volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
Too much is made of the territorial Israel of the Middle East as being the definition of the promise God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Underestimating it doesn't help things much either. "Arise and walk in the land, along its length and breadth, for to you I give it."
Israel is the only nation (and family) preserved beyond the grave and for all time and eternity. The Middle East is a patch of land I have little interest in. When Jacob bedded down for the night near the place called Luz, with a rock he used for a pillow, and dreamt of the ladder which extends to heaven with angels going up and down it, the earth was his mattress, even as his LORD spoke of the glories he would receive.
Yet that is not how Genesis depicts it. If you look at 28:15 God indicates that he will return Jacob to the land he is leaving. Also, Jacob realises that his dream of a staircase connecting heaven and earth means that the spot of ground he is on is a holy one.
-
Your statements ignore the issue at hand. The UN action created a second Israel separate from the Israel Christ created in the LDS church. The biblical record says God will bring the lost tribes back to the land of Israel. Never has the UN claimed this act was God inspired or revealed.
Does the UN have to claim to be "God inspired" for God to work through them?
The UN gave international support and legitimacy for the creation of a Jewish state in the land of Israel.
On the other hand, the LDS has claimed revelation in regards to the formation and gathering of Israel.
And as can be seen in the case of Orson Hyde's mission, the legitimacy of the children of Israel by blood has been upheld.
My views are far from being anti-Semitic since I support the gathering of Israel in the LDS church. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter to me who claims the land now because according to the promise the land will eventually be in the hands of saints.
Oh please. Just a ridiculous as the claim that Arabs can't be anti-Semites because they are Semitic. Anti-Semitism is a term coined in Germany of the 1860s and '70s to mean hatred of or prejudice towards Jews.
-
The way I understand it is that the title Israel belongs to those who are baptized into the LDS church. Other baptisms do not make you a part of Israel because the LDS church does not recognize other baptisms. Likewise, Jews are not a part of Israel because they reject the baptism which Christ preached.
I don't deny that the LDS church is the spiritual gathering place of Israel. But I also see it as the temporal gathering place. Christ did not set up a spiritual church only; the LDS church exists temporally as well. He doesn't have one spiritual Israel based in Utah and a temporal Israel stationed in the Middle East.
Herein lies your mistake. We LDS don't hold that we are Israel in any way that robs the other children of Israel of any legitimacy.
-
If you wish to rewrite history by calling it a Jewish state instead of calling it Israel, then there's really no point in pursuing this conversation.
"In Basel I have founded the state of the Jews."
"בבאזל יסדתי את מדינת היהודים"
-
Oh, wonderful! This answers my question. Missouri is the launching point, the saints will announce it, and Christ will be in charge, not a UN General Assembly meeting in New York.
It is good to hear there remains only one true Israel and this is the LDS Church.
Thank you very much for this information.
I think you greatly misread him. He said Missouri is the first gathering point for the ten tribes. Christ was in charge when the UN general assembly gathered and voted on granting a sovereign state in Israel for the Jews. This was a necessary step. Do please read Orson Hyde's prayer. The UN declaration was not THE gathering but an event in it.
You are certainly welcome to hold a dismal, anti-Semitic view hardly in keeping with one professing to be a follower of Christ, but bear in mind that God does not abandon any of his people, even when they abandon him. All the more so does he not abandon their children. Isaiah 49:13-16 would be meaningless were this not the case.
-
As for the OP, offenses must come, but wo unto them by whom they come, that sums it up nicely.
-
Orson Hyde continued on to Jerusalem alone. During his travels Orson met many notable personalities, some of whom were amazed at and interested in his mission. He enjoyed his travels through Europe and while waiting for his visa in Munich, learned to write and speak German.
Tired and weary after several months’ travel of nearly 10,000 miles, Orson’s enthusiasm was revitalized as he finally arrived at the sacred city of Jerusalem. Here he carefully walked along a dark, narrow street, avoiding the heavily loaded camels that traveled toward him. In the early morning hour he passed through the ancient gate in the old decayed wall near the brook, Kidron. As Orson crossed over the small brook and climbed up the gentle slope of the hill, bright rays of sunshine encompassed the Mount of Olives. It was a magnificent sight as he gazed upon the surrounding countryside from the top of the mount.
