truthseaker
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by truthseaker
-
-
11 hours ago, zil said:
How is either of those failed? They are yet to come.
The first footnote for Mark 13 in the LDS edition of the bible includes the following:
...and the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) version of Matthew 24 translates the "this generation will not pass away" bit as (emphasis mine):
And for the Matthew 16 reference, the one "standing here who will not taste death until" then is John the Beloved (there may be others about whom we know nothing, but we know about him). (See "John" in the Bible Dictionary.)
Just in case the JST (links to explanation) is new to you, see also:
He said 'before this generation passes away' that generation is long gone. I've read a lot of the arguments for interpretation on this scripture (and the many others like it, those are just the two I know off the top of my head) meaning thousands of years in the future vs what it actually says.
To each their own, I personally take it for what it says
-
Even Jesus himself made failed prophecies, so if the saviour himself can be wrong about something then surely we must give the prophets some wiggle room!
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
-
2 hours ago, person0 said:
That is correct. The reason that the lost pages were not re-translated was because the Lord commanded Joseph Smith not to do so.
Additionally, you should know that Nephi was commanded to briefly abridge the writings of his father. The Lord knew the Book of Lehi would be lost and had it all planned out.
Thank you so much, sorry for all the questions, they must seem pretty basic to you guys
-
7 hours ago, person0 said:
The reason I specifically mentioned the unsealed portion only, is because there is a lot in the sealed portion that we have never even had access too, if that were to be revealed, it would open a whole new can of worms that I didn't really want to address in my OP. There were also 116 additional pages of manuscript that were translated from the unsealed portion of the plates which is commonly understood to have been the Book of Lehi, which were lost and not re-translated. The additional information in that portion alone would potentially be a significant addition to the knowledge we have.
So there is the Book of Mormon (translated from Golden plates) which is part of the unsealed portion? Then there are the Book of Lehi (unsealed) that were lost and not translated again (why not?) and there is also a sealed portion that humans don't have access too, is that right?
-
-
2 hours ago, Vort said:
Yes. It is the raison d'être of the Church -- the restoration of God's Priesthood authority. For further information, ask the missionaries to teach you about the "great apostasy".
Thanks I will definitely do that
-
2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:
Joseph Smith, when he was about 14, prayed and asked God which church to join. He had a vision in which God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared. Joesph asked which church he should join and...https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
I should mention that the LDS have a great deal of respect for the faiths of other people. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/10/respect-for-other-peoples-beliefs?lang=eng
Thanks, but what is the opinion of all churches that have started since the LDS church? Does the LDS church hold the same view on them? My christian church I grew up in didn't have creeds and wasn't corrupt at all.
Its just a massive statement to say 'this is the only true church on the earth', Im not saying I won't look at the evidence for it, of course I will, I just didn't realise that was the position of the LDS church, so I guess I'm kinda shocked by it.
-
2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:
A key idea in the LDS Church is that it is a restoration of First-Century Christianity, led by a prophet and apostles in this day. We respect and appreciate other churches which have significant portions of truth in them. However, we do believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the most correct religion in the world, as we believe it is guided directly by God through a prophet and apostles.
I didn't realise this was the LDS view, thanks for the clarification. As you can appreciate it is a very big statement to make, here's to hoping the LDS church can back up their claim. I will certainly look into it.
-
Just now, DoctorLemon said:
while the Church is true
I dont understand this statement, why do all the members say this so often, its as if they believe the LDS church is more true than other churches. Is that true?
-
Met my bishop today (in my pants!) and he was awesome, the pants police (he's the ward's mission leader) even apologised to me (after the bishop spoke to him but still an apology none the less). So just for the record pants are fine in church - well in the ward I go to at least.
- NightSG, The Folk Prophet, Maureen and 2 others
-
5
-
-
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:
"Calm your farm".
Hmm. That is a new phrase for me. I've never heard that before. Is that more of an Aussie term? (BTW, I'm being completely serious. I've never heard that before).
Anyway. I hope you had read my post about the reasons why our dress code is the way it is and how it isn't an absolute. What I'm muddy about is that it seems you're surprised that we would even have a dress code. You understand modesty. But why anything else? Here's an example.
Yes its an Aussie term! It means calm down and stop overthinking things.
Of course I'm not surprised there is a dress code, its church, you should look nice.
I don't why you would get that impression its certainly way off the mark, but the dress code should be clear as to what it is, and some random dude I've never met certainly is not the 'dress code enforcer', I didn't rock up to church underdressed, I didn't rock up immodest, I didn't rock up looking homeless.
Church is tomorrow, I'm wearing pants and going to talk to the bishop. Old mate pants police can bite me.
-
8 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
Yeah sometimes individuals can take it upon themselves to be absolutely ridiculous (like when a person isn't violating the non-existent official dress code).
I remember once when some random guy from the ward called up *my* phone to talk to my husband, and chew him out about not being in Elder's Quorum that week. My husband's like "I'm not even LDS...." I have no idea who this dude was, and just forgave Mr. Nameless for his silliness and moved on with life.
Seriously? That's insane, I can just picture your husbands face. What the.....
-
12 hours ago, NightSG said:
Well, it seems men are allowed creative interpretations like short sleeves and no jacket, while women are held to the full-but-redefined-as-needed standard.
It does seem that way doesn't it
-
13 hours ago, jerome1232 said:
I actually thought this was a pretty universal belief amongst mainstream christianity.
