Justice

Naaa... I've actually been to the Kirtland temple and got to go inside, unattended, and walk around and look at everything in every room. I think the structures are similar in design, being basically rectangular with an extended portion on the front top with a steeple extended up from it. But, in reality, they really don't look enough alike to gather that they were patterend after each other. Perhaps in some basic ways, but they are very distinct from each other.

Understood. I don't think it has to be a direct quote in order for Caesar to have spoken or written those words. I paraphrase things all the time for people, or even tell a story about something that happened, and never intend to actually quote someone, but end up using their exact words anyway. I think the author of Luke read a proclamation, or heard it said, that "all the world" would be taxed so they all had to return to the land of their fathers for a census. And, God is paraphrased all the time in scripture. So, although you make a good point, and indeed I believe you're right about being careful, I don't think it's a foundational part of my belief for it to be a direct quote.

No, I don't think there's a difference. This is a very good example of how the scripture appears to support one belief, when in fact, it actually supports another. Let's move forward and take the text at face value, just like in Genesis where God says the flood covered the "whole earth." Where does that leave us? Well, let's take the context of who is speaking. Caesar made the decree of "all the world." OK, to Caesar, what was "all the world?" Was it the whole earth or everything he was king over, or all of his land? Being that the comment was made by Caesar, who was king (or emporer) over a kingdom, we can safely say that "all the world" is "all that he has dominion over." It would be illogical to assume he meant he wanted to tax individuals who were not under his throne. Now, when God says the "whole earth" what would He mean? So, going with the statment of "whole earth" or "all the world" I don't think it's unreasonable to consider who is speaking to get the "best" interpretation. Both do mean "complete and total" according to what they each know. You made me think and pray about it... and that's a good thing.

Thank you, HiJolly and OES, that is all we can expect to do. I'm not here to convince or convert anyone to any idea or theory. My goal is to provide evidence and discussion, and hopefully we live in a way the Spirit will guide us. It can't happen if we're not open minded. I, too, had not decided one way or the other. However, I do see strong evidence in favor of a global flood, and as I thought about the purpose of the story and what it was trying to teach, and removed my focus off of the event itself, I was able to see that understanding the true nature and teaching of the story depends on the flood being global. As I prayed, this idea was sweet. So, now I present what I learned as evidence for others to do with what they choose.

He just gave you some evidence that the Bible teaches there was a global flood. It's whether or not you choose to believe his presentation. I would think you would at least find it curious, and want to refute his ideas with what you have discovered, item by item, instead of ignoring them. Abraham 1: 31 But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me. There is ample evidence, like this, to show that man has been revealed the workings of "worlds" like what was made known to Abraham and "the fathers." Since Abraham was born approximately 2000 BC, his "fathers" (plural) would possibly reach back to 2500 BC. I'm guessing Adam is included in his term "fathers," but if you want to believe he intended on reaching back only to 2200 - 2300 BC, and not 2500 BC, that is your prerogative.

I'm suggesting that since you came to a different conclusion that an article published by the church that you *might* at least consider the possibility that your conclusion might be wrong.

I am saying I am more likely to believe an article in the Ensign (a church publication) from a BYU professor of ancient scripture, than I am most other sources.

Interesting, since the BYU professor I quoted from says the Biblical references of "earth" in the Hebrew all indicate it did mean global, and even showed elsewhere where the same Hebrew word was used and meant global or universal as well.

But, as far as evidence, he presents some good evidence based his knowledge and study of Hebrew and ancient texts. I'd like to see the evidence (in the Bible) that shows it may not have been a global flood.

Good point. Also, it would seem even the elements obey His voice, too. Water and earth are both elements. In the beginning, He spoke and the dry land appeared, where there was only water, why can't He speak and the water appear from where there is dry land?

I mean, who are we to say which of those statements are right or wrong? You go down the list and offer your opinions on which are fact or false, why can't he? Do we believe yours over his? Do you think since it is a church publication, do you think "he shouldn't be allowed to make false statments that I disagree with," or do you think," hmmm maybe I should look into this more, maybe I'm wrong?" These are faith based statements, and not factual based. I have a discussion going on about this very issue on a different thread... come join in.

It would seem that, since it was in the Ensign, a church publication, that if the statement were false that "someone" either wouldn't have allowed it, or would have issued a correction. Shouldn't this be allowed at least as evidence of how the Church authorities feel about it?

