The body of Christ

[Five Solas]

13 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

...

Why should God protect you or me...

Why should God do anything at all for rebels?  That's actually a pretty chilling question, Atheist Mormon. 

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

The miracles you are talking about total nonsense...Why should God protect you or me (I have my share of miracles too) and snatch babies away from mothers bosom in Tsunami? I am very happy to hear all those good things happened to you, I share your joy of survival, it could happen even you prayed to Allah or Buddha. 

If your God favors you or me because we are Christian, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with him.

Both you and LittleNipper speak from ignorance of the true Christian religion, which skews all your comments and renders them false:  God is no respecter of persons:

Matt 5:45, "he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/11/2016 at 7:40 PM, Woody said:

Isn't the Feast of Trumpets in the fall?

 

On 12/11/2016 at 7:45 PM, waveslider said:

Wasn't it September 21, 1823 that Moroni visited JS and told him of the plates?

Actually that was during the evening of Sept 21, 1823, and the series of three visions continued throughout that night on into the morning of Sept 22, when it was time for Joseph to go to work.  Joseph was unable to work due to exhaustion, so his father sent him home.  But on the way he had a fourth vision.

However, this did not take place at the Feast of Trumpets (Jewish New Year), but that day was Sunday-Monday, Jewish 17 Tishrei (which lasted from sundown to sundown) early in the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) - Jewish law prohibits hard work on such a day (chol hamo'ed)).  The Jewish calendar floats with respect to the solar Christian calendar, and Joseph returned as ordered to the same hill each successive year on Sept 22, until permitted to take the plates in 1827.  Each year was on a different Jewish date:

Sept 22, 1824 =  29 Elul 5585  (Eve of Feast of Trumpets, New Year)

Sept 22, 1825 = 10 Tishrei 5586  (Day of Atonement, tenth of the High Holy Days)

Sept 22, 1826 = 20 Elul 5586  (Eve of Sabbath)

Sept 22, 1827 = 1 Tishrei 5588  (Sabbath and Feast of Trumpets, New Year), Joseph hiding the plates in a hollow log, and retrieving them ten days later on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the holiest day of the Jewish year, and a day on which God protects his people from harm.

The secularist looks at such a date and sees only Autumnal Equinox.  Yet the actual context is of prime importance:  Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Moroni Deliver the Plates on September 22? (Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, front of 2013 edition of the Book of Mormon; cf. Joseph Smith—History 1:59),” KnoWhy #193 (Sept 22, 2016), online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-did-moroni-deliver-the-plates-on-september-22 .  Alternative title: “Why Did Moroni Deliver the Plates on the Jewish New Year?”

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/11/2016 at 7:22 PM, waveslider said:

I think it is interesting that the sacrament is made up of one loaf of bread that is broken up into pieces for all of us to take, as we recommit to taking His name upon us in being the body of Christ, in an act of unifying us as one. Did other denominations think of it this way, or were they all just eating wafers? Did JS restore that symbolism as well, or was that symbolism not lost totally?

Actually, the bread is merely an emblem of the body of Christ (corpus Christi), and it is eaten during the symbolic reenactment of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper -- part of our sacred oath of remembrance, repentance, and obedience to our Lord and Savior.  In Aramaic, Jesus probably said something like den bisri "this is my body."

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/13/2016 at 0:23 PM, snowflake said:

Correct, the autumnal equinox. Here is an interesting article by Michael Quinn on the subject.

http://blog.mrm.org/2008/09/joseph-smith-and-the-magical-autumnal-equinox/

Actually, that is not an article by Mike Quinn, but an article by someone else who quotes Quinn's book, along with others.  How interesting that they all miss the most important date correlations.  Jewish dates continued to be of prime importance on other occasions as well.

[waveslider]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, the bread is merely an emblem of the body of Christ (corpus Christi), and it is eaten during the symbolic reenactment of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper -- part of our sacred oath of remembrance, repentance, and obedience to our Lord and Savior.  In Aramaic, Jesus probably said something like den bisri "this is my body."

