ERayR Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 That book is the history of American Natives who no long exist and not really relevant to people on the other side of the world. The info in that book is not what they really need to know and it also comes to them through a man. The Book of Mormon is relevant to all if they let it be.
Sanpitch Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 In other words it has to be on your terms, not Gods. To me that seems like a recipe for failure but to each his own.What would you suggest?
Sanpitch Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 Take him on his terms.OK, I'll look through the Quran and see if I can figure out what his terms are.
Avatar4321 Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 you seem to think that I wouldn't want you to read the Quran or that you can come closer to God by reading it. If there is truth in it, it belongs to the Lord and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.But you'll find more success with the Book of Mormon. 1
Bobbieaware Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 you seem to think that I wouldn't want you to read the Quran or that you can come closer to God by reading it. If there is truth in it, it belongs to the Lord and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.But you'll find more success with the Book of Mormon.This thread motivated me to search out and read some excerpts from the Quran so as to begin to be able to compare it to the Book of Mormon. The verdict? Let's just say I want to be respectful, so I'll say nothing other than if you want to be informed go read and compare yourself.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) ........................................................................................ The pattern of the New Testament church did not contain High Priests, Patriarchs, Quorums, the FirstPresidency, Aaronic Priests, Melchizedek Priests, etc. that is found in the LDS hierarchy. Personally,I don't believe any person today has the apostolic gifts like the Book of Acts describes, yet Jesus stillcontinues to grow His church. Thanks,JimHi Jim,Actually the New Testament Church drew heavily upon already extant Jewish religious practice, and the Melchizedek priesthood of Hebrews was quickly subsumed within Roman Catholic practice (ordinary R.C. priests are priests after the order of Melchizedek, while R.C. deacons perform the functions of the Aaronic Levites) on behalf of Jesus. Nearly everything in Mormonism has an analog in the NT Church. The Twelve (or Fifteen, with three supervising priests), and bishops, elders, and deacons were in charge of the earliest Christian churches, as a direct continuation of the officers of the Jewish synagogue,[1] and of the Qumran covenant community.[2] the Twelve presbyters (or Fifteen, with the three priests) were considered the foundation wall of the New Testament and Qumran communities (1QS 8:1-8, 1QM 2:1-2, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; 4QpIsa [4Q164] 54:12; Numbers 3:4, Matthew 10:1-4, 19:28, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:13-16, John 6:70, Acts 1:13, 19:1-7 [the twelve disciples of John the Baptizer were rebaptized by Paul], Revelation 21:14). D. F. Strauss, E. P. Sanders, and J. H. Charlesworth have argued that Jesus selected the Twelve himself,[3] the three styloi "pillars" among them (Galatians 2:9, Peter, James, and John) being the leaders of the Church. "Elder" Gk presbyteros = Heb zāqēn, zĕqēnîm (1QS 6:8, 1QM 13:1). Ezra 5:5, 6:7,14, Lk 7:3, Acts 27:15, "elders of the Jews"; James 5:14, "elders of the church" ǁ Judges 21:16 "elders of the congregation"; Judith 6:16, Luke 22:66, Acts 4:5, 6:1-6, 11:30, 14:23, 15:2,4, 20:17,28, Ephesians 4:11, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 4:17-20, Titus 1:5,7. "Bishop, superintendent, overseer, guardian" LXX Gk episkopos[4] = Qumran mĕbaqqēr[5] and pāqîd (1QS 6:8,12,19-20, 1QM 13:1, CD 9:18-22, 13:7,11,13,16-17, 14:6,11,13, 15:8,14, Philo in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, VIII, 11, Josephus, Jewish War, II, 8, 3 (§122).[6] Seventy elders (Exodus 24:1,9, Luke 10:1-17, TB Sanhedrin); the eschatological Royal Council of Thirty-Six at Qumran consists of 12 priests (kohens), 12 Levites, and 12 laymen (11QT 57:12-13; cf. 2 Chronicles 19:5-11), and bring to mind the later Jewish tradition of the Thirty-Six Righteous (lamed-vavim), and perhaps the Mandaean shalmana,[7] and the 14th century A.D. Waldensian "Perfect."[8] The latter were the advanced members of the Waldensian brotherhood, and bring to mind the "twelve perfect men" at Qumran (1QS 8:1, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; TB ʼAbot 4:22) as equivalent to The Twelve Disciples/Apostles of early Christianity. In any case, “a large group of priests” joined the Primitive Christian Church (Acts 6:7), and B. Pixner believes that they came directly “from the Essene priestly class.”