stemelbow Posted January 22, 2020 Posted January 22, 2020 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, you asked a question, the answer for which is found in verse 21. Not at all. It's not answered. Does God really not know certain believers? Simple question. You keep distracting and avoiding. Please answer and we can go from there. 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: You then proceeded to substantially mischaracterize what we believe about the nature of God. "God will tell many, and if he is truthful it will be true, that he never even knew them. Perhaps some will find eternal peace, but none of us know who those will be." "Many who are trying their best to follow God will be coldly rejected, being told God never knew them." It seems pretty hard to square such mischaracterizations with the idea that the person doing the mischaracterizing is familiar with verse 21, or else is familiar with our beliefs about the nature of God. Again: "God will tell many, and if he is truthful it will be true, that he never even knew them. Perhaps some will find eternal peace, but none of us know who those will be." "Many who are trying their best to follow God will be coldly rejected, being told God never knew them." You are characterizing God as "some sort of malicious, capricious, arbitrary, Zeus-like jerk." The phrase is mine, but you responded to it by saying "I don't really see how any of this does much but support my point." I am saying that you are not accurately stating our beliefs. At all. Not even a little. "Many who are trying their best to follow God will be coldly rejected" is a wildly and flagrantly false characterization of our beliefs. I reject it utterly. Again, I encourage you to read verse 21. And James 2:19 ("Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble"). And the teachings of the Church. Decontextualization doesn't work. That is what you are doing. Again, you are not accurately stating the Latter-day Saint teachings about the nature of God, our relationship with Him, the Plan of Salvation, and so on. Oh, brother. An atheist resorting to prooftexting the Bible. This doesn't work, and I think you know it. You seem to be intent on substantially mischaracterizing our beliefs, and then using that mischaracterization to find fault with us. I ask that you reconsider doing that. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted January 22, 2020 Posted January 22, 2020 43 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Quote Quote Quote I'm not sure what you are asking here. Have you read verse 21? "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Of course I've read. Well, you asked a question, the answer for which is found in verse 21. Not at all. It's not answered. Yes, it is. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." 43 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Does God really not know certain believers? I think BOMC has a good entry on this (emphases added): Quote As Jesus Christ continued to present his “Sermon at the Temple,” a version of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) that He gave to the Book of Mormon peoples,1 He declared that some people attempting to enter the kingdom of heaven would be told to “depart” (3 Nephi 14:23). They would not be allowed to enter, despite having come to the Lord after proclaiming to have done many things in His name. Although this approach may seem harsh to some, it makes more sense if one understands how Jesus was using covenant/temple language that His audience would have recognized and understood. The Lord declared: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (3 Nephi 14:21–23; cf. Matthew 7:21–23) This passage is, for many readers, difficult to comprehend, as the people who will be told to depart had apparently been doing good works in the name of the Lord, as would be characteristic of faithful believers. However, Jesus acted as if their use of His name had been used or taken in vain and suggested that they will not be able to enter because they “work iniquity” instead of doing His Father’s will. It is likely that Jesus was directing His comments specifically towards those who were associated with the temple but who had apostatized from correct practice because they had broken their covenants and/or were acting in God’s name illegitimately. Other passages in the scriptures likewise command the wicked to depart. Not coincidentally, these scriptures are laced with covenantal and temple imagery. The last part of 3 Nephi 14:23/Matthew 7:23 echoes the words of Psalm 6:8: “Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.” Hosea 8:1–2 uses language similar to that of 3 Nephi 14/Matthew 7 and prophesies against those who “shall cry unto me, ‘My God, we know thee,’” referring to those who take part in “the house of the Lord,” but who have “transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law.” Jesus stated, in John 14:6, that He is the “way” and that “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). This was spoken in the context of “my Father’s house” (John 14:2), or