Are there Biblical Scriptures that My LDS Friends Believe Refer Specifically and Only to the LDS Church?

[theplains]

On 1/28/2024 at 1:21 AM, InCognitus said:

Isaiah 11:10 is about one key figure, and that key figure receives a glorious “rest”, which is in Christ, as in “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

Both Doctrine and Covenants 101:28-31 and Isaiah 11:10 are speaking about individuals who receive rest in Christ.

Isaiah 10:2-4 says, "And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom 
and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear 
of the LORD. And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what 
his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall 
judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the 
earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins".

Who do you believe that individual is?

Let's have a look at verse 10 again.

"In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall 
the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious".

Who do you believe that individual is?

Verse 12 says, "He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of 
Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth".

Who do you believe that individual is?
 

On 1/28/2024 at 1:21 AM, InCognitus said:

The “servant” of the Lord in this context can have many applications.  It may be Christ.  It may be Isaiah himself.  It may be Israel as a people (as verse 3 says).  It may be Ephraim (the Lord’s firstborn – Jeremiah 31:9).  Or it may be any other servant that the Lord may send out (including Joseph Smith).  And all of these may be correct.

The Ephraim of Jeremiah 31:9 is not Ephraim the individual nor Ephraim the tribe.  It is 
representative of all ten tribes, where Ephraim’s tribe was predominant.
 

On 1/28/2024 at 1:21 AM, InCognitus said:

Jesus and Paul both testified that Israel would remain in this scattered and blinded state until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled (Luke 21:24, Romans 11:25)

I'll open a new thread about the times of the Gentiles.  I’ve seen a few LDS articles and
may have some questions.
 

On 1/28/2024 at 1:21 AM, InCognitus said:

This brings me back to the question I asked, which I will restate here: “Since Israel is being gathered now and has been in the process of being gathered for many years now, how does Christ fit as the individual spoken of in Isaiah 11:10, since the person spoken of in that verse shows up just prior to the gathering of Israel?”

You answered this by saying that the gathering of Israel “started” with Christ’s ministry, which has been shown to be impossible because of what Jesus said in Luke 21:24 (quoted above).  And both Jesus (Luke 21:24) and Paul (Romans 11:25) said that Israel would be in their blinded and scattered state “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”, so this process could not have begun until relatively recently.

Israel, as individuals was being gathered into the church of Christ in the days of His ministry.  
We can refer to them (including the Gentiles) as the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). But 
Israel as a whole would be in a blinded and scattered state as you mentioned.
 

On 1/28/2024 at 1:21 AM, InCognitus said:

But you also said that Isaiah 11:10 “is a future prophecy about Christ”, and you said, when the gospel began to be taught to the Gentiles, "From that point on, the gathering of both Israelites and Gentiles into his church has been going on."  Can you explain how your interpretation fits the timeline given above, and the prophecies and statements from Jesus and Paul noted above?  

I did not mean my reference to Isaiah 11:10 as Christ and the Gentiles to necessarily needing 
to take place in Christ's three year ministry. Jesus said he would build his church (Matthew 16:18) 
but this would initially include only Jews, not Gentiles.

Regarding Paul’s teaching in Romans 15:10-12

And again it is said, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."  And again, "Praise the Lord, all 
you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him."  And again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse will 
come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope."

Looks like a reference to Isaiah 11.  Who do you believe this individual is?
 

On 1/28/2024 at 1:21 AM, InCognitus said:

The issue is not of what Ezekiel literally did (writing on tablets and putting them together - using the New English Bible translation of the verse) but what the writing tables coming together represented (the records of the two nations) and that this would immediately precede the gathering of Israel:  "Thus I shall make them one tablet, and they shall be one in my hand. The leaves on which you write shall be visible in your hand for all to see".  And, it is stated as a prophecy of what will happen to signal the beginning of the gathering of Israel (i.e. "I am gathering up the Israelites from their places of exile among the nations").  

As for what is "their own land", we did already discuss that (here) where you assumed that they would be returning to "the land of their inheritance, like it was at their zenith in the Old Testament."  And, I already explained why that is not the case.

You asked how does gathering work in my view.  I think I did not reply in that one.

I view the gathering in two ways: a) spiritually, both Jew and Gentile. Geography is not 
relevant.  b) a land inheritance for the Jew in the land of Israel in the future.  By Jew, 
I mean the Israelites. I could provide many verses from the Old Testament about this (point b) 
but none of them would include Canada, the United States, or Mexico.

Ezekiel 37:22 says, "And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. 
And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no 
longer divided into two kingdoms".

Does "make them one nation" mean making the Book of Mormon and the Bible into one book to 
you?

What does the phrase "on the mountains of Israel" mean to you in that verse?

[theplains]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

It is more in line with what the book of Abraham teaches (and other scriptures) to understand that Joseph Smith was teaching that God the Father is the greatest of all spirits and always has been

In the context of what I understand of LDS theology, this is only applicable to the realm of 
God the Father of our Earth.  How he compares in greatness with all the current and future
Heavenly Fathers or Mothers of other realms is unknown. 

Who knows?  Maybe the female and male spirit children of Heavenly Father's Father went
on to become even greater than their own spirit brother (currently the Heavenly Father of
our Earth).

[theplains]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

By the way, @theplains, I want to thank you for your contributions here on this board. It may not entirely be what you intend, but I almost always gain new insights and knowledge through responding to things you bring up, and strengthens me in my testimony, not only of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but even more importantly, my testimony of Jesus Christ. Your challenges cause me to delve more deeply into scripture, and this opens up my mind and heart to new and unexpected realizations. 

Keep up the good work!

🙂

I only have a testimony of Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.  The church is the
body of Christ, not a visible organization.

Edited January 31 by theplains

[Calm]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

If there is no before or after in the mind of God, what do we do with the concept of eternal
progression?

Maybe it’s like the universe expanding and yet there is nothing surrounding the universe for it to expand into

[theplains]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In other words, they became accountable, unlike young children in mortality, whose brains have not developed far enough to be held accountable for their transgressions. 

God told them what would happen and then held them in account when they disobeyed.  He 
punished them.  If you don’t agree with the word "punishment", you may want to read 
Alma 42:1-2.  Gospel Principles (more so the 1997 version) says they were greatly blessed 
for their disobedience.

According to the 1982 Ensign article (Christ and the Creation), death was Adam's gift to 
man.
 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's good to include verse 14-15, yes. It doesn't detract from my point, however. And that point is that we may also be glorified with him -- also known as inheriting the Celestial Kingdom, or in other words, inheriting celestial glory with the Father.

By glorification, I had 1 Corinthians 15:42-57 in mind.

"There is one glory of the sun [our Sun], and another glory of the moon, and another 
glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory". 

There are many stars much greater than our Sun.  The moon (said to have a terrestrial 
glory in Doctrine and Covenants 76) is even considered higher in glory than those stars 
which are greater than our own Sun.
 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nevertheless, when Jesus taught us how to pray, he taught all of us to address God as our Father. Your assertion that the non-gods are not viewed as children has no support in scripture. When Paul writes that we should be subject to the "Father of spirits" (Heb 12:9), he is expressing the idea that the fatherhood of God applies to all, not just to the ones who are counted worthy to be a joint-heir with Christ. 

The LDS Church teaches that the heirs are exalted beings.  Romans 8:14-17 says that only 
those led by the Spirit of God are the children of God, and who can address Him as Abba, 
Father, and are heirs.  Muslims and Hindus for example can be regarded as children of God 
in a generic sense, but based on those verses in Romans, they would not qualify as living 
in the spirit but rather in the flesh.

"Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in 
the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit 
of Christ does not belong to him" (verses 8-9). 
 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In bringing C.S. Lewis into the matter I was attempting to show that even a stalwart Protestant like Lewis saw that God wants to make us into something far greater than we may perhaps expect. In saying we might be strongly tempted to worship such an one that God has exalted, Lewis was perhaps alluding to John the Beloved's experience as recounted in Revelation 21 & 22, where an angel shows him some very amazing things.

Yes. Glorified as in 1 Corinthians 15 but not equal in power, and in might, and in dominion
like Doctrine and Covenants 76:95 says.  This puts the event of Satan's temptation of Eve 
on steroids.

Gospel Principles teaches that LDS males who become Gods will be worshipped by their own 
spirit children.
 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This demonstrates rather clearly that while the Father and the Son are one, they nevertheless are separate personages (contra the Nicene Fathers). AND, if one becomes a "joint-heir with Christ," then the same applies to that joint-heir, meaning that the Father will show that joint-heir what He did, and expect that joint-heir to do that what He did.

