Speakzeasy

Members
  • Posts

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Speakzeasy

  1. Not to get off the topic, but by way of information. Here is the Utah Division of State History's take on naming of the State: "The Newcomers Originally the Spanish considered Paiutes and Utes to be one group. They believed the area northeast of the Hopi was populated by those they called "Yutas," a term the Spanish used to refer to both the Paiutes and their neighbors to the east, the Utes. The Spanish term gave the present state of Utah its name. Paiutes and Utes both use another term--pronounced Payuts by the Paiutes and Payuch by the Utes--to refer to the Paiutes as distinct from the Utes. Up until the mid-1600s, the Utes and Paiutes essentially shared a similar way of life." ... From: Utah Division of State History Further search brings this from the Deseret News: "You'd think if anyone has the definitive answer on what the name Utah really means, it should be members of the Ute Indian Tribe. But according to Larry Cesspooch, public relations director for the audio/visual department of the Ute Tribe in Fort Duchesne, the Utes don't even have such a word in their language. He said Utah - Anglicized from "Yuta" - is what the Spanish called the Utes, and his research indicates it meant "meat eaters." Cesspooch has used this explanation in various public presentations, and he said he's never been challenged on it." Source: Arave, Lynn (July 10, 1994); Utah: The Riddle Behind The Name; Deseret News https://www.deseretnews.com/article/363685/UTAH--THE-RIDDLE-BEHIND-THE-NAME.html
  2. Here is the correction: 4000 - 3001 (1st) [4th millennium B.C.E.] 3000 - 2001 (2nd) [3rd millennium B.C.E.] 2000 - 1001 (3rd) [2nd millennium B.C.E.] 1000 - 1 (4th) [1st millennium B.C.E.] 1 - 1000 (5th) [1st millennium C.E.] 1001 - 2000 (6th) [2nd millennium C.E.] 2001 - 3000 (7th) [3rd millennium C.E.] "Similarly, the 1st millennium comprised the years AD 1-1000. The 2nd millennium comprises the years AD 1001-2000. The 3rd millennium began with AD 2001 and will continue through AD 3000" (Astronomical Applications Department of the U.S. Naval Observatory). Here is a nice read from the Astronomical Applications Department of the U.S. Naval Observatory: The 21st Century and the 3rd Millennium as does another article found at the Royal Observatory Greenwich: When and where did the new Millennium officially start, and why? : Time FAQs : Time fact files : Astronomy & time : Explore online : RMG Actually 4000 B.C.E. year is usually thought of as a rough time period. We think we know somethings about this, that or the other when we look back. Methods of measurements vary as do results. Scripture is our best measurement relating to G_ds dealing with man and the creation of the earth. An arbitrarily guess is what? 10, 100 years? Actually you would be surprised how accurate the seven thousand year above is when taking into account the larger picture. What I mean by larger picture is applying prophecy, from the Bible and Book of Mormon, to history instead of history to prophecy as we want to view it. It is interesting to find out how many questions can be answered. The earth was not created 4000 years ago. Adam and Eve was created. Taking into account the "7 days" (Gen. 1:1-2:4) that G_d used to create the earth. Apply the one day is a thousand years to G_d (2 Pet. 3:8, Peter was basically correct) then our time period for the earth grows a bit larger. By six thousand years, G_d rest on the seventh day. Men was created after the seven days (after the day of rest). So the time period of seven days would apply to G_ds time frame, not mans. So why is it that I follow the even millennium time frame? It fits the larger picture. When studying prophecy one must be able to bring history into alignment with prophecy. It cannot be the other way around. The events in prophecy and history bring us into the last millennium, the seventh. That is the 2001 through 3000 thousand year time period.
  3. If the subject is science then we have something in common. However, man has created his own story using science that does not include G_d. With science you can put numbers on a board and throw darts at it. Your guess is as good as mine through method of man made science.
  4. Hmmm . . . Would that not being repenting? Why would John not seen that one coming? Seems like a misunderstanding of a doctrine on Johns part. Conquering to conquer is a military action. Not a human change of behavior.
