortable for a reason however. There are a great many ideas put forth in the Bible that make no sense when we allow that God was a sinner. It becomes a matter of scriptural integrity to me.  

[mass168]

JLH: I admit I never thought I would find myself arguing about the meaning of the word eternity. It seems to be a word that was invented purely for the purpose of describing the infinite, not the finite. All those quotes you posted are very interesting, since someone seems to share your opinion, and it will take me a while to make sense of them. 

 

That being said. What about this part of the verse "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being?"  I really don't understand how anyone can look at this combination of words, and then come up with eternal progression. Someone who is not a changeable being is not a changeable being. Try this, start explaining eternal progression to yourself in your head, then go back and look at this sentence. Do you not feel a contradiction? 

[Stargazer]

Well, the short answer is, God is not a sinner.

 

As my avatar and screen name suggests, I am interested in things astronomical, and that includes associated areas of knowledge such as physics.  As you are doubtless aware, our cosmology has advanced to the point where we believe we know how old the Universe is.  And it's in the vicinity of 13 billion years old.  This is based upon distance measurements, and the furthest we appear to be able to see with the greatest telescopes is that distance.  Since it would take light 13 billion years to go that distance, well, there you go.  So, 13 billion years ago, there was Nothing.  Not even space.  Suddenly occurred the Big Bang.  And all the matter and energy that we see in the Universe began pouring out.  From where?  There is no way of knowing.  Our mathematics break down when trying to calculate back PAST the Big Bang to what was before.  And I have to say, I was being inaccurate when I said there was Nothing, because there wasn't even Nothing (implying empty space).  It is undefined, just like trying to figure out how to find the square root of a negative number.  Better pack a lunch because you'll be at it for... well, a long long time.

 

Now, it must be clear to anyone with any spiritual insight at all that God exists outside of the Universe, otherwise He couldn't have created the Universe.  Therefore whatever origin God has (or if He even has an origin). is beyond us, and we can only know what He has told us.  He has told us that He is Perfect.

 

But since He has told us that we may one day be like Him, we will likewise have to be Perfect.  The Atonement of Christ makes this inevitable, apparently.  And we will not be Sinners, either, because the Atonement of Christ takes away our sins. 

 

To imagine anything less seems to me, at least, to foolishly limit the power of the Atonement.

[JLHPROF]

JLH: I admit I never thought I would find myself arguing about the meaning of the word eternity. It seems to be a word that was invented purely for the purpose of describing the infinite, not the finite. All those quotes you posted are very interesting, since someone seems to share your opinion, and it will take me a while to make sense of them. 

 

That being said. What about this part of the verse "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being?"  I really don't understand how anyone can look at this combination of words, and then come up with eternal progression. Someone who is not a changeable being is not a changeable being. Try this, start explaining eternal progression to yourself in your head, then go back and look at this sentence. Do you not feel a contradiction? 

 

Of course I do.  There are many seeming contradictions in the gospel.

 

When it comes down to the nature of God, I am a Mormon.  I am a 100% to my core Mormon.  There is not a drop of evangelical to my beliefs.  I do not need a God beyond our understanding.  I do not need a God without beginning or end.  I choose to believe in a God that is my literal father.  That loves me as his son, in a God whose entire purpose in creating the universe is not to glorify himself but is to bring those of his chlildren who are willing into the same exalted state as he is that we may glorify him.

 

I believe Joseph Smith saw God the Father and the Son in the grove.  I believe Joseph Smith received many revelations that were the direct word of God.  I believe Joseph saw the Father on several occasions, including in the school of the prophets.  I believe the King Follett discourse to be the greatest sermon since Christ on the Mount and I will take the word of the only man in our day who has actually seen and conversed with God face to face over all the scripture ever written.

 

I believe in eternal progression because I believe the prophet of this last dispensation stands as witness and testator to the nature and existence of God.

And I believe that this is life eternal - to know the character and nature of God and Jesus Christ.  Just as Joseph did.

[Avatar4321]

For immediate example, Proverbs 30:5-6? In general though, I just don't feel comfortable at all with the idea of believing that we can become Gods, when the God of the Bible says that is nonsense. At best, I am very concerned by the Church's representation of this idea. doesn't give you the warm fuzzy they are teaching the right things.