Extrapolating from LDS theology, Heavenly Father (of our Earth) and some of his other spirit 
brothers and sisters became heirs (Gods of other realms) because they did what their Father 
(Heavenly Father’s father) had done.

[theplains]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe it’s like the universe expanding and yet there is nothing surrounding the universe for it to expand into

I wonder what separates universes so they don't expand into each other. Maybe an astronomer
would know.

[longview]

19 hours ago, theplains said:

I wonder what separates universes so they don't expand into each other. Maybe an astronomer
would know.

I am not an astronomer. You could consider the possibility of infinite dimensions. Our universe may have 24 dimensions (of which we are able to percieve 5 or more dimensions). The next universe has its 24 dimensions that do not overlap any of our 24 dimensions.

Remember Jesus is able to walk thru walls (dimensional shifts?).

[mfbukowski]

On 1/31/2024 at 8:22 AM, theplains said:

If there is no before or after in the mind of God, what do we do with the concept of eternal
progression?

Every word we speak is symbolic.

When I say "cat", cats don't appear!

Category mistake!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake#:~:text=A category mistake (or category,could not possibly have that

On one hand you speak of THE MIND OF GOD, then you switch to our piddly little brains interpreting squiggles representing OUR - not God's- abilities.

Long story short: we cannot know what God knows.

We are embryos trying to discuss Einstein 

 

Edited February 1 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

On 1/31/2024 at 8:57 PM, theplains said:

🙂

I only have a testimony of Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.  The church is the
body of Christ, not a visible organization.

So you say, but as you know, I believe differently.

[Stargazer]

On 1/31/2024 at 11:09 PM, theplains said:

I wonder what separates universes so they don't expand into each other. Maybe an astronomer
would know.

Some astronomers think that they might expand into each other, and some have suggested that certain anomalies that have been observed might be evidence of this.

[Stargazer]

On 1/31/2024 at 11:01 PM, theplains said:

God told them what would happen and then held them in account when they disobeyed.  He 
punished them.  If you don’t agree with the word "punishment", you may want to read 
Alma 42:1-2.  

The word "punishment" is perfectly fine -- I'm sure Adam and Eve saw it that way -- though one might alternatively use the word "consequence". God held them to account because they were responsible for the transgression. Although I note that God only promised death as a consequence; he did not promise to cast them out of the Garden. Yet he did so. Why? Obviously because He wanted them to experience a life of trials, not one of luxurious complacence.

On 1/31/2024 at 11:01 PM, theplains said:

Gospel Principles (more so the 1997 version) says they were greatly blessed 
for their disobedience.

And you disagree? 

I recall a Jehovah's Witness tract I once read, in which it was said that it was a great tragedy for Adam and Eve to be kicked out of the Garden, for if they had not transgressed, but had remained, all of humankind that followed them would have lived in happy luxury. But because of their failure we are doomed to suffer in mortality. That's an interesting idea, and I sense that you might agree, but consider the consequences. Would all of Adam and Eve's children likewise refrain from eating of the fruit of that tree? Maybe one of A&E's grandchildren would have fallen to the temptation instead.  So then we would have two populations, one that lived forever in the Garden, and one that got kicked out into mortality.

Let's say that they didn't succumb to temptation, and stayed in the Garden forever, never tasting of death. Would they have even had children? I've consulted a number of various online sources that seemed conventionally Christian, and pretty much all of them agree that the Founding Couple did not have children before the Fall, and the reason they did not was because they were innocent. One source referred to the man and woman's unashamed nakedness, and claimed that they were not ashamed because they had not yet fallen, and thus lust had not yet entered into their minds. So, though their bodies certainly had the capability of procreating, they themselves were not minded to take the action that would result in children. Note that Genesis says that Adam "knew" his wife only after they were cast out of the Garden.

And then we come to the question: why did God put a tree in the Garden whose fruit Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat? If God wanted them to stay in the Garden and never die, then wasn't God's action rather counterproductive? Does God make a habit out of taking illogical actions? Was this an "oops" moment for God?

Of course not. It should be as clear as the nose on your face that God expected and intended them to partake of the fruit of that tree, and in fact wanted them to do it. 

And the blessing for their disobedience was having children, having to earn their bread by the sweat of their faces, and having to die. Because God wanted there to be as many humans as possible, and for his own purposes. His purposes began to be fulfilled when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. 

On 1/31/2024 at 11:01 PM, theplains said:

According to the 1982 Ensign article (Christ and the Creation), death was Adam's gift to 
man.

And so it was. If he and Eve were doomed to be separated from God for eternity, exiled from the Garden of Eden, that would have been a real punishment, wouldn't you think? Adam and Eve would still be wandering the earth, however many years it has been since leaving the Garden. Death separates us from our dreary mortality, and enables us to move on, ultimately to be resurrected. This is what makes it a blessing (in disguise perhaps) and a gift. 

On 1/31/2024 at 11:01 PM, theplains said:

By glorification, I had 1 Corinthians 15:42-57 in mind.

"There is one glory of the sun [our Sun], and another glory of the moon, and another 
glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory". 

There are many stars much greater than our Sun.  The moon (said to have a terrestrial 
glory in Doctrine and Covenants 76) is even considered higher in glory than those stars 
which are greater than our own Sun.

So, are you going to give me an astronomy lesson? 

To a person of the past, before telescopes were invented, the brightest thing in the sky was the sun. The second brightest was the moon. After that comes the various stars. So now you're going to turn Paul around by claiming that the stars are superior in his eyes, because some stars are actually larger than our sun? Because Paul knew something 2,000 years ago that only became known to us in the last 100 years? Come on.

Paul was not teaching astronomy. He was teaching a principle concerning the resurrection. Some will be resurrected with the glory of the sun -- i.e. the brightest glory. Some will be resurrected with the glory of the moon -- i.e. the second brightest glory. And the rest get the glory of the stars -- the third-brightest. It's an analogy, not astronomy.

On 1/31/2024 at 11:01 PM, theplains said:

The LDS Church teaches that the heirs are exalted beings.  Romans 8:14-17 says that only 
those led by the Spirit of God are the children of God, and who can address Him as Abba, 
Father, and are heirs.  Muslims and Hindus for example can be regarded as children of God 
in a generic sense, but based on those verses in Romans, they would not qualify as living 
in the spirit but rather in the flesh.

"Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in 
the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit 
of Christ does not belong to him" (verses 8-9). 

I agree with you in principle, but God created all of us, not just the ones who are exalted in the end. If you want to qualify this by saying that the non-exalted are children of God only in a "generic" sense, you're welcome to your opinion. But the scriptures say that God is not a respecter of persons, and this implies that He loves us all, even those who do not live up to him. In Jesus's parable, when the Prodigal son returned from his profligacy, he told his father "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son." But his father welcomed him with joy and great rejoicing, clothed him in the best clothing, and put a ring on his finger. 

The prodigal expected but a modest welcome, and expected to be treated as a hired servant. But the father rejoiced and told everyone the reason for his joy: "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found." Note that he still called him "son." Was he only a son in a generic sense? Doesn't seem so.

To continue with the parable, the father's other son was offended at the celebration of the prodigal's return. Because he himself had been faithful at all times, yet that faithfulness was not celebrated as much as the prodigal's return from disgrace. 
 
The father's reply is instructive: "And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."

In contrast to the faithful son, the prodigal had forfeited his inheritance. It was the faithful son who would inherit all that the father had. But despite his mistakes, the prodigal was still loved, because he was still his son.

But if you want to cling to that "generic" child idea, feel free. Personally, I marvel at how deeply God loves us all, even those of us who fail to live up to His expectations. 

On 1/31/2024 at 11:01 PM, theplains said:

Yes. Glorified as in 1 Corinthians 15 but not equal in power, and in might, and in dominion
like Doctrine and Covenants 76:95 says.  This puts the event of Satan's temptation of Eve 
on steroids.

On steroids, huh? LOL! Satan was teaching usurpation, not deification or theosis. As if they could make themselves gods, which they couldn't.

How can someone who is a joint-heir with Christ NOT be equal in power, might, and dominion? Is not Christ, in Trinitarian terms, the same as the Father? When Phillip asked Jesus "Show us the father," Jesus answered (in effect) "You're looking at him." I ask again, if the three are one, if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one substance (ousia) and the three are co-equal persons (hypostaseis), how can a joint-heir with Christ not be equal in power, might, and dominion?