  5. I agree. Redo time line: 1. 4001 - 3000 b.c. 2. 3001 - 2000 b.c. 3. 2001 - 1000 b.c. 4. 1001 - 1 (1 is the same year for both the end of B.C. and beginning of A.D.) 5. 1 - 1000 a.d. 6. 1001 - 2000 a.d. 7. 2001 - 3000 a.d. (Seventh Millennium)
  6. O.K., we are at the beginning of the seventh thousand millennium. 1. 4001 - 3000 b.c. 2. 3001 - 2000 b.c. 3. 2001 - 1000 b.c. 4. 1001 - 0 (0 is the same year for both the end of B.C. and beginning of A.D.) 5. 0 - 1000 a.d. 6. 1001 - 2000 a.d. 7. 2001 - 3000 a.d. (Seventh Millennium) January 1, 2001 is the first day of the seventh millennium. The B.C. ends and the A.D. calendar starts with the same "0" (CE) date. Otherwise the calendar is always count from 1 to 0 (i.e., B.C. 1000-1, 100-1, 30-1 - 0 - 1-30, 1-100, 1-1000 A.D). The transition from B.C. to A.D. is the exception (See: Spring Phenomena 25 BCE to 38 CE — Naval Oceanography Portal) What event has happen at the beginning of 7th millennium associated with D&C 77:6-7? I know that I have difficulty with the first seal being opened at the beginning of the first thousand years. It is difficult to see why Adam needed to go ". . . forth conquering, and to conquer" (Revelation 6:2) on a White horse, since Adam and Eve are the only two people present on the earth. Who did Adam go about conquering? Anyway, the seventh millennium has begun. What was the event that happen that can be applied to Revelation 8:1 when the seventh seal is open, D&C 77:6-7, and clearly understood by man as such? I know "there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour" (Revelation 8:1). What is that half hour? How does it apply to us on earth? Can any body give an official list of the events that took place at the beginning of each of the past millennium that can be understood as a cross reference to the Book of Revelation, D&C 77:6-7 and understood by man as such?
  7. The Anti-Christ can be an interesting from the point of scripture. ". . . therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: . . ." (Daniel 11:30) and " . . . he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant." (Daniel 11:30) point to: "And he had power to give life unto the image of the [head of the] beast, that the image of the [head of the] beast should both [be spoken and reverenced], and [he causeth] that as many as would not worship the image of the [head of the] beast should be killed." (Revelation 13:15) which leads to: And arms shall stand on his part . . . (Daniel 11:31) which leads to: "And they worshipped the [great red] dragon which gave power unto the [head of the] beast: and they worshipped the [head of the] beast, saying, Who is like unto the [head of the] beast? who is able to make war with him" (Revelation 13:4) brings us to: ". . . the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;" (Daniel 7:21) which equals same time period as: One individual: "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." (Daniel 7:25) A second individual: "And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Revelation 13:5-7) (Note the verses above are closely ordered by subject and event.) Daniel and John are speaking of two different people. It is difficult to separate them from the story as it s written. However, there are two people involved: ". . . was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the [head of the] beast and the false prophet are, . . ." (Revelation 20:10) 1. [head of the] beast 2. the false prophet Chapter 13 in the Book of Revelation is divided into four time periods that are not in order they appear in the chapter: Revelation 13:1-3 ("And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: . . .", (first part verse 3)) represents the first time period. (Time period of John's Ten horn's in Revelation 17:12. Also, Daniel 7:23-"And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: . . ." (Daniel 7:24) relates to the events during this time.) Revelation 13:11-13 represents the second time period. (Time period John's seventh king in Revelation 17:10. Also, Daniel 7:8 relates to the events during this time.) Revelation 13:14-18 represents the third time period. (This is the wound to the head of the beast in Revelation 13:3. Also, Daniel 7:24 ". . . and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.") Revelation 13:3 (". . . and all the world wondered after the beast.", (last part verse 3)) - 8 represents the fourth time period. (Time period of John's eighth king Revelation 17:11. Also 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 is during this time period.) (Note that verse 3 is divided between the first and fourth time periods. There are other cross references relating to the above time periods in Daniel, etc. There is nothing close to exhaustive about the above information.) These are the "last days." We speak and we don't understand. We are guessing about what is to happen. These Anti-Christ are alive today, all of us know at least one of them by name. The other is very well known to most of us by name. However, we guess at who the Anti-Christ(s) might be because we do not have a clear picture of how prophecy is applied to history and relates to our own time period. By clear picture I mean a chronological structure of events and characters that lead to the present moment. These events can only be found through studying prophecy about the events and characters in prophecy that apply to the last days from Bible and Book of Mormon (include prayer and fasting, connecting with G_d). Applying third party information (anything that is written or stated by any man/woman) will distort the written word in these two books. Let these two books stand on their own merits, without anyone to tell the story within them. Then will the prophecies become more clear. There are people with attitudes that view prophecy in a general or round about way ("could mean anything that we what to apply it to, as long as it looks as if it as something in common"). Attitudes will distort things so that they are seen incorrectly. Sticking to the story and not getting off the narrow path goes along way. Prophecy is a story with meaning, organization and purpose. Prophecy leading to the last days are progressive events in history and applied to specific people and events in time. Viewing prophecy from an abstract position or trying to apply events to multiple events in time, rather then the correct one, diminishes everything about the prophetic stories.
