Flyonthewall

There are many doctrinal truths contained within Mormon Doctrine, that is why it had been quoted from. But there are also opinions contained in it which did not accurately reflect the actual church teachings. This is where the conflict came in.

Yes...I thought I would get snickers and giggles too... that would have been better than the crickets chirping that I did get. It's always a challenge to find that "angle" that the kids will relate to and be interested in.

I, for one, will not say that Brigham Young was wrong, as all of LDS doctrine can be found in the Bible whether in whole or in part, but it took a restoration for the correct meaning to be found. God did warn us, as did the apostles, because it was already happening. A rift was forming and the further away from the death of the savior, the greater the rift became. Well I don't know how you understand this passage, but Jesus was absolutely stating that the scriptures did not line up with how the religous leaders were teaching them. The scriptures stated one thing but the Saducees and Pharisees had taken the word of God and interjected their own understandings/traditions. Remember, there had not been a prophet for hundreds of years so they had wandered away from the true meaning of the scriptures. All scripture is indeed given by inspiration, but that did not stop the prevailing religious leaders from altering their meaning...just as had been done after the death of the apostles. I am not sure how well you know the organization that you have linked to for answers to questions about discrepancies in the Bible, but I have read through that link and most if not all "answers" don't really add up. They either guess or simply do not fully address the discrepancy they were trying to answer. There are simply too many holes to consider them as answers.

I just (tried to) teach Hosea to a class of 13yr olds. Hosea uses a comparison of Hosea and his adulterous wife Gomer to the Lord and Israel. For some reason, comparisons and similitudes are lost on that age group, at least the ones I had. Lots of glassy eyes and lost looks

I looked up those references but am not seeing how you connected the dots to arrive at your conclusion. Perhaps your foundation of understanding is different than mine so that I don't follow your reasoning?Revelation 20 gives the timeframe in which the dead shall be released from Paradise or Hell. I am unable to find a reference that states or implies that Paradise has been taken into God's presence. You make it sound as if everyone is born with an instinctive knowledge or understanding of Christ - to which I disagree. I think you take these verses out of context, because in verse 18, it is very clear who he it talking about: those men "who hold the truth in unrighteousness". Obviously those that have never heard the truth would not be included in there.We do believe that all who are born on earth have been given the "light of Christ", which is the ability to discern good from evil. Some may call this one's concience, but that is for another topic. I agree, we have gone way off topic so I will leave it at that.

Well I can see how that interpretation can be arrived at, but Abraham's Bosom or Paradise is not Heaven or the presence of God.Remember that Christ told the thief on the cross that today thou shalt be with me in Paradise, however 3 days later upon His resurrection, He clearly states He has not yet ascended to His Father. So where He went in those 3 days that is called Paradise, but is not the presence of the Father. The place He went to, Paradise/Abraham's Bosom/Hades/Spirit Prison, is a temporary place where those who die go to to await final judgment. While they are there, for those who were good, whether they were Jewish or not, or a believer or not, it would be a Paradise and would be taught the gospel. For those who were wicked, it will be a prison of sorts or a hell. They too will be taugth the gospel. Your outlook on someone going to hell or not based on if they trusted in Jesus by the time of their death seems quite harsh, since there have been millions if not billions of people who have lived on this earth without ever having an opportunity to even hear the name of Jesus let alone trust in Him...that just doesn't make any sense. I beg to differ. Just because someone is affiliated with the true church does not mean they are righteous(Judas). The gates of hell, or death, shall not prevail, because the atonement of Christ has overcome death, both physical and spiritual.

This is ironic, because if that is true, the gates of hell have definately prevailed. King David tells us that it is possible to leave hell:Psalms 16 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

What exactly was Jesus saying in this scriptural passage? This is an analysis of this verse, given by a poster on another forum, which I think lays out the meaning very well: " Many of our fellow Christians have great difficulty accepting the concept of a great or total apostasy of the church. They look to Matthew 16:13-18 as proof that Christ’s church could not go into total apostasy. They believe that if an apostasy took place then the gates of hell has prevailed against the church. The first mistake made is when they fail to realize is the word translated as hell comes from the Greek word “Hades” which means place of departed souls. It is not derived from the Greek word “Gehenna” which means place of everlasting punishment. They err in confusing the two terms. What Christ was saying is that the gates will be opened allowing the souls of our departed dead to exit. As will be illustrated in a few moments, Christ will take the keys and opened the gates and let the dead return to life in the Kingdom of God our Father. The second mistake made is when they fail to realize that gates are stationary. They cannot attack; they can only be defended. And because gates are the weakest part of a fortification, they are heavily defended. Sometimes, as heavily guarded as they are, gates are still not adequate to withstand the determination of a single servant of the Lord. The gates of the Philistines city of Gaza did not prevail against Samson. This is an exceptional example, of what Christ meant. Normally, for the gates to fall they would need to come under repeated attacks. Between attacks there would be times where the attacker fell back and regrouped. It was during such a regrouping that King David was told that Uriah the Hittite was dead. To conquer a city the attacking army sometimes tried to burn the gates. This was easier than breaking down or scaling walls. The gates sometime were felt to be so impregnable that only the promise of God’s help made it worthwhile to attack them. Look at the promise made to king Cyrus founder of the Persian Empire. Such is the promise made to Peter in Matthew 16:17-18. Jesus buttressed the principle of revelation in these verses. John had a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ, not because of his own studies or from the influences of other people but because God had revealed to him. Like the promise to King Cyrus, Jesus promised his church would be built upon this principle of revelation and the gates of hell will be destroyed because of it. After his death and subsequent resurrection, Jesus revealed to John that He, Christ, now had the keys to the gates of hell. Through modern revelation we know that it is the members of the church who will enter Hades to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and liberate the spirits of men held captive. So, when it is the appropriate time, the gates of hell will not prevail. Like the sea and death, hell will be unlocked and forced to give up its dead. (Upon This Rock Will I Build My Church - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board)