When interpreting whether or not an event was real or allegorical in the Bible, are there more than these 2 possibilities? 1. It literally happened just as the Bible says. 2. It did not happen as the Bible claims. Is there middle ground? For instance, as far as the flood goes (example only), can someone believe that the account of the flood in the Bible was not global yet still walk away with the intent behind why God caused the flood? Why did He not cause lots of localized floods to destroy the wicked of every land and preserve the righteous in those lands? Isn't the story trying to say the entire earth was wicked except for Noah and his family? If it was God's intent to destroy all living flash on the earth except for Noah and his family, can you understand the seriousness of the event while believing it was only local, and only "all flesh" on that land died, and not all flesh over the entire earth? If it was local, why did they have to carry different sets of every kind of animal, since those animals would still be on the earth? After reading these scriptures: Genesis 7:19–20 [Gen. 7:19–20] states, “All the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered … ; and the mountains were covered.” These verses explicitly state that all of earth’s high mountains (“hills” should read “mountains” here; Hebrew harim) were covered by the waters. Lest one believe that the statement “under the whole heaven” is figurative and can be read or interpreted in different ways, a scriptural search through the entire Old Testament reveals that the phrase is used elsewhere only in a universal sense, as it is here; the phrase does not refer to a geographically restricted area (see Deut. 2:25; Deut. 4:19; Job 28:24; Job 37:3; Dan. 9:12). For instance, Job 28:24 also uses the phrase when referring to God’s omniscience, which is certainly not restricted to a specific geographical region on the earth. Genesis 7:21 [Gen. 7:21] states, “All flesh died that moved upon the earth, … every creeping thing … every man.” The phrase “all flesh” refers to all land animals, creeping things, and fowls and all of humanity, with the exception of those in the ark (see Gen. 7:23). The entry every in the Oxford American Dictionary reads: “each single one, without exception.” Moses is clearly trying to let us understand that the Flood was universal. Verse 22 [Gen. 7:22] states, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” Again the term “all” expresses a sum total. The term “dry land” should be read literally here, having reference to the land masses of our planet. Verse 23 [Gen. 7:23] states, “Every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl.” Moses’ list of those destroyed by the Flood is inclusive; only Noah “remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” Genesis 8:5 [Gen. 8:5] states, “In the tenth month … were the tops of the mountains seen.” After the flood, the “waters decreased” until Noah and his group were able to once again see mountaintops. From this link: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Flood and the Tower of Babel Can a person really believe and understand the Bible, and the story of Noah, if they walk away from the story believing the flood was local, because it was *impossible* or *unlikely* and that there is no *evidence* that it was global? Isn't it more important to walk away seeing that the enitre earth was wicked except for this one family? Please think about it seriously. Can one truly have faith in God if they cannot accept that the flood was global, relying on their understanding of the difficulty of the event and scientific evidence, and never truly stepping beyond difficulty, evidence or proof into faith? The purpose of the story of Noah is to teach that the entire earth was destroyed because the people were wicked. It wasn't just that one nation or one land was evil, it was the entire earth. I can't help but think you have to understand the global nature of the flood to fully comprehend how serious God is about sin, and how serious He is about saving even one man and his family, from among all the inhabitants of the earth, if they keep His commandments. I can't see how the vision of localized flooding can bring one to understand the seriousness of the teaching behind the story of Noah. I'd venture to say that if other stories are put through the same analysis, I bet something is lost by reducing them to anything other than actual events as described. Thoughts?

Or, one can do that here: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Flood and the Tower of Babel Excerpt: Many of us have fond memories learning about Noah and his ark during our days at home and in Primary. Perhaps our parents and teachers held up a picture of Noah preaching to laughing and mocking people as he stood in front of the partially built ark, or perhaps they showed us a picture portraying the ark filled with animals standing on the deck as the great vessel rested in the water. Later, our Sunday School or seminary teachers added to our knowledge of this great man, his righteousness, his missionary work, and the revelations surrounding the building of the ark. As Latter-day Saints, we treasure this sacred, true account of one of God’s great prophets who lived so long ago. Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as “implausible,” “unacceptable,” and “impossible”; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood “can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.” 1 Another author titled his book The Noah’s Ark Nonsense, 2 revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place. Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence. There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets. There is more if you click on the link.