  8. Moroni & Other Resurrected Beings I am in agreement with Vort: There is a verse of scripture that gives the idea that the righteous, before Jesus death, were resurrected: 50 ¶ Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many (Matt. 27:50-53) The event of these people being resurrected as it appears in Matt. 27:52 seems to be a little reversed from the normal idea that Jesus is the first to be resurrected. However, Matt. 27:52 seems to be the of the resurrection that is spoken of by Alma: 15 Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken. 16 And behold, again it hath been spoken, that there is a first resurrection, a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ from the dead. 17 Now, we do not suppose that this first resurrection, which is spoken of in this manner, can be the resurrection of the souls and their consignation to happiness or misery. Ye cannot suppose that this is what it meaneth. 18 Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but it meaneth the reuniting of the soul with the body, of those from the days of Adam down to the resurrection of Christ. 19 Now, whether the souls and the bodies of those of whom has been spoken shall all be reunited at once, the wicked as well as the righteous, I do not say; let it suffice, that I say that they all come forth; or in other words, their resurrection cometh to pass before the resurrection of those who die after the resurrection of Christ. 20 Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven. 21 But whether it be at his resurrection or after, I do not say; but this much I say, that there is a space between death and the resurrection of the body, and a state of the soul in happiness or in misery until the time which is appointed of God that the dead shall come forth, and be reunited, both soul and body, and be brought to stand before God, and be judged according to their works (Alma 40:15-21) We usually think of the first resurrection as being that resurrection John speaks of: 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (Rev. 20:4-6) So the resurrection of the righteous took place at the time Jesus resurrection would apply to those that died before Jesus, not after. It cannot apply to the unrighteous, there was no day of judgement.
  9. The priesthood is an power-of-attorney given to man by G_d to act on G_ds behalf. It as a great deal of functionality to act in G_ds behalf here upon the earth. Fore-ordination would serve no purpose if the priesthood could be used in the same capacity in the preexistence. It is given to mortals to bring to pass to covenants that G_d, the father, made to the righteous of remnant of the house of Israel. It is in that capacity that the priesthood is bound and to that purpose. The priesthood could not have been given to a person in the preexistence for the purpose of fulfilling those covenants. The covenants that G_d that father made with the righteous remnant of the house of Israel, through father Abraham, can only be accomplished here upon the earth, where the covenants are to be fulfilled. What point is there in those covenants being fulfilled in heaven? There is an instance in the Book of Revelation were authority to act here upon the earth is give to twelve individuals while in heaven, it can be found in the book Revelation: 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads (Rev. 12:3) The twelve individuals were not given the priesthood. It is interesting that they received their authority to act before they were given a title to their office. The the ten horns that are identified with them were given their authority when they were given title to the their office: 1 AND I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy (Rev. 13:1) The ten horns did not receive the priesthood. I do not know what occurred to allow the twelve heads to be given authority (Rev. 12:3 does not give the information). However, the authority given to them is for the purpose of bringing forth the covenants that G_d made to the righteous remnant of the house of Israel. The primary difference may simply be that of whether or not one is to receive the priesthood.
