Jenda

Congratulations, Dr T! I hope there were great shouts of praise and joy! I am not sure what you mean by optional. It isn't required for salvation, but Christ commanded it, so it needs to be done out of obedience.

I apologize for getting drawn into a fight and responding in kind. I came to discuss valid issues surrounding this topic and am sorry that a few questions has led to such nasty postings. If thekabalist wishes not to discuss the issues surrounding the topic, that is fine.

I can discuss the issue with you in a PM, where those who are upset because I have asked a question won't butt in with issues that are not related.

Thanks! (Actually, I am a she. )

Amen! When I was RLDS I could not say I was saved. It was just such absolutely foreign language to me, but yet I had an experience that most Evangelical Christians would classify as a salvation event. My heart was changed from stone to flesh and I have lived for Christ since the mid 70s. I have had other such 'saving' events. Sometimes I think I'm the only person who's been saved multiple times (even though I never was unsaved inbetween). I have learned to call these events "epiphanies", and recognized that what I have experienced was when Biblical truths finally made themselves clear through the muddied beliefs and doctrine I was holding to help guide me to more Biblical truths God wanted me to know. I know I have lots more truths to be awakened to, and my prayer is that I'm always open to where God wants to draw me and not put up resistance because I like where I'm at.

And my question specifically related to how much of the context he took into account when he assigned meaning to that name. If you decide this is not a debatable area, that is fine, I follow the rules (I was a moderator here for 2 to 3 years, after all), and the discussion is interesting, but sometimes questions need to be asked.

There are lots of people who question why Yeshua or Yehoshua is transliterated Jesus into Yeshua or Yehoshua, and insist on only using Yehoshua or Yeshua. If you looked around on the other board, you'd find many such discussions. The issue, though, is not that things are transliterated, but that meanings are being assigned to transliterated names. Pointing out parallels is one thing, assigning meanings seems to go beyond what would be appropriate under the circumstances.

Whether or not I, or anyone else, asked you this question before, it is still a valid question. If you transliterated my screen name into Hebrew and tried to assign a meaning to it, it would certainly not convey a valid meaning. As you said, it is all conjecture. How much of the conjecture is based on the textual story you are taking the name from?

Out of your list, I think that #1 and #5 are key. The others might help guide and define, but the truth has to come from God. I do have to say that I don't believe that reliance on personal spiritual revelation is an LDS thing. I don't believe that anyone can be a true Christian without revelation that Jesus is the Christ.

I am not a member of a denomination, so perhaps my answer doesn't count, since it is based on personal experience, but I'd say that it happens when you've prayed and studied the scriptures and you have an enlightenment of mind. Suddenly, everything fits and you see things in a new light. I believe that the Bible interprets the Bible, so when you know everything the Bible has to say on a matter, then you know the truth.

This is not true. There technically was no Catholic Church at that time. There was just local assemblies very loosely bound. This is just something that the RCC says to try to disavow the authority of Protestant religions. The Bible was assembled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (God), not a church body.

thekabbalist, I am confused by how you derive meanings from words when you admittedly use transliteration from the English word contained in the Book of Mormon to get to a Jewish-sounding word. If the word/name was a direct translation of a Jewish word, I can understand just translating it back, but how do you assign a meaning to a phonetical Jewish word?

I would say not just that, but because at the time, there wasn't a Bible to put in everyone's hand and it (the NC) was a clear, concise statement of belief that could be referred back to that was supported by accepted NT texts. Yes. Many of the sections in the D&C were direct answers to direct questions asked to, or by, Joseph Smith in the early formative time of the church.

I've been in and out over the years, lurking. How are you doing?

T.D. Jakes preaches a prosperity gospel, and I don't believe that that is a correct interpretation of the gospel.

I find the accounts of Christ's baptism in Matthew (3:16, 17), Mark (1:10, 11), and Luke (3:21, 22) to be exceptional demonstrations of the Trinity in action.

Dr. Who is the only show I watch (and I love it!) but I "hear" a lot of shows that my hubby and daughter watch.

