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

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

To me, one of the most powerful and persuasive evidences that the foundational doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints are in harmony with the Bible is disclosed in how the Latter-Day Saints are the only Christian people who have come to understand that eternal marriage is part of God’s design for mankind, and that it was God’s plan and design for man from the very beginning. Although this critically important doctrinal principle is clearly set forth in the Bible, it somehow turns out that after many centuries the prophet Joseph Smith was the only Christian church leader who came to recognize and comprehend this obvious Biblical truth .The evidence is undeniable that all the divines of all the other Christian religions have continually failed to recognize the holy principle of marriage, even though it’s clearly set forth in the Bible.

I’ll explain: If you were to ask any of the apologists of any other Christian religion what it means to be redeemed from the fall, they will tell you it means to be brought back into God’s immediate presence while in a state of immortality, holiness, sinlessness and eternal felicity. But what they invariably fail to acknowledge is that prior to the fall Adam and Eve were eternally married as husband and wife by God himself, and that their marriage would have endured forever and ever if not for the fall. So what the non-LDS Christians have been missing for nearly two thousand years is the glaringly obvious fact that redemption from the fall includes eternal marriage in a heavenly state and the unrescinded divine commandment to create eternal families through the act of multiplying.

Why was the prophet Joseph Smith the only one to recognize and enlarge upon a principle of divine delight so perfectly obvious? It’s because he is a true prophet of God.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1)

and…

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2)

and…

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall  to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.(Matthew 19)

 

 

 

I would posit that you are reading eternal marriage into those passages and not that eternal marriage is the obvious consequence of them.

This isn’t like wrestling over Paul’s mention of baptisms for the dead. There aren’t any references to eternal marriage in the Bible except possibly in metaphor about Yahweh’s marriage to Israel but that is metaphor.

[Teancum]

On 11/2/2023 at 10:11 AM, Navidad said:

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

Latter-day Saints do the same thing the writers of the New Testament did.  They read back into this passage or that passage as indicative of a restoration of a church and various items that really are not what the passages mean.  And as noted the NT writers did the same thing with  OT passages. Jesus and Christianity.

Edited November 6 by Teancum

[JLHPROF]

Isaiah 24:5 

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Latter-day Saints do the same thing the writers of the New Testament did.  They read back into this passage or that passage as indicative of a restoration of a church and various items that really are not what the passages mean.  And as notes the NT writers did the same thing with  OT passages. Jesus and Christianity.

That goes against every discovery in the last century. You've picked the wrong villains, I assume you may not have read about them. The establishment factions that reigned between the factions you named, altered the past to manipulate people in the future, so that you wouldn't know about it. The Deuteronomists, the Masoretic Jews, the Metropolitans. Since the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, we know Moses did worship a Son of God in a quasi-pantheon, the Septuagint was faithful with its extra pro-Christian verses, there was a Gnosis, it's all vindicated the original Christians and the Latter-day Saints. They are not innovations, but in fact a throwback to a more ancient time that the world at their emergence tried very hard to bury, but it didn't stay buried. But it's been so long, some would rather bury their head than the hatchet.

Edited November 6 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 11/2/2023 at 10:25 AM, Analytics said:

A couple come immediately to mind.

Isaiah 2:2-3

@Pyreaux

Isaiah 2:1-2 says, "The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And 
it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established 
in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all enations shall flow 
unto it."

Isaiah 1:1 has similar verbiage.  "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning 
Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

Isaiah is not talking about a location in Utah like former President Gordon B. Hinckley taught 
at the October 2000 General Conference.

[Pyreaux]

35 minutes ago, theplains said:

@Pyreaux

Isaiah 2:1-2 says, "The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And 
it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established 
in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all enations shall flow 
unto it."

Isaiah 1:1 has similar verbiage.  "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning 
Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

Isaiah is not talking about a location in Utah like former President Gordon B. Hinckley taught 
at the October 2000 General Conference.

Since there remains no Last Days/3rd temple in Jerusalem, yet there is a Temple built on the Mountain top in a spiritual Israel elsewhere, it remains the sole candidate for its fulfillment.

[rodheadlee]

On 11/4/2023 at 12:13 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not your “doctrine of eternal marriage”. Absolutely not. They didn’t believe people were resurrected. They supposed that marriage would exist if people were resurrected absolutely. Jesus disabused them of this notion. If you think your reading is correct, please point me to a single non-latter-day saint biblical scholar that agrees with you. Just one. I’ll wait. 

I don't know about biblical Scholars but if you cruise around the island of Tutuila you will find 50% of the cars have stickers on back about being forever together in heaven as husband and wife. There are a certain amount of LDS on the island but there are plenty of Protestants on the island with these sayings on their cars.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

That goes against every discovery in the last century. You've picked the wrong villains, I assume you may not have read about them. The establishment factions that reigned between the factions you named, altered the past to manipulate people in the future, so that you wouldn't know about it. The Deuteronomists, the Masoretic Jews, the Metropolitans. Since the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, we know Moses did worship a Son of God in a quasi-pantheon, the Septuagint was faithful with its extra pro-Christian verses, there was a Gnosis, it's all vindicated the original Christians and the Latter-day Saints. They are not innovations, but in fact a throwback to a more ancient time that the world at their emergence tried very hard to bury, but it didn't stay buried. But it's been so long, some would rather bury their head than the hatchet.

