Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

My Friendly Friday Questions


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for your question. I'll try to not be too obtuse as I respond.

Isaiah 7:14 is certainly important as it looks forward to the Incarnation. It indicates that a sign will be given, and it certainly is prophecy. An important difference in our understandings is, I think, that I believe that The Annunciation in Luke 1:26-38 is more than prophecy. It is the sign and is the beginning of the Incarnation. The announcement by the Archangel Gabriel of Jesus by name and the response by Mary is a unique interaction in the history of the world.

From that moment, Mary might have reflected on Isaiah 7 and realized that the sign was given through Gabriel's declaration and her response. 

There's more here as relating to Christ saying that he will build his Church (Matt. 16:18) and that Christ says that the Holy Spirit will come (John 14), and then the Holy Spirit does come on the Day of Pentecost and fills them (Acts 2). The Book of Mormon indicates a "Church of Christ" and a pouring out of the Holy Spirit hundreds of years before those things happen as presented in the New Testament, which is astonishing to me. (BTW, the pouring of the Spirit language in Isaiah 44 that gestures to Acts 2 is often cited in favor of pouring as a form of baptism).

 

Yes, Luke is a unique testament and the conversation between Gabriel and Mary is certainly unique to them, and was a message meant for her personally, and more broadly, for whomever she shared it or read it in Luke. I am grateful the record was preserved.

Which Book of Mormon passages indicate to you predictions of “a "Church of Christ" and a pouring out of the Holy Spirit hundreds of years before those things happen as presented in the New Testament”?

ETA: I realize you must mean the account of Alma, having authority from God to establish the covenant with believers, teaching and baptizing the followers of Christ, "And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward." It indicates that the baptism of fire (pouring out of the Spirit) follows the covenant baptism of water. They still followed the law of Moses. Lots of interesting, scholarly references to ancient Jewish religious practice with an eye on the proper purpose of the law of Moses pointing to Christ.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

There's more here as relating to Christ saying that he will build his Church (Matt. 16:18) and that Christ says that the Holy Spirit will come (John 14), and then the Holy Spirit does come on the Day of Pentecost and fills them (Acts 2). The Book of Mormon indicates a "Church of Christ" and a pouring out of the Holy Spirit hundreds of years before those things happen as presented in the New Testament, which is astonishing to me. (BTW, the pouring of the Spirit language in Isaiah 44 that gestures to Acts 2 is often cited in favor of pouring as a form of baptism).

Think of "Church of Christ" as the same as "the congregation of the Messiah", which is a completely legitimate way of expressing what they would be called in Old Testament times.  We think of the word "church" today as a translation of the Greek word, ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsía) in the New Testament, but in the Septuagint and even in the New Testament the same word is used for the congregation of believers in the Old Testament.

For example, Stephen, in Acts chapter 7, in his dissertation to the Jews that ended up getting him stoned to death said:

Quote

37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church [ἐκκλησίᾳ] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,  (Acts 7:37–39)

And here's an example from the Septuagint (one of many possible examples), from Psalm 22:22 (21:22 in the LXX):

" I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I sing praise to thee."

And the Holy Spirit was definitely evident in Old Testament times too, even as was promised in Proverbs 1:23, "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you."  And this also happened in the New Testament prior to when Jesus established his church, as when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary and the babe leaped in her womb, "and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41)

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Think of "Church of Christ" as the same as "the congregation of the Messiah", which is a completely legitimate way of expressing what they would be called in Old Testament times.  We think of the word "church" today as a translation of the Greek word, ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsía) in the New Testament, but in the Septuagint and even in the New Testament the same word is used for the congregation of believers in the Old Testament.

For example, Stephen, in Acts chapter 7, in his dissertation to the Jews that ended up getting him stoned to death said:

And here's an example from the Septuagint (one of many possible examples), from Psalm 22:22 (21:22 in the LXX):

" I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I sing praise to thee."

And the Holy Spirit was definitely evident in Old Testament times too, even as was promised in Proverbs 1:23, "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you."  And this also happened in the New Testament prior to when Jesus established his church, as when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary and the babe leaped in her womb, "and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41)

Your description of those who have been "called out" by God is spot on. I don't disagree with those ideas in the least. 

I'm not understanding, though, how the Septuagint is relevant to a discussion of word choice in the Book of Mormon. I believe that Latter-day Saints put forward that the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian, and not in Greek. Maybe you're saying that the Christian notion that the Church is in the Old Testament in a sense (as St. Stephen teaches), is paralleled in the Book of Mormon?

