Fourth Abrahamic religion?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Once more, you are well aware of the thread I'm referring to in this discussion. The one in where you and rjohnson were unable to stop fighting with each other and kept doing so repeatedly. You should accept responsibility for contributing to the closure of that thread just as much as he should for doing the same thing. 

 

Again, no thread of yours appear to be locked.  You are going to therefore have to point it out.  I do not have the least idea of the thread you are referring to.

I have argued with rjohnson in quite a few posts, but the only one I am aware of that got locked was his thread that got locked, so unless you are rjohnson, it’s not that one.  Added because I am bored and too lazy to find something else to interest me: I cannot read the mods’ minds and I don’t generally report other posters if they are arguing with me (a habit I picked up as a moderator on another board where mods were not to do so), so I don’t know if it was my argument with him that got the thread locked, but I would not be surprised if it was our part of the conversation that figured most or all in the mod’s decision.  I am pretty certain I wasn’t the one breaking any board rules though, so I don’t claim responsibility for it getting locked.  If anyone points out a specific wording (and not just a link to a post given some of mine are ridiculously long) where I break a board rule in that thread, written or unwritten, I will not hesitate to admit it (if I actually broke it, not just if they say I did; if anyone doesn’t trust me to fairly decide if I did or not, let’s get a third party to judge….how about seekingunderstanding, I trust he will tell be comfortable enough to tell me if I broke a rule or even went too far in his opinion if asked).

You will have to point out which closed thread was yours since just looking at your profile and his, I am not seeing it.

Edited September 16, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Since August 27, the start of rjohnson’s recent postings, according to his profile, he has posted in 5 threads.  Two were his own, the others were started by Bassil, Tweed, and phaedrus ut.

Anyone can check, there are only 10 pages of posts and it takes no more than a few minutes to skim through them all looking at who started each thread.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/4893-rjohnson7/content/?all_activity=1

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

Once more, you are well aware of the thread I'm referring to in this discussion. The one in where you and rjohnson were unable to stop fighting with each other and kept doing so repeatedly. You should accept responsibility for contributing to the closure of that thread just as much as he should for doing the same thing. 

 

I don’t see that any of your threads have been locked. Why do you refuse to respond to Rain’s and Calm’s requests to identify the specific thread you are talking about? Could it be that it’s because there is no such thread?

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, Sara H said:

If I have a correct understanding of our doctrine, we hold that Jesus and his 12 apostles held the same status in the church as Bruce, right? Could you tell me which thread on this board I should read in order to find out where people have taken the respectful practice of referring to Jesus as "Elder Jesus"?

You’re purposefully missing the point and being unnecessarily argumentative.   

[ksfisher]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

But just three hours before you posted this 👆, you referred to Elder Joseph/President Joseph/Prophet Joseph/General Joseph/Mayor Joseph as just plain ol Joseph!

Joseph Smith, as you are very well aware, is commonly referred to by Joseph or Joseph Smith.  The same goes for Brigham Young.  However, after that all church leaders are referred to as President [  ].

I suspect you know this.

Your desire to be right seems to outweigh your desire for meaningful dialogue.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Sara H said:

If I have a correct understanding of our doctrine, we hold that Jesus and his 12 apostles held the same status in the church as Bruce, right? Could you tell me which thread on this board I should read in order to find out where people have taken the respectful practice of referring to Jesus as "Elder Jesus"?

Even that is analogy is category mistake.

1. There IS NO such title which even applies by analogy

2. Neither does  "president" or "prophet" apply.

The "church" after the millennium will not even exist as a "church".

It seems you cannot get it wrong logically.

The terminology you seek doesn't exist logically even as a disrespectful analogy 

He isn't IN the Priesthood, he IS THE Priesthood 

Edited September 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Even that is analogy is category mistake.

1. There IS NO such title which even applies by analogy

2. Neither does  "president" or "prophet" apply.

The "church" after the millennium will not even exist as a "church".

It seems you cannot get it wrong correctly.

Jesus is the "Christ" (the Messiah, the Anointed One), that is his title, and it is used regularly including in the name of the church.

[mfbukowski]

"I bless you in the name of Elder X"

WRONG

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Jesus is the "Christ" (the Messiah, the Anointed One), that is his title, and it is used regularly including in the name of the church.

Yes, thanks, see edit above

[InCognitus]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, thanks, see edit above

That was really intended for user that is currently posting under the the name "Sara H", not you  

Edited September 16, 2023 by InCognitus

[Sara H]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The "church" after the millennium will not even exist as a "church

The assertion you have made here is in direct opposition to everything that our doctrine teaches. There is no doubt that the church, along with all other churches, will continue to operate normally. Jews, Christians, and Muslims will all be able to practice their religions without interference. Unless you know something I don't. 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Sara H

[Sara H]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You’re purposefully missing the point and being unnecessarily argumentative.   