That was my point. It is symbolic of His body. We are also told that we are His body:

"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
1 Corinthians 12:27

Even Christ Himself, when offering the Sacrament took one loaf and broke it into many pieces for all of them to partake of it in remembrance of His body. You don't think that the symbolism goes deep enough to symbolize how we, as followers of Christ, who partake in this sacred oath of remembrance, repentance and obedience, recognizing the at-one-ment as being part of what we are remembering, are made, "at one," with all the followers of Christ (as well as being at one with Christ and our Father in Heaven), who are also partakers in Christ's gift of atonement, as the body of Christ?

[cdowis]

On 12/22/2016 at 0:19 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

That is the biggest LIE I have ever heard. 80% of my Christian ancestors got slaughtered, just to put their faith in God. Rather than accumulating weapons to defend themselves they built beautiful churches. Those stone churches took alot to destroy, even today the country is littered with those half standing churches but none of my ancestors. 

I'm sorry my friend, you are on a time wasting path and missing out of life meanwhile. Once you are gone, you are dead, nothing will come back, re-create you.

I agree that we have a responsibility to defend ourselves, our families, our religion.  The Lord made that very clear in the Book of Mormon.  One hero was the great warrior, Moroni.  They were victims of their religious beliefs devoid of God's living prophets.

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by cdowis

[Five Solas]

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

That was my point. It is symbolic of His body. We are also told that we are His body:

"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
1 Corinthians 12:27

Even Christ Himself, when offering the Sacrament took one loaf and broke it into many pieces for all of them to partake of it in remembrance of His body. You don't think that the symbolism goes deep enough to symbolize how we, as followers of Christ, who partake in this sacred oath of remembrance, repentance and obedience, recognizing the at-one-ment as being part of what we are remembering, are made, "at one," with all the followers of Christ (as well as being at one with Christ and our Father in Heaven), who are also partakers in Christ's gift of atonement, as the body of Christ?

Both you and Robert F. Smith refer to the Christian ordinance of Lord's Supper with the word, "oath."  That feels awkward and unbiblical to me.  To be sure, Jesus makes a "new covenant" (1 Corinthians 11:25), but oath has a somewhat different connotation.  And I wonder if the intent behind your word choice doesn't undermine grace. 

Thoughts?

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, waveslider said:

...............................

.....................................recognizing the at-one-ment as being part of what we are remembering, are made, "at one," with all the followers of Christ (as well as being at one with Christ and our Father in Heaven), who are also partakers in Christ's gift of atonement, as the body of Christ?

English "atonement" can indeed be broken down into such constituent elements, but does not lend itself to such analysis in Hebrew -- kippur "reconciliation, atonement, ransom," which describes the type of regular sacrificial ritual employed by the Israelites in order to propitiate God and to obtain vicarious expiation of sin.

Only God knows who are the true members of the body of Christ -- His Church as the Congregation of the Faithful.  As Paul points out, all of those who are members of that Sacred Congregation of Saints have a variety of gifts which they contribute to the whole body of Christ, since a whole body needs arms, legs, eyes, etc., in order to function as an organic whole.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Both you and Robert F. Smith refer to the Christian ordinance of Lord's Supper with the word, "oath."  That feels awkward and unbiblical to me.  To be sure, Jesus makes a "new covenant" (1 Corinthians 11:25), but oath has a somewhat different connotation.  And I wonder if the intent behind your word choice doesn't undermine grace. 

..................................................

Actually, the New Covenant (= New Testament) Paul spoke about was already discussed by Jeremiah 31:31-34, and it does require an oath/covenant.  Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God's Unfolding Purpose, New Studies in Biblical Theology (IVP, 2007).

Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (Doubleday, 2000), 250-257, asserts that Jesus’ Last Supper was merely the most important in a series of feasts which replaced Temple sacrifice –- very much akin to the great, angelic banquet in heaven (cf. Talmud Babli Hagiga 14b). Bruce Chilton, "The Eucharist: Exploring Its Origins," Bible Review, 10/6 (Dec 1994):36-43; Bernhard Lang, "the Eucharist: A Sacrificial Formula Preserved," Idem., 44-49. See also Chilton, A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles, Supplements to Novum Testamentum (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Chilton, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (Univ. Park: Penn State Press, 1992).