in other words, the House of the Lord. There are several scriptural passages that declare the importance of knowing or being known by the Lord. While the word “know” may not seem particularly significant, it may often be related to covenantal language. In John 10:14, Jesus said that He is “the good shepherd” and that “ know my sheep, and am known of mine.”2 BYU Professor John W. Welch has argued that the verb “know” may have a covenantal meaning here, as it does elsewhere in the scriptures. The Hebrew word for “to know” (yada'), for example, appears in Amos 3:2: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Similarly, when God spoke of Abraham’s faithfulness in keeping the way of the Lord, He described His covenant relationship with Abraham by declaring “I know him” (Genesis 18:19). Welch explained that “the Sermon on the Mount, therefore, seeks to restore the old covenant between God and Israel, by which God knew (or recognized) Israel and the Israelites knew God (see Hosea 13:4; Jeremiah 24:7).”3 Some interesting parallel ideas that involve using the name of the Lord and entering the temple (and by association, the “kingdom of heaven”) can be found in Psalm 24. Psalm 24 is a “temple entry” psalm which presents a group of people who are seeking the face of the Lord (v. 6)4 by passing through the gates (v. 7) of the temple to ascend “the hill of the Lord” (v. 3). When attempting to pass through the temple gates, they essentially used the name of “the Lord” as a password (v. 8), as David J. Larsen has very ably propounded.5 Psalm 24:3–4 records the question of the temple-goers, “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?” The requirements are given: “He that hath clean hands and a pure heart [cf. 3 Nephi 12:8; Matthew 5:8], who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.” Some scholars have suggested that the last clauses make reference to taking the Lord’s name in vain, meaning performing actions in the Lord’s name illegitimately.6 Also, the reference to swearing likely signifies taking an oath in the Lord’s name. The verse indicates that doing so “deceitfully” will bar the petitioner from ascending to the temple and seeing the face of God. The Why Comparing Psalm 24 with 3 Nephi 14:21–23 (cf. Matthew 7:21–23) helps clarify that Jesus was using the language of the temple in these verses, as He did throughout the Sermon on the Mount (and, more particularly, the Sermon at the Temple).7 When Jesus pronounced these sayings regarding those who would say “Lord, Lord” in the hope of entering through the gates of the Kingdom of God, He knew that his audience, being familiar with temple language and practices, would understand what He meant. It appears that Jesus was, as was Hosea in Hosea 8:1–2, directing His comments towards those who officiated in the temple but who had fallen away from correct practice because they were acting in God’s name illegitimately, perhaps because they had broken their covenants. This is likely the context in which Jesus saw the Jewish leadership, and perhaps some among the Book of Mormon peoples as well. They claimed to act with the authority of God, but in actuality were using His name in vain. In order to enter His kingdom, the use of His name alone, without the required righteousness and faithful covenant relationship, will not gain them access. These verses testify that the Lord knows those who follow Him in righteousness. They are recognized by Him. They follow His way and do His Father’s will and not their own. Those who use His name must depart from wickedness or, unfortunately, depart from Him. By choosing their own path, the wicked unavoidably depart from the Lord’s path. When followers of Christ follow His covenantal path faithfully, as taught in the Sermon on the Mount and at the Temple, then they will come to know Jesus Christ (John 17:3) and will do the will of the Father; Christ will then covenantally know them and claim them as His own in His kingdom. Those who choose another path will have to depart, as they have already chosen a way that is not the one that leads to eternal life. When Jesus says that he does not “know” these people, the problem is not that he doesn’t know who they are or what they have done. Obviously, he knows them all too well. What is lacking is their being known to Him as sacred covenant makers, observers, and keepers. Hope this helps. 43 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Simple question. You keep distracting and avoiding. Please answer and we can go from there. See above. Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2020 Posted January 22, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Nothing I've said suggests one can't be exactly as you describe you are. So I don't know what you intend by "Uhhhhh...nope". One can be angry at God and and blame HIm and still feel it best to be a believer in God. Good for you. I'm simply saying some might be better off without feeling the obligation of believing in God. The nope thing was about God considering some people to be a lost cause so.... Uhhhhhhhh......nope.