[9] Likewise, he suggests that the “religious communism” practiced by the Jerusalem Christians was probably based on “the social system of” the Essenes, as were many other structural and social features of early Christianity[10] (cf. Acts 2:44ff., 4:43ff., 1QS 1:7ff, 6:16ff, 7:6ff; Josephus, War, 2, 122; etc.). Acts 2:42 Greek koinōnia = Hebrew yaḥad (1QS 1:12) "union" as in ˁēṣet hăyaḥad "community council, united order." The Jews certainly used such councils, among them the Sanhedrin and the Great Assembly (Knesset haGedolah).[1] James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church; Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity, CWHN 15 (FARMS/Deseret, 2005).[2] R. E. Brown in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran (1972); enlarged as John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Crossroad, 1990), 6-7; R. Brown, New Testament Essays, 27-30 (or 49-53); Joseph Baumgarten, “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin,” JBL, 95 (1976), 59-78.[3] Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 136-138, and nn. 8-9; contra Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1984).[4] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 625.[5] See B. E. Thiering, "Mebaqqer and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple Scroll," JBL, 100:1 (1981), 59-74; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Library of Early Christianity (Phila.: Westminster, 1987), 166-167; Stephen E. Robinson, "Background for the Testaments," Ensign, Dec 1982; Kent Brown, "The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Mormon Perspective," BYU Studies, 23/1 (Winter 1983):49ff. Our English term bishop comes from the Old English biscop, which is in turn taken from Latin episcopus (A. Baugh & T. Clark, A History of the English Language, 3rd ed., 77, 79).[6] All cited by T. Gaster, Dead Sea Scriptures3 (Doubleday-Anchor, 1976), 105, 556, also citing A. Thieme, Inschriften, 17-18,32-33 (on episkopoi in mystery cults); and J. Oliver in American Journal of Philology, 68 (1947):148, (on episkopoi as executives of religious brotherhoods – cf. the 181 B.C. Inscr. Agora 63 IG II, 2nd ed., 917); the Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum l; I Tim 3:2, I Pet 2:25; and finally "deacon" Greek diakonos “servant, attendant” (1 Timothy 3:8-13; Seven deacons in Acts 6:1-6).[7] T. Gaster, Dead Sea Scriptures3, 555, citing Brandt, Mand. Religion, 74; Right Ginza 3.[8] T. Gaster, Dead Sea Scriptures3, 12-13.[9] Pixner in Charlesworth & Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus, 201.[10] Pixner in Charlesworth & Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus, 201-202, citing S. E. Johnson, “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church of Acts,” in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (N.Y., 1957), 129-142, 273-275; H. Kosmala, Hebräer, Essener, Christen: Studien zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Verkündigung, SPB 1 (Leiden, 1959); W. S. LaSor, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1962), 368-378; K. Schubert in J. Maier and K. Schubert, eds., Die Qumran-Essener (München, 1973), 127-137; R. Riesner, “Essener und Urkirche in Jerusalem,” in B. Mayer, ed., Christen und Christliches in Qumran? 139-155; O. Betz, “Kontakte zwischen Essenern und Christen,” in Mayer, 157-175; H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, I (Tübingen, 1966), 153; B. J. Capper, “‘In der Hand des Ananias . . . ‘ Erwägungen zu 1QS VI, 20 und der urchristlichen Gütergemeinschaft,” RQ, 12 (1986):223-236. Edited August 11, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 1
Sanpitch Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) you seem to think that I wouldn't want you to read the Quran or that you can come closer to God by reading it. If there is truth in it, it belongs to the Lord and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.But you'll find more success with the Book of Mormon.OK, I just wanted to see some arguments as to why someone should go to the BofM instead of other sources. My theory is that you find what you're looking for. If you want to find nothing but truth in something you're reading that's what you'll find. If you want to find nothing but something to criticize, then that's what you'll find. If a woman is pregnant she sees pregnant women everywhere she goes. Edited August 11, 2015 by Sanpitch
Okrahomer Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Alright, but then why should I change my present choice to something else? I agree we all know so little about everything, until we know more we have to accept what we have.I had asked you: what is it you hope for? Changing or not changing your beliefs has everything to do with that--and almost nothing to do with what I would say to convince you. If you are interested in anything more than criticizing religion and debating with believers, then open your mind and heart, dust your scriptures off; and study, ponder and pray. 2
ERayR Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 OK, I'll look through the Quran and see if I can figure out what his terms are. Happy hunting. I'm sure you will find something to help. By the way your sarcasm is atrocious. It really misses the mark.