Because the same spirit that brought me to Christ dwells within me adding testimony that the Bible is true. Interesting, because the same spirit that brought me to Christ still dwells within me too, adding testimony that the Book of Mormon and others writings written by men who were ALSO inspired by Christ. Which I suppose pretty much means that unless you come to know like I do, or I come to know like you, we'll just have to wait until final judgment to hear the verdict from Jesus Christ. And btw, I thought about saying I already know, because I have already received revelation from Christ, but then I thought that would sound kinda tacky, since you would say that too. I appreciate you being my brother in Christ, Ray. As I have read through the BoM in the past, I felt that there were some passages that were inspired. I haven't had the opportunity to go back and read through it to see if they strike me the same now, but I have no problem believing that God inspired whoever wrote the BoM in places. I find inspiration in many places, though, and do not consider them all to be scripture. So I see no problem with accepting those passages in the BoM that give spiritual inspiration.

I do not believe, and never have, that God has a body. I believe, and always have, that we are created in the spiritual image of God.

LOL. My 16 year old daughter said she liked it but it had so many NT parallels.

Yeah, that about captures it. At least it would have until June. In June, God showed me that the restoration was wrong, and that is the main reason I broke with the church. Had I just felt it was intolerable believing in it and worshipping in that environment, I would have just stopped attending and found a place to worship that taught basic Bible principles and taught restoration beliefs at home. The net outcome would have been similar to what happened in June (when I left and found a church that teaches basic Bible principles), but the added belief that God let me know that the restoration was wrong solidified the understanding that I can never go back, no matter how much they might re-embrace the beliefs of the restoration. Because the same spirit that brought me to Christ dwells within me adding testimony that the Bible is true.

I don't think there will be a test, either, but if we leave out some of the qualities, it creates a different "God". And, while not implying that you do that (or at least not meaning to), some do. They choose the qualities they think are important and skip over others, thus distorting the picture of God that they present to others. I think the whole picture is important.

No, I only consider the Bible the word of God now.

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them. Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity. I've only seen cursory bits about this group--the name change, giving up certain distinctives. It sounds like you are more in the know on them than I. So, give us a few highlights, if you don't mind. That's because I'm a member/used to be a member (however one chooses to look at it). I gave a brief description in the post above, the difference between how I view mainstream Christianity and liberal Christianity, and how the RLDS/CoC fits in. In a bit more detail, back in the early 60's, in response to the church feeling an identity crunch, and a new prophet that was fairly weak with strong counsellors giving him counsel, the church started down the road toward liberalism. At first, that looked like mainstream Christianity, with the church backing off on stating belief in the restoration story, a backing off on stating a belief in the BoM, and an embracing of beliefs that were not common to the restoration. This kinda backfired for the church because a good many of the saints did not want to become mainstream Christians. They were perfectly happy being RLDS, and so spoke out against the direction the church was going. It came to a head in the mid 1980's when they started ordaining women. A huge group broke off and started meeting separately. The church silenced all the priesthood who went with the group that split off, and at that time, IMO, the church started dying while the "restorationists" (the group that broke off) are fairly thriving. I noticed a big change, though, around the year 2000. It started with seeing the church refusing to take a stand on many issues. Everything was OK. It was a sin, but OK, to get an abortion. It was a sin, but OK to be homosexual. It was a sin, but OK to have an affair. Now, the church is even stepping back on the "sin" part of some of those issues. It is obviously OK to be homosexual and be an active one because they are ordaining homosexuals into the priesthood AND marrying them. I, being (at the time) a restorationist, spoke out against the stand of the church on the church's discussion board, and was banned from it. Now, since last June, I no longer believe in the restoration, and so have no issue with them foregoing the restoration principles, but still have issue with them rejecting the plain word of God. So I have broken completely with them. It was good to see that many conservative members who did not break with the church in the mid 80's put up a fuss regarding leaving behind the restoration distinctives, so the church moved slightly back in their direction to at least claim that for some, the BoM is considered the word of God (how big of them. ) It was good because they were forced to take a stand on some issues, which they are not keen on doing.

There are many more than three qualities to God.God is: OmniscientHolyJustLoveTrueFreeOmnipotentInfinite and EternalImmutableOmnipresentSovereignThat you listed only the three things you want Him to be seems to say that you create God in the image you want him to be in, instead of everything the scriptures say He is.But more than anything else, He, alone, is worthy to be praised!