There, alone, on Sunday, October 24, 1841, Orson wrote and offered the prayer dedicating Palestine for the return of the Jews and for the building of a temple in the future. For the first time in 1,800 years, an apostle stood again on the Mount of Olives. After his prayer Orson Hyde built two stone altars patterned after those of ancient Israel for memorials. The first memorial was on the Mount of Olives and the second on Mt. Moriah.
In 1960 Elder George Q. Morris spoke of “God’s promise that he would gather Jews to Jerusalem, and I think perhaps we may well now not continue saying the Jews are going to gather in Jerusalem. I think now we may well say they have gathered. … The Jews have returned to Palestine.”
Orson Hyde believed that the mission to Palestine was part of his divine destiny. This mission illustrated his great faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and his belief in the Jews’ eventual return to Palestine preceding the coming of the Messiah as it has been prophesied by both ancient and modern prophets. There was no question in Orson’s mind that he had helped to prepare the way for the gathering of the members of the tribe of Judah and the final restoration of their homeland. He had traveled 20,000 miles to fulfill a mission call for his beloved Church, which was probably one of the longest and most hazardous missions undertaken in this dispensation.
(History of Israel & "Palestine")
History of Israel and Palestine in VERY Easy To Understand Maps
Religious Studies Center
I recently had a post here, entitled "Orson Hyde and the Voice of the Turtledove." Looks at the timing of Orson's mission.
-
Hi, I'm an LDS Israeli.
But the former prompted the latter. It was the declaration of an Israeli state that promoted the arrival of the Jews. If the LDS are Israel and the gathering place of Israel, then doesn’t a man-made Israel become a problem in contradiction?
Wrong. Ha-Yeshuv ha-Yashan, Mishkanot Sha'ananim, Nahlaot, Israel Bak, the Abo family, E'eleh ba-Tamar, Ha-Aliyah ha-Rishonah, Hovevei Tzion, Bilu, Yoel Moshe Salomon, Petah-Tikvah, Rishon le-Tzion, Zichron Ya'akov, Rosh-Pina, Kinneret, Deganiah Alef and Bet, ha-Aliyah ha-Shniyah, Tel-Aviv, ha-Aliyah ha-Shlishit, ha-Aliyah ha-Revi'it, Homa u-Migdal, etc., etc., ad nauseum. My point is that there was a Jewish presence and an effort to emigrate to Israel. The establishment of a state by the UN granted us sovereignity, and made possible further emigration. That we LDS also consider ourselves a spiritual Israel does not make the children of Israel a "man-made Israel."
And what of the displaced masses?
Such as the Jews of Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria, or the Jews in the Old City?
At the end of the war there were many more (a higher percentage of) Christians in Palestine than today. Were not these the sons of Abraham in Christ with a claim to the promise?
The reason a higher percentage of Christian Palestinians than Muslim (or other) emigrates is because the Christians tend to be better educated and organised than the Muslims, and are better able to get visas and find good employment.
Now we have a majority of two cultures which both deny the true Israel founded in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Not sure I understand what you are getting at.
More perplexing is if the establishment of a second Israel separate from Christ’s Israel in the church was indeed the act of God, why than don’t they have peace? Does God and Christ establish hatred or does He establish peace, even as the saints have?
As you brought up the Palestinian Christians earlier, do you happen to know much about Arab newspapers in Palestine at the turn of the 20th c., their editors and their editorials?
I just don’t see the hand of God acting in the establishment or the governance of the nation of Israel in the Middle East.
What are your thoughts?
I am going to be a little blunt and say that your knowledge of the region and its history appears a little shallow. Perhaps that is why you don't see the hand of God in all this.
-
MsM is right, what mood are you trying to convey.
-
Here is an English translation of Kol Hator. Yedid Nefesh - Song of the Soul
-
I wrote this elsewhere.
The Hebrew year 5566 lasted from the 24th of September, 1805 to the 12th of September, 1806.
This was the first year after the sabbatical year of 5565, and marked the beginning of a new seven year cycle.
Joseph Smith's birthday, the 23rd of December, 1805, was also the 2nd of Tebeth, the eighth and last day of Hannukah. That is, the eighth day of the celebrations occasioned by Judah Maccabee’s rededication of the Jerusalem temple.
The Torah portion (parashat hashavua) for that week is Vayigash, (Genesis 44:18-47:27). This is the climax of Joseph in Egypt's story, when he reveals his identity and is reconciled with his brothers.