  10. 1 AND again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. 2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. 4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. (Alma 13:1-4) I thought about "called" (Alma 13:3) and chosen could being semantics. It appears to me that it might look more as if: chosen is where somebody is specific for the purpose that only he/she can accomplish and called is something like picking somebody from a group of volunteers applied to anything. So if I were to explain that my Patriarchal Blessing states that: "In the divine wisdom of the Lord and for his purposes, you were chosen and prepared to come into the world in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times, to assist in the establishment of Zion . . ." and it applies to my relationship to the event, and not necessarily my exceeding faith and good works here upon the earth. It also has meaning and serves a purpose. Good works are relative here upon the earth. What good works brings others to Christ, your good works (as applied to religion) or others of different faiths (as applied to religion)? Who of us sees evil for good? Alma refers to a time "from the foundation of the world." I agree with him. Alma speaks of "being called and prepared from the foundation of the world . . . on account of their exceeding faith and good works," though there can be other variables. The PB also states that there is a fore-ordination. The blessings of this ordination were not received in heaven at the time the fore-ordination took place. I do not know how ordinations are provided for in heaven. The blessings will be received here upon the earth. The blessings have a connection with other activities that are to take place here upon the earth. These blessings could not have been used for their purpose while in heaven. The blessings will continue for an eternity, their purpose is for a purpose G_d has for them here upon earth. The blessings that are to be received by the execution (giving/receiving) of the fore-ordination cannot be received by a spirit person. They are given for the purpose for which the blessing serves in furthering the promises that G_d made to the remnant of the house of Israel and has meaning to further that end. In the Book of Revelation, John spoke of Priest: 8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth (Revelation 5:8-10). It appears that the "four and twenty elders" are individuals that will serve the Lord during the last Millennium when the Lord will preside over the righteous remnant of the house of Israel. They look much like the group that Alma speaks of the Alma 13:1-4.
  11. Paul is an interesting read and reorienting oneself to Paul's writings is quite an undertaking. Ed Parish Sanders has some interesting ideas about what he believes Paul wrote about and how to make application of his writings. The interesting thing about anything we do, and this is a good example, is everything is done or accepted by common consent. Common consent is simply that by which everyone agrees. It does not matter if it right or wrong. If common consent states that something is right and the minority disagrees then common consent is the majority. If the minority disagrees with common consent, then ideas are introduced by the minority to persuade the majority to agree with the introduced idea. We have seen this occur time and time again. Society, religious beliefs transition and it looks natural. If one takes religion of any type and calls it a belief, religion of any type then becomes legitimate. It makes no difference what that believe is as long as it is agreeable to the society in which is established. When that belief is established by the common consent of a group of people it is then held by that group as a standard of thought and understanding. It makes no difference as to weather the belief is true or not (even it comes of an establish source). One cannot make a truth simply by stating it as such. Giving ones life for what a person or group perceives as being true does not make that perception true. Common consent weather as a social agreement or a agreement as to religious beliefs will not change reality. The only reality is the relationship between G_d and man. The difficulty with the relationship with G_d is that men have, by common consent, changed the relationship to what men want it to be. G_d has not changed his relationship with men. (Can there be any evidence to support such a claim?) Common consent of any religion will take offence at that statement. Because members of a common consent belief have define for themselves that their understanding is correct. They have put together a doctrine that, by common consent, is agreeable to the members of that group. Of coarse, disagreement is allowed within the common consent understanding. Common consent authority can introduce new ideas to those who perceive that authority as being correct, without disagreement, then it is acceptable. It makes no difference if the accepted change is right or wrong. It only needs to be accepted by common consent. Normally change is subtle and is presented in such away as to appear as if correct (common consent believes this is possible). Sometimes it is up front distortion of things and misleading all together. The original belief can be completely off the mark of what is to be understood from common source, and still be agreed upon. A new religion can adopt an original belief while having a different understanding. Usually by the followers being told of a variation of other common consent beliefs and adding new ideas to the old. How does this relate to the New Perspective on Paul, you decide? Belief and understanding are common consent. Is Mormonism "the only way?" This to is a common consent subject agreed upon by the organization members. Ones understanding of what somebody as written does not make it so. Evidence cannot be brought forth to prove that any belief of a Church is anything that it claims. It is by common consent of it members that a Church holds sway by its theology, doctrine and practice. (Added: Here is an article dated 7/10/2007 with Catholic point of view on being the only true church: Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation - International - Catholic Online.) (As a Christian I believe that I should take up the cross of Jesus, follow him, then by grace I will be saved.)
