Dale

Members
  • Posts

    515
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Dale's Achievements

  1. I think myself nothing in the Book of Moses need be viewed as the final authority on Black's holding priesthood. I myself just think the LDS leaders had so supported the pro-hibition of the ordination of black's they had no testimony they could extricate themselves from the policy. As i understand it for twenty-five years the issue was under debate and it took those years to prepare a leadership and people to prepare themselves for the 1979 lifting of the policy. The only reason the policy wasn't lifted many years earlier was that the LDS people's hearts were not prepared earlier for the change. The people's heart's were hard, so i think God could have left the church open to public criticism as it would help them repent of their stubborness for the old way's.
  2. Part of the curse of race in the book was to make Lamanites the victim of Nephite white pride. In and of itself being of a different race is not a curse, but being victim's of white prejudice would have made it seem like a curse to Lamanites.
  3. I study Anti-Mormon material as a hobby. I feel the contradictions between the Bible and Latter Day Saint tradition beliefs can be resolved. Though i am not LDS but a member of the Community of Christ (formerly the longer named Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). With the Jesus and Lucifer are brothers issue it can be partially resolved by looking at Colossians 1:15. Evangelicals to try and escape the idea a pre-incarnate angelic form was created for Christ's uncreated intelligence has via word studies tried to say the word firstborn only means Christ was pre-eminent. Via a better word study i have seen firstborn does mean Christ had an angelic form created that was figuratively born first prior to Lucifer. That means Jesus and Lucifer are brothers in the created sense to each other. Nothing in Colossians 1:16 precludes Jesus as God from having a form created or from creating Lucifer and other spirit children of God. Now i am one who doubts Joseph Smith taught we were literal spirit children of God. He did in a sermon speculate about uncreated spirit children. D.&C. 132:19 reference to the "continuation of the seeds" may be interpreted as couples married for eternity having physical children in the resurrection. But LDS after his death interpreted it as having spirit children in the resurection and the idea resulted that Jesus and Lucifer were literal spirit brothers. With the idea LDS have a different Jesus it is a reference to 2 Corinthians 11:4. On the surface LDS do share with traditional Christians common terminology with regards to the Biblical Jesus. But it is the theological differences with regards to unique LDS ideas with regards to Christ others see your Jesus as wrong. Members of my church get our ideas of Jesus thought false also based on different objections.
  4. I am Community of Christ and we do have a 1966 Revised Authorized Version of the Book of Mormon with slightly modernized language. But we also have a popular 1908 edition which retains traditional language. Our church and the LDS started out as one church, but split after about 15 years. We have been on different doctrinal and historical tracks since that time. I have no objection to my church being considered an offshoot of the LDS Church. With Book of Mormon and the Trinity i see absence of it clearly teaching the meaning behind the latin word persona. Those who wrote the creeds had to explain how the persons of God were not to be confused with Gods as they were one God. So what they did was to say the persons of God were not like three separate men, but instead they had in mind the three persons an actor plays in a play. But without either the Book of Mormon, or Bible having that idea of persons in mind the idea of the Trinity is not strict mono-theism as Jews and Moslem's see it. The idea of three distinct centers of consciousness withing God sounds close to the idea of Gods as the persons of an actor are dumb apart from the actors personality being pretended persons. Now my church has a Trinitarian view of the Book of Mormon. But i think the book if the persons of God are aware of each other like three men could just be disguising unorthodoxy using mono-theistic terminology from Judaism. The Book of Mormon does teach of the distinctions between the persons of God, but i see some ambiguity in the text that does not resolve the difficulty the persons of God pose for harmonizing it with strict mono-theism. Us Trinitarians resolve the problem through the latin word persona whether the meaning is unambiguously found in scripture, or not.
  5. I am not LDS but rather a member of the Community of Christ (formerly the longer named Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). While i was LDS at one point i can only speak as to what i think about original sin as a member of my faith. I used to say think i did not believe in original sin, but i felt a need to say something different about the matter. Rather than say i do not believe in original sin i prefer to now say instead i believe in atoned for original sin in the case of infants for example. But without Jesus saving infants from spiritual and physical death original sin would make them guilty like adults. I also believe that those who die without law can be saved from the lake of fire also by having original sin atoned for them also. I accept the idea of different inhabited places in the afterlife just not heaven and hell as the only two places. And even though those in the lower kingdom are not in the top abode of God they are living with God the Holy Spirit. So i think myself that all who are saved will return to live with Deity even if not in the Celestial kingdom with Jesus. So i am not certain if i understand the popular LDS view right as saying those saved who do not live in the presence of the Father are separated from God. To me any original sin not atoned for will leave persons condemned in the Final hell in an unsaved condition.
  6. You are right. In my mind one should exercise common sense in trusting feelings. I have beliefs that may, or may not be true. Certain beliefs of mine certainly pose no danger to me as a person. I certainly don't agree with Evangelical critics of Mormonism that they have proven i am under spiritual deception for believing the true church was restored in 1830 was restored or that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I have been exposed to every Anti-Restoration argument and see no reason to feel my feelings about the basics of the Restored Gospel pose any damnation to outer darkness (final hell) danger for me. Now if any of my feelings pose any danger for me in the LDS view it would be because LDS feel my church erred after we split from the LDS in the 1840's. But i don't see any danger seen in rejecting the orthodoxy of traditional Christianity.
  7. I have no problem with relying on my feeling to a certain extent where i have tested them via logic and reason. Though i confess i can only satisfy myself to a limited extent that my belief in Book of Mormon historicity is true. Michael R. Ash has a wonderful recent book entitled Of Faith and Reason 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith that gives evidences that support my feelings. I am not LDS but Community of Christ (formerly named Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). We have many members and church leaders who via less conservative Book of Mormon scholarship have felt maintaining the Book of Mormon historicity position was no longer possible. I myself via exposure to LDS scholarship on the same reputed Book of Mormon historicity problems see no need to abandon my belief in historicity.
  8. I do feel most misunderstand Joseph Smith's polyandry as allowing a woman to have marital relations with two husbands at the same time. A close reading of D.&C. 132 requires a woman to be released from her vows to an existing husband to be with Joseph Smith. And such a release could only be obtained if the existing husband were guilty of adultery. And once appointed to be only Joseph Smith's plural wife she could not live with the former husband, or be guilty of adultery on Joseph Smith. Most likely in my mind these 11 women, and legal husbands regarded their vows to be ended at death. Then after death in the resurrection they contemplated living with Joseph Smith and having his children. The claim Sylvia Sessions had a child by Joseph Smith i dispute as i am unimpressed with the quotes used to substantiate the claim. Outside of a child there is no evidence Joseph smith committed adultery with any married woman.
  9. You will in most cases have to learn to accept people's disinterest or rejection of modern revelation. In some cases people will try and throw lots of trivia at you in an attempt to get you to see the deception they think you are under. All you can do is be aware of the best available answers to such issues so you will not be surprised. The FAIR website and its FAIR Wiki are helpful starting points for finding answers. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage Then by picking up answers you will be enabled to stand up for yourself in conversation.
  10. I am a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now named Community of Christ. Even though i have significant differences with LDS people i have some in common with them also. So i tend to hang out on LDS message boards because of topics that interest me.
  11. With your wife and her illness i wish her well. I have Multiple Sclerosis which is hard on me, but i find being encouraged by friends and family gives me hope.
  12. Dale