Solomon Zeitlin, "Jesus and the Last Supper," Jewish Quarterly Review, 28/4 (April 1948), said at the close that 

Quote

       Not only was pascha (Easter) celebrated at the same time as Passover among the Jews, but its origin is very much interwoven with Passover.  Even the institution of the Eucharist is really based on the Jewish custom during the Second Commonwealth of giving thanks to God on the first night of Passover for their redemption, over unleavened bread and a cup of wine.  The writings of Philo were a further stimulus to the institution of the Eucharist.

    n. 9, "Sacramentum is a Latin word and could not have any ecclesiastical usage in the Apostolic age.  The Word used was mystery (mysterion), in Colossians [1:27] and in I Timothy [3:9,16].  The Greek mysterion is rendered in the Vulgate sacramentum."
    n 16, "In the New Testament pascha is always rendered Passover in the English version except in Acts 12:4 where it is wrongly translated Easter."

George Mendenhall, Ancient Israel’s Faith and History (Westminster John Knox, 2001),226-229, sees the Eucharist as a loyalty-oath, including symbolic oath-taking (as suggested by Latin sacramentum = Hebrew zakar, Aramaic dakar & Arabic dakar, “remember, swear an oath,” and by LDS Sacrament as remembrance and renewal of covenant), and a ritual act of identification, via the very ancient mode of “ritual consumption of bread and wine” (citing ARM 8:13; El Amarna 162; ANET 3rd ed., 532, 536, 539; Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10:96-97 se sacramento obstringere “bound themselves with an oath” [just as Roman soldiers swore a loyalty oath to the Emperor]; Justin Martyr, Apology, I, 66, 3; Didache 9:1-5; I Cor 11:29-30 punishment for breach of oath of allegiance), i.e., far from being the source of the later Roman Catholic theological concept of transubstantiation (cf. consubstantiation), the loyal follower of Jesus takes an oath of loyalty to Him and swears to put on Christ or embody Christ in his own life.  There is no hint here of ritual cannibalism.  Indeed, the Last Supper is a formal Passover Seder meal.

Joachim Jeremias adduced 14 specific parallels between the Last Supper and the Passover Seder in his The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 3rd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1966), esp.42-61, cited in Klawans, Bible Review, 17/5 (Oct 2001):24-33, 47  Cf. TB Ta`anit 4:2 (Betsa/Yom Tob 20a); Philo Judaeus, On the Decalogue 30 (§159).

None of the above authors is LDS.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[waveslider]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Both you and Robert F. Smith refer to the Christian ordinance of Lord's Supper with the word, "oath."  That feels awkward and unbiblical to me.  To be sure, Jesus makes a "new covenant" (1 Corinthians 11:25), but oath has a somewhat different connotation.  And I wonder if the intent behind your word choice doesn't undermine grace. 

Thoughts?

--Erik

Sorry, I did mean covenant. I was just paraphrasing what Robert said when I wrote my reply. I definitely don't feel like anyone can ever earn their way into Heaven and that the atonement is a free gift. I feel the covenant part helps us to try and reciprocate our Savior's and Heavenly Father's love. Any efforts we make to keep His commandments are full of mistakes, but how could anyone ever hope to even know our master if we don't ever try to serve Him to the best of our abilities?

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

English "atonement" can indeed be broken down into such constituent elements, but does not lend itself to such analysis in Hebrew -- kippur "reconciliation, atonement, ransom," which describes the type of regular sacrificial ritual employed by the Israelites in order to propitiate God and to obtain vicarious expiation of sin.

Only God knows who are the true members of the body of Christ -- His Church as the Congregation of the Faithful.  As Paul points out, all of those who are members of that Sacred Congregation of Saints have a variety of gifts which they contribute to the whole body of Christ, since a whole body needs arms, legs, eyes, etc., in order to function as an organic whole.