  12. Yep, your are correct. My mistake. Thank you correcting me. 6 And it came to pass that as we journeyed in the wilderness, behold Laman and Lemuel, and two of the daughters of Ishmael, and the two sons of Ishmael and their families, did rebel against us; yea, against me, Nephi, and Sam, and their father, Ishmael, and his wife, and his three other daughters (1 Ne. 7:6). It does not change the covenant nor lineage difficulties that are applied to Ephraim and Manasseh has it was stated by Erastus Snow. The Book of Mormon related to the covenants made to father Abraham is through Manasseh. Ephraim has no part in the blessings with Manasseh. They are separate. The blessing of the two cannot be mixed. The my post above would still have application. The Gentiles need to be adopted into Manasseh. I believe to Book of Mormon to be the correct authority on the subject. It was not given the us as an arbitrary writing (Vort and Just_A_Guy agree, pointing out my mistake). We cannot negotiate it so the we apply it to things as we wish. There is nobody that is able to change the covenants that were made through Abraham, by G_d, the Father. I am not sure why anyone would want to, however, it does and has happened. I know your going to say that Erastus Snow said that Joseph Smith said that. Hmmm . . . 38 years after Joseph death away. And nobody else ever made that statement before Erastus Snow? All the journals of Brigham Young and others (the Pratt bothers, etc.) who were more likely closer to Joseph then Erastus was. Hmmm . . . . The promises made with Abraham are sure and G_d, the Father, will fulfill them the way he had promised. Not the way men claim they should be. I am looking forward to the rest of covenants being fulfilled that we learn about from the Bible and Book of Mormon.
  13. It is interesting that Ishmael had only daughters and Lehi had only sons. 6 Now, all these things were said and done as my father dwelt in a tent in the valley which he called Lemuel. 7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife. 8 And thus my father had fulfilled all the commandments of the Lord which had been given unto him. And also, I, Nephi, had been blessed of the Lord exceedingly. 9 And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord spake unto my father by night, and commanded him that on the morrow he should take his journey into the wilderness. (1 Ne. 16:3) Lets take the Native American Blood lines as they are today. A half breed is 50% blood line (known as a "blood quantum") Now that person that is 50% blood quantum marries outside of the blood line and the next generation becomes half again related to the original blood line. This blood quantum continues to divide in half for every generation after that first division, as long as there is no marrage back into the original blood line. (U.S. Federal Law recognizes 50% blood quantum for immigration purposes. Some tribes will consider 25% blood quantum for their own registry. My beautiful love (wife sounds so much like property) is Canadian Born Native American. I represent her while working out her immigration) Ephraim's blood line was lost in the first hundred fifty years of Lehi's landing at the promised land. Juda's blood line was lost in the same way. Both of Ephraim and Manasseh would have shared Manasseh's inheritence of the covenants made with Abraham. Ephraim and Juda covenants through Abraham would have been lost, swollowed up, in the blessings given to Manasseh. No longer would Ephraim's blessing be of any value. Any descendants of Juda simply could not receive the blessing given to them through Abraham, they were not in the land were the blessings were received by the rest of tribe of Jude. Time is at hand when the blessings of Ephraim and the blessing made to Lehi (a descendent of Manasseh) through Abraham will be received on this land, here in the United States, the birth place of the fullness of the gospel being brought forth to the Gentiles. Juda is about to receive a blessing that comes through Abraham just prior to Ephraim and Manasseh receiving their blessings. Everyone will see Juda receive this particular blessing that comes through Abraham. People simply will not understand it to be able to make that application to the event. The Gentiles must be adopted into the tribe of Manasseh as it is written in the Book of Mormon. Otherwise scripture, the word of G_d, is made nul and void. G_d will not allow that to happen. The story of prophecy, as written in the Bible and Book of Mormon, is the story we were told about in the Council of Heaven. We knew the events here on earth must happen in a particular order and manner so that the promises G_d, the Father, can be fulfilled. We trusted that G_d, the Father, can fulfill his promises he made in the Council of Heaven. Because he is true to his word and he has authority to follow through with his promises. (Question: Did the Law of Moses allow inter-marriage of the tribes of Israel (Joseph having two portions)?)