stemelbow Posted January 22, 2020 Posted January 22, 2020 57 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, it is. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." I think BOMC has a good entry on this (emphases added): Hope this helps. See above. Thanks, -Smac Ok. So in your view it's not that God never knew them, as he said, but that he never really knew them as being covenant keepers? Fewf! I must say, a more ridiculous reading into the text I have not seen. And the difference feels to me a distinction without a difference. If a believer has spent his/her life pleading with God, assuming he/she is doing his/her best, and in the end God says, "well I know you think you covenanted with me, but I never knew you to have done that"...well I see no real difference. Either way God saw the believer seeking Him and He never really accepted their pleas. I mean, I know how scripture works and how belief fits. Mostly the meaning is assumed, as people have argued over the meaning of scripture for centuries, and people read it and read into it whatever they want. And, no big deal, here. Do it. Have fun with it. But, my point remains intact, if you ask me. Some people are just much better off in the non-believer camp. And such may very well be true for those mentioned in this thread.
smac97 Posted January 22, 2020 Posted January 22, 2020 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Ok. So in your view it's not that God never knew them, as he said, but that he never really knew them as being covenant keepers? Fewf! I must say, a more ridiculous reading into the text I have not seen. I had thought, for a moment, that we were attempting a reasoned and contextualized discussion about the meaning of a translation of an ancient text. But I guess you're ditching that in favor of contempt and sneering. Eisegesis instead of exegesis. Presentism. Facile sarcasm. Ah, well. 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And the difference feels to me a distinction without a difference. If a believer has spent his/her life pleading with God, assuming he/she is doing his/her best, and in the end God says, "well I know you think you covenanted with me, but I never knew you to have done that"...well I see no real difference. Either way God saw the believer seeking Him and He never really accepted their pleas. I don't see the point in trying to keep the conversation going. 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I mean, I know how scripture works and how belief fits. Mm. 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Mostly the meaning is assumed, as people have argued over the meaning of scripture for centuries, and people read it and read into it whatever they want. Hence the value of exegesis, examination of translation issues, contextualization, etc. I tried to present some of that. You responded with "Fewf!" 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And, no big deal, here. Do it. Have fun with it. But, my point remains intact, if you ask me. "Fewf" doth not a point make. 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Some people are just much better off in the non-believer camp. I don't think the pursuit of truth is to be subordinated to emotions, particularly when the emotions are borne of ignorance, ridicule, and anger. Your contempt for a genuine effort to discuss an important topic is disappointing. 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And such may very well be true for those mentioned in this thread. In the interim, you may have a point. In the long run, though... Thanks, -Smac
stemelbow Posted January 22, 2020 Posted January 22, 2020 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: I had thought, for a moment, that we were attempting a reasoned and contextualized discussion about the meaning of a translation of an ancient text. But I guess you're ditching that in favor of contempt and sneering. Eisegesis instead of exegesis. Presentism. Facile sarcasm. I hold no contempt and no sneering. That was genuinely my reaction. I have not seen such blatant and awkward attempts at reading into the text. But again...that doesn't matter. To me the end result is the same--a cold response from a God who did not acknowledge the lifelong efforts of a believer. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: Ah, well. I don't see the point in trying to keep the conversation going. Mm. Hence the value of exegesis, examination of translation issues, contextualization, etc. I don't think the response you gave me in trying to explain Matter 7 held many rules associated with the practice of exegesis. But even if it did. to me, it doesn't matter. The meaning is the same, either way. the explanation may mean something significant to you, but it doesn't work at all in my mind. And my comment was strictly dealing with the perception the passage has on me, not on you. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: I tried to present some of that. You responded with "Fewf!" 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Fewf" doth not a point make. Sure it does. And surely you can see my response was more than fewf. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't think the pursuit of truth is to be subordinated to emotions, particularly when the emotions are borne of ignorance, ridicule, and anger. YOu have misjudged me again. My emotions haven't really factored in. And my emotions if any associated here aren't borne of ignorance, ridicule and anger. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: Your contempt for a genuine effort to discuss an important topic is disappointing. That is plainly, again, another completely mischaracterization of me. I hold not contempt at all, and my participation is a genuine effort to discuss the topic. In my mind some people are better off not believing. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: In the interim, you may have a point. In the long run, though... Thanks, -Smac ...I also may have a point. I appreciate the acknowledgement. What's with the histrionics?