THere is no evidence that Moses even existed is there?  I am not an expert on this subject but I believe Bart Ehrman and other NT scholars would disagree with you.  Can you send me some tings to read to support your position?

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

THere is no evidence that Moses even existed is there?  I am not an expert on this subject but I believe Bart Ehrman and other NT scholars would disagree with you.  Can you send me some tings to read to support your position?

Other than the fact that someone lead the Israelites to Canaan, just as there was a Buddha and a Mohammad, if for no other fact that Buddhism and Islam exists.

Michael Heiser

https://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

Deut 32's most ancient parts of the book, Moses' poem was tampered with by Jews to appear monotheistic, where YHWH is the Son of Elyon, an angel other angels were commanded to worship, and given jurisdiction over Israel only. It's exactly as Jesus tried to say, he's not God the Father, just the incarnate God of Israel, and only other nations if they become Israelites. As LDS believe Jesus is Jehovah, but not El the Father. While there are unique details in Mormonism that are hard to defend, the theology is very spot on when looking at ancient Israel and other of the most ancient of religions. There isn't an ancient nation that didn't believe their king wasn't their god incarnate in some fashion, and their nation's god was the son of another god, full of resurrection rites and sacred temple dramas. Is there no connection?

There are books by Raphiel Patai about temple lore of initiations, of royal marriages in the upper chambers.

Read aside the gnostic Christian Gospel of Phillip the high ordinance of the upper chamber. It stands out to me. There are other details.

 

Edited November 6 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

56 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Other than the fact that someone lead the Israelites to Canaan, just as there was a Buddha and a Mohammad, if for no other fact that Buddhism and Islam exists.

That is circular reasoning.  Is there historical evidence for the Exodus? I think for Buddha and Mohammed there is more credible historical evidence is there not?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Other than the fact that someone lead the Israelites to Canaan

That is far from a fact.

[Pyreaux]

Well, there were Israelites that never were in Egypt, of which the Exodus was not an important event. I don't see it as being either/or.

There is some evidence of the Exodus, more depending on where one thinks Sinai is (Jabel Lawz).

Edited November 7 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

On 11/6/2023 at 2:19 PM, Pyreaux said:

Well, there were Israelites that never were in Egypt, of which the Exodus was not an important event. I don't see it as being either/or.

There is some evidence of the Exodus, more depending on where one thinks Sinai is (Jabel Lawz).

Now there is a post that ROCKS!

 

[theplains]

On 11/6/2023 at 10:51 AM, Pyreaux said:

Since there remains no Last Days/3rd temple in Jerusalem, yet there is a Temple built on the Mountain top in a spiritual Israel elsewhere, it remains the sole candidate for its fulfillment.

Isaiah was not talking about a spiritual Israel either.

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, theplains said:

Isaiah was not talking about a spiritual Israel either.

A matter of perspective; this passage may refer the great temple yet to be built in Jerusalem. The context is Judah and Jerusalem, not Ephraim and Salt Lake City, not the Saints and America. However, as Christians it's a mistake to confine the prophesies of Isaiah to his own era and circumstance. Called the Dual Prophecies of Isaiah, like the Emmanuel prophecy is about the birth of his own son, while Matthew says it's about the birth of Jesus.

LDS commentaries see Isaiah 2:2 as a prophecy with multiple applications; it refers to the Salt Lake Temple, the future temple of Jerusalem, and to other temples in general. As a specific location of the temple is not discussed. 

Nephi said "I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning” (1 Nephi 19:23). 

The actual context of scripture is important, but we attempt to apply the scriptures to our own time and situation.

Edited November 18 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The actual context of scripture should be important, but we attempt to apply the scriptures to our own time and situation.

This is the key, otherwise they are simply irrelevant 99% of the time.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/6/2023 at 2:07 PM, Teancum said:

That is circular reasoning.  Is there historical evidence for the Exodus? I think for Buddha and Mohammed there is more credible historical evidence is there not?

We still learn from Jesus' parables- I see no need that ANY of it literally happened.  We will still believe it is best to treat others as they would like to be treated; that if we do all we can to fix our "sins" against others, we should at some point be forgiven; that we should be as moral as we can be; we still listen to our consciences; we assume that others ought to have human rights, and on it goes.

Atheists can be very moral, concerned about others, gentle and kind people, trying to do their best for the sake of humanity. 

Why do we need historical examples?

It's the BELIEFS that count, not the stories,  AND EVEN ATHEISTS HAVE PROFOUND FEELINGS FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY AND THE PLANET

That in itself BECOMES a secular religion in itself with its heros and heroines.

It gives us MEANING AND PURPOSE in our lives. 

Angela Davis was one of the kindest, sweetest people on a personal level I have ever met; her "religion" was Communism, creating stories and parables of the past and future, and the Socialist Millennial Utopia's eventual triumph, that Marx preached "religiously".