Do you object that God, who is omnipotent, cannot make His creature of like power, might, and dominion to Himself?  

Let me make it clear, however, that in saying that an exalted person is equal in power, might, and dominion with the Father, one is not saying that the exalted takes equal precedence. Much in the way the heir of a king is a king himself, his father nevertheless takes natural precedence over him. God our Father will always be ahead of us; He does not take a back seat. But He will make out of us what He wants. If He raises you or me to his level of power, might, and dominion, who are we to gainsay Him?

On 1/31/2024 at 11:01 PM, theplains said:

Gospel Principles teaches that LDS males who become Gods will be worshipped by their own 
spirit children.

Of course! Were you expecting me to dispute this? When Jesus said he was only doing what he saw the Father do, he was teaching this exact principle, which is that God has created us as potential Gods. Who, if they qualify, will go on to do what we saw the Father do.

This "joint-heirs with Christ" principle actually means something. It's not just an empty title without substance.

And don't discount LDS females. LDS males cannot become Gods without their Goddesses. The title "joint-heir with Christ" applies equally to both males and females. And to jump this entirely out of the present, LDS refers to the latter-day Saints. Those of the former-day Saints (the Christians of the time of the original 12 apostles), as well as those of the days before Christ came into mortality, all have the potential to reach this honor, because we are children of God. Not all of us will reach it. That's why there are three glories mentioned in Corinthians.

On 1/31/2024 at 11:01 PM, theplains said:

Extrapolating from LDS theology, Heavenly Father (of our Earth) and some of his other spirit 
brothers and sisters became heirs (Gods of other realms) because they did what their Father 
(Heavenly Father’s father) had done.

Exactly! 

However I will expand your thought beyond "our Earth" to the entire Universe. Because God created all of it. And the natural follow-on is that if we go on to do what God does, we will each have our own Universe.

I'm actually impressed by how much you know about LDS eschatology or how well you can extrapolate from what you know. But I am disappointed at how much you don't understand. You make these statements about it as if you thought you were pushing it to absurd lengths, when all you have done is to take it to the next most logical (and usually correct) step. 

What did God create us for? Did He desire inferior beings because he wanted such to worship Him upon His throne? Is God so needy or insecure that He could not be content without the adoration of His inferiors? No! Like any father, He is trying to raise us to be like Him (1 John 3:2). And like any father, He is hoping that we will be found worthy to go on to do what He does. Else why would God call Himself our Father? Or is that just an honorary title? I choose to understand it as a literal status and title. With all the natural consequences of the concept.

[Pyreaux]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The word "punishment" is perfectly fine -- I'm sure Adam and Eve saw it that way -- though one might alternatively use the word "consequence". God held them to account because they were responsible for the transgression. Although I note that God only promised death as a consequence; he did not promise to cast them out of the Garden. Yet he did so. Why? Obviously because He wanted them to experience a life of trials, not one of luxurious complacence.

And you disagree? 

I recall a Jehovah's Witness tract I once read, in which it was said that it was a great tragedy for Adam and Eve to be kicked out of the Garden, for if they had not transgressed, but had remained, all of humankind that followed them would have lived in happy luxury. But because of their failure we are doomed to suffer in mortality. That's an interesting idea, and I sense that you might agree, but consider the consequences. Would all of Adam and Eve's children likewise refrain from eating of the fruit of that tree? Maybe one of A&E's grandchildren would have fallen to the temptation instead.  So then we would have two populations, one that lived forever in the Garden, and one that got kicked out into mortality.

Let's say that they didn't succumb to temptation, and stayed in the Garden forever, never tasting of death. Would they have even had children? I've consulted a number of various online sources that seemed conventionally Christian, and pretty much all of them agree that the Founding Couple did not have children before the Fall, and the reason they did not was because they were innocent. One source referred to the man and woman's unashamed nakedness, and claimed that they were not ashamed because they had not yet fallen, and thus lust had not yet entered into their minds. So, though their bodies certainly had the capability of procreating, they themselves were not minded to take the action that would result in children. Note that Genesis says that Adam "knew" his wife only after they were cast out of the Garden.

And then we come to the question: why did God put a tree in the Garden whose fruit Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat? If God wanted them to stay in the Garden and never die, then wasn't God's action rather counterproductive? Does God make a habit out of taking illogical actions? Was this an "oops" moment for God?

Of course not. It should be as clear as the nose on your face that God expected and intended them to partake of the fruit of that tree, and in fact wanted them to do it. 

And the blessing for their disobedience was having children, having to earn their bread by the sweat of their faces, and having to die. Because God wanted there to be as many humans as possible, and for his own purposes. His purposes began to be fulfilled when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. 

And so it was. If he and Eve were doomed to be separated from God for eternity, exiled from the Garden of Eden, that would have been a real punishment, wouldn't you think? Adam and Eve would still be wandering the earth, however many years it has been since leaving the Garden. Death separates us from our dreary mortality, and enables us to move on, ultimately to be resurrected. This is what makes it a blessing (in disguise perhaps) and a gift. 

So, are you going to give me an astronomy lesson? 

To a person of the past, before telescopes were invented, the brightest thing in the sky was the sun. The second brightest was the moon. After that comes the various stars. So now you're going to turn Paul around by claiming that the stars are superior in his eyes, because some stars are actually larger than our sun? Because Paul knew something 2,000 years ago that only became known to us in the last 100 years? Come on.

Paul was not teaching astronomy. He was teaching a principle concerning the resurrection. Some will be resurrected with the glory of the sun -- i.e. the brightest glory. Some will be resurrected with the glory of the moon -- i.e. the second brightest glory. And the rest get the glory of the stars -- the third-brightest. It's an analogy, not astronomy.

I agree with you in principle, but God created all of us, not just the ones who are exalted in the end. If you want to qualify this by saying that the non-exalted are children of God only in a "generic" sense, you're welcome to your opinion. But the scriptures say that God is not a respecter of persons, and this implies that He loves us all, even those who do not live up to him. In Jesus's parable, when the Prodigal son returned from his profligacy, he told his father "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son." But his father welcomed him with joy and great rejoicing, clothed him in the best clothing, and put a ring on his finger. 

The prodigal expected but a modest welcome, and expected to be treated as a hired servant. But the father rejoiced and told everyone the reason for his joy: "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found." Note that he still called him "son." Was he only a son in a generic sense? Doesn't seem so.

To continue with the parable, the father's other son was offended at the celebration of the prodigal's return. Because he himself had been faithful at all times, yet that faithfulness was not celebrated as much as the prodigal's return from disgrace. 
 
The father's reply is instructive: "And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."

In contrast to the faithful son, the prodigal had forfeited his inheritance. It was the faithful son who would inherit all that the father had. But despite his mistakes, the prodigal was still loved, because he was still his son.

But if you want to cling to that "generic" child idea, feel free. Personally, I marvel at how deeply God loves us all, even those of us who fail to live up to His expectations. 

On steroids, huh? LOL! Satan was teaching usurpation, not deification or theosis. As if they could make themselves gods, which they couldn't.

How can someone who is a joint-heir with Christ NOT be equal in power, might, and dominion? Is not Christ, in Trinitarian terms, the same as the Father? When Phillip asked Jesus "Show us the father," Jesus answered (in effect) "You're looking at him." I ask again, if the three are one, if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one substance (ousia) and the three are co-equal persons (hypostaseis), how can a joint-heir with Christ not be equal in power, might, and dominion?

Do you object that God, who is omnipotent, cannot make His creature of like power, might, and dominion to Himself?  

Let me make it clear, however, that in saying that an exalted person is equal in power, might, and dominion with the Father, one is not saying that the exalted takes equal precedence. Much in the way the heir of a king is a king himself, his father nevertheless takes natural precedence over him. God our Father will always be ahead of us; He does not take a back seat. But He will make out of us what He wants. If He raises you or me to his level of power, might, and dominion, who are we to gainsay Him?

Of course! Were you expecting me to dispute this? When Jesus said he was only doing what he saw the Father do, he was teaching this exact principle, which is that God has created us as potential Gods. Who, if they qualify, will go on to do what we saw the Father do.

This "joint-heirs with Christ" principle actually means something. It's not just an empty title without substance.

And don't discount LDS females. LDS males cannot become Gods without their Goddesses. The title "joint-heir with Christ" applies equally to both males and females. And to jump this entirely out of the present, LDS refers to the latter-day Saints. Those of the former-day Saints (the Christians of the time of the original 12 apostles), as well as those of the days before Christ came into mortality, all have the potential to reach this honor, because we are children of God. Not all of us will reach it. That's why there are three glories mentioned in Corinthians.