smac97 Posted January 22, 2020 Posted January 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I hold no contempt and no sneering. "Fewf! I must say, a more ridiculous reading into the text I have not seen." 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That was genuinely my reaction. So the contempt and sneering were genuine. Good to know. 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I have not seen such blatant and awkward attempts at reading into the text. The BOMC article is exegetical. It provides context. Linguistic. Historical. Cultural. And your response is sneers. "Fewf!" "Ridiculous" "Blatant" "Awkward" As between the informed and reasoned summary in the BOMC, and your off-the-cuff eisegesis, I'll go with the former. 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: But again...that doesn't matter. To me the end result is the same--a cold response from a God who did not acknowledge the lifelong efforts of a believer. “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” --Stephen R. Covey. I must own up to this, at least sometimes. 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't think the response you gave me in trying to explain Matter 7 held many rules associated with the practice of exegesis. But even if it did. to me, it doesn't matter. I'm getting that. 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The meaning is the same, either way. The meaning is hugely different. 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: the explanation may mean something significant to you, but it doesn't work at all in my mind. And my comment was strictly dealing with the perception the passage has on me, not on you. Fair enough. I'll leave you to your perceptions. 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Sure it does. And surely you can see my response was more than fewf. Yes. There was also "ridiculous" and "blatant" and "awkward." No substance. No effort at all to address the content of the BOMC article. Thanks, -Smac
stemelbow Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "Fewf! I must say, a more ridiculous reading into the text I have not seen." So the contempt and sneering were genuine. Good to know. The BOMC article is exegetical. It provides context. Linguistic. Historical. Cultural. It's largely presupposition and not much more with its "likely"s, "maybe"s and such. But I appreciate you providing it. It re explains the exact problem as I see it in a different way. Those who presume that they are covenanted with god during their lives pleading with him and trying their best will be coldly told nope, your whole life you thought you were either me, but nope. Get outta here. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: And your response is sneers. "Fewf!" "Ridiculous" "Blatant" "Awkward" As between the informed and reasoned summary in the BOMC, and your off-the-cuff eisegesis, I'll go with the former. You have no choice. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” --Stephen R. Covey. I must own up to this, at least sometimes. I'm getting that. The meaning is hugely different. Fair enough. I'll leave you to your perceptions. Yes. There was also "ridiculous" and "blatant" and "awkward." No substance. No effort at all to address the content of the BOMC article. Thanks, -Smac If you say so. But its beside the point as I see it. Some people are better off as unbelievers. Itd suck to be a person thinking they are with god their whole life only to be coldly turned away. Seems like a terrible belief if you ask me. The BOMC piece does nothing but emphasize that, if you ask me. Many believers will be treated with contempt.
Ahab Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/18/2020 at 4:17 PM, Metis_LDS said: I have had two persons in my life that have been very angry with God. One recovered and the other spiralled downward into really self destructive things. I worked real hard to help them both and suffered with them. Now I know that we do not marry God in the Church. But I now see the relationship of person to God like a marriage on some level. Anyone who has tried to help a troubled human marriage knows what a difficult and ofttimes thankless task that is. So the point of this is how hard I tried to see and understand the difference in these two persons. Why did one get better, why did one not get better? The shocking answer is that I cannot know and I now never expect to know. You think about Gospel mysteries well the mysteries right in front of out faces are much deeper. Just like in marriage, in takes both partners working together to make it work. Even with a couple's counselor, if one gives up and doesn't want it to work out or to work it out the relationship deteriorates and it is over just as soon as one of the two ends it. Marriage has long been used as an analogy for the relationship between God and his people, and while the Church as a whole has sometimes drifted or fallen away from God, God has never left his people or given them a bill of divorce or separation.
Recommended Posts