I'll also agree that the Holy Spirit is evident before the Day of Pentecost, but maintain that the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost is more than that. As St. Luke writes in Acts 1: 

Quote

O The-oph′ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. 4 And while staying[a] with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

So the Book of Mormon seems to have a Pentecost-like pouring out of the Holy Spirit hundreds of years before the New Testament. And that's stunning in my world.

Link to comment
On 8/21/2022 at 7:49 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Your description of those who have been "called out" by God is spot on. I don't disagree with those ideas in the least. 

I'm not understanding, though, how the Septuagint is relevant to a discussion of word choice in the Book of Mormon. I believe that Latter-day Saints put forward that the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian, and not in Greek. Maybe you're saying that the Christian notion that the Church is in the Old Testament in a sense (as St. Stephen teaches), is paralleled in the Book of Mormon?

The Septuagint is relevant to a discussion on translations when imposing word meanings to events in Old Testament times.  The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew into Greek and then again into English, and that's why we see the word "church" in verses like Psalm 21:22 of English translations of the Septuagint.  Is the word "church" an incorrect translation of the original Hebrew text, or does it convey the same basic meaning as the original Hebrew text?  My point about the Book of Mormon is the same, and I think "the Church of Christ" in the Book of Mormon conveys the same basic meaning as something like "the congregation of the Messiah" and is easier for 19th century Christians to understand (although I have no idea what the original text said in Reformed Egyptian).

On 8/21/2022 at 7:49 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'll also agree that the Holy Spirit is evident before the Day of Pentecost, but maintain that the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost is more than that. As St. Luke writes in Acts 1: 

Quote

O The-oph′ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. 4 And while staying[a] with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

So the Book of Mormon seems to have a Pentecost-like pouring out of the Holy Spirit hundreds of years before the New Testament. And that's stunning in my world.

God has poured out his Spirit to individuals in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon, but the day of Pentecost is a somewhat unique event for several reasons, including the apostles (and others) being "endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49).  What event in the Book of Mormon do you find to be similar to Pentecost?

Link to comment
On 8/21/2022 at 5:34 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for clarifying, Bluebell.

The Tabernacle Choir's rendition of Ave Maria is one of the most beautiful I've heard, and I enjoy singing along to it.

I'm singing along to it this evening. My windows are open and I'm soaring like a fool. 

I am surprised no one has yet quoted this- in one of the most important and yet ignored chapters of the Book of Mormon, the whole plan of Salvation is detailed

Alma 7:

Quote

 

9 But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me, saying: Cry unto this people, saying—aRepent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God bcometh upon the face of the earth.

10 And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at bJerusalem which is the cland of our forefathers, she being a dvirgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and aafflictions and btemptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will ctake upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him adeath, that he may bloose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to csuccor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit aknoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the bflesh that he might ctake upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

14 Now I say unto you that ye must arepent, and be born again; for the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness.

 

The reason this is such an important chapter is that it changes the idea of the atoment from being Christ "paying the price of sin"- a notion that always seemed odd to me- I mean how much does one act of adultery cost?   And how does it work that one person is punished to pay for another's sin?   I suppose somehow it is related to the idea of the "Treasury of Merit"  ?   I am not sure.

But in this account the sacrifice is that God can HEAL the effects of sin by taking them upon himself-that He through his infinite empathy can take upon the guilt and experience of every sin and evil ever committed by mankind and we can know that HE IS WITH US in the repentence process- he feels the pain of the victim and pain of the guilty, so that as we progress through that repentance process we are not alone!   The Lord takes us by the hand as it were and "walks us through it" because he has been there before- He who is innocent takes on the horror of those experiences so that He can be with us when we need Him most!   The greatest sacrifice I am sure was God voluntarily surrendering His transcendence for the immanence of being our Father.

And all this in the Book of Mormon, this sophisticated theology written by an uneducated teenager on the American Frontier, all by him self, making it up as he goes along....

Not possible!

But yes, here also we have the story of the Virgin, Mary discovering that she will be overshadowed by the Holy Ghost and conceive the Savior of the world.