Jesus said that those who received the word are gods. Are you suggesting He was wrong ?

[mass168]

 

 

I believe in eternal progression because I believe the prophet of this last dispensation stands as witness and testator to the nature and existence of God.

Moroni 8:18 came straight from this same man's mouth, in the most pure and incorruptible way that we humans know of, according to the tradition. If you are 100% Mormon, it is a very unexpected thing to hear you "die on the altar" of the King Follet, which is not only not canonized, but highly disputed in some circles. What happened to sticking to the Standard works? 

[mass168]

Jesus said that those who received the word are gods. Are you suggesting He was wrong ?

I am not. The reason the discussion came to that point is because I stated I believed doctrine and scripture must be consistent. Therefore for me, Isaiah 43:10 cast doubt upon the Lorenzo Snow couplet, because I believe the Bible more than I believe Snow. 

[JLHPROF]

Moroni 8:18 came straight from this same man's mouth, in the most pure and incorruptible way that we humans know of, according to the tradition. If you are 100% Mormon, it is a very unexpected thing to hear you "die on the altar" of the King Follet, which is not only not canonized, but highly disputed in some circles. What happened to sticking to the Standard works? 

 

Yes, I will live and die on the King Follet.  Canonization means nothing to truth.  I say again it is the most important discourse from heaven since the Savior on the Mount.

As for the standard works:

 

1. Joseph said "“Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.”  He gazed into heaven repeatedly and surely knew more than was ever written on the subject (including in the scriptures)

AND

2. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.” When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.”  (Conference Report, October 1897, p.22-23)

[Stargazer]

JLH: I admit I never thought I would find myself arguing about the meaning of the word eternity. It seems to be a word that was invented purely for the purpose of describing the infinite, not the finite. All those quotes you posted are very interesting, since someone seems to share your opinion, and it will take me a while to make sense of them. 

 

That being said. What about this part of the verse "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being?"  I really don't understand how anyone can look at this combination of words, and then come up with eternal progression. Someone who is not a changeable being is not a changeable being. Try this, start explaining eternal progression to yourself in your head, then go back and look at this sentence. Do you not feel a contradiction?

What is changeable? He commanded Abraham to practise circumcision. He continued the commandment with Moses. However, after Jesus circumcision was done away. Presumably Abraham could eat pork. But eating pork (along with a lot of other things) was forbidden after Moses. This was rescinded after Jesus. Evidently, animal sacrific was the rule until after Jesus, but was done away with from then on. The Sabbath was celebrated on the 7th day up until after Jesus, when it was changed to the 1st day, and changed from sunset to sunset to midnight to midnight.

Now I am not arguing with God, you understand, for I am sure in all of this He is being perfectly consistent. Just not with any rules or laws He has chosen to make public.

Now, it would seem that God may change His Universe, especially when we consider that it began at the Big Bang, but isn't changing His Universe in a sense a change in God? I don't know, but one thing I do know is that I can trust Him because He is unchangeable. He won't suddenly decide that this week He doesn't happen to feel like honoring His promise to forgive my sins if I accept His Son as my Savior and all that entails.

In short, God does not play at dice, to quote a certain physicist. At least with His promises.

[mass168]

What is changeable? He commanded Abraham to practise circumcision. He continued the commandment with Moses. However, after Jesus circumcision was done away. Presumably Abraham could eat pork. But eating pork (along with a lot of other things) was forbidden after Moses. This was rescinded after Jesus. Evidently, animal sacrific was the rule until after Jesus, but was done away with from then on. The Sabbath was celebrated on the 7th day up until after Jesus, when it was changed to the 1st day, and changed from sunset to sunset to midnight to midnight.

Now I am not arguing with God, you understand, for I am sure in all of this He is being perfectly consistent. Just not with any rules or laws He has chosen to make public.

Now, it would seem that God may change His Universe, especially when we consider that it began at the Big Bang, but isn't changing His Universe in a sense a change in God? I don't know, but one thing I do know is that I can trust Him because He is unchangeable. He won't suddenly decide that this week He doesn't happen to feel like honoring His promise to forgive my sins if I accept His Son as my Savior and all that entails.

