Jonah

Banned
  • Posts

    213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Okay
    Jonah got a reaction from DennisTate in The Three Witnesses see sacred items   
    Would someone clarify this section.
    D&C 17
    Introductory notes - 1–4, By faith the Three Witnesses will see the plates and other 
    sacred items; 
    "Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full 
    purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, 
    the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared 
    upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors 
    which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea".
    Is there a record of the 3 Witnesses ever seeing the sword of Laban or Lehi's 
    directors?
    Which of the mentioned items (plates, breastplate, sword, Urim and Thummim) were 
    given to Jared's brother upon the mount?  When I read Ether 6:1-2, he goes to the 
    mount and comes back from the mount with only the stones.
    Jonah
  2. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to mordorbund in The Three Witnesses see sacred items   
    Both David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery testify that they saw other objects. From Whitmer's account:
    You can read more about the witnesses' testimonies in Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.
    From the verses you quote, it's assumed that the Lord gave the brother the interpreters upon the mount.
  3. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to Traveler in Does the Doctrine of the Trinity define Christianity?   
    @NeuroTypicalprovided a quick summary - I would add some of my own thoughts, personal revelation and research.  The initial understanding comes from Joseph Smith - as a young boy that was visited through divine miracle to see the Father and the Son in much the same manner that was recorded in Acts when Stephen was being stoned that saw the Father with Jesus at his right hand.  Here we have scriptural witness that the Father and the Son are separate individuals.  But there is a logical problem - We also have scriptural witness that there is one G-d.  How do we resolve this paradox and seemingly obvious contradiction?  One possibility comes to us through a counsel of men gathered at Nice that produced the non-scriptural declaration of what has become known as the "Trinity Creed". 
    I will suggest another possibility that comes to us through understanding of ancient Hebrew.  In ancient Hebrew there are two words that are translated into modern English word of "one".  The first word is pronounced as yachad.  This is a term that designates a unique and singular being.  It would be proper to refer to our self as as the only being in the universe that is who we are.  The proper term would be "yachad".  The other term is pronounced as echad.  This is a word that is used to describe unity or a uniting of individuals.  For example when the scriptures refer to a marriage of a man and a woman by covenant before G-d the proper term is "echad".  Whenever the ancient Hebrew refers to "one" G-d the only Hebrew word used is "echad".   The term "yachad" is never use to reference G-d.
    In addition to this modern conundrum of the word one in reference to "one G-d" there are other references to G-d.  One reference is the word "Elohim".  This word has reference to plurality at its roots and can be understood to mean a reference to the chief or G-d of G-ds.  This is the Hebrew term that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught in our sacred temples that reference the G-d that is our Father in Heaven - which we understand that Jesus referred to as "Our Father" in Heaven.  The other term comes to us from Moses that refers to G-d as Yahweh or Jehovah.  We are taught in our temples that this is the being that created our earth and the "heaven" into which our earth was placed.  The scriptures are not clear (at least in my mind) if this singular heaven created with our earth was our solar system, our galaxy or whatever else could be referenced.  
    It is our understanding that Jesus or Jehovah created our earth and its heaven under the direction and supervision of Elohim.   We are also to understand that Jesus (Jehovah) created countless other worlds.  I have discovered that the ancient Hebrew (as well as many other ancient peoples) did not have as accurate understanding of our universe as what is currently demonstrated by our modern science.  For example - about 20 years ago the Hubble telescope discovered that a faint star was not a star or even a galaxy but a "supercluster" of galaxies that all by itself is larger that what we believed was the size of the universe 100 years ago and now we have mapped thousands of such superclusters.
    There is one other principle in ancient scripture (as well as in all ancient civilization that we currently know about) that reference the ancient governing concept of a "Kingdom".   The most powerful being of such a kingdom is known as the Supreme Suzerain.   What is interesting is that such governments had kings or suzerains that governed or were over providences within the Kingdom.  These lesser suzerains often would address the citizens within the providences as though they were the Supreme Suzerain.  We have an example of this in the New Testament when Jesus was before Pilate and the Jews said that they had no King but Cesar.  But they did have a king that was not Cesar - it was Herod.  Even though Herod had the title of king he was subordinate to Cesar.  It is important to note that Jesus himself testified that He was subordinate to The Father and that The Father was "Greater" then Him.
    The only answer to the paradox of the Trinity that I have encountered to fulfill all that the scriptures tell us of the G-dhead of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost is the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that was first presented to the modern world by the boy Joseph Smith - all according to ancient prophesy of a Fullness that would be restored in preparation to the establishment of Israel as Zion when Jesus returns as King. A king that us subordinate to the Father and is the Mediator with the Father over all those beings that were exiled from the fall of Adam.  Please note that it is improper grammar that a mediator is the same being as that individual for which they act as mediator.  This term proves that Jesus is not our Father in Heaven.
    One last point.  It is proper to understand that the ancient reference to a proctor of a covenant takes upon themselves the title of Father and those of the covenant become their Children.  Because our covenant of salvation come to us as Jesus as the proctor of the covenant - it is also proper to reference Jesus as our Father in the covenant.  This understanding or misunderstanding is at the foundation of the confusion in the doctrine of the "Trinity".
     
    The Traveler
  4. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to Traveler in Bringing forth the fulness of the gospel   
    The first has many references that all mean in essence the same thing but for this purpose of discussion I would suggest "The Children of G-d".  The other also has a number of related terms but most likely the most familiar to students of ancients studies would be "infidels".  I am somewhat surprised you (and in perhaps others) are unfamiliar with such things.  How deeply have you studied ancient theology and scripture?
     
