volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
Ram
To me, they are very different.
The God of the Bible has been God from all eternity. (Psalm 90:2)
The god of LDS was once a man "like us" capable of sin, and progressed to Godhood.
The biblical Jesus has been God from all eternity. (John 1:1) (Micah 5:2)
The Jesus of LDS first existed as an "intelligence" then progressed to Godhood.
The biblical Jesus is the Creator of Lucifer, you, and me. (John 1:3)
The Jesus of LDS is Lucifer, yours, and my spirit brother.
Clearly not the same God. We are to worship in spirit and in truth.(John 4:24)
Thanks
The God of the Bible is our divine kinsman, he is not part of the creator-created divide introduced by philosophers. The Bible's concept of eternity is not the philosophical one, so we really know nothing of his prehistory. The biblical Jesus is capable of sin, otherwise he would not have been tempted. According to Hebrews, Jesus went through a process of becoming divine through his sacrifice.
-
That isn't a bad interpretation, but I feel that the key lies in understand the role of living waters. Living waters (such as a stream, lake, fountain, or rain water) were required for purification. They did not become unclean. Christ called himself living water because he had the ability to render people pure and clean.
-
SUzie said:
How the Lord felt about it? Did he support their traditions or did he condemn them? Based on the things Jesus tells them in the New Testament, it is very clearly how he felt about them and their erroneous notion of equating outward appearance with righteousness. Not to mention, they used to look around and point out those who weren't dressed as they were supposed to be...(of course, there are so many examples but just focusing on the one about appearance).
They were NOT interested in purity of HEART but measured purity on the basis of outward appearance.
The white shirt thread was closed, but I wanted to respond to this.
Let me begin by stating that I am not attempting to exhonorate the Pharisees. I do however believe in setting the historical record straight. Especially considering that we are studying the New Testament this year.
How popular wisdom sees Pharisees has just as much to do with century upon century of antinomism as it does with the facts. IE according to this conception Pharisees are a prime example of meaningless, hypocritical legalism. Lets at least make an effort to see things from their POV. Is it likely that their primary concern was with being self righteous? People hardly think that way about themselves. There has to be something in their faith or way of life which is appealing and meaningful to them.
The Law of Moses separated the holy from the profane, the pure from the impure.
Like any legal codex, the Law of Moses had to be interpreted as it was applied to daily life. No law by itself covers every situation, let alone fully.
What the Pharisees set out to do was ensure that the meaning of the law was properly observed in daily life. Failure to comply with the Law of Moses rendered a man unclean. Unless he became clean he was cut off from the covenant community.
So, for example, failure to render a proper tithe had serious implications. Hence the issue of tithing the tiny cumin and anise seeds. This was not an issue of wearing a tie to sacrament meeting or not.
You said that the Pharisees pointed at those not dressed properly. I must have missed the reference. Would you care to provide it?
I'd love to discuss the topic more fully, but for tonight I'll just add that the Pharisees were not a homogenous group. Jesus' teachings often fit with the teachings favoured by the school of Hillel, and that Jesus also had positive things to say about Pharisees.
-
That sounded interesting so I had to google it.
I guess some historians think the first one was built by the French.The first one with the wheels attached to rails was built by the French. One has to wonder though why they called it Russian mountains.
-
The first roller coaster was built in Russia for Catherine the Great.
-
Leviticus is about purity.
-
But yet there does seem to be a bit of a double standard when it comes to former vs. latter day prophets on what is said and accepted. It seems like anything Brigham Young said in regards to race not only seems to get poo-pooed off, but then to call him a racist is O.K., yet if President Monson where to say something in the press that would be deemed as quasi-racist, and members would then start making comments about him being a racist, I can guarantee temple recommends will be getting recinded left and right. In some ways I can see where the O.P. is coming from. I never quite understood the whole "living prophet overrides a dead prophet" outlook that the church seems to have in regards to our leaders. To me, what a prophet says is what a prophet says, whether it was 150 days ago or 150 years ago.
Not at all. I am not making a value judgement, I am stating a neutral historical fact.
I don't know of a single individual (LDS or not) from the 19th century who would not qualify as a racist by modern standards. If you do, please name them, I would love to read about them. I am a Kipling fan, and have been since childhood. That was my introduction to the topic of 19th century racism. I love 19th century history in all its aspects. Examples of such fairly benign racism can be found in the infamous White Man's Burden, as well as in H. G. Well's History of the World. The latter is probably a superb introduction to this. John Masters (in the mid 20th c.) did a very good job of exploring the dynamics of 19th century racism, but even he falls prey to it in his book, the Venus of Konpara, which takes its plot from the Aryan Invasion theory of Indian history. That theory holds that the native, indolent, and sensuous dark-skinned Dravidians were overrun by the warlike, energetic, authoritaritan and ruthless fair-skinned Aryans. While Masters is very sympathetic in his portrayal of the Dravidians, and critical of the Arayns, that model of history is inherently racist.
Brigham Young was a product of his times.
-
I'm willing to give the OP the benefit of love if not understanding. Sometimes having the first one gets in the way of the second one. Kinda like a parent who sees a child doing something they see as dangerous, the first instinct is to stop the behavior and understanding as a goal kinda falls by the wayside in the rush. Of course I am in an optimistic mood tonight for some reason, don't worry, it'll pass.
Of course. I should probably have said displaying more love... However, lets assume that his friend is on the slippery slope to apostasy. By attempting to understand, one can glimpse the real issue, not only the tip of the iceberg.
-
When Christ was on the earth he said not to give the priesthood to the Jews, and even to not preach to them.
I suspect you mean gentiles. Christ preached almost solely to the Jews, and recognised that the Jews have the priesthood.