There was an interesting article published recently in the Interpreter- an LDS theological journal- taking on these issues and describing some of the technical aspects of Book of Mormon and Hebrew poetry and therefore the impossibility of an uneducated frontier teen coming up with this all himself

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/experiential-knowledge-and-the-covenantal-relationship-in-alma-7/#footnote14anc

 

Link to comment
On 8/23/2022 at 12:50 AM, InCognitus said:

The Septuagint is relevant to a discussion on translations when imposing word meanings to events in Old Testament times.  The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew into Greek and then again into English, and that's why we see the word "church" in verses like Psalm 21:22 of English translations of the Septuagint.  Is the word "church" an incorrect translation of the original Hebrew text, or does it convey the same basic meaning as the original Hebrew text?  My point about the Book of Mormon is the same, and I think "the Church of Christ" in the Book of Mormon conveys the same basic meaning as something like "the congregation of the Messiah" and is easier for 19th century Christians to understand (although I have no idea what the original text said in Reformed Egyptian).

God has poured out his Spirit to individuals in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon, but the day of Pentecost is a somewhat unique event for several reasons, including the apostles (and others) being "endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49).  What event in the Book of Mormon do you find to be similar to Pentecost?

This might be a bit of a ramble. I apologize in advance....

I have no problem with the Septuagint, and am glad you are familiar with it. I'd add that the Latin Vulgate Bible, mostly created through the work of St. Jerome, and being created in part through translations of the Septuagint, deserves a place in your timeline. The Vulgate can be seriously argued as the most influential book in Western Civilization. It was the Bible for a millennium.

I'm just not following what either the Septuagint or the Masoretic (Hebrew) text have to do with the Book of Mormon. The word Ekklesia isn't anywhere in the Book of Mormon, and as I understand it, it doesn't need to be. I believe that Latter-day Saints maintain that the Book of Mormon was written in a sub-dialect of Egyptian. If someone were comparing an Egyptian notion of  a religious gathering with ideas of religious gathering in the Book of Mormon, and then compared and contrasted those ideas with Ekklesia, that might be interesting. Maybe I'm having trouble because I don't have all the pieces about Joseph Smith's translation process; the Rough Rolling book described Joseph Smith learning languages such as Hebrew, but also maintained that the Book of Mormon's translation was mystical and not scholarly.

Maybe we're hung up on the word "church" (the English translation of Ekklesia) popping up in the Book of Mormon hundreds of years before Christ and the apostles use it in the New Testament.

To clarify, I would expect Joseph Smith to use words he was familiar with, words like "church." The aspect that puzzles me is the Sprit being poured out because that outpouring was prophesied by Isaiah (44:3) and our Lord (John 14:26) and was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2), and consequently Christ's Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in a fashion that permits apostasy from the Church but not by the Church. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is essential to what Paul calls the "dispensation of the fulness of times," in Ephesians, and is essential to Christ's Church not being overcome by the gates of hades (Matt. 16).

I should clarify that in my understanding, this outpouring of the Spirt is more than the occasional person being seized by the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, such as Samson when he brings down the house. Rather, I view this outpouring as a baptism of the Spirit and as essential to Christ's Church.

Consequently, I 1) can't see how the waters of Mormon passage makes sense theologically before Christ's Incarnation and mortal ministry 2) Before Pentecost, and 3) in light of the outpouring of the Spirit being essential to the endurance of Christ's Church until Christ returns. I also, 4) wonder how the pouring language used in the Mormon waters baptism passage doesn't make baptism by pouring okay for Latter-day Saints.

 

Edited by Saint Bonaventure
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm just not following what either the Septuagint or the Masoretic (Hebrew) text have to do with the Book of Mormon. The word Ekklesia isn't anywhere in the Book of Mormon, and as I understand it, it doesn't need to be. I believe that Latter-day Saints maintain that the Book of Mormon was written in a sub-dialect of Egyptian. If someone were comparing an Egyptian notion of  a religious gathering with ideas of religious gathering in the Book of Mormon, and then compared and contrasted those ideas with Ekklesia, that might be interesting. Maybe I'm having trouble because I don't have all the pieces about Joseph Smith's translation process; the Rough Rolling book described Joseph Smith learning languages such as Hebrew, but also maintained that the Book of Mormon's translation was mystical and not scholarly.

No one really knows how the translation process happened.  Joseph always said it was by the power of God.  We have statements (both first and second hand) from several people who witnessed the translation.  They don't all agree with each other though, especially when talking about how the hat/stone or urim and thummin worked.