    The Traveler
  5. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to Just_A_Guy in Bringing forth the fulness of the gospel   
    “Gentile”, “Jew”, and “House of Israel” are not always used consistently in scripture.  Sometimes “Jew” and “Israelite” are used interchangeably; other times other “Jew” means specifically a member of the tribe of Judah whereas “Israelite” is by design a broader reference to anyone who is descended from one of the twelve tribes; other times it refers to someone who has entered the Gospel covenant and is considered “adopted” into Israel regardless of their literal ancestry.  Similarly:  sometimes “Gentile” means someone of no known Israelitish descent at all; other times it means simply someone who isn’t a Jew (but may have other Israelitish ancestry); and still other times it is simply a catch-all term meaning “nonbeliever” regardless of what the actual bloodline may have been.
     In this particular passage, the point is that in the last days the Gospel goes first to people whose ancestors had not had the “fullness” of the Gospel and who, at that point in time, didn’t even know they had Israelitish ancestry (the “Gentiles” of the antebellum USA); and that these people then take the Gospel to others whose ancestors at one point had had, and then rejected, much more light and knowledge than what was currently available (in D&C 14, the two groups probably envisioned by Joseph Smith were the survivors of the Lehite civilization living in the Americas, and the “Jews” as defined in modern colloquial understanding). 
  6. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to Carborendum in Bringing forth the fulness of the gospel   
    Yes, of course.  I believe it is saying.
    1 Nephi 15:13–20
  7. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to JohnsonJones in The Gospel   
    It is in the Lord's hands to judge on whether someone has had that opportunity to receive the gospel in this life or not and then rejected it.  There are many variables and we do not understand all of them.  It is correct though in our current teachings, if someone truly had the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life and rejected it, then they have limited their options in the next, as you say.
    How that is judged is not really known to us.  For example, if you have someone such as my mother whom I gave a Book of Mormon to and talked about the church with from the time I was baptized, did she actually reject the gospel?  She never spoke ill about it, but she never seemed to tell me that she actually got a strong witness and knew it was true.  Without that witness of the Holy Ghost, as a reasonable person, did she actually have the opportunity to know it was the true church or not?
    My hopes are that she has the opportunity to fully accept the gospel and the ordinances thereof for the greatest rewards she can obtain...but the judgements are the Lords and not mine to make.
    Now, if the DO reject the gospel in this life, they will have opportunities to accept the gospel and ordinances in the next life, but their rewards are limited (as you say).  They will not be able to receive the highest degree of glory or rewards, but may be given lesser rewards.  As the Bible says, (KJV version) in John 14.
     
  8. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to CV75 in Future taking away from the earth   
    None. Repentance and baptism are always required, but the ministering and ordinances thereof are not always administered by the Priesthood of Aaron. The Melchizedek Priest has these same keys, and only by delegation, when instituted, may the Aaronic priesthood exercise them. Anticipating a follow-up question, the gospel of repentance is the invitation to baptism, as John the Baptist did (and as reflected in modern times by the protocols of D&C 68:15-2).
  9. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to JohnsonJones in The Gospel   
    Well...those who never accept the Lord's atonement and do not accept him as their Lord probably will not have much, if any, good news.  Hopefully there are not many of them.  We believe that all men (and women) will eventually have the opportunity to accept the Lord.  Those who do not, even after that, that is their choice.  In that case, as we choose one or the other master, if they do not choose the good master, most likely they have chosen the other, and in that instance may be even fighting against the Lord and his mercy, even to the bitter end in hopes of doing away with the Lord and his salvation he offers.
    If they are in that boat, most likely they never repented in this life or the next, and as such, have completely rejected the Lord and his atonement.  In that case, they may have heard the good news, but probably, as they will fight against it and the Lord and reject it, may not take it as good news.
  10. Confused
    Jonah got a reaction from scottyg in The Gospel   
    What good news awaits those in the resurrection who refused to accept the gospel of
    Jesus Christ or those who continued in their sins and did not repent?
  11. Haha
    Jonah got a reaction from NeedleinA in The Gospel   
    What good news awaits those in the resurrection who refused to accept the gospel of
    Jesus Christ or those who continued in their sins and did not repent?
  12. Haha
    Jonah got a reaction from NeedleinA in The kingdom of heaven   
    @Traveler asked "Do you think that to multiply and replenish the Earth is Law?  And involves marriage?"
    This is a law for those to whom God commands.  Paul remained single and did not
    remarry. There is no record that he even had children from his first marriage.  Stephen
    was martyred but there is no mention of him being married with children either.  As a
    side note, only monogamy and not polygamy (to my knowledge) was ever associated
    with God's command to be fruitful and multiply and to replenish the earth. If I am not
    mistaken, this command was given to Adam and his wife and to Noah and the flood
    survivors.
  13. Haha
    Jonah got a reaction from NeedleinA in The kingdom of heaven   
    Marriage and singleness are both gifts from God.
  14. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to Carborendum in Youth Fireside - Sinking Titanic   
    I didn't hear him say that (but again I only half lilstened).  But, I was thinking along those lines. I'm all for expanding the metaphor to include that aspect.
    One has to remember that there was a particular topic for a specific target audience. And also remember that he is not a "General Authority."  He's just a guy who's  done a lot of studying, and we might benefit from listening.
    Timing is key to answering your question. He seemed to be of the opinion that we had not only hit it, but that the ship is beginning to tilt.  While I don't know whether his speech was to be taken as a literal assessment of the situation or not. Not doubting -- I just really don't know.  This is sometimes how it is with metaphors.
    But the overall metaphor was that we're "somewhere in there." And we can look at it from multiple points of time within that metaphor (expanded to the entire story of the tragedy).
    1) We've hit the iceberg and the captain has given orders to get in the lifeboats.