Sanpitch Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Happy hunting. I'm sure you will find something to help. By the way your sarcasm is atrocious. It really misses the mark.That was not sarcasm. I was making the point that why start with the Christian bible. To an open mind the bible is not necessarily the place that someone must start. (Or the BofM.) And Okrahomer, I'm only after an interesting conversation about religion, mainly LDS. It has been interesting. Ed: Temple Square and SLC and Utah and the LDS Church is not the center of the Universe. There are many other religions all over the world and some people consider them important. Edited August 11, 2015 by Sanpitch
Okrahomer Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 That was not sarcasm. I was making the point that why start with the Christian bible. To an open mind the bible is not necessarily the place that someone must start. (Or the BofM.) And Okrahomer, I'm only after an interesting conversation about religion, mainly LDS. It has been interesting. Ed: Temple Square and SLC and Utah and the LDS Church is not the center of the Universe. There are many other religions all over the world and some people consider them important. I am a bit puzzled by your last comments. Has anyone here claimed that there are not "other religions all over the world" that are important to other people? Who here has made any claims about Temple Square/SLC/Utah being the "center of the universe"? 1
ERayR Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 That was not sarcasm. I was making the point that why start with the Christian bible. To an open mind the bible is not necessarily the place that someone must start. (Or the BofM.) And Okrahomer, I'm only after an interesting conversation about religion, mainly LDS. It has been interesting. Ed: Temple Square and SLC and Utah and the LDS Church is not the center of the Universe. There are many other religions all over the world and some people consider them important. 1) Ok I can agree with that. 2) It is isn't it. 3) I am sure there is but its importance depends on pov.
Sanpitch Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 I am a bit puzzled by your last comments. Has anyone here claimed that there are not "other religions all over the world" that are important to other people? Who here has made any claims about Temple Square/SLC/Utah being the "center of the universe"? I am a bit puzzled by your last comments. Has anyone here claimed that there are not "other religions all over the world" that are important to other people? Who here has made any claims about Temple Square/SLC/Utah being the "center of the universe"?ERayR said and I don't remember exactly, "take him on his terms" and I said alright I'll look through the Quran and see what I can find. ERayR didn't specify where I should look to find God's terms. For an outsider the thoughts of the BofM is not upper most in their mind, there are many other source. But I have to run, wife's calling.
ERayR Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 ERayR said and I don't remember exactly, "take him on his terms" and I said alright I'll look through the Quran and see what I can find. ERayR didn't specify where I should look to find God's terms. For an outsider the thoughts of the BofM is not upper most in their mind, there are many other source. But I have to run, wife's calling. It doesn't matter where you start. Its where you finally end up.
Okrahomer Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 ERayR said and I don't remember exactly, "take him on his terms" and I said alright I'll look through the Quran and see what I can find. ERayR didn't specify where I should look to find God's terms. For an outsider the thoughts of the BofM is not upper most in their mind, there are many other source. But I have to run, wife's calling. How in the heck do you get the phrase: "take him on his terms" to mean: "there are no other religions in the world that are important to some people"; or Temple Square/SLC/Utah is the "center of the universe"? I'm not seeing it. No worries about replying right away. 1
Sanpitch Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 How in the heck do you get the phrase: "take him on his terms" to mean: "there are no other religions in the world that are important to some people"; or Temple Square/SLC/Utah is the "center of the universe"? I'm not seeing it. No worries about replying right away.ERayR said: "In other words it has to be on your terms, not Gods. To me that seems like a recipe for failure but to each his own." And I said" What would you suggest?" ERayR said: "Take him on his terms" And not getting a clear answer from ERay" I said: "OK, I'll look through the Quran and see if I can figure out what his terms are." I felt at the time that all references made were related to LDS publications so I made the statement that the whole universe does not revolve around Temple Square, which I sometimes feel some LDS feel it does. It's hard to communicate with brief statements that are not always exactly what someone meant to say.
Okrahomer Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Yes, you're right about this. And it's an odd thing how words can actually impede communication.All the best to you, Sanpitch.