Exactly! 

However I will expand your thought beyond "our Earth" to the entire Universe. Because God created all of it. And the natural follow-on is that if we go on to do what God does, we will each have our own Universe.

I'm actually impressed by how much you know about LDS eschatology or how well you can extrapolate from what you know. But I am disappointed at how much you don't understand. You make these statements about it as if you thought you were pushing it to absurd lengths, when all you have done is to take it to the next most logical (and usually correct) step. 

What did God create us for? Did He desire inferior beings because he wanted such to worship Him upon His throne? Is God so needy or insecure that He could not be content without the adoration of His inferiors? No! Like any father, He is trying to raise us to be like Him (1 John 3:2). And like any father, He is hoping that we will be found worthy to go on to do what He does. Else why would God call Himself our Father? Or is that just an honorary title? I choose to understand it as a literal status and title. With all the natural consequences of the concept.

Good stuff. Can Adam thwart God's plan?

“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2)

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Good stuff. Can Adam thwart God's plan?

“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2)

Now there's a good question! I think he could have, in a manner of speaking. After Eve ate the forbidden fruit, Adam could have decided to let her go out alone while he stayed. This would not have thwarted God's plan, however, because in the case that Adam made that choice, I'm certain that God would have had a backup plan. A second Garden, for example, and a second Adam and Eve. See verse 34 in the quote from Moses 1 below.

On the other hand, God knows the end from the beginning. So He would have known already that Adam was going to take Eve's offer and go out with her.

Mormon 8:22 - For the eternal purposes of the Lord shall roll on, until all His promises shall be fulfilled.

It's not like God doesn't have experience at this kind of thing. Moses 1:33-38

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. <- Many other "Adams" have been created by God
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and atell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

We aren't His first; neither will we be His last.

 

[InCognitus]

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

Isaiah 10:2-4 says, "And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom 
and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear 
of the LORD. And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what 
his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall 
judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the 
earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins".

Who do you believe that individual is?

This is answered in Doctrine and Covenants 113:1–2:

“Who is the Stem of Jesse spoken of in the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th verses of the 11th chapter of Isaiah?   Verily thus saith the Lord: It is Christ.”

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

Let's have a look at verse 10 again.

"In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall 
the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious".

Who do you believe that individual is?

Do you think my answer to that question will change simply because you emphasize the words “who”, “him”, and “his” in this and the other verses in the chapter?  And you do realize that there’s a new paragraph beginning with verse 10 that introduces a new subject matter there, right?  So whoever the “him” is in the preceding paragraphs may have no bearing on the new subject whatsoever. 

And the new paragraph isn’t just a feature of the translation, it’s in the Hebrew scrolls as well.  Look at Isaiah 11:10 in the Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is the start of a completely new paragraph (and keep in mind that Hebrew reads from right to left instead of from left to right):

As for who that is, my answer is the same as it was from my post on December 15, and as answered in Doctrine and Covenants 113:3–6:

“What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse?  Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power.  What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?  Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days.”

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

Verse 12 says, "He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of 
Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth".

Who do you believe that individual is?

Same as answered above.  I will add that it is the Lord doing this (raising the standard, signal, or ensign – all the same word) through his servant (the root of Jesse), as a “servant in the hands of Christ”.  The servant is called of God and stands as a witness of him, and what the Lord does through him is the signal that begins the full gathering of Israel in the latter days.

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

The Ephraim of Jeremiah 31:9 is not Ephraim the individual nor Ephraim the tribe.  It is 
representative of all ten tribes, where Ephraim’s tribe was predominant.

I don’t think the northern ten tribes (as a group) were ever designated as the “firstborn” of Israel.  Furthermore, the kingdom of the ten tribes was called Ephraim only because their first king Jeroboam was of that tribe (1 Kings 11:26).  

The “firstborn” designation goes to Joseph through Ephraim. See Genesis 48:17-20 (where Jacob “set Ephraim before Manasseh”), and also as it says in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2:  

“Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s: )”

In Isaiah 49:3-6 (the verse I had quoted that you are responding to), it is discussing the Lord’s “servant” that is to “raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel”.  That is Ephraim’s role, as designated by the blessing given to him in Deuteronomy 33:13-17, although as I mentioned others could also participate in that role.  And in Jeremiah 31, the Lord is also talking about recovering the “remnant of Israel” from the “north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth” (v 7-8).  Ephraim, as a people, has that same role.  Ephraim is the Lord’s “firstborn”.

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

Israel, as individuals was being gathered into the church of Christ in the days of His ministry.  
We can refer to them (including the Gentiles) as the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). But 
Israel as a whole would be in a blinded and scattered state as you mentioned.

You acknowledge the further scattering of Israel (as prophesied by Jesus) after New Testament times, and also acknowledge that the gathering event initiated in Isaiah 11:10 could not have taken place during Christ’s three year ministry, but you never have answered my question.  This was my original question and it still stands:

“Since Israel is being gathered now and has been in the process of being gathered for many years now, how does Christ fit as the individual spoken of in Isaiah 11:10, since the person spoken of in that verse shows up just prior to the gathering of Israel?”

Can you explain how Christ could be the person described in Isaiah 11:10?  Has Christ appeared to someone to start the gathering of Israel?  (Actually, he did appear to Joseph Smith a few times. I think the servant is likely Joseph Smith.)   Or how else could that person in Isaiah 11:10 be Christ?   Can you explain how your interpretation fits the timeline I gave in my post on January 27, and the prophecies and statements from Jesus and Paul noted in the same post?  

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

Regarding Paul’s teaching in Romans 15:10-12

And again it is said, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."  And again, "Praise the Lord, all 
you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him."  And again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse will 
come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope."

Looks like a reference to Isaiah 11.  Who do you believe this individual is?

I addressed Romans 15:10-12 in my last post (here).  Can you at least interact with my response to your claim that Paul was referring to Christ in those verses?

As for who this person is, it’s the same as I said on December 15 in response to the question on Isaiah 11:10, and from Doctrine and Covenants 113:5–6:

“What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?   Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days.”

Paul never says the person in Isaiah 11:10 is Christ, and that interpretation doesn’t really fit for the reasons described in my prior post.

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

You asked how does gathering work in my view.  I think I did not reply in that one.

I view the gathering in two ways: a) spiritually, both Jew and Gentile. Geography is not 
relevant.  b) a land inheritance for the Jew in the land of Israel in the future.  By Jew, 
I mean the Israelites. I could provide many verses from the Old Testament about this (point b) 
but none of them would include Canada, the United States, or Mexico.

Regarding your point “a”, I don’t consider literal Jews being gathered into the church of Jesus Christ as “spiritual” Israel (I explained this in my post on December 7).  They are literally Israel and are literally being gathered.  They just haven’t all returned to their own soil (wherever that may be) as of yet.  

As for your point “b”, in my post on December 12 I already did provide several verses from the Old Testament that explain how your original idea that they would return to "the land of their inheritance, like it was at their zenith in the Old Testament” doesn’t work (for several reasons).  

As for whether or not those lands could include Canada, the United States, or Mexico, you can definitely rule out Canada . 

But I don’t know how you can say for certainty whether or not those lands would be excluded, especially given how I answered this at the end of my post on December 7:

On 12/7/2023 at 9:43 PM, InCognitus said:

Israel will inherit the lands promised to them, some of them as it is described in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33.  Some of those lands go beyond what is described during the Biblical time when there was a northern and southern kingdom.

Jacob's blessing to his son, Joseph (Genesis 49:22-26, Deuteronomy 33:13-17), has an interesting promise.  Verse 26 of Genesis 49 reads, "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren." 

The Rashi (Jewish Rabbi) commentary on this verse has this to say:

"עד תאות גבעות עולם EVEN TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EVERLASTING HILLS — Because my blessings have prevailed, extending to the very ends of the bounds of the everlasting hills, for He gave me a blessing that bursts all bounds, one that has no limits, that reaches even unto the four corners of the world, as it is stated, (Genesis 28:14) '[God said to Jacob] and thou shalt spread abroad to the West and to the East [and to the North and to the South]', an unqualified promise that was made neither to Abraham nor to Isaac. For to Abraham He said, (Genesis 13:14) “Lift up thine eyes and look northwards etc. … for all the land which thou seest to thee will I give it”, and He showed him only the Land of Israel. To Isaac He said, (Genesis 26:3) “for unto thee and unto thy seed will I give all these lands, and I will establish the oath [which I swore unto Abraham thy father]”. It is to this that Isaiah alludes when he said, (Isaiah 58:14) “And I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father” (Shabbat 118b), and he did not say, “with the heritage promised to Abraham”."