In short, God does not play at dice, to quote a certain physicist. At least with His promises

I'm sorry you see those examples as the same as what we have been discussing, I think they are quite different to be honest. To prove I am not just saying that to change the subject, here's one example. Animal sacrifice in the temple was a sign or "shadow" of things to come in the New Covenant. A sign that Christ would eventually be the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and he would complete what millions of animal sacrifices before Him were not actually completing, the atonement for sinful man. They are obsolete.

 

But it becomes clear to me you are not above changing the definition of words like eternal, and bucking scripture to keep your faith. So I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you. To me, scripture and faith and doctrine are all hopelessly intertwined, and I am forced to examine diligently all seeming contradictions, and satisfy in my own mind that they are not actual contradictions. If you do not feel the need to do the same I guess we don't have much to talk about. 

[mass168]

Canonization might mean nothing to you, but you have just as much proof that Smith said Moroni 8:18 as you do he said the words of the King Follet, if not more. That was my point. Why are you picking and choosing which of his words to believe. 

[mass168]

I'm very sorry stargazer, that last paragraph was supposed to be for JLH: 

 

I haven't figured out how to edit my posts yet

[mass168]

JLH: 

 

But it becomes clear to me you are not above changing the definition of words like eternal, and bucking scripture to keep your faith. So I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you. To me, scripture and faith and doctrine are all hopelessly intertwined, and I am forced to examine diligently all seeming contradictions, and satisfy in my own mind that they are not actual contradictions. If you do not feel the need to do the same I guess we don't have much to talk about.

[Calm]

Well said. I totally agree with this in regards to absolute truth. I also have no argument with you about when the Bible says we will become like God.

 

I said I was uncomfortable for a reason however. There are a great many ideas put forth in the Bible that make no sense when we allow that God was a sinner. It becomes a matter of scriptural integrity to me.

Thereis nothing in LDS doctrine that requires God as a sinner. Not even the couplet. The prevailing thought for a long time was the Father had been a Son in his mortality due to the KFD.

[Calm]

Well said. I totally agree with this in regards to absolute truth. I also have no argument with you about when the Bible says we will become like God.

I said I was uncomfortable for a reason however. There are a great many ideas put forth in the Bible that make no sense when we allow that God was a sinner. It becomes a matter of scriptural integrity to me.

Thereis nothing in LDS doctrine that requires God as a sinner. Not even the couplet. The prevailing thought for a long time was the Father had been a Son in his mortality due to the KFD.

JLH: I admit I never thought I would find myself arguing about the meaning of the word eternity. It seems to be a word that was invented purely for the purpose of describing the infinite, not the finite. All those quotes you posted are very interesting, since someone seems to share your opinion, and it will take me a while to make sense of them.

That being said. What about this part of the verse "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being?" I really don't understand how anyone can look at this combination of words, and then come up with eternal progression. Someone who is not a changeable being is not a changeable being. Try this, start explaining eternal progression to yourself in your head, then go back and look at this sentence. Do you not feel a contradiction?

A God that can't change in the terms you are likely thinking of can't become a creator, can't have feelings or thoughts or engage in the lives of his creations, etc. So is not scriptural and the definition of that term or translation of it must mean something else. As in when he makes a covenant he follows though. Given God'srelations with all others is probably covenantal,this becomes about being able to trust and rely on him because he keeps his promises unlike the many fickle pagan gods of that time. God would not play games with your soul. On the other hand, a being that has a core eternal nature that he allows to be impacted by events and people...that being can progressing many ways. Edited December 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Stargazer]

I'm sorry you see those examples as the same as what we have been discussing, I think they are quite different to be honest. To prove I am not just saying that to change the subject, here's one example. Animal sacrifice in the temple was a sign or "shadow" of things to come in the New Covenant. A sign that Christ would eventually be the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and he would complete what millions of animal sacrifices before Him were not actually completing, the atonement for sinful man. They are obsolete.

 

But it becomes clear to me you are not above changing the definition of words like eternal, and bucking scripture to keep your faith. So I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you. To me, scripture and faith and doctrine are all hopelessly intertwined, and I am forced to examine diligently all seeming contradictions, and satisfy in my own mind that they are not actual contradictions. If you do not feel the need to do the same I guess we don't have much to talk about.