The haftarah (additional scriptural portion) for all Jewish communities is Ezekiel 37:15-28. I think most every LDS is familiar with these verses. The sticks of Judah and Joseph.
Quote
R. Yehoshua of Sakhnin said: The Holy One blessed be He gave Abraham a sign that all that would happen to him would happen to his descendants. In what way? He chose Abraham from among his father’s entire household, as it is written: “You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him forth out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham” (Nehemiah 9:7), and he chose his descendants from among the seventy nations, as it written: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth” (Deut. 14:2). (Midrash Tanhuma, Lekh Lekha 9).
Quote
I will tell you a principle that you should understand in all of the coming chapters regarding Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and it is a great thing, which our sages noted briefly, saying (Tanhuma 9) all that happened to the patriarchs was a sign for their descendants. Therefore, Scripture elaborates upon the story of the travels and the digging of wells and other occurrences. And the one examining them may imagine that these are superfluous things of no use, but they all are meant to teach us about the future, because when the case of the three patriarchs shall come before the prophet, he will deduce from it what has been decreed to occur to his descendants (Nahmanides’ Commentary to Lekh Lekha).
Genesis 44:18-47:27 relates a family drama. At the end of this, they become one family again, and prosper. The main characters here are Joseph and Judah.
In Ezekiel 37:15-28, God promises to reunite the house of Israel (symbolized by Judah and Joseph), give them a ruler, restore the temple, and renew his covenant of peace (or friendship) with them for ever. Also, as Genesis 47 marks the beginning of the exile in Egypt, Ezekiel 37 prophesies of exile’s end.
-
Nonsense. Ruah.
-
Did you really just call me a goat?
Absolutely not! Goat doesn't end on a k. Not to mention that adjective gender would have had to change. I wrote yakiy fainy not yaka faina. I was calling you one of these guys.
Yakiy fainy kozak is the highest compliment I know of in Ukrainian.
-
While I understand the goals and intentions behind the program, I think there is a lot of value in questioning the execution of this project. The very fact that it is a pilot programs also implies that there are a lot of unanswered questions around this idea. I think it'd be a lot more valuable for all of us to find the appropriate forum in which to share our thoughts and criticisms so that any decisions with this program going forward might have the best possible input. Regardless, I think there are many things about this program that need to be questioned by both the general membership and the public.
Some issues that come to mind for me include content. I served a mission. I worked hard as a missionary. I had an incredible amount of fun as a missionary. Still, I can't think of anything more boring than reading a blog about the day-to-day life of a full time LDS missionary. After perusing some of the blogs, I've seen a few that reflect that.
Looking over several other blogs that were listed, I find that many of them have fallen victim to Mormon Mouth Syndrome. That is, they take a lot of words to say something very simple, and they usually repeat themselves a few times. I've not seen a whole lot of good writing yet, although I'm sure there are a handful of outstanding blogs. I just doubt that it's worth my time to sort through the drivel to find the good stuff.
Then there are the other handful that are trying desperately to be relevant, and the posts feel like wannnabe Conference talks. If this is supposed to be a medium in which we reach out and make our missionaries accessible, I don't think that's the way to go about doing it.
Quite honestly, I think this program is taking off in the wrong direction. It seems like it'd be much more interesting if there were 12 - 15 missionaries chosen from throughout the world to contribute to a single blog. That way, each missionary would need only post once a week and could share thoughts, experiences, day-to-day hum drum of missionary life, and there would be a well-balanced presentation of what our missionaries do and what their message is. Furthermore, by being so selective, you could filter out some of those with terrible spelling and grammar, or at least have the resources at CHQ to edit some of the posts for such problems.
If 12-15 missionaries isn't enough, there's no reason the Church couldn't open 2 or 3 such blogs and have 50 missionaries out of our 55,000 missionary force contributing. Hopefully I can find the right place to leave feedback because the current implementation is far less than impressive.
Yakiy fainiy kozak! I agree with you that both in content and presentation there is much to be desired.
-
Why are you all so against us here?
Honestly? In your zeal to do the Lord's work you are being a little heavy handed. It is offputting.
Somewhat similar to missionaries you hardly know, who don't take time to greet you if they see you, no interest shown whatsoever, suddenly get in contact and push hard for contacts. One doesn't feel sincerity or trust. Indeed, it feels more liked you are being used rather than helping move the Lord's work further. I served in southern Russia, missionaries who acted like that antagonised the members when they should have been building relationships of trust. As the prophet Joseph said, who can I teach but my friends?