Okay, Kippur then... No worries, it still is the only way, ".....to propitiate God and to obtain vicarious expiation of sin.", which pretty much means to make us at one with God again, since, "....the wages of sin is death.....(Romans 6:23), and that includes spiritual death with separates us from God. But I fear I am preaching to the choir so I digress.

I agree that God knows who the true members of the body of Christ are, as do we when we feel the confirmation of the Holy Spirit accepting our sacramental covenant. I know that not all who partake of the sacrament are worthy of it. This doesn't take away from the symbolic meanings of the sacrament in anyway. Since the bread represents Christ's body and is torn, as his body was, and since we who are true followers of Christ are also included as being his body, it seams very fitting that the bread was taken from one loaf, and that by partaking our own small piece of his symbolic body, we are acknowledging Christ's goal of having us all become one, which He made evident when offering the great intercessory prayer, not long before His great sacrifice of the atonement:

"20  Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21  That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22  And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"
John 17:20-22

 

[Avatar4321]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 11:58 PM, Five Solas said:

Why should God do anything at all for rebels?  That's actually a pretty chilling question, Atheist Mormon. 

--Erik

 

And yet He gave us His Son. And through Him the resurrection and miracle of forgiveness

Edited December 29, 2016 by Avatar4321

[Five Solas]

On 12/23/2016 at 9:18 PM, waveslider said:

...

how could anyone ever hope to even know our master if we don't ever try to serve Him to the best of our abilities?

Well, if by "know" you mean relationship, it's worth remembering--God initiates, we respond (1 John 4:19).  But if you think we just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps via service--to knowledge, to relationship ("best of our abilities")... Well, plenty of Pharisees recorded in the New Testament thought they had it in them, tried & failed to accomplish exactly that.  

It appears you do undermine the doctrine of grace, at least a little.

;0)

--Erik

[waveslider]

23 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Well, if by "know" you mean relationship, it's worth remembering--God initiates, we respond (1 John 4:19).  But if you think we just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps via service--to knowledge, to relationship ("best of our abilities")... Well, plenty of Pharisees recorded in the New Testament thought they had it in them, tried & failed to accomplish exactly that.  

It appears you do undermine the doctrine of grace, at least a little.

;0)

--Erik

Perhaps if you had read the rest of what I said, before the part that you quoted, you would see that what you are saying here is under a false pretense. I have bolded the parts that show that I definitely don't, "....think we just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps via service--to knowledge, to relationship ("best of our abilities")..."

On 12/23/2016 at 7:18 PM, waveslider said:

Sorry, I did mean covenant. I was just paraphrasing what Robert said when I wrote my reply. I definitely don't feel like anyone can ever earn their way into Heaven and that the atonement is a free gift. I feel the covenant part helps us to try and reciprocate our Savior's and Heavenly Father's love. Any efforts we make to keep His commandments are full of mistakes, but how could anyone ever hope to even know our master if we don't ever try to serve Him to the best of our abilities?

I said, "but how could anyone ever hope to even know our master if we don't ever try to serve Him to the best of our abilities?," in the context of this verse here:

"For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?"
Mosiah 5:13

I bolded the parts that in Mosiah that illustrate where I was coming from

----

As for this, "plenty of Pharisees recorded in the New Testament thought they had it in them, tried & failed to accomplish exactly that." It seems the Pharisees weren't serving the master whom I was talking about, straight out of my master's mouth:

13  ¶ No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15  And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Luke 16:13-15

------

Perhaps we should define the terms, "grace," and, "works," before we continue talking about my denying grace because we should actually serve the person whom we want as a master.

"16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Matthew 7:16-20

"21  And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the Lord.
22  And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the Lord, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
23  Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel."
Joshua 24:21-23

If you aren't serving Christ, then who is it that you are serving?

[JLHPROF]

53 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Well, if by "know" you mean relationship, it's worth remembering--God initiates, we respond (1 John 4:19).  But if you think we just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps via service--to knowledge, to relationship ("best of our abilities")... Well, plenty of Pharisees recorded in the New Testament thought they had it in them, tried & failed to accomplish exactly that.