So, the land areas that Israel inherits surpasses what they were allowed to have during the land assignments by Joshua.  But ultimately they become "one nation" under God and his Christ.

The inheritance given to Joseph and his sons is quite extensive.

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

Ezekiel 37:22 says, "And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. 
And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no 
longer divided into two kingdoms".

Does "make them one nation" mean making the Book of Mormon and the Bible into one book to 
you?

I already answered this question in my post on November 24:

“[T]he two wooden writing tablets represent the two nations, and bringing the two wooden writing tablets together again represents them becoming one again.  The nations of "Joseph, the leaf of Ephriaim and all his associates of Israel" were scattered throughout the world, and this is a prophetic symbol of the beginning of their gathering.”

I also said:  "Ezekiel states that the two wooden writing tablets come together in the hand of a prophet just as the Lord begins the gathering again: ‘These are the words of the Lord GOD:  I am gathering up the Israelites from their places of exile among the nations’.   Has Israel started gathering?  If so, then the two writing tablets have come together. “

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

What does the phrase "on the mountains of Israel" mean to you in that verse?

My response to you on December 7 (part of which I just quoted above) dealt with this question.  The "mountains of Israel" would be all the lands that the tribes would inherit, wherever they may be.

[InCognitus]

On 1/31/2024 at 1:55 PM, theplains said:

On 1/31/2024 at 11:50 AM, InCognitus said:

It is more in line with what the book of Abraham teaches (and other scriptures) to understand that Joseph Smith was teaching that God the Father is the greatest of all spirits and always has been

In the context of what I understand of LDS theology, this is only applicable to the realm of 
God the Father of our Earth.  How he compares in greatness with all the current and future
Heavenly Fathers or Mothers of other realms is unknown. 

Actually, he says he only gives us an account of this earth, but he also tells us, "worlds without number have I created" (Moses 1:33).  

On 1/31/2024 at 1:55 PM, theplains said:

Who knows?  Maybe the female and male spirit children of Heavenly Father's Father went
on to become even greater than their own spirit brother (currently the Heavenly Father of
our Earth).

That's impossible, because God's creations and his "work" and his "glory" increase eternally.  Nobody can catch up to that.

[theplains]

On 2/1/2024 at 1:53 PM, mfbukowski said:

We are embryos trying to discuss Einstein 

"Man is a god in embryo and has in him the seeds of godhood, and he can, if he will, rise to great heights."

Chapter 1, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball

 

[theplains]

On 2/3/2024 at 7:12 PM, InCognitus said:

On 1/31/2024 at 3:55 PM, theplains said:

Who knows?  Maybe the female and male spirit children of Heavenly Father's Father went
on to become even greater than their own spirit brother (currently the Heavenly Father of
our Earth).

That's impossible, because God's creations and his "work" and his "glory" increase eternally.  Nobody can catch up to that.

Why do you believe the brothers and sisters of the Heavenly Father of our Earth (who were
supposedly all siblings of their own Heavenly Father born on some other world and who all
became Gods and created their own worlds) cannot be greater than he?

Here's another example. Let's suppose your father (living as a mortal on some world) has five
sons (named InCognitus, John, Paul, Jesse, and Robert).  You and your four other brothers become
Gods and the Heavenly Fathers of future worlds that you will create.  Can any of your four other
brothers be greater Gods than you?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

"Man is a god in embryo and has in him the seeds of godhood, and he can, if he will, rise to great heights."

Chapter 1, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball

 

Yep.

Thanks for the reference.

It appears to me that this line of thought is an example of "natural law" being incorporated into LDS theology.

But of course we don't have "theology"

Pres Kimball also left us a wonderful piece that is compatible with Instumentalism; it also suggests that truth itself depends upon its CONTEXT- creating, imo, a relativistic overview for truth, that fits Instrumentalism.

It actually can be "seen as" (Wittgenstein)  leaning toward my Rorty quotes, unsurprisingly.

I had a hard time finding a good link to the talk, but there are good videos;  this is the best TEXT rendition I could find quickly

https://www.scribd.com/document/440067005/Absolute-Truth-Spencer-W-Kimball-pdf

Pres. K is not a philosopher, thank God, but the seeds of Instrumentalism are present 

 

Edited February 7 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 2/3/2024 at 2:50 PM, Stargazer said:

We aren't His first; neither will we be His last

AND as the #1 Pragmatist, God knows what works best!! 😉

[mfbukowski]

@Calm

I am working on a reply to your great question about moral vs scientific reasoning but am deluged ( 😉 in LA?) with STUFF!.

Reply will be soon, just not soon.

You are among the few who actually DO get my views.

Look at my Rorty quotes to possibly understand what I said and the difference between Wittgenstein language games and representation of of "reality"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)

 

 

Edited February 7 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

@Calm

I am working on a reply to your great question about moral vs scientific reasoning but am deluged ( 😉 in LA?) with STUFF!.

Reply will be soon, just not soon.

You are among the few who actually DO get my views.

Look at my Rorty quotes to possibly understand what I said and the difference between Wittgenstein language games and representation of of "reality"

 

 

Take your time. 

You are probably the main reason I try to explore philosophy. I don’t know why I tend to avoid it given my fascination with the way people think. That makes no sense and yet is my reality, so I appreciate the exposure. 

[theplains]

On 2/3/2024 at 8:38 AM, Stargazer said:

The word "punishment" is perfectly fine -- I'm sure Adam and Eve saw it that way -- though one might alternatively use the word "consequence".

Your original reply is here.

The church's Article of Faith #2 and Alma 42:1-2 uses the term punishment too. 

However, a teaching in a seminary manual flips this around, with references to Moses 5. It 
starts with a question - Were Adam and Eve "Punished" for Their Transgression?

It begins with this:

"We can picture the plight of Adam and Eve. They had been condemned to sorrows, woes, 
troubles, and labor and they were cast out from the presence of God, and death had been 
declared to be their fate. A pathetic picture, indeed".

Then it moves away from "punishment" and "penalty" to "blessings". This echoes what
Gospel Principles (more so the 1997 version) says.
 

Quote

Although I note that God only promised death as a consequence; he did not promise to cast them out of the Garden.

Correct.  But it hasn't stopped the LDS Church from speculating.

According to Gospel Fundamentals, "Adam apparently knew that Eve would have to leave the 
garden when she ate from the forbidden tree and thus he partook also so that he could remain 
with her" (page 23).

Page 9 has an interesting statement on punishment.  "Because of our sins, we would be punished 
by being separated from Him forever".

Paraphrasing it ...

"Because of Adam's sin, we would be punished by being separated from Him for some time".
 

Quote

 

On 1/31/2024 at 6:01 PM, theplains said:
Gospel Principles (more so the 1997 version) says they were greatly blessed 
for their disobedience.

And you disagree?

 

I believe God blesses obedience, not disobedience.

 

Quote

I recall a Jehovah's Witness tract I once read, in which it was said that it was a great 
tragedy for Adam and Eve to be kicked out of the Garden, for if they had not transgressed, 
but had remained, all of humankind that followed them would have lived in happy luxury. 

I think I saw that too.  They didn't mention the "and in nakedness" part.

 

Quote

Would all of Adam and Eve's children likewise refrain from eating of the fruit of that tree?

I don't know.  Probably not. The LDS Church teaches they could not have children without first 
eating from the forbidden tree.

 

Quote

Maybe one of A&E's grandchildren would have fallen to the temptation instead.  So then we would have two populations, one that lived forever in the Garden, and one that got kicked out into mortality.

 There is no indication from the Garden of Eden narrative that Adam and Eve would have remained 
there forever had they remained obedient.  After all, God told them to have dominion over the 
earth before the Fall (Genesis 1:26,28).

 

Quote

Let's say that they didn't succumb to temptation, and stayed in the Garden forever, never tasting of death. Would they have even had children?

According to the LDS Church, no.
 

Quote

I've consulted a number of various online sources that seemed conventionally Christian, and pretty much all of them agree that the Founding Couple did not have children before the Fall, and the reason they did not was because they were innocent.

Innocent does not mean ignorant or impotent.  The animals were given the same commandment to be
fruitful and multiply.