But at the time of translating, Joseph Smith hadn't learned any ancient languages (such as Hebrew).  That's something he learned later.  He was fascinated with ancient languages.  Probably because of his experience with the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon says that it was written in "reformed egyptian".  But we don't know what that is.  It could be a sub-dialect of Egyptian.  It has also been hypothesized to be shorthand Hebrew, Demotic, Hieratic, Coptic, Olmec/Mayan, etc.  We have a few possible examples of what the characters look like: John Whitmer's Caractors, Oliver Cowdery's Characters, and the Stick of Joseph broadside.  There was also a forgery made by Mark Hoffman that was purported to be the actual document that Martin Harris took with him.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, webbles said:

No one really knows how the translation process happened.  Joseph always said it was by the power of God.  We have statements (both first and second hand) from several people who witnessed the translation.  They don't all agree with each other though, especially when talking about how the hat/stone or urim and thummin worked.

But at the time of translating, Joseph Smith hadn't learned any ancient languages (such as Hebrew).  That's something he learned later.  He was fascinated with ancient languages.  Probably because of his experience with the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon says that it was written in "reformed egyptian".  But we don't know what that is.  It could be a sub-dialect of Egyptian.  It has also been hypothesized to be shorthand Hebrew, Demotic, Hieratic, Coptic, Olmec/Mayan, etc.  We have a few possible examples of what the characters look like: John Whitmer's Caractors, Oliver Cowdery's Characters, and the Stick of Joseph broadside.  There was also a forgery made by Mark Hoffman that was purported to be the actual document that Martin Harris took with him.

If "no one knows how the translation process happened," then you all are likely to keep slipping in the sand of academic speculation, wishful thinking, and off-the-wall mutterings from people who live in their parents' basements, and will take potshots from critics and tricksters until you either 1) announce as a church what happened in an authoritative pronouncement, 2) say that the translation is a mystery and move on to interpretations and even schools of thought regarding the Book of Mormon text, or 3) Slip into subjectivism.

Those look like the main possibilities to me, at least over the next several decades.

 

 

Edited by Saint Bonaventure
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If "no one knows how the translation process happened," then you all are likely to keep slipping in the sand of academic speculation, wishful thinking, off-the-wall mutterings from people who live in their parents' basements, and will take potshots from critics and tricksters until you either 1) announce as a church what happened in an authoritative pronouncement, 2) say that the translation is a mystery and move on to interpretations and even schools of thought regarding the Book of Mormon text, or 3) Slip into subjectivism.

Those look like the main possibilities to me, at least over the next several decades.

 

 

Oh, the authoritative pronouncement is that it was done by the power of God as that is what Joseph Smith said.  I would say both 2 and 3 are happening, though.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I have no problem with the Septuagint, and am glad you are familiar with it. I'd add that the Latin Vulgate Bible, mostly created through the work of St. Jerome, and being created in part through translations of the Septuagint, deserves a place in your timeline. The Vulgate can be seriously argued as the most influential book in Western Civilization. It was the Bible for a millennium.

I'm just not following what either the Septuagint or the Masoretic (Hebrew) text have to do with the Book of Mormon. The word Ekklesia isn't anywhere in the Book of Mormon, and as I understand it, it doesn't need to be. I believe that Latter-day Saints maintain that the Book of Mormon was written in a sub-dialect of Egyptian. If someone were comparing an Egyptian notion of  a religious gathering with ideas of religious gathering in the Book of Mormon, and then compared and contrasted those ideas with Ekklesia, that might be interesting. Maybe I'm having trouble because I don't have all the pieces about Joseph Smith's translation process; the Rough Rolling book described Joseph Smith learning languages such as Hebrew, but also maintained that the Book of Mormon's translation was mystical and not scholarly.

Maybe we're hung up on the word "church" (the English translation of Ekklesia) popping up in the Book of Mormon hundreds of years before Christ and the apostles use it in the New Testament.

To clarify, I would expect Joseph Smith to use words he was familiar with, words like "church."

The translation process of the Book of Mormon doesn't really matter to the point I was trying to make.  I was only trying to explain that the concept of "the church" in Old Testament times isn't limited to the Book of Mormon, and that both the Septuagint and New Testament references to "the church" in Old Testament times demonstrate that fact.   Since the same concept exists elsewhere, then I see no problem with the way it is translated into English in the Book of Mormon.

5 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The aspect that puzzles me is the Sprit being poured out because that outpouring was prophesied by Isaiah (44:3) and our Lord (John 14:26) and was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2),

I don't find that the Old Testament prophesies about the pouring out of the Spirit are limited to being fulfilled at Pentecost, although I do view the Acts 2 Pentecost as a special event.  Isaiah says, in multiple places, that in the last days Israel will be gathered and the wilderness will blossom as the rose, and in connection with this the Spirit will be poured out upon the people at that time, as it says in Isaiah 32:13-18: 

Quote

13 Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers; yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city:  14 Because the palaces shall be forsaken; the multitude of the city shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks;  15 Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.  16 Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field.  17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.   18 And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places;  (Isaiah 32:13–18)

Ezekiel also refers to this last days gathering event:

Quote

 26 After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.  27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies’ lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;  28 Then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.  29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God.  (Ezekiel 39:26–29)
 

I believe God desires to do this for any of the House of Israel, in any day and age, as they become willing to enter into covenants with him.  And this is what was happening at the Waters of Mormon events in the Book of Mormon.