Try a softer approach.
-
Isn't there an Israeli military base called Nephilim adjacent to Eilat?
Bot that I'm aware of. I know of only Ovda and Eilat in that region.
-
But it´s in the scriptures. Why was it necessary once but not any more?
Where does it say that kneeling was necessary? All Moroni says is that they knelt with the church. It was the practice and custom of the day, not a necessary part of the sacrament.
-
the only English translation most people knew was the KJV, and thus associated "thee's, thou's and wherefore's" with Holy Scripture. Perhaps some even vaguely thought that was how people really spoke in Biblical times. (I know I had that idea in my head as a kid.)
'Thee' and 'thou', etc., was how people spoke in biblical times. 'You' is a formal plural address.
-
Quoth was used throughout the 19th century.
-
Actually, for his day Joseph wasn't terribly ornate in his speech or writings.
I saw the beautiful gate through which the heirs of the kingdom will enter. It looked a bit like circling flames. I also saw the blazing throne of God upon which the Father and Son were seated.
If you read Joseph's statement carefully, your parphrase is not saying quite the same thing. Joseph wasn't stating that the gate was merely beautiful, but that it was exceptionally beautiful. Through it will enter the heirs of the specific kingdom which is beyond the gate. Joseph did not say that it looked a bit like circling flames, rather, it looked very much like circling flames. Why use circling flames of fire? Anyone familiar with the KJV would be able to associate the description with biblical accounts, and have a better idea of what Joseph was talking about. Your last sentence is modern syntax, hardly simpler or clearer than Joseph's.
-
"Taytze men haadam, ayin hara!"
This would translate as "You can leave the man, evil eye." Not quite what you are looking for. The evil eye doesn't posses bodies, it causes misfortunes.
The translation I gave you is based on actual Jewish excorcisms. There was even a failed one in Israel as recently as last year.
-
Ani mashbia otcha, tze min h'adam, dibbuk min ha-hitzonim!
I adjure you, come out of the man, evil spirit from the outside. In Hebrew this sounds more authentic. Let me know if you need more help with Hebrew, or even this topic.
-
Correct. Joseph and his Brethren in the School of the Prophets had a Sephardic Hebrew teacher, which is the reason for transliterating the Hebrew in Isaiah 52:7 as Nauvoo. Hugh Nibley's ward in Provo is still named Manavu Ward, using the whole phrase for "How beautiful . . ." , which is quoted by Abinadi in the Book of Mormon at Mosiah 12:21 and then in a midrash focusing on 15:15-18.
Well, my pronunciation of Hebrew is Sephardic.
Never knew about Nibley's ward. Interesting.
-
I don't think he could have, especially considering as he wasn't a Jew. There is certainly no indication in his writings of such. Of course, millenarians also held that 1840 was significant, but I don't think it was for the same reasons.
Importance of location
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
As somebody said, we have feet. You are trying to entirely spiritualise the Bible. There is much of value in seeking for spiritual lessons to be drawn from the biblical stories, yet that cannot replace the literal, physical meaning either. For myslef, I can draw a lesson in faith from Abraham's life, to survey and travel, so to speak, throughout what has been promised me, knowing that God can give it to me. We definitely should liken the scriptures unto ourselves. None of this though can mean that God did not promise the land of Canaan unto Abraham and his physical descendants, or that God did not himself initiates a covenant binding himself to fulfil that promise. People tend to forget about the covenant between the pieces.
As I said before, a mother may lose her love for her children, but God never will.
And?
Nobody here doubts that. Your intolerance remains misguided nonetheless.
You are welcome to your interpretation, yet it is not what genesis is teaching. The sacred ground Jacob slept upon was part of Canaan, a region promised to Jacob and his physical posterity. The staircase (sulam did not mean ladder, it is a cognate with an Akkadian word for staricase, a word used in a very similar context to Joseph's dream) connected heaven and earth, allowing heavenly messengers and envoys to travel between God's heavenly abode, and its earthly representative, the temple. Nothing whatsoever to do with binding. Jacob wakes up and sanctifies the place, offering up an offering and placing a marker there.
Jacob's journey was mainly one in search of asylum. To find a wife from his own kin was secondary, a pretext not a cause.
Yet it also has a plain, literal meaning.