No, the issue is that you and your gaggle of friends were trying to portray me as an evangelical or as someone or something other than a member of the LDS church, and you guys were proven wrong when I supplied screen shots of you guys talking about the brethren without referring to them by their priesthood title, just like I did when I referred to Elder mcConkie as Bruce.  You have been found out; please deal with your feelings and move forward.

[Sara H]

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=53374838&itype=CMSID

Interesting article I came across this morning. Because we wouldn't have to make as much of an effort to appear "Christian," we'd have more time to focus on developing our doctrine and would no longer have to try to persuade others that we are the same as they are. This is why I continue to believe that establishing a fourth Abrahamic religion would be beneficial. There is nothing wrong with embracing one's uniqueness and distinguishing qualities. 

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Sara H said:

You have been found out; please deal with your feelings and move forward.

Are you going to fill any of the outstanding CFRs to show your accusations are something besides wishful thinking or whatever it is that is motivating you to constantly misrepresent others?

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you going to fill any of the outstanding CFRs to show your accusations are something besides wishful thinking or whatever it is that is motivating you to constantly misrepresent others?

I join Calm in her CFRs.  And as you know, the board rules require you to respond to any/all CFRs issued.  
 

My experience across several boards is that when a poster fails to respond to a CFR, it’s because they are unable to prove their claim. 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

The assertion you have made here is in direct opposition to everything that our doctrine teaches. There is no doubt that the church, along with all other churches, will continue to operate normally. Jews, Christians, and Muslims will all be able to practice their religions without interference. Unless you know something I don't. 

 

Multiple Churches will exist in the Millennium for sure, but as it ends and the winding up scene concludes there will be only one.

Eventually the temporal Church organization will be supplanted and hopefully enveloped by the Church of the Firstborn when Christ rules and reigns with his saints.  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you going to fill any of the outstanding CFRs to show your accusations are something besides wishful thinking or whatever it is that is motivating you to constantly misrepresent others?

Well you could always start your own church, it wouldn't be the first time a woman did. 

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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well you could always start your own church, it wouldn't be the first time a woman did. 

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

You lost me there, Tacenda.     Can’t see what the connection to my post is.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

The assertion you have made here is in direct opposition to everything that our doctrine teaches. There is no doubt that the church, along with all other churches, will continue to operate normally. Jews, Christians, and Muslims will all be able to practice their religions without interference. Unless you know something I don't. 

Section 78

"17 Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye are little children, and ye have not as yet understood how great blessings the Father hath in his own hands and prepared for you; 18 And ye cannot bear all things now; nevertheless, be of good cheer, for I will lead you along. The kingdom is yours and the blessings thereof are yours, and the riches of eternity are yours. 19 And he who receiveth all things with thankfulness shall be made glorious; and the things of this earth shall be added unto him, even an hundred fold, yea, more. 20 Wherefore, do the things which I have commanded you, saith your Redeemer, even the Son Ahman, who prepareth all things before he taketh you; 21 For ye are the church of the Firstborn, and he will take you up in a cloud, and appoint every man his portion. 22 And he that is a faithful and wise steward shall inherit all things. Amen."

There will be no need for a "Restored" church of Jesus Christ; it will have performed its functions.

All will have been judged.  DONE

Every knee shall bow. DONE

No bishops, no relief society, no family history, no missionaries, ALL OF THAT WILL BE FINISHED.

ALL will DONE.

There will no longer be a need for "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"

Latter day Saints or ANY saints, DONE.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You lost me there, Tacenda.     Can’t see what the connection to my post is.

That was for Sara H. Sorry Calm, losing it 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

That was for Sara H. Sorry Calm, losing it 

Hardly.  Common mistake.

[InCognitus]

On 9/13/2023 at 8:12 AM, Navidad said:

I gave this comment an upvote, and just thought I would make one clarifying comment from my own experience. I began studying Old Testament Studies in 1967 at at Evangelical college. At that time there were assignments and lessons regarding the Council of Gods and how best to understand Hebrew scriptures in light of their context. We studied things that were readily available by Evangelical scholars such as Gerald Cooke or Cook, I don't remember which, who was a Society of Friends (Quaker) scholar from the area I grew up. He was a distant friend of my father's.

I don't know much about, perhaps you can share the history and chronology of the LDS scholarly writing on the Council of Gods. I don't know who borrowed from whom, or the chronology of it all. But, depending on how you define your use of the word "today" in your first sentence, I am not sure it is completely accurate to say that non-LDS Christians "have been coming to understand some similar things that you believe as Latter-day Saints." Perhaps, and I say this with some trepidation and much respect, it might be as accurate at least to say that "LDS scholars are today more aware of non-LDS Christian teachings" because they are more open to reading the work of non-LDS scholars. Perhaps fifty years ago the writings of the predecessors of people like Dr. Heiser would go unnoticed by LDS folks because as Dr. B. Carmon Hardy, my favorite LDS historian said, the LDS folks were a bit more cocooned or encysted in the past, especially in reading, appreciating and, even more so, learning from non-LDS scholars. 