Funny.
I thought God wanted US to initiate:

Matthew 7:7 ¶Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Matthew 7: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

But then Christ did also say:
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Perhaps the initiation of this relationship is less of an either/or situation than you imply and more of a two way relationship, or perhaps to use a better word, a covenant.  Or perhaps this relationship is already in existence since God is our creator and we knew him before we came here requiring very little initiation in this life but instead a rediscovery.

Edited December 28, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

Perhaps if you had read the rest of what I said, before the part that you quoted, you would see that what you are saying here is under a false pretense. I have bolded the parts that show that I definitely don't, "....think we just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps via service--to knowledge, to relationship ("best of our abilities")..."

I said, "but how could anyone ever hope to even know our master if we don't ever try to serve Him to the best of our abilities?," in the context of this verse here:

"For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?"
Mosiah 5:13

I bolded the parts that in Mosiah that illustrate where I was coming from

----

As for this, "plenty of Pharisees recorded in the New Testament thought they had it in them, tried & failed to accomplish exactly that." It seems the Pharisees weren't serving the master whom I was talking about, straight out of my master's mouth:

13  ¶ No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15  And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Luke 16:13-15

------

Perhaps we should define the terms, "grace," and, "works," before we continue talking about my denying grace because we should actually serve the person whom we want as a master.

"16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Matthew 7:16-20

"21  And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the Lord.
22  And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the Lord, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
23  Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel."
Joshua 24:21-23

If you aren't serving Christ, then who is it that you are serving?

I did read all of it, waveslider.  And I thought the first part of what you wrote was at odds with the second part (which I quoted).  I omitted the first part for the sake of brevity, not to cause offense.  I left it all in this time.

:0)

Let me ask you this:  Do you think a person (non-Christian) can, of his or her own power and volition, choose to serve God and thereby come into relationship with God (along the lines of Mosiah 5:13)?  Said differently, do you think the serving comes first and then God follows?  Because unless I'm confused by your words--that sure seems like your meaning.  In which case, my previous point (about undermining grace) stands. 

--Erik   

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I did read all of it, waveslider.  And I thought the first part of what you wrote was at odds with the second part (which I quoted).  I omitted the first part for the sake of brevity, not to cause offense.  I left it all in this time.

:0)

Let me ask you this:  Do you think a person (non-Christian) can, of his or her own power and volition, choose to serve God and thereby come into relationship with God (along the lines of Mosiah 5:13)?  Said differently, do you think the serving comes first and then God follows?  Because unless I'm confused by your words--that sure seems like your meaning.  In which case, my previous point (about undermining grace) stands. 

--Erik   

Upon reading it I see where my mistake was in putting two thoughts into this one sentence:

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

I definitely don't feel like anyone can ever earn their way into Heaven and that the atonement is a free gift.

I meant that I don't feel like anyone can ever earn their way into Heaven. I feel like the atonement is a free gift. Sorry for my bad grammar.

----

Do I think a person (non-Chrstian) can, of his or her own power and volition, choose to serve God and thereby come into a relationship with God (along the lines of Mosiah 5:13)?

I don't think that serving comes first, nor last. What I think, is that all people, Christian or not, are born with the Light of Christ already within them. I believe it is what we all term a, "conscience." I think a person doesn't even know how to recognize that conscience until somewhere just before the age of 8 or so. I believe that once a person is able to recognize the difference of peace from guilt, they either move towards Christ, or further away, trying to quash that guilt in a sort of numbing effect by burying the Light of Christ. I don't know at what point following the Light of Christ can be called, "serving our master," or not, but it certainly can morph into serving our Savior. The Light of Christ will always eventually lead towards Him and towards our Father in Heaven. I think that when people are in tune with their Light of Christ they often recognize gospel truths when they hear about them. It often changes soon to a recognition of where that Light of Christ is actually coming from. It is usually at this point they either embrace Christ's commandments and oftentimes get very enthusiastic about serving Him by sharing it with everyone around them, or they choose to turn away in lieu of keeping supposed traditions that they feel are more comfortable to stay in. To me it is a synergistic thing when our servitude is truly coming from the heart. It is usually at this time when the relationship starts to grow a lot, especially after the Gift of the Holy Ghost has been bestowed upon them, which builds upon the original Light of Christ that is already there. As to which came first the start of the relationship with deity, or the service. It is kind of like asking someone who believes in Evolution, which came first the chicken or the egg?