  14. I like that list, but not as well as: 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? (Gen. 18:18 - not listed) You see the covenant made to Abraham is divided into two parts. The first "become a great and mighty nation" is about the righteous (remnant) of the house of Israel that are gathered in the last days. The second "and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" is about the Gentiles being blessed by the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ being given to them. The first has not occurred, yet. The righteous remnant of the house of Israel has not been gathered, yet. The second has occurred. It is the Book of Mormon being brought forth to the Gentiles at the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. and published in 1830. These covenants are divided between Abraham's off spring. After all is said and done, Ephraim and Manasseh received their blessing through their ancestry. Ephraim received the heir ship of blessings including, but not limited to, the Melchizedek Priesthood and gathering of the righteous remnant of the house of Israel. Manasseh received the heir ship of the blessings including, but not limited to, the receiving of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the hands of Jesus, after being rejected by Juda, and to bring forth of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. Which occurred at the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1830. The blessings passed down from Abraham are not given to overlap one another. The blessing is received by a representative of that tribe that is an legitimate heir to those blessings. Ephraim's blessings were past from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and to Ephraim. Ephraim's blessings did not go Manasseh. Manasseh's blessings were past from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and to Manasseh, Manasseh's did not go to Ephraim. The two brother's blessings cannot be mixed (this goes for the rest of the house of Israel). In other words, only Manasseh can fulfill the blessings given to Manasseh. If it were otherwise there would be confusion. As an example: Jesus took his gospel to the house of Israel, in the people of Juda (receiving that blessing from Abraham), and they rejected him. The covenant made with Abraham required that Jesus give the gospel to the house of Israel. So, Jesus takes the gospel to the people of Manasseh, a member of the house of Israel. They to reject the gospel of Jesus within about four hundred years. Manasseh is blessed through Abraham to give the fullness of the gospel to the Gentiles. This occurs with Moroni, the representative for Manasseh, presenting the fullness of the gospel to a representative of the Gentiles. This would be Joseph Smith, Jr. The fullness of the gospel is what we now call the combined writings of the Bible and Book of Mormon (the abridged history of the Nephites, descendants of Manasseh, a member of the house of Israel). The covenants made to Abraham passed to the house of Israel are a very interesting and broad subject that is also recovered in the Book of Revelation. John's vision relates the story of last day events which is the story of those covenants made to the remnant of the house of Israel being played out. It is a good read from that understanding. Nephi's vision is a good read for to give one an understanding of this. Juda holds a lesser position than Manasseh relating to the covenants made to Abraham, and by the time Jesus was born, Manasseh had swallowed up any descendants of Juda that were in the promised land. The blessings past on to Juda would no longer apply to them. The idea that somehow the covenants given to Abraham can be mixed with each other is very odd to me. It shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of the blessing being given out to very specific individuals for a reason and serves a specific purpose. Ephraim's blessing cannot be mixed with those of Manasseh nor Manasseh with Ephraim's, or any of the other tribes of Israel (Jacob). How could Ishmael be a descendant of Ephraim since it would be contrary to the covenants made to Abraham. Manasseh would not have been allowed to "swallow up" Ephraim, since Ephraim holds a higher position (that of firstborn) in the arrangement of the covenants through Abraham. Again, if you would relate how the Book of Mormon fits into the covenants made to Abraham, this would clear the question quickly.
  15. If you would relate how the Book of Mormon fits into the covenants made to Abraham, this would clear the question quickly.
  16. Hmmmm . . . . The angel is fairly pointed in his description to Nephi. Manassah is the only connection made to the house of Israel in the Book of Mormon. So why do we believe we know more then that which is given us for knowledge relating to the information given? Ephraim does not appear to have any connection what so ever to the Book of Mormon. If Manassah is the first born then who is Ephraim? 9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn (Jer. 34:9). It does not appear that the Book of Mormon recognizes Ephraim in anyway. Is that how they treat the first born? The story in the Book of Mormon is about the descendants of Manassah. Why is it that Ephraim is neglected in Mormons abridgment of the history of the Nephites?
  17. The angel talking to Nephi does not go into the descendants of Joseph story as you have. Maybe you could explain why the angel is very clear with Nephi about the Gentiles being numbered with Lehi's seed and the additional information that you have post. I am curious as to why one would not believe this at face value.
  18. I came across these verses in the Book of Mormon that give me the adopted linage of the Gentiles that become members of the house of Israel after they receive the much of the Lords gospel "which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb" (1 Ne. 13:34) 32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen. (1 Ne. 13:32) 34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb. (1 Ne. 13:34) 1 AND it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks— 2 And harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they (the Gentiles) shall be numbered among the seed of thy (Nephi's) father (Lehi); yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land forever; they shall be no more brought down into captivity; and the house of Israel shall no more be confounded. (1 Ne. 14:1-2) 1 NOW these are the words which Amulek preached unto the people who were in the land of Ammonihah, saying: 2 I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi; and it was the same Aminadi who interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God. 3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren. (Alma 10:1-3) So my question then becomes: "Where do I find this group of Gentiles that is being adopted into the tribe of Manasseh?" Certainly if the Lamb of G_d has taken away the Gentiles stumbling blocks I want to be a part of that group of Gentiles and be adopted into Manasseh.