    Testimony

    In my view one can have a light confirmation of something and still struggle with doubts and questions. I know that what i believe in is good and of God. But i do not expect myself to unrealistically expect i will ever have the ideal testimony some falsely teach everyone will have just because they do. The reality is many people never get an ideal testimony and its not less of a blessing to get a less perfect testimony. Moroni 10 has a wonderful promise, but everybody who applies it will experience it in different ways. I feel good when i read the Book of Mormon because i find its message inspiring. But i only know what i know is true about the things in the book. When i don't yet know something in the book is true it is ok not to expect myself to say i know it. Maybe someday i will know what i do not know, but i enjoy what i know now.
  13. I like FAIR articles myself. The only problem i see in some LDS apologetics is it is hard for individuals to always answer objections that precisely match the needs of every interested person, or group. I am Community of Christ/RLDS and have been taking for self defense purposes Evangelical witnessing to Mormons, Reorganized Latter Day Saint training. And i sometimes see answers as not addressing Evangelical concerns precisely enough to help my Evangelical friends. Though the answers on scholarly issues are still mostly good, and i only see areas for improvement from time to time. I prize FARMS and FAIR stuff for personal use in standing up for my beliefs and for answering questions.
  14. I know of a Lutheran Minister who confesses Rev. 22 is a poor proof-text to use for the closed Canon of scripture. He feels LDS answers to the verse satisfy him its a waek proof text. He feels better proof-texts support the closed canon idea better. Though i myself don't see his proof-texts as unquestionable as he would. His book with his treatment of the idea i love to trudge out is entitled Speaking The Truth in Love To Mormons by Mark Cares. Utah Lighthouse Ministry a leading Anti-Mormon ministry sells the book. FAIR and its Wiki does treat popular Anti-Mormon questions they throw at Mormons. Being Reroganized LDS/Community of Christ we get hit with similar questions. This year i am studying an anti-Community of Christ book entitled Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church: Is it Christian?.(Carol Hansen? I basically have to study and practice answering her 40 questions, and other lists of trivia regularly in order to keep my skill at answering such stuff up. For a beginning apologist i suggest becoming well read in the Foundation For Apologetic Information and Research material. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage FAIR links to its wiki on its main page. And they have a good links section that gives direction to finding LDS apologetic websites with answers also. But unless you are well aware of answers Anti-Restoration authors can mislead you with historical, doctrine, practice research they have done on your religion. FAIR has a bookstore that has books and other materials they publish. Mike Ash has one book by FAIR, and a new one i am aware of they are staring to sell giving evidences for his beliefs.
  15. I am Robert also a Community of Christ/RLDS member. I recognize your picture from our Community of Christ message board. I post there under my Middle name Dale. I was LDS until my 2005 Community of Christ baptism. I had my name removed from the LDS membership rolls in 2005. But i had Reorganized LDS Church association, leanings starting in 1988, but paused many years on making a change of denomination decision.