We, as people, have a bad habit of projecting our behaviors and reasons on others. My post is as straightforward as I desired it to be. My words are directed at anyone who may read it. It is very difficult to be any more direct when you're trying to be indirect. No, Snow, those words were not directed at you or any one individual. It has been something I have been pondering over lately. Those are some of my "unorganized thoughts." That's probably what you're seeing. I am quite confident there are people who believe the miracles spoken of in the Bible are not all actual events. I have been pondering over how one can pick and choose which ones are and which ones are not actual events. That's what leads to my "be believing" mentality. If He did one, the most difficult one, then why is it so hard to believe He did all of them? I think it's a good, generalized question that all people can ponder over. As far as the author of Mark, there is no clear proof (I suspect you know that). However, I do believe the event happened, and even though it's possible that it's not a word for word account, it doesn't have to be to make my point. All I need from the verses is that Jesus healed the man, together with a belief that Jesus suffered for sin. The first is very possible, even likely; the second we know happened.

So, then why does the Bible say God hardened Pharaoh's heart?

I am in awe of these comments in the lesson yesterday: “If I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. … If I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority. … “… I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know that it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more. … “… You don’t know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace. “I cannot lie down until all my work is finished. I never think any evil, nor do anything to the harm of my fellow-man. When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then. I add no more. God bless you all.” No doubt, one of the greatest men the world has ever known. Of interest to many non-members who frequent this forum might be: I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself.

Amen.

I posted this in another thread. So that I didn't change the focus of the other thread, I decided to create a new thread so I can focus on it here: Mark 2: 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. Either you believe Jesus simply spoke and the man was healed, or you imagine some allegorical meaning that could explain this story. I believe this is a crossroads of faith. There really are only 2 possibilities here. 1. Jesus simply spoke and the man was actually healed. 2. This did not happen literally and there is another explanation. I believe one of the main intents of scripture is that: John 11: 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. John 12: 37 37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: These people who did not believe in Christ, even though they witnessed many miracles, were in serious jeopardy. Jesus spoke and caused many different things to happen: 1. Changed water into wine. 2. Calmed the wind and water. 3. Healed men of all manner of diseases and sicknesses. 4. Withered living trees. These represent a general example, and are not inclusive of everything He did. In the Old Testament He even spoke and created the very heavens and earth. But, the greatest miracle of all is that of forgiving sins. If you do not believe He is capable of these things, by the power of His word, then I do not believe it is possible for you to believe He is capable of the greater miracle, that of answering to eternal justice for all of your sins. As He implies in this scripture, it is easier for Him to speak and perform miracles than it is for Him to answer to justice for sin. I don't see how anyone can believe He atoned for sins, when those sins were logged by justice and it demanded an infinite and eternal punishement, and yet not believe He can speak and cause miraculous things to happen. Jesus Christ is the God of creation, the God who covenanted with Abraham, the God who gave the law to Moses. If Jesus Christ can atone for sin, He is capable of doing anything else to help man, because sin was the greatest obstacle. He already proved He could command the very elements when He created the earth. By His word He can accomplish all things expedient to man. In my opinion, there is no true faith with this belief.

OK. Fair enough. So, you're saying the Old Testament was mistranslated into God hardening Pharaoh's heart. It was man who mis-characterized God by mistranslating what happened. We are in perfect agreement. :)

If it was written in scripture, sure I could believe it. :) Belief is a choice, really. Perhaps a "coerced choice" might be a better way to think of it. God blesses us through our obedience. If you really desire to believe, then find the principle associated to what you want to believe, then live it to the best of your ability, and repent when you fall short. Like tithing, or the Word of Wisdom, or whatever principle is attached to what you want to believe. It's not always finding the principle that's attached because they aren't logical to our way of thinking. Like in the physical world, if you want to be smarter at math, you study math. But, if you want enlightenment about a certain spiritual topic, the principle you live may seem totally unrelated to the blessing you desire. For instance, happiness is attached to fasting.

As far as your comments about using the JST, I think you need to re-think your position. Joseph Smith never said "OK, here is a completed translation of the Bible I want you to use in stead of the KJV." I am using it preceisly in the manner he said we should. We read and use the KJV, and when we need clarification, turn to the JST, because in it are many texts that have been removed, and many corrections. Yes. Christ is offspring of God the Father. God the Son is the Son of God. I haven't counted, but the Bible says this so many times it's hard to mistake. Christ is responsible for creating the physical world we live in, or all things, not for creating the spirits of men. He stated His Father is greater than He is.

Yes, it is quite clear that I do not understand being and person as you do. But, if you say God is 3 persons than I agree with you. 3 are mentioned; 3 are found speaking; and they even speak to each other.

The bottom line is that we have more scripture and modern prophets that help us understand what the Bible is teaching. I have not relied on myself to interpret those things the way I prefer. But, as spoken by modern revelation, they are sweet to me.

EEk... I meant John. I gave a detailed presentation of John 17 where Christ offers the great intecessory prayer. His language cannot be mistaken about how He and the Father are one.