 

Quote

One source referred to the man and woman's unashamed nakedness, and claimed that they were not ashamed because they had not yet fallen, and thus lust had not yet entered into their minds.

I think Eve lusted to eat from the forbidden tree.  I think the term lust can be applied because the
desire must have been so great considering what God had already warned them about.

 

Quote

So, though their bodies certainly had the capability of procreating, they themselves were not minded to take the action that would result in children.

According to LDS Church teaches, they were not capable of procreating because they had no blood 
in their veins.

 

Quote

And then we come to the question: why did God put a tree in the Garden whose fruit Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat?

I read some explanation here.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/why-did-god-create-the-forbidden-fruit-in-the-first-place.html

If you have an LDS equivalent, I would like to read it.

 

Quote

Of course not. It should be as clear as the nose on your face that God expected and intended them to partake of the fruit of that tree, and in fact wanted them to do it.

I am familiar with the LDS teaching that Adam and Eve were foreordained to break God's commandment.

 

Quote

Because God wanted there to be as many humans as possible, and for his own purposes.

God never said how many children should be born in marriage.

 

Quote

Paul was not teaching astronomy. He was teaching a principle concerning the resurrection. Some will be resurrected with the glory of the sun -- i.e. the brightest glory. Some will be resurrected with the glory of the moon -- i.e. the second brightest glory. And the rest get the glory of the stars -- the third-brightest. It's an analogy, not astronomy.

Paul was teaching about celestial and terrestrial. There is no telestial. This was something 
added by Joseph Smith. If you read 1 Corinthians 15, you'll notice that he is using pairs, not 
triplets, in his teaching.

 

Quote

But if you want to cling to that "generic" child idea, feel free. Personally, I marvel at how deeply God loves us all, even those of us who fail to live up to His expectations.

Yes.  He loves and saves those even while they are still living in sin.   

But unfortunately he will still consign many to forever be separated from living with Heavenly 
Father in his kingdom.

 

Quote

Do you object that God, who is omnipotent, cannot make His creature of like power, might, and dominion to Himself?

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and 
believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there 
be after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, 
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

 

Quote

When Jesus said he was only doing what he saw the Father do, he was teaching this exact principle, which is that God has created us as potential Gods. Who, if they qualify, will go on to do what we saw the Father do.

When do you believe spirits/eternal intelligences became "gods in embryo"?

Does doing what Jesus saw the Father do also include polygamy?

 

Quote

What did God create us for? Did He desire inferior beings because he wanted such to worship Him upon His throne? Is God so needy or insecure that He could not be content without the adoration of His inferiors?

https://www.gotquestions.org/why-did-God-create-us.html gives some reasons. I didn't think I 
had anything else to offer.

Edited February 7 by theplains

[theplains]

On 2/3/2024 at 6:51 PM, InCognitus said:

The servant is called of God and stands as a witness of him, and what the Lord does through him is the signal that begins the full gathering of Israel in the latter days.

Your full reply is here.

Is Isaiah 11:12 ("And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts 
of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth") a 
reference to Joseph Smith?  I just wanted to confirm your belief.

Is this a physical gathering instead or a spiritual gathering, or both?

 

Quote

I don't think the northern ten tribes (as a group) were ever designated as the "firstborn" of Israel.  Furthermore, the kingdom of the ten tribes was called Ephraim only because their first king Jeroboam was of that tribe (1 Kings 11:26).  
The "firstborn" designation goes to Joseph through Ephraim. See Genesis 48:17-20 (where Jacob "set Ephraim before Manasseh"), and also as it says in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2:

Yes. I'm familiar with that. The issue is that Ephraim is the firstborn in the family of Jacob.  
He is not the firstborn in the families of the other sons.  Each of the sons of Jacob had their 
own firstborn.  

Let's look at Ephraim for example.  Numbers 26:35 lists 3 sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, Becher, 
and Tahan. 1 Chronicles 7:20-23 lists more. But in this case, only the firstborn in Ephraim's 
family had the right of the firstborn.  And none of them held the priesthood.

Firstborn does not necessarily mean first born.
 
Exodus 4:22 says, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even 
my firstborn."

Speaking of David (verses 20), Psalm 89:27 says, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher 
than the kings of the earth."

Jeremiah 31:9 says, "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: 
I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not 
stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."

The context for Jeremiah 31:9 is not the same as 1 Chronicles 5.  This can be seen when you 
read Jeremiah 30 too.  Jeremiah is writing to those in the northern Kingdom, where the 10
tribes (where the tribe of Ephraim is predominant; not Ephraim the individual) is called the
firstborn. 

We see in Jeremiah 31:1-40 a continued theme of restoration that started in Chapter 30. All 
the people of God are being addressed, though Jeremiah speaks specifically to the northern 
kingdom and specifically to Judah at certain points.

When God speaks of Ephraim as His firstborn I think it was, most likely, a message of reassurance 
to the 10 tribes which had vanished into Assyrian bondage more than a hundred years earlier.  
No doubt they regarded themselves as lost.

We see the tribe of Ephraim (representing all 10 tribes) described in verses 31:18-20.

"I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was 
chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for 
thou art the LORD my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was 
instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear 
the reproach of my youth. Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake 
against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I 
will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD". 

In this sense, all the northern tribes (represented by the tribe of Ephraim), is referred to 
as the firstborn. Jeremiah is not speaking of the individual Ephraim who pre-existed him
or the single tribe of Ephraim.

Likewise, Judah is representative of the southern kingdom, made up of 2 tribes.

 

Quote

In Isaiah 49:3-6 (the verse I had quoted that you are responding to), it is discussing the Lord's "servant" that is to "raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel".  That is Ephraim's role, as designated by the blessing given to him

Isaiah chapter 49 is a prophecy about Jesus Christ.  See this in-depth commentary.

https://www.villagechurchofwheaton.org/docs/sermon2006-05-28.pdf

 

Quote

"Since Israel is being gathered now and has been in the process of being gathered for many years now, how does Christ fit as the individual spoken of in Isaiah 11:10, since the person spoken of in that verse shows up just prior to the gathering of Israel?"
Can you explain how Christ could be the person described in Isaiah 11:10?  Has Christ appeared to someone to start the gathering of Israel?

Please elaborate on your use of the terms "being gathered now" and "in the process of being 
gathered for many years now".

When do you believe the gathering of Israel started?   And do you mean physical or spiritual 
gathering?

Then I'll attempt your question again.

 

Quote

(Actually, he did appear to Joseph Smith a few times. I think the servant is likely Joseph Smith.)   Or how else could that person in Isaiah 11:10 be Christ?   Can you explain how your interpretation fits the timeline I gave in my post on January 27, and the prophecies and statements from Jesus and Paul noted in the same post?

 

I think you are referring to this, right?

So as you can see, when Christ came he didn't "start" the gathering, rather he foretold that after his departure the scattering would be even greater than it was before (i.e. those at Judaea, "shall be led away captive into all nations"), because the two remaining tribes would also be scattered (not just the northern ten tribes) as part of the "days of vengeance" that must be fulfilled. Furthermore, Jesus says in these verses that they will remain in this scattered state "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled".  Therefore, it is impossible that Christ, during his mortal ministry, would be the one that would "start" the gathering.
The apostle Paul also affirmed this same timing of events in his epistle to the Romans, stating that Israel's time for receiving the gospel was essentially postponed until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled:  

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."  (Romans 11:25)

Blindness in part does not mean that 100% of all the Jewish people rejected him. That is why I
say that some gathering of Israel started in Christ's ministry and when he sent out the 70 (72 in
some translations).

You said "So as you can see, when Christ came, he didn't start the gathering".

What exactly does "start the gathering" mean to you?

 

Quote

I addressed Romans 15:10-12 in my last post (here).  Can you at least interact with my response to your claim that Paul was referring to Christ in those verses?
Paul never says the person in Isaiah 11:10 is Christ, and that interpretation doesn't really fit for the reasons described in my prior post.

Several good commentaries show Paul is writing of Christ, not Joseph Smith.

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/romans-15/
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Rom/Rom_015.cfm

 

Quote

Jacob's blessing to his son, Joseph (Genesis 49:22-26, Deuteronomy 33:13-17), has an interesting promise.  Verse 26 of Genesis 49 reads, "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren." 

I think I've seen some literature about Ephraim and Manasseh inheriting all the land of America 
(north, central, and south).

Isaiah 11:13 says, "The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart, and those who harass Judah shall be 
cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not harass Ephraim".