I said what I said to indicate that God may appear changeable to us, but that does not make Him changeable. I am aware that the sacrifices set forth in the Law of Moses are shadows of the true sacrifice, which would be the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son. A sacrifice which crowned all sacrifices, fulfilled them, and made them no longer necessary. When the Real has happened, the Shadow is done away.

As to "eternal", yes, I see you were directing that at JLH, but nevertheless: I sometimes speak as if there were two senses, yes, and I designate them "eternal" and "Eternal", but I don't think this changes much. The lower-case eternal is simply that which lasts forever. The upper-case Eternal pertains to God. As an example of this usage, consider the resurrection, which is a free gift to all of Father's children. Thus, all will have eternal life. On the other hand, not all of God's children will be permitted to live with Him. That is Eternal life, or in other words, God's life. I reallize that this distinction may not be had outside of Latter-day Saint circles, but it's common among us.

I assure you I am not bucking scripture in order to keep my faith. I may understand scripture differently from you, but I am not bucking it.

I've been in some pretty deep conversations with non-LDS Christians over one thing and the other, and sometimes it can get very very frustrating because so many insist upon analyzing every word and phrase as if true meaning could only be found upon correctly laying out and interpreting all of the words in just the right way. And this is frustrating because even when it seems to me that the clear meaning of a verse is X, they would insist upon Y. While another non-LDS Christian might end up with Z.

If truth could be ascertained simply by correctly interpreting scripture there wouldn't be 10,000 Christian denominations. As an example not taken at random, consider the doctrine of the Trinity as understood by Creedal Christians. Where is this doctrine found in the New Testament? Answer: it isn't found there. The only place there is even a shadow of it is John 1:1. This is what is used to justify it scripturally, and yet there have been theologians who have admitted that it was a stretch, or even completely unjustified. I'm thinking Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin on that last point, but I am really not sure. And then we come to the Johannine Comma. This is an insertion into 1 John 5:7-8, adding words that justify the Trinity, but which are generally recognized today as a forgery. In other words, someone who was nervous about the doctrine of the Trinity not being properly supported in scripture decided to correct the "oversight". Another theory is that someone wrote the Comma as a marginal note, and a later scribe took the note as an alternate or superior reading, and in all good will inserted it into the verses in question. That's my favorite theory, by the way.

Here is the problem: if "scripture and faith and doctrine are all hopelessly intertwined", and if the scripture is not certain but is imperfect, or imperfectly transmitted, then where is your doctrine going to find itself? It's going to find itself being subject to what amounts to Christian Rabbis debated with one another what is meant by the word "baptism", and deciding that it means to sprinkle someone with Holy Water taken from the River Jordan, when the clear meaning of the original Greek is to "immerse", something not possible by sprinkling. And then we come to those who regard baptism as optional! This seems critical, since Jesus himself had to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness, and then to say it's optional? And later he said to Nicodemus that except a man were baptized he couldn't enter into the Kingdom of God! Yikes! And this is optional?

I am not trying to oppose the use of scripture in seeking doctrine, but I am trying to say that scripture alone, sans the Holy Ghost, sans prophetic insight if you will, may be insufficient to obtain it. When Christians start to debate one with another as if they were from competing Rabbinical schools, judging by the placement of jots and tittles in the scriptures, and by the commentaries that wise men of the past have written, then Katie bar the door, we're in for it now.

I do not know Christ because of my detailed and minute examination of the Gospels. I know Christ because the Spirit of God has testified to me in ways that I cannot deny that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the Living God. I know that he suffered and died to cleanse me of my sins, and I know this because it has been revealed to me. True, I have read many things in connection with all of this, but it wasn't the reading that brought to the decision point. It was the Spirit.

Incidentally, and I assume you must have at least heard of this, but Joseph Smith was brought to pray to God about which Church to join as a direct result of having observed how the various denominations understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to make it impossible for them to be under the same Church roof together.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I'm very sorry stargazer, that last paragraph was supposed to be for JLH: 

 

I haven't figured out how to edit my posts yet

The board won't let you edit your posts until you hit a certain threshhold. I think it is 25 posts.