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

... and consequently Christ's Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in a fashion that permits apostasy from the Church but not by the ChurchThe outpouring of the Holy Spirit is essential to what Paul calls the "dispensation of the fulness of times," in Ephesians, and is essential to Christ's Church not being overcome by the gates of hades (Matt. 16).

I should clarify that in my understanding, this outpouring of the Spirt is more than the occasional person being seized by the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, such as Samson when he brings down the house. Rather, I view this outpouring as a baptism of the Spirit and as essential to Christ's Church.

Apostasy, by definition, is rebellion or abandonment in a religious sense.  So of course "The Church" that Christ established can't apostatize, but the people that think they are leading "The Church" can stray from or abandon some key truths and covenants over the course of time, and thus lead the members of "The Church" into apostasy.  Revelation 12 tells us that the "woman" (which is Israel or the Church), after giving birth to the man child that was to rule all nations, and after he was caught up unto God, she "fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God" (Revelation 12:6, 14) and was nourished in the wilderness.  Thus "The Church" is taken out of the picture for a period of time, until the time was right for the restoration, when "The Church" would come out of the wilderness and be established again.  

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Consequently, I 1) can't see how the waters of Mormon passage makes sense theologically before Christ's Incarnation and mortal ministry 2) Before Pentecost, and 3) in light of the outpouring of the Spirit being essential to the endurance of Christ's Church until Christ returns. I also, 4) wonder how the pouring language used in the Mormon waters baptism passage doesn't make baptism by pouring okay for Latter-day Saints.

I'm not sure how having the Spirit of the LORD poured out on people connects with the pouring water for baptism.  Are you getting this from the Isaiah 44:3 passage?   Or some passage in the Book of Mormon?   Isaiah 44:3 (if that's what you mean) has a totally different context for the use of "water" in my view, as it is used in the sense of satisfying the "thirsty".  This is the imagery of Christ as the "living waters", which seems to be one of the themes of Isaiah (Isa 12:1-3, Isa 32:1-4, Isa 41:17-20, Isa 48:20-21, and Isa 49:9-12 for example). 

Link to comment
On 8/28/2022 at 3:58 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

 

Never mind, error

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 8/23/2022 at 10:53 PM, mfbukowski said:

The reason this is such an important chapter is that it changes the idea of the atoment from being Christ "paying the price of sin"- a notion that always seemed odd to me- I mean how much does one act of adultery cost?   And how does it work that one person is punished to pay for another's sin?   I suppose somehow it is related to the idea of the "Treasury of Merit"  ?   I am not sure.

A man I knew in the mission field who later rose to some authority in the worldwide church once told me that the Atonement can be understood in many different ways. He wrote this:

"I believe there are many different, yet correct, ways to look at and think about the Atonement. Whenever I read any explanation of the Atonement, I am inclined to think of it as one more way of looking at and illuminating the Lord’s infinite and eternal sacrifice, which is like a jewel too vast for us to comprehend fully. Hence, each explanation looks at it from a different angle, and each has merit. I never feel that one is necessarily the best or final explanation."

He wrote this to me after I asked him what I thought of a particular way I had come to think of the Atonement. He made a couple of suggestions concerning what I had written, and I incorporated them into my essay, including his words above, since I agreed with him. He asked me not to attribute his thoughts to him if I were to share what he wrote, so though he is now gone, I will still respect his wishes.

But if you feel interested, feel free to read what I wrote. It is HERE. You may have a different view, of course.

Link to comment
On 8/21/2022 at 2:47 PM, bluebell said:

While "The Annunciation" as the Catholics venerate it isn't really a thing that holds a lot of doctrinal significance for us, we certainly recognize the importance of that moment between Gabriel and Mary. 

As you've already noticed, we don't believe it's the first time that the specifics of the Savior is given to someone, so that's a big difference.  But we still appreciate the tradition of it, especially when it comes to art or song. 