Whoever, however, or whatever, the topic is a fascinating one. I was always fascinated by the study of the giants (Nephilim) of the Old Testament. I even wrote a paper on them which has of course, been assigned to the dustbin of boring undergraduate papers. Dr. McGoldrick, the toughest professor I ever had was my advisor in my undergraduate Biblical studies and church history work from 1967-1971. The most amazing thing of all is that last I heard (probably five years ago) he was still teaching and probably giving his students a hard time at a Presbyterian Seminary in South Carolina at ninety-some years of age. I wrote him requesting his permission to dedicate a book to him, even if he didn't remember me. Of course he insisted he remembered me well and all the nice things about being a bright student - blah blah blah. He also said he wanted to read the book prior to publication - probably to grade it! Ha!  He instilled an academic discipline in me that I have tried to set aside over the years, but gratefully, never succeeded! Best wishes my friend! 

Thank you for your comments.  I've wanted to respond to this earlier, but I've had a busy week...

When I said "It's kind of strange, actually, that the more in-depth Christian scholars of today have been coming to understand some similar things we believe as Latter-day Saints", I was using "today" to mean modern times, which could mean in the last centuries or so.  And I wasn't merely thinking of the council of Gods, although that is certainly part of it.  

I think LDS scholars (and regular members) have been aware of non-LDS scholarship and open to its usage since before the organization of the church in 1830.  Joseph Smith apparently had access, through Sidney Rigdon, to Adam Clarke's commentary, for example.  He had obtained a Grammar of the Hebrew Language, a Hebrew Bible, and at least one other Bible commentary during the Ohio period.  And some of the revelations received by Joseph Smith indicate that we should "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118, also 109:7, 14).  So this (and Joseph Smith's teaching that "Mormonism" encompasses all truth) set a precedence for Latter-day Saints to be open to outside scholarship. 

But related to the council of Gods, Latter-day Saints get that straight from Joseph Smith and latter-day revelation, like this line from the 1839 prayer and prophecy of Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32, "According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was".  And the book of Abraham account of creation mentions plural "Gods" as carrying out creation.  

There are other scholarly works that deal with the council of gods earlier than the one you mentioned from Gerald Cooke.  One is Wheeler Robinson, "The Council of Yahweh" in Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944).  Hugh Nibley references Robinson's work in chapter 2 of Mormonism and Early Christianity (1987 - in footnote 71 on page 35), and chapter 2 of that book is a reprint of prior publications of the same article, one from 1966 and the other from 1970.  So LDS scholars have been aware of the scholarship on these topics.

I enjoyed Michael Heiser's book, The Unseen Realm (although I believe he still limits his thinking to his tradition more than he realizes, and he doesn't connect all the dots in some areas).  And part of what I had in mind has to do with making these studies available and understandable to non-scholars in the way that Heiser has done.  It has become more widely known that monotheism (as Christians define it today) didn't exist in ancient Judaism and early Christianity (for example).  And Heiser recognizing that Jesus is our brother is just one of the topics I had in mind (we get a lot of flack over that belief from other Christians). 

[Sara H]

On 9/16/2023 at 6:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

He isn't IN the Priesthood, he IS THE Priesthood

You have stated earlier that Jesus is the priesthood. To reiterate, nothing could be further from what our doctrine teaches.  When I mentioned that he is a member of the priesthood, I was correct. You're committing a common mistake by thinking too terrestrial about the priesthood. The priesthood isn't just here on earth and in our heaven, it governs all God's, all future God's and beyond. Our doctrine teaches that both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ lived on a planet just like we do now, which means that they both had times in the past when they lacked the authority of the priesthood. The gospel is the priesthood, and the activities of the Gods, all billions of them, are governed by the gospel, the priesthood. If the gods have free will, then they have the same potential to fall from their priestly roles as you do. Meaning they're IN the priesthood.

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There will be no need for a "Restored" church of Jesus Christ; it will have performed its functions.

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No bishops, no relief society, no family history, no missionaries,

 

On 9/16/2023 at 6:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

The "church" after the millennium will not even exist as a "church".

Wrong! 100% Wrong. See below for what our doctrine teaches. 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Sara H

[Calm]

On 9/17/2023 at 5:40 AM, Calm said:

Are you going to fill any of the outstanding CFRs to show your accusations are something besides wishful thinking or whatever it is that is motivating you to constantly misrepresent others?

One last time…

[Sara H]

On 9/16/2023 at 6:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Jesus is the "Christ" (the Messiah, the Anointed One), that is his title, and it is used regularly including in the name of the church.

Jesus received the priesthood when he was foreordained savior of the world, therefore he holds the title Elder along with many other priesthood titles. So there's nothing wrong with calling him Elder Jesus.