She has meaning and purpose in her life by creating what she believes will be heaven on earth.

You can't escape it.

It is a basic human need.

Giving up religious belief, is simply a creation of OTHER new beliefs; the perfection of science is still a hoped for and unseen utopian faith.

You can't get around it.

THAT is what humans need.

Edited November 20 by mfbukowski
Typo

[theplains]

On 11/17/2023 at 10:57 AM, Pyreaux said:

The actual context of scripture is important, but we attempt to apply the scriptures to our own time and situation.

I've seen this too. The two sticks mentioned in Ezekiel 37 is another that comes to mind.
 

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I've seen this too. The two sticks mentioned in Ezekiel 37 is another that comes to mind.

Well, what do you suppose are the two etz of Judah and Joseph that were joined into one etz in thy hand? Rods, planks, writing boards, scriptures? What does it mean? The joining of tribal rods, or the joining of the Old Testament and New Testament perhaps? What is this visual Sign of the Gathering of Israel supposed to be?

Edited November 20 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Well, what do you suppose are the two etz of Judah and Joseph that were joined into one etz in thy hand? Rods, planks, writing boards, scriptures? What does it mean? The joining of tribal rods, or the joining of the Old Testament and New Testament perhaps? What is this visual Sign of the Gathering of Israel supposed to be?

Isn’t it typically interpreted to mean the reunification of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel?

[Pyreaux]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Isn’t it typically interpreted to mean the reunification of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel?

Thats sort of what I'm asking. Not just the gathering, but the sign of the gathering. What is the "typical" interpretation now days? I think the classic interpretation in the King James era was an "etz" was a piece of wood. Like a plank, a stump, a chair, or a stick. The translators chose "stick", thinking it's a tribal rod, though the tribal "rod" in Numbers was a very different word. Later, discoveries of the existence of joined writing boards in that time has altered the interpretation of this passage, as talking about wooden writing leaflets becoming a book. If it is a book being shown, what is Ezekiel's visual sign of the time for its fulfillment? Like when he laid down like a dead body when he talked about the fall of Jerusalem, shaved his head like a slave when talking about slavery into Babylon, those were sights they will see when the time comes. Then he talks about the gathering of the lost, he makes a visual sign to look for, some sort of book in your hands is the sign.

Edited November 21 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

I've seen this too. The two sticks mentioned in Ezekiel 37 is another that comes to mind.
 

You mean this passage, from the New English Bible translation?   Ezekiel 37:15-22:

"These were the words of the LORD to me:  Man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it, 'Judah and his associates of Israel.'  Then take another leaf and write on it,  'Joseph, the leaf of Ephriaim and all his associates of Israel.'  Now bring the two together to form one tablet; then they will be a folding tablet in your hand.  When your fellow-country-men ask you to tell them what you mean by this, say to them, These are the words of the Lord GOD:  I am taking the leaf of Joseph, which belongs to Ephraim and his associate tribes of Israel, and joining to it the leaf of Judah.  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.
   Then say to them, These are the words of the Lord GOD:  I am gathering up the Israelites from their places of exile among the nations; I will assemble them from every quarter and restore them to their own soil.  I will make them one single nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel, and they shall have one king; they shall no longer be two nations or divided into two kingdoms...."

Why do you suppose the translators of the New English Bible chose to translate the Hebrew word 'etz as writing tablets?

And yes, the context is important, because this passage is describing the record of two nations (Joseph/Ephraim and Judah) coming together in the hand of a prophet just prior to the time when the gathering of the two nations begins and they become one again.

[theplains]

On 11/20/2023 at 2:55 PM, Pyreaux said:

Well, what do you suppose are the two etz of Judah and Joseph that were joined into one etz in thy hand? Rods, planks, writing boards, scriptures? What does it mean? The joining of tribal rods, or the joining of the Old Testament and New Testament perhaps? What is this visual Sign of the Gathering of Israel supposed to be?

Ezekiel 37 mentions that the two sticks are two nations; the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
It's not two books.

[theplains]

On 11/21/2023 at 1:25 AM, InCognitus said:

Why do you suppose the translators of the New English Bible chose to translate the Hebrew word 'etz as writing tablets?

And yes, the context is important, because this passage is describing the record of two nations (Joseph/Ephraim and Judah) coming together in the hand of a prophet just prior to the time when the gathering of the two nations begins and they become one again.

I see it differently.

The two sticks becoming one are the two nations (the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah)
becoming one again.  It is not the Book of Mormon + the Bible (which is not only a record of the
nation of Judah).  Actually, the Book of Mormon is supposedly a record of Ephraim/Manasseh/the
Jaredites + the Mulekites of Judah).

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The two sticks becoming one are the two nations (the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah)
becoming one again. 

Yes, the 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.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

It is not the Book of Mormon + the Bible (which is not only a record of the
nation of Judah).  Actually, the Book of Mormon is supposedly a record of Ephraim/Manasseh/the
Jaredites + the Mulekites of Judah).

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.