Something else to consider: The translation of the Bible was done by those that may not have known the difference between the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" and a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. So in my mind, when the scriptures say "on the gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost", it could very well mean a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, or "gifts from the Holy Ghost". I have nothing to back that up with, but was a thought I had on the subject.

I agree. But without knowing a truth is lost, it cannot be corrected. Right, so far we are only discussing interpretation. I made that statement as a general statement on translating. I had no specific verses in mind. However, if you wanted an exemple of verses where meaning was lost, I would direct you to the JST. The JST is to put meaning back in where it was lost, it is not an attempt to re-translate text. Getting the words correct is only half the battle for a translator. The meaning has to be there too.The english language is rife with words and expressions that can mean something other than the obvious: hot, cold, bad, good, yeah right, etc. There are also words that can be interchangable with other words, but the meaning is somewhat different - a thesauraus is full of them. I am no student of greek or hebrew, but I have read where the word translated as "perfect" as used in Matthew 5:48, can also mean "complete". Now I can see how both those words can be used, but "complete" brings different connatations than "perfect" does.

John 3:5 was a simple example. The point I was making is that if indeed baptism is required to enter the kingdom of God, and there are denominations that teach that it is not, then that is a big missing piece, would you agree? If there is an error in interpretation that takes away the intended meaning, then that is a truth that is lost...a plain and precious truth.Baptism is just one example. Other things that I can think of off the top of my head are: 1) Trinity/Godhead (Nature of God) 2) Pre-mortal existance 3) Preisthood authority 4) Grace/Works 5) Plan of Salvation 6) Prophets & Apostles 7) Apostacy/restoration ...just to name a few. Each one of these things have references in the scriptures that support our understanding of them, but have been interpreted in a different direction by mainstream christianity. Any time there is a translation from one language to another, there are meanings that are lost - sometimes it is only slight nuances, other times it is altered just enough to get only half the meaning intended. There may be cultural references that are lost on the translators. Sure they may get the words correct, but the meaning is only superficial.

Hi Soninme, I know I am late to this thread and have not read it from start to finish, so if what I have to say has already been brought up, please forgive me.An example of something that crept into the bible is the Comma Johanneum. Also, I would like to state that "mistranslations" do not only involve incorrect word usage, but incorrect meanings assigned to the words. For example, all the correct words may be present in a translation, but the meanings assigned to them are mis-translated. For instance, in the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3:5, and Jesus states: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God", we take the phrase of "born of water" to mean "Baptized", where as other Christians take it to mean physical birth. There is a case to be made for both usages, but one makes baptism required to enter the kingdom of God, while the other does not. As you may already know or have seen, there are many disagreements, from one faith to another, on what the scriptures actually teach, and it is because of the plain and precious things that have been removed. These plain and precious things aren't always words, but meanings too. We LDS see no contradictions between our teachings and the Bible, just as I am sure that other Christian denominations that disagree with us, see no contradictions in their teachings and the bible.

There is no law against wearing temple clothes outside the temple. I think people do it as a "poke in the eye" of the church. I believe that those who would do such a thing try to get a reaction from members by taking those things that are held most sacred, and defiling them. It just reinforces, for me, that we should not give that which is sacred unto the dogs, niether cast pearls before swine... (note: I am not calling anyone a dog or swine)

I think the important part is to be neat and clean. If you keep your hair nicely combed, beard neatly trimmed there is no problem. Remember...cleanliness is next to godliness... I have seen women who put a lot of time into their hair, only to look like they had driven down the freeway with their head out the window....leaves me scratching my head. Neat and clean goes for everyone, not just guys with long hair and beards.