P.S. I understand the need to not post the whole comment in order to be brief. I often use the same tactic. You can keep doing so. I didn't take it as hostile.

Edited December 29, 2016 by waveslider
wanted to add a thought

[Woody]

On 12/23/2016 at 1:38 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

...that day was Sunday-Monday, Jewish 17 Tishrei (which lasted from sundown to sundown) early in the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) - Jewish law prohibits hard work on such a day (chol hamo'ed)).  The Jewish calendar floats with respect to the solar Christian calendar, and Joseph returned as ordered to the same hill each successive year on Sept 22, until permitted to take the plates in 1827.  Each year was on a different Jewish date:

Sept 22, 1824 =  29 Elul 5585  (Eve of Feast of Trumpets, New Year)

Sept 22, 1825 = 10 Tishrei 5586  (Day of Atonement, tenth of the High Holy Days)

Sept 22, 1826 = 20 Elul 5586  (Eve of Sabbath)

Sept 22, 1827 = 1 Tishrei 5588  (Sabbath and Feast of Trumpets, New Year), Joseph hiding the plates in a hollow log, and retrieving them ten days later on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the holiest day of the Jewish year, and a day on which God protects his people from harm.

This looks like numerology to me. Martin Gardner wrote a few pieces on this in his Scientific American column back in the 50's / 60's. He showed, subtly, the fallacy of it. In brief, batches of numbers always show various patterns and a numerologist exploits them to scam people who don't realize this out of their money.

If you sort thru the rabbis' traditions to find gems, you'll have to wade thru a lot of silly foo foo. The reason they blow those trumpets, you'll recall, is to drown out the sound of the devil telling God our sins, when he goes up to heaven for his annual Personal Priesthood Interview. Wouldn't it be better if they just shut up and listened to John the Baptist in the wilderness shouting "Repent"? Then the devil'd have naught to report. Blowing the horns, that equates to a coverup of sins. Moroni's never gonna be OK with that.

He did indeed choose that day of the year. But was it to match Jewish tradition (which Nephi avoided passing on to his people) or was it just not practical to expect Joseph Smith to meet with him on the 4th of July? Parade, marching bands, speeches, big dinner, lots of family, fireworks. Late September, now, that's a quiet time in Wayne County NY. The birds have all gone south for the winter and you can speak and be heard, and the Christmas shopping madness hasn't started yet.

[hagoth7]

On 12/22/2016 at 10:19 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

That is the biggest LIE I have ever heard. 80% of my Christian ancestors got slaughtered, just to put their faith in God. Rather than accumulating weapons to defend themselves they built beautiful churches. Those stone churches took alot to destroy, even today the country is littered with those half standing churches but none of my ancestors. 

I'm sorry my friend, you are on a time wasting path and missing out of life meanwhile. Once you are gone, you are dead, nothing will come back, re-create you.

Speaking of paths, if I may ask, where did your Christians ancestors live?

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Speaking of paths, if I may ask, where did your Christians ancestors live?

Somewhere is Asia where 75-80 % of population where slaughtered, which roughly amounted to 1,5 Million, surviving 15_20 % of them were successful to migrate from the bedlam, like my Grandma/Grampa and later I was lucky to run away from that country...I don't consider my (ancestral) story unique by any means, we have hundreds of similar historical events, even here in US...... (Trail of Tears).

Anyway I don't remember in which context I wrote the original response but this event  was the catalyst for me of my unbelief......Heck, one cannot have a better evidence (very similar to Jews, how they were delivered wholesale to Germans). 

I'd rather not be chosen but have a decent long life instead of witnessing likes of Anne Frank dying in a most miserable way....

(My apologies for writing this negative account)

[Five Solas]

Appreciate you sharing, Atheist Mormon.

--Erik