/shrug.
Out of curiosity what faith did you grow up in?
Just our local Christian Church, not AOG but similar
-
8 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
Seeking to make sure I understand you right: Trinitarian believe that the Father (and not the Son) was doing all the talking in the OT, and the Son only comes into interaction come being born of Mary?
I was taught that it was the father speaking in the OT, the world was created through Jesus (in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God etc all things were created through him without him nothing was made) so Jesus was always there (eternal like God) but Jesus didn't interact with the Human race until being born of the virgin Mary.
-
@VortSo far I've found a lot of things different, the Book of Mormon itself is different, most christian church just use the bible. Families can be forever in heaven is different. There are lots of things different. Different is not bad, its just different. And when you are new to it like me different sometimes needs some further explanation.
-
@VortI didn't say anything at all bothered me (I don't know where you got that impression from?).
This is different from what I was taught growing up as a christian so I'm just trying to understand it.
Yes I was taught Jesus is part of the trinity and therefore God, but I was taught that the God of the Old Testament is God the Father not Jesus. So this is very different take on it, and also a very new viewpoint to me so I was hoping for some further information to read about it.
-
Ok so forgive me for sounding uneducated but I was reading this article and hoping you can give me some more information to read on the subject.
I have noticed a lot of LDS beliefs are very different from other churches, I think this might be another one.
https://mormonhub.com/blog/faith/scripture/old-testament/old-testament-god-disturbs-you/
Any further insight/evidence on this teaching would be highly appreciated.
Thank you
-
4 hours ago, Carborendum said:
That may sound horrible if I'd actually done so. But I'm trying to look at what I posted this entire thread (minus the bit about my beard). I honestly can't think of anything I personally posted that would drive any ire toward me. I was being inquisitive. That's all. I had no agenda. I was not being emotional. Nor am I being emotional as I write this post.
If you look at all my previous posts, I was trying again and again to get clarification about why she was making such a big deal of it. All she responded with was that she was offended. Then her post which I quoted stated just how angry she was. I didn't say she got angry because I though it would be cute to accuse her of something. I got it directly from her words.
Finally, I responded that I was not going to put any more effort in trying to understand her because she kept refusing to help me understand her.
So, I thought I'd try to help her come to understand us since she didn't seem to want me to understand her. And I thought I did so in a very level-headed and unemotionally logical manner. But she still decided to simply take offense rather than try to learn from what I wrote.
Whatever.
I'm angry that some dude I don't know told me what to wear, I don't understand why you need extra information from me to help you understand that. I'm not refusing you anything, I actually think this whole conversation is kind of ridiculous, I just wanted to know if anyone knew what the church's offical standpoint on dress code for church attendance was. Seems its a little muddy.
And FYI, I'm not offended by anything said by you or anyone else on this website.
Its just the internet people, calm your farm
-
16 hours ago, Carborendum said:
This is what I don't understand. If you've read what I've posted earlier, you'd know that I've had similar things happen to me. I was somewhat irritated. I shrugged it off and moved on. But not only did you get "ANGRY" about it. But you're so angry that you have to vent through a now 6 page long thread. I understand you having a mild problem with it. I even understand your characterization of this particular individual as a "jerk". But your words and tone in all your posts go well beyond simple irritation. It seems rather extreme to me. That is what I don't understand.
really, you think I'm the one making this thread 6 pages long? I'm responding to comments made, responding to others is not extreme, its polite
-
8 hours ago, Grunt said:
Depending on who he was, he may have had not only the right to do that but the responsibility. I'm not saying you were right or wrong. I wasn't there. I've seen many pairs of pants that wouldn't be acceptable in church.
I hope that I would just be happy you were in church and not say a word. It's difficult to judge a situation without the details. I would suggest you freshen your heart, pray, and continue going to church as you have been with the purpose of lifting yourself up and giving glory to God. If your dress is truly inappropriate, the Bishop will let you know privately.My pants were loose fitting dress pants, very smart and not revealing at all. This is the first thing this man has ever said to me.
That's a really good idea, I think I will go and speak to the bishop and tell him I'm not happy about the situation, hopefully he is understanding and approachable. This man's mouth may be putting off a lot of new members, who knows how many girls he has spoken to like that and they don't come back. Surely that is not in the best interest of the ward.
- Jane_Doe, Midwest LDS, Grunt and 1 other
-
4
-
8 hours ago, Grunt said:
You choose to find it insulting. That's far different than being insulted. Choose the Right.
Some random guy I don't know coming up to me in a church and telling me I need to wear a dress like its 1950 or something is insulting. Whats more, I can't even blame him for doing it because the church backs up his standpoint. Its totally outdated. And I think I'll choose common sense thank you very much.
-
6 hours ago, Jack said:
I am wondering where in Australia it is cold this time of year
I am sorry you had a negative experience because of this man. As you continue attending you will find it isn't uncommon that people trying to do what they think is the right thing end up causing offense. It has happened to me many times, and I know that I have been on the other side as well.
In my opinion wearing pants to church (without being immodest or rebellious, as is the case you described) isn't going to interfere with your relationship with God. The Church standards can be conservative when compared with Australian culture but the intention is reverence and respect, not control as emphasized in this article.
LOL Melbourne, 4 seasons in one day - every day - half of them freezing!
Fallibility of prophets and scripture and revelation -- slavery
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Thats so cool, I'll have to read the JST and check it out