Avatar4321 Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 ERayR said and I don't remember exactly, "take him on his terms" and I said alright I'll look through the Quran and see what I can find. ERayR didn't specify where I should look to find God's terms. For an outsider the thoughts of the BofM is not upper most in their mind, there are many other source. But I have to run, wife's calling.Maybe you should humbly and sincerely ask Him. As every religious volume encourages this approach and yet so few actually use it. 1
Sanpitch Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 Maybe you should humbly and sincerely ask Him. As every religious volume encourages this approach and yet so few actually use it.I don't think that works. I think all the Christian world reading the bible reads the bible's statement to ask and you will receive just as Joseph Smith did but we have thousands of different answers or people imagine they get answers or there are no answers. I have run across people of other Christian faiths who feel they are constantly guided by the holy spirit in their day to day activities. I kinda think it's all in their head. This inspired my OP in that the world's people need one book clearly from God, in their own language that they can understand and be directed towards what they need to know. As it is the world is full of confusion as far as religion goes. I know, you have found the correct path but the LDS group is just a small drop in the world's population. It's not the people's fault that they can't find the way, many are sincerely looking and praying. Just a fast answer of my thoughts, have to leave to go walking with the wifey.
Bobbieaware Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) I don't think that works. I think all the Christian world reading the bible reads the bible's statement to ask and you will receive just as Joseph Smith did but we have thousands of different answers or people imagine they get answers or there are no answers. I have run across people of other Christian faiths who feel they are constantly guided by the holy spirit in their day to day activities. I kinda think it's all in their head.This inspired my OP in that the world's people need one book clearly from God, in their own language that they can understand and be directed towards what they need to know. As it is the world is full of confusion as far as religion goes. I know, you have found the correct path but the LDS group is just a small drop in the world's population. It's not the people's fault that they can't find the way, many are sincerely looking and praying.Just a fast answer of my thoughts, have to leave to go walking with the wifey.But here's what you're leaving out: From the point of view of logic and reason, it's much more reasonable to believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true religion because the theology and doctrines of the Latter-day Saints present a God and a religion that is much more in harmony with the idea that God truly is a God of love. There are so many doctrines I could point to if I only had the time (have to leave), but just the doctrine of the three degrees of glory alone makes it much more likely the LDS Church is the true religion. An extremely powerful case that the LDS Church is the true religion can be made just by applying logic and reason alone. I know folks who were intellectually convinced the LDS Church is true before they ever received a confirming spiritual confirmation. The teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just makes sense, and that puts it lightyears ahead of many other religions. For some reason, members who were born and raised in the Church often miss this very significant point, probably because they take the wonderful doctrines of the Church for granted. Edited August 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware 2
Sanpitch Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 But here's what you're leaving out: From the point of view of logic and reason, it's much more reasonable to believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true religion because the theology and doctrines of the Latter-day Saints present a God and a religion that is much more in harmony with the idea that God truly is a God of love. There are so many doctrines I could point to if I only had the time (have to leave), but just the doctrine of the three degrees of glory alone makes it much more likely the LDS Church is the true religion. An extremely powerful case that the LDS Church is the true religion can be made just by applying logic and reason alone. I know folks who were intellectually convinced the LDS Church is true before they ever received a confirming spiritual confirmation. The teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just makes sense, and that puts it lightyears ahead of many other religions. For some reason, members who were born and raised in the Church often miss this very significant point, probably because they take the wonderful doctrines of the Church for granted.You do make a good sensible argument, actually the same argument my brother makes. Twice bishop, two missions, one in Africa. And maybe not really applicable here but I like the old sayings: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." From my mom decades ago."If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fry." Take with just a little bit of humor, it's a nice phrase.
theplains Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Hi Jim,Actually the New Testament Church drew heavily upon already extant Jewish religious practice, and the Melchizedek priesthood of Hebrews was quickly subsumed within Roman Catholic practice (ordinary R.C. priests are priests after the order of Melchizedek, while R.C. deacons perform the functions of the Aaronic Levites) on behalf of Jesus. Nearly everything in Mormonism has an analog in the NT Church. Hi Robert, Thank you for the references. You seem to appeal to Roman Catholicism and the OldTestament system of the priesthood. Christ's disciples were not performing anytemple ordinances. Christ was ushering in a new covenant, not the old where peopleneeded earthly priests to approach God. Are you familiar with the New Testament's royal priesthood of believers? Do you believe it excludes women? As for the seventy that Jesus sent out. Some other manuscripts have 72. But I don't think either 70 or 72 is the critical number. It was their mission. "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come ... And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house." The context is the places that Jesus would visit before his crucifixion. They went out in pairs of 35. The LDS version of the Seventy does not apply when you consider the biblical context. These seventy are never mentioned again in the New Testament. The Book of Mormondoesn't even mention them when Jesus supposedly visited the Nephites. Thanks,Jim
Recommended Posts