How do you understand that?  Who is Ephraim and Judah? Why would Ephraim be jealous of Judah?

 

Quote

I also said:  "Ezekiel states that the two wooden writing tablets come together in the hand of a prophet

That prophet was Ezekiel.  

"And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes" (37:20). 

"Thou" and "thine" is Ezekiel.  "Their eyes" is a reference to those in Ezekiel's presence.

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/ezekiel-37/ has some good explanation.

 

Quote

The "mountains of Israel" would be all the lands that the tribes would inherit, wherever they may be.

Do you have the same interpretation for Ezekiel 39:2,4?

[InCognitus]

On 2/7/2024 at 9:57 AM, theplains said:

Why do you believe the brothers and sisters of the Heavenly Father of our Earth (who were
supposedly all siblings of their own Heavenly Father born on some other world and who all
became Gods and created their own worlds) cannot be greater than he?

How am I supposed to answer a contrived hypothetical question that imposes beliefs upon me that I do not agree with?  

I already explained that our God and Father is the most intelligent of “all”, and there is no getting around that.

On 2/7/2024 at 9:57 AM, theplains said:

Here's another example. Let's suppose your father (living as a mortal on some world) has five
sons (named InCognitus, John, Paul, Jesse, and Robert).  You and your four other brothers become
Gods and the Heavenly Fathers of future worlds that you will create.  Can any of your four other
brothers be greater Gods than you?

Since we will all be eternally subject to our God and Father and we will be participating in his work and his glory, then whether one of us is the “greatest” in his kingdom is meaningless.  

[InCognitus]

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Your full reply is here.

Is Isaiah 11:12 ("And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts 
of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth") a 
reference to Joseph Smith?  I just wanted to confirm your belief.

Is this a physical gathering instead or a spiritual gathering, or both?

You keep asking the same questions over and over again that I’ve already answered.  (I feel like I’m watching reruns of Gilligan’s Island again and thinking to myself, “I’ve seen this before, I know how it ends.  Watch your head, Skipper!”).

My answer to the above is the same as what we discussed previously.  I explained, on November 28, that the gathering of Israel is “of literal Israel into the various stakes of Zion, and into their own lands.”   I also explained on December 5 (in commenting on separate verses in Ezekiel 37:21-22) that the assembling and gathering of these people is stated (exactly like it is in Isaiah 11:12) to be a separate step that occurs prior to them returning to their own lands.  And on December 7, I further explained that literal Israel is being gathered by having the law written in their hearts, and if they are literally of the tribes of Israel and come to Christ, then they aren’t “spiritual Israel”.   And in my last post on February 3, I pointed out that “I don’t consider literal Jews being gathered into the church of Jesus Christ as 'spiritual' Israel… They are literally Israel and are literally being gathered.  They just haven’t all returned to their own soil (wherever that may be) as of yet. “

In my mind the only people who would be called “spiritual Israel” are those who are not literally descendants of the House of Israel, but they are adopted into one of the tribes.  But that is not what I’m talking about above.

What do you mean by “spiritual Israel”?  Or why do you keep asking this question?

As for who that person is in Isaiah 11:12, it is God doing the gathering through the work of his representatives on the earth (starting with Joseph Smith and others).

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Yes. I'm familiar with that. The issue is that Ephraim is the firstborn in the family of Jacob.  
He is not the firstborn in the families of the other sons.  Each of the sons of Jacob had their 
own firstborn.  

The point is that Ephraim is the firstborn in the family of Jacob (Israel).  The firstborn of the other sons doesn’t matter to the question of who is the firstborn of Israel, so why even bring this up?

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Firstborn does not necessarily mean first born.

Obviously.

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Exodus 4:22 says, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even 
my firstborn."

Speaking of David (verses 20), Psalm 89:27 says, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher 
than the kings of the earth."

Jeremiah 31:9 says, "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: 
I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not 
stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."

The context for Jeremiah 31:9 is not the same as 1 Chronicles 5.  This can be seen when you 
read Jeremiah 30 too.  Jeremiah is writing to those in the northern Kingdom, where the 10
tribes (where the tribe of Ephraim is predominant; not Ephraim the individual) is called the
firstborn. 

We see in Jeremiah 31:1-40 a continued theme of restoration that started in Chapter 30. All 
the people of God are being addressed, though Jeremiah speaks specifically to the northern 
kingdom and specifically to Judah at certain points.

When God speaks of Ephraim as His firstborn I think it was, most likely, a message of reassurance 
to the 10 tribes which had vanished into Assyrian bondage more than a hundred years earlier.  
No doubt they regarded themselves as lost.

Back in my post on December 7, I said “The designation of Ephraim is often given in the Old Testament to represent all of the ten northern tribes of Israel.”   So I have always acknowledged that the northern ten tribes are sometimes referred to as Ephraim in many places in the Old Testament and especially in the book of Jeremiah.  

But this was a question about why Ephraim is called the “firstborn” in Jeremiah 31:9. There is simply no reason and no other precedent for the northern 10 tribes to be called the “firstborn” other than that the tribe of Ephraim was designated as the firstborn as I explained in my prior post.  I do agree that when God speaks of Ephraim as his firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9 it is a message of reassurance. But it is also because that Ephraim (as a tribe) was singled out in the blessing of Moses as playing a part in the gathering of Israel, which was what Jeremiah was talking about in the context of chapter 31.

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Quote

In Isaiah 49:3-6 (the verse I had quoted that you are responding to), it is discussing the Lord's "servant" that is to "raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel".  That is Ephraim's role, as designated by the blessing given to him

Isaiah chapter 49 is a prophecy about Jesus Christ.  See this in-depth commentary.

https://www.villagechurchofwheaton.org/docs/sermon2006-05-28.pdf

Remember, we were discussing Isaiah 49:3-6. 

Please quote the portion of that “in-depth commentary” where it says Isaiah 49:3-6 must refer to Jesus Christ only and thus contradicts what I posted to you on January 27, where I quoted Isaiah 49:3-6 and pointed out that Paul and Barnabas said that Isaiah 49:3-6 was talking about them.  This is what I said in that post:

“The ‘servant’ of the Lord in this context can have many applications.  It may be Christ.  It may be Isaiah himself.  It may be Israel as a people (as verse 3 says).  It may be Ephraim (the Lord’s firstborn – Jeremiah 31:9).  Or it may be any other servant that the Lord may send out (including Joseph Smith).  And all of these may be correct.  The fact that this could be applied to any of the Lord’s servants is born out by the fact that Paul and Barnabas considered these verses to be applicable to them:  ‘Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.  For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.’  (Acts 13:46–47)”

Are you really saying the commentary says Isaiah 49:3-6 is only a prophecy about Jesus Christ and therefore Paul and Barnabas misused Isaiah 49:6 when they quoted it and said it was about them?  

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Please elaborate on your use of the terms "being gathered now" and "in the process of being 
gathered for many years now".

When do you believe the gathering of Israel started?   And do you mean physical or spiritual 
gathering?

Then I'll attempt your question again.

I’ve already addressed the “physical or spiritual” gathering question above (as quoted from my prior posts), and I asked what you mean when you say “spiritual” gathering (and I explained what I mean when I say spiritual gathering above).  As I have said previously, when people who literally have descended from the lost tribes of Israel come together in Christ, it is a physical gathering of the literal house of Israel, even if they are not physically restored to the lands of their inheritance. This has been happening for some time now in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

But if by “physical gathering” you mean that they are literally starting to return to their homelands, then it could be said that that has also started to take place to some degree (at least for people of known Jewish decent). The Wikipedia article on the Gathering of Israel even makes note of this.  

As for how long either of those types of gatherings have been going on, it’s hard to put an exact date on it.  But the keys to the gathering of Israel were restored to Joseph Smith by Moses in the Kirtland temple on April 3, 1836, as noted in Doctrine and Covenants 110:11.  So it would be after that time. 

In your post on January 25, you seem to have agreed that the gathering of Israel has been happening for a while, and this is the first time you have questioned it.  

This is what you said before:

On 1/25/2024 at 9:40 AM, theplains said:

I explained some of my answer above.  Isaiah 11 is a future prophecy about Christ.  
In his ministry, the gathering of Israel started. Afterwards, the gathering of the 
Gentiles began (I believe it began with Peter and Cornelius).  From that point on, 
the gathering of both Israelites and Gentiles into his church has been going on.

You also said this previously in your post on January 31:

On 1/31/2024 at 1:20 PM, theplains said:

Israel, as individuals was being gathered into the church of Christ in the days of His ministry.  
We can refer to them (including the Gentiles) as the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). But 
Israel as a whole would be in a blinded and scattered state as you mentioned.