Ave Maria is a beautiful song.  It's not in our hymnbook because we don't doctrinally believe in the need for, or appropriateness of, asking Mary to pray for us, but we certainly appreciate the spirit of the song and don't believe that we need to agree with a song 100% for it to have value.  :) 

And most of us don't speak Latin. ;)

It's hard to imagine anyone actually speaking grammatically perfect Latin.

Link to comment
On 8/21/2022 at 2:13 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

The Tabernacle Choir is asking our Blessed Mother to pray for them, which is something of which I whole-heartedly approve.

You should also know that we also believe we have a "Blessed Mother", about whom we seldom speak, due to holding Her sacred; we call her Heavenly Mother.  She's Heavenly Father's spouse.

She's mentioned in one of our hymns called "Oh My Father"

I kept a good share of my devotion to the Blessed Mother, just realizing she is not Mary.

""

  1. 1. O my Father, thou that dwellest

    In the high and glorious place,

    When shall I regain thy presence

    And again behold thy face?

    In thy holy habitation,

    Did my spirit once reside?

    In my first primeval childhood

    Was I nurtured near thy side?

  2. 2. For a wise and glorious purpose

    Thou hast placed me here on earth

    And withheld the recollection

    Of my former friends and birth;

    Yet ofttimes a secret something

    Whispered, “You’re a stranger here,”

    And I felt that I had wandered

    From a more exalted sphere.

  3. 3. I had learned to call thee Father,

    Thru thy Spirit from on high,

    But, until the key of knowledge

    Was restored, I knew not why.

    In the heav’ns are parents single?

    No, the thought makes reason stare!

    Truth is reason; truth eternal

    Tells me I’ve a mother there.

  4. 4. When I leave this frail existence,

    When I lay this mortal by,

    Father, Mother, may I meet you

    In your royal courts on high?

    Then, at length, when I’ve completed

    All you sent me forth to do,

    With your mutual approbation

    Let me come and dwell with you.""

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 8/21/2022 at 5:13 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I think you've identified the language issue. I don't think Latter-day Saints are against some fundamentals of The Annunciation, at least in so far as the Choir has sung Ave Maria:

The Tabernacle Choir is asking our Blessed Mother to pray for them, which is something of which I whole-heartedly approve. Maybe Ave Maria isn't in the LDS hymnbook? Still, they are asking her to pray for them, which is beautiful.

Not any more than Barbra Streisand did. 😇

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What do you find most fulfilling about being a Latter-day Saint?

  • All the doctrine of the Church, really, but the big ones are: The doctrine of the creation and plan of salvation, including the understanding that God is our Father and we are all his children (all of us) and we lived with him before being born on earth, and how God's plan explains the purpose of our life here on earth.  And the doctrine of the redemption of the dead, and the purpose of temples, and how the full doctrinal explanation of God's plan obliterates the logical and soteriological and practical problems of evil. 
  • The doctrine of continuing revelation, and the additional scripture like the Book of Mormon, and role of the Holy Ghost in directing our own lives and families.
  • The peace I feel wherever I have attended a meeting with fellow Latter-day Saints in any part of the world, and how I feel like I'm "at home", even if it is the first time I ever attended a meeting at that location.  There is great comfort in knowing that there is spiritual, emotional, and even the possibility of temporal support, if you need it, wherever you go.

I could list others, but I would still have a hard time identifying what is "the most" fulfilling about it.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

It's undeniable that Babs and the Choir both get their wardrobes from Mervyns, circa 1967.

As a high school and college orchestra teacher and an orchestral violinist I’ve seen lots of choir dresses. It’s the choir culture. A very different world.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What do you find most fulfilling about being a Latter-day Saint?

Well, the promises of the Atonement of Jesus Christ are paramount.

Then there’s the possibility that one day I will get to play in the Gods’ playground.

https://webbtelescope.org/news/first-images/gallery/zoomable-image-southern-ring-nebula

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap220829.html

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

The connection I feel with God as one of his, spiritually, emotionally (that he wants me to be as he is and I want that as well), and biologically part of his family (meaning same species).

I don’t think it is unique to Saints, but there is a difference of nuance (at least) with God being an exalted man, the best example of what I am moving towards with God’s help. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What do you find most fulfilling about being a Latter-day Saint?

That's just a fabulous question if you want my opinion, but it will be a long post!  ;)   I'd love to talk about that!

What's your opinion on Teilhard de Chardin?

He would definitely fit into that a bit, including the Process philosophy stuff,   My first exposure to process as a philosophy began with Teilhard while I was still Catholic.   Of course his views are highly about doctrine that I do not accept- but the general attitude he has definitely is important to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...