  19. I am not sure this works. Moroni built the wall to defend against the Lamanites. How could the Lamanites not have learn about building for defense? If somebody looked about 15 minutes and 49 seconds into the introduction, part one, of the series that is narrated by James Burke and is linked to in a previous post on this thread, one would find that something that took place 3000 years ago stills effects us today. In fact we still use the geometry today. The Ionians got the triangle from the Egyptians and used it for maritime navigational purposes. We still use Roman construction methods today from 2000 years ago. We are not Roman, we do not live in Europe, and most of us learn about the Roman Empire from what we read. We have picked up things from the Greeks (as did the Romans), Germans, Arabs, etc. from hundreds and thousands of years ago. So throw it all out, and learn only from what the Americans know from 1620 or was it 1783? Which ever date you wish to start from. But nearly all the information that the Americans learn and expanded upon came from somebody else, usually from somebody from a foreign country. And usually from an idea that was built upon over time. Hmmmm . . . . Why is it that the Lamanites could not pick up wall building for defense purposes from the Nephites? Yes, they are different groups. However, they interacted with each other. They knew each other and learn from each other. They fought with each other. Why then is it then that the Lamanites did not learn from years and generations of battles from the Nephites?
  20. That will be interesting. I would like to see any images you wish to share.
  21. I had to go back to my Book of Mormon. Mormon hides the plates in the "hill Cumorah" and gives a few plates to Moroni (Mormon 6:6) and Moroni is close enough to finish his fathers writings and bury the small number of plates with the rest of them. How far would he haved traveled if the bulk of the plates are in a single location and wanted to place the remainder of the writings with the bulk of common items? (Read Mormon 8:1-8) Moroni hides the the plates he has in the earth because he does not know out long he will servive (Mormon 8:4). Moroni may have pulled the plates he was writing on a second time (Moroni 1:1). Where did he hide the plates? Would he have hide the records he had with him where the rest of the records were that his father hide? Why would Moroni pull the records from hiding after his father hide them? How did Moroni hide himself from the Lamanites while dragging the Nephite histories with him? Would pulling the records be consistant with the reason his father hide them (Mormon 6:6)? Why is it that the records Moroni had and translated were hide in the hill Cumorah where Joseph Smith was told they were?
  22. This post more to the topic of debate then the topic of the thread. There is an interesting Series that was televised on PBS in the middle 1980's called 'The Day the Universe Changed' Now it can be viewed on YouTube.com at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdB61lXonEY&list=PLmo9vOINxhRmw0KvFkK4N1aheLWsg4xhp. All ten parts are upload to YouTube. What makes this an interesting program is that James Burke, the author of the book by the same name and narrator of the series, tells about how the events in history effect us today. In this ten part series Burke starts with the Ionian (people) -- Encyclopedia Britannica (c. 1000 B.C.) and tells about the major events/discoveries through out history that have brought us to be the people/society we are today ("why we are the way we are" - Burke). Nothing in history is done without something before itself. All thought is a development of something that exist before it. (An interesting article from BYU Religious Education Student Symposium 2008: Captain Moroni's Stratagem: Straight from the Scriptures | Religious Studies Center)
  23. I agree that we deceive ourselves. And God allows this to occur, without any intervention. (My own life experience, as well.) It is obvious that people in general do not appreciate being told that some aspect of something is wrong, or they misunderstand. One will find a defensive position to protect that which one thinks/believes to be so. Lucifers position appears to be one that was/is agreed upon by a very large group of people (a third part). Did he deceive them as well? Did they not have the same basic information about events, and repercussions to their actions, etc? What was it that made it such a common understanding that he could draw a large group of people into that common understanding? Why would a group of people agree that one particular person should be chosen to benefit from something that they knew he had no ability to receive?
  24. I agree that forgiveness is conditional on an knowledge that there is a God and conditions are met to receive forgiveness. So, "the unpardonable sin, blasphemy against the holy ghost" is not forgiven. All other sin, here on earth, is forgiven once conditions are met. And for some reason forgiveness is conditional? Is that really true forgiveness or a form of punishment? Conditions that are agreed upon by two parties, and are met in that agreement by both parties still have condition upon them? A just God? Hmmmm . . . Something like paying the loan agreement at the Bank, then having the Banker say that the person needs to pay processing fees (but more severe).