I realize that you may change your views on this now given how we are defining our terms (more below), but previously you didn't seem to even question that the gathering had already begun.

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Quote

(Actually, he did appear to Joseph Smith a few times. I think the servant is likely Joseph Smith.)   Or how else could that person in Isaiah 11:10 be Christ?   Can you explain how your interpretation fits the timeline I gave in my post on January 27, and the prophecies and statements from Jesus and Paul noted in the same post?

I think you are referring to this, right?

So as you can see, when Christ came he didn't "start" the gathering, rather he foretold that after his departure the scattering would be even greater than it was before (i.e. those at Judaea, "shall be led away captive into all nations"), because the two remaining tribes would also be scattered (not just the northern ten tribes) as part of the "days of vengeance" that must be fulfilled. Furthermore, Jesus says in these verses that they will remain in this scattered state "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled".  Therefore, it is impossible that Christ, during his mortal ministry, would be the one that would "start" the gathering.
The apostle Paul also affirmed this same timing of events in his epistle to the Romans, stating that Israel's time for receiving the gospel was essentially postponed until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled:  

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."  (Romans 11:25)

That's only part of it.

The timeline I was referring from my prior post is this:

On 1/27/2024 at 11:21 PM, InCognitus said:

Now I’d like to summarize a few things and explain why my question is still an important one.

1. All of Israel was scattered, either because of their unrighteousness and rebellion, or for directly rejecting their Messiah:
   • Israel was split into the northern and southern kingdoms, and in approximately 721 BC the northern tribes were carried captive into Assyria and were scattered and lost.
   • In 605 BC and 597 BC, the remaining Israelites were carried captive into Babylon.  They were permitted to return to Jerusalem in approximately 537 BC after Babylon was conquered by the Persians.
   • In 70 AD and 135 AD, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, and the remaining tribes of the House of Israel were scattered among all nations. 
   • Jesus and Paul both testified that Israel would remain in this scattered and blinded state until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled (Luke 21:24, Romans 11:25)
2. During his ministry Jesus was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24), and never to the Gentiles directly.  Later, after his rejection by the Jews he declared to them that “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt 21:43), and the kingdom of God was left to another people (Daniel 2:44).  After his resurrection, Jesus sent his apostles to the Gentiles.  This marked the beginning of the time of the Gentiles.
3. Isaiah 11:10-14 prophesies that an individual will show up on the scene and shall stand as an “ensign of the people”, and this signals the point in time where the “Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” from all over the earth (verse 11), and the ensign for the nations “shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth (verse 12).  
4. Isaiah 49:22-23 has a similar prophecy that reaffirms the meaning of Isaiah 11:10-14: “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.  And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.” 

The prophecies and statements from Jesus and Paul that I was referring to are only partially included in what you quoted above.  These are the parts that I mean:

On 1/27/2024 at 11:21 PM, InCognitus said:

Above you said that this gathering of Israel started with Christ in his ministry.  That interpretation is impossible because of what Jesus said in Luke’s account of Christ’s sermon where he foretells of the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem.  Speaking of the Jews, he said: 

“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.  Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.  For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.  But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.  And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”  (Luke 21:20-24)

So as you can see, when Christ came he didn’t “start” the gathering, rather he foretold that after his departure the scattering would be even greater than it was before (i.e. those at Judaea, “shall be led away captive into all nations”), because the two remaining tribes would also be scattered (not just the northern ten tribes) as part of the “days of vengeance” that must be fulfilled. Furthermore, Jesus says in these verses that they will remain in this scattered state “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”.  Therefore, it is impossible that Christ, during his mortal ministry, would be the one that would “start” the gathering.

The apostle Paul also affirmed this same timing of events in his epistle to the Romans, stating that Israel’s time for receiving the gospel was essentially postponed until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled:  

“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.”  (Romans 11:25)

How could the person described in Isaiah 11:10 be Christ given this timeline of events?  Can you explain how your interpretation fits the timeline and the prophecies and statements from Jesus and Paul as reposted above?

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Blindness in part does not mean that 100% of all the Jewish people rejected him. That is why I
say that some gathering of Israel started in Christ's ministry and when he sent out the 70 (72 in
some translations).

You said "So as you can see, when Christ came, he didn't start the gathering".

What exactly does "start the gathering" mean to you?

To be perfectly clear, the “gathering” I am referring to is the gathering described in the verses we have been discussing, when “the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” (Isaiah 11:11) and “set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” (Isaiah 11:12).  And also, “Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land” (Ezekiel 37:21 – with the steps to this gathering as described in my post on December 5).  There are several other verses that may apply, but I’ll keep it simple.  

It is this event that I’m talking about that has “started” now and this Isaiah 11:10-16 / Ezekiel 15:15-23 event could not have been “started” at the time of Christ for the simple reason that Jesus said there would be even more scattering (a complete scattering of all the tribes) after his departure (Luke 21:20-24). 

Now that I have made it clear what I mean by the event that has “started”, and what I mean by the “gathering of Israel”, can you now answer my prior questions?  I will restate those questions again here: 

“Since Israel is being gathered now and has been in the process of being gathered for many years now, how does Christ fit as the individual spoken of in Isaiah 11:10, since the person spoken of in that verse shows up just prior to the gathering of Israel?”

You answered this previously by saying that the gathering of Israel “started” with Christ’s ministry, which has been shown to be impossible because of what Jesus said in Luke 21:24 (see my January 25 post).  And both Jesus (Luke 21:24) and Paul (Romans 11:25) said that Israel would be in their blinded and scattered state “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”, so this process could not have begun until relatively recently.

But you also said that Isaiah 11:10 “is a future prophecy about Christ”, and you said, when the gospel began to be taught to the Gentiles, "From that point on, the gathering of both Israelites and Gentiles into his church has been going on."  Can you explain how your interpretation fits the timeline given above, and the prophecies and statements from Jesus and Paul noted above?  

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Quote

I addressed Romans 15:10-12 in my last post (here).  Can you at least interact with my response to your claim that Paul was referring to Christ in those verses?
Paul never says the person in Isaiah 11:10 is Christ, and that interpretation doesn't really fit for the reasons described in my prior post.

Several good commentaries show Paul is writing of Christ, not Joseph Smith.

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/romans-15/
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Rom/Rom_015.cfm

I don’t care what some commentators think Romans 15 means.  Your claim was that Paul himself was referring to Christ in Romans 15:12 (or at least that's what I understood you to be saying), as found in your post from January 25:

On 1/25/2024 at 9:40 AM, theplains said:

This is whom (speaking of Christ) Paul wrote about (Romans 15:12 - "And again, Esaias 
saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; 
in him shall the Gentiles trust"). 

Can you quote the part from either of those two commentaries you posted where the commentator says that Paul himself says his quote from Isaiah 11:10 is a reference to Christ?

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

I think I've seen some literature about Ephraim and Manasseh inheriting all the land of America 
(north, central, and south).

Isaiah 11:13 says, "The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart, and those who harass Judah shall be 
cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not harass Ephraim".

How do you understand that?  Who is Ephraim and Judah? Why would Ephraim be jealous of Judah?

The “jealousy” and “harassment” has to do with the hostilities that existed between the northern kingdom of the 10 tribes (Ephriam) and the southern kingdom (Judah), starting in (roughly) 1 Kings 11:26 through 1 Kings chapter 12 (16-20), where the 10 tribes were about to spilt out and Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam, and then Jeroboam’s break with Rehoboam after Solomon’s death and the 10 northern tribes turn to Jeroboam.  

Those tensions are mended when the tribes are gathered and assembled, and more so when they are returned to their own lands as described in Isaiah 11:10-16 and Ezekiel 37:15-23.

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

That prophet was Ezekiel.  

"And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes" (37:20). 

"Thou" and "thine" is Ezekiel.  "Their eyes" is a reference to those in Ezekiel's presence.

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/ezekiel-37/ has some good explanation.

The commentary you referenced explains this as a future fulfillment:  

"b. Make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand: Generally, the meaning was plain. When God ultimately restored the tribes of Israel, He would restore them all. That which was previously divided in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12-14) would be restored as one."     

Ezekiel taking the two writing tablets together in his hand was a type of the future fulfillment of the same thing taking place.  

On 2/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, theplains said:

Do you have the same interpretation for Ezekiel 39:2,4?

Yes.

Edited February 12 by InCognitus