-
I find myself in a similar position. Neither possibility (of the two more popular ones offered), that it was instituted by God for his own purposes or he allowed it to happen for his own purposes shakes my faith in the Gospel and is why I tend not to get too invested in debates over the matter.
We see eye to eye. They are equally valid possibilities. All in all, I tend to feel a little like Job's friends, when the topic of the reason for the ban comes up. I usually avoid those topics.
My technicality was just that, I wasn't trying to use you as an aha to prove one position over the other. And I doubt pointing out it was lineage not skin color is going to make the OP's friend change his position. *shrug*
I wanted to state my position, for OP's sake. I'm not advocating the position that God goofs up, I'm advocating love and understanding towards his friend.* But what do I know? I'm probaby a closet apostate-in-the-making, or on the slippery linoleum slope to apostasy, with socks on my feet...
*Again, directed at the OP.
-
For the record, I'm sure God had a reason for allowing the ban, however I don't know what it is.
-
I know what hes thinking.
Ay, there's the rub.
He said stuff like "God wouldnt deny someone blessings based on there skin color"
Would he?
and "Black people were banned because those leaders had racist beliefs." Yes, he actually called them racist. How can you say things like that and still hold a temple recommend?????
He called 19th century men racist. Shocking. He must be teetering on the brink of outer darkness. Brigham Young was racist. So was Albert Schweizer. This is a statement of fact. Men of the 19th century (and much of the 20th also) were racist. They thought in terms of race. This does not make them wicked, or bad, or unfit to serve as the Lord's anointed.
-
I'm just trying to help a member of my quorum whos struggling and I thought you guys could help. If your questioning the brothren or the desisions made by the brothren your obviously on the road to apostasy!!!
I work in a call center. An important aspect of our interaction with customers is active listening. We listen, probe and rephrase, to see if we understand the issue, and anything that might be lying below the tip of the iceberg. You haven't attempted any of this, but would rather cry "apostates!"
If you want to help then tell me what you would tell this elder.
I wouldn't tell him anything before ascertaining what his belief is and why he believes it.
-
He means it is highly unlikely that the person in question's reasoning is "God screwed up."
Thank you. That is my point exactly. I suspect that what his friend meant is that the policy (and more pertinently) the justification for it, was man seeing through a glass darkly.
He really ought to try and ascertain what it is his friend thinks, and why.
-
How can I convice him that GOD DOSN"T MAKE MISTAKES?
That isn't the issue.
-
Such as the books of Adam, books of the 12 people the 12 tribes of Israel are named after, etc?
Properly known as Pseudepigraphia.
-
You are more than welcome to use something that brings you closer to God. Read Moroni 7 and the 13th Article of Faith and then choose your liturgy.
-
Josephus also had a vested political interest in depicting the Essenes as a philosophical curiosity. The Romans were looking for a local party to collaborate with after the destruction of the temple. Josephus saw the Pharisees as the only viable option, so he talked them up and marginalised the rest. The Zealots hate Rome, the Sadducees appeal only to the rich minority, and the Essenes are philosophers out of touch with the world. Only the Pharisees have popular appeal.
-
The only ancient reverence to Essens comes from Josephus. In fact if it was not for Josephus we would not know Essens ever existed.
You seem unaware of Pliny, who places them in the area of Qumran.
According to Josephus the Essens were 1. An obscure Jewish sect.
He lists them as one of the major Jewish philosophies.
2. The Essens were not only pacifists but would die before they would fight.
Yet Josephus states that they possessed weapons and that they carried them on their journeys. He states that they would die before they would commit transgressions or eat what was forbidden.
3. The Essens lived by themselves in the wilderness (no mention of where).
Josephus says they lived in many places, not only in the wilderness.
4. The Essens were friendly with King Herod.
Is there any indication that the authors of the DSS were not?
-
Lawrence Schiffman, in pg. 93-94 of his “Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls,” claims that Damascus was code for Qumran. I disagree for the reasons outlined by Wacholder, but the important thing is that a major main-stream scholar of Second Temple Judaism had no problem identifying Damascus as a code for Qumran, and did so in print. If one were to believe Traveler, thhen one would assume that Schiffman would never have been allowed to publish again, or hold any important academic positions. He has done both.
I blogged about Qumran as Damascus briefly last year. Calba Savua's Orchard: Amos in Later Jewish Tradition
To claim a consiracy of silence is prepostrous.
-
The new Damascus Document : The midrash on the eschatological Torah of theMany scholars pursue the claim that Damascus is equivalent to Qumran and that any
references to Damascus in the Qumran scrolls refer to a migration
to the Judean desert. In my view, this has no basis, since CD 7:14
expressly says that they travel to the north, citing Amos 5:27. It
is incredible that the author of MTA would refer to Qumran as
located in the north. Moreover, within the hundreds of documents
emanating from Qumran, only those related to MTA mention the
movement to Damascus. With the vast literature we have, there is
always a possibility that by accident all the other references to a
massive communal migration north have perished. This, however,
is implausible. In my opinion moreover, the migration to the north
in MTA is not historical but a prediction that it would occur in the
future; hence, the near silence about this migration in the DSS.
Dead Sea Scrolls : reconstruction, translation, and commentary / by
Ben Zion Wacholder.
-
-
The tune was also used for The Claudy Banks and the Murder of Maria Marten, both English.
-
Doctrines of the Kingdom by Hyrum Andrus.
I guess some historians think the first one was built by the French.
Pharisees
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Perhaps, but we need to be careful not to see it through modern eyes. There is a time and a place for likening the scriptures unto ourselves, and one for understanding the historical context. Jesus was very much concerned with purity and cleanliness, that is after all the purpose of the atonement. The language Jesus used to describe himself would have been clearly understood by the Pharisees.