Most likely, while there, you will be greeted and introduced to a few people. You will get a freindly invite back in the form of: "Hope to see you again", or "Come back any time", or something like that. You won't be mobbed or agressively pursued to come back. Absolutely not! We/they would be glad that you came to visit at all. I would suggest doing only what you are comfortable with. I must say, though, that one does not need to be a bible scholar to get something from Sunday school, it is geared towards all levels of understanding. Obviously you would be invited to attend every week, but come and go as you please. You can still get married without a temple recommend, just not in the temple. There are some people to absolutely require a temple marriage and others do not. Now of course we would prefer everyone get married in the temple. People convert because of all different reasons, intellectual ones included. Hopefully there will be something spiritual behind or besides, as religion is faith based. Part of our instructions to everyone is to study it out in your mind. See if it makes sense. Ask questions, and finally ask the Lord(pray).Now because religion is faith based, pure intellectualism will only go so far. Hopefully along he way of intellectual investigation, you can leave room for faith. Though I can't name anyone personally, I would hope that all converts do a thourough investigation. For some people it "clicks" quickly, and for others it takes detailed study. Not at all. Always happy to answer what I can.

Is there more than one kind of faith? It sounds like you are saying there is an "introductory" faith, and then there is also a "saving" faith.The introductory faith is what initially brings one to Christ, but if there are no works that follow, then that faith is not the saving faith, as saving faith will always produce good works. LDS have always maintained that faith and works go hand in hand. Then the logical question would be: How can one know if they have "truly" received Christ? Is it when good works begin? I agree. We must practice the truth and walk in the light. To be completely honest, everytime I participate in a discussion about "saved by faith/works/grace, I always come away believing that the two sides have more in common than there are differences.I believe that though we may use the same terms, we apply different meanings to them, and then when we try to overlay one position on top of the other, we try to do it by the terms used instead of what is actually meant by those terms, and it is very easy to talk past one another.

Just as a side note, the title of the song in Japanese is "Nephi no yo ni", which is to say: "Like Nephi" or "As Nephi (did)". I wish I had the rest of the song to read, it is a beautiful song.

He empowers you to walk the walk, but what if you don't walk? Is one still saved without walking the walk? I get the feeling that what you refer to as "saving faith" includes works, or production of fruit. The scripture does not say that He made them sons of God, but that "to them gave he power to become sons of God". Notice the conditional "IF" at the front of this? In this IF-THEN structure, if the first part is not done, does the second part happen anyway? If I strive to keep the commandments but fall short, is there no way to rectify this? Is there no means given by which sin can be cleansed.If keeping the commandments are not neccessary then they are not commandments at all, but merely suggestions or a good idea. This is a very confusing part for me...Commandments are given, but they are optional.Saving faith produces works or fruit, but if the fruit is not there, then....what? It is the grace of God that gives our works any type of value, so we still have no room to boast.

Romans 3 is part of a larger sermon that is addressing Jews and gentiles and there being no advantage(profit) of being a Jew over being a gentile, as God will render to all men according to their works.The Jews had the Law of Moses, but salvation does not come thru the Law of Moses. It comes thru Christ. Romans 8 does a good job explaining that to be "in" Christ, we must walk by the spirit. To WALK in the spirit means action, deeds, works if you will....not the works of the law of Moses, but in obedience to the word of the Lord. We are saved by grace through faith. James goes to great lengths to make sure we know faith without works is dead, and it is in fact our works that perfects our faith. The rich young man had enough faith to seek Jesus and ask what is needed for eternal life, but his faith was not perfected by his works, by not doing as he was told by Jesus. Works are not what saves us, but they must be present for our faith to be complete.

I look at that incident with the rich man in a slightly different light...When the rich man asked what he must do to gain eternal life, the first thing Jesus asked about was obedience. Not if he was perfect, but did he keep the commandments. Once it was established that he keeps the commandments, Jesus then asked him to exercise his faith and give up all his riches and follow Him. If his faith was true, like that of his Apostles, the young man would have done it. The young man had faith in the law, not in Christ. The young man followed the law, keeping the commandments, but did not have faith in Christ as he did not do as Christ asked. He sought eternal life, but his actions showed he did not believe Jesus could give it. As James said, faith without works is dead, and dead faith, cannot save, being alone. As for the Isaiah passage, do not try and project that universally. Isaiah was talking to an apostate Israel who thought they were safe because they were still performing sacrifice, and that their works alone would keep them in good standing with the Lord. The good works of the faithful are not as filthy rags, but are pleasing to the Lord. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." The Lord would not tell us to put our filthy rags forward for all to see, and who would glorify God because of them?

There are 3 Gods in the Godhead. The members of the Godhead function as one, being one in purpose and testimony, under the direction of the Father. The Godhead is a single organizational unit and is referred to as The One God. This is the same concept as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, each being God individually yet there only being one God becase they share the same substance. Think of the Godhead as being the substance

I have always thought that the Trinity and the Godhead are very similar, and it is mainly the vocabulary that holds the differences. Godhead = 3 distinct persons each individually God = 3 Gods Trinity = 3 distinct persons each individually God = 1 God...? To me, that seems like a forced definition, but essentially the same thing.

Both teams defense kept the other team's offense in check. Loved the game, and I would say either of those teams can play with any other BCS team and win.

MWC is 4 - 0 in this year's bowl games...TCU can make it a clean sweep!

I root for teams by geography. I live closest to BYU, so I root for them first. Then Utah, then the MWC. I hope the MWC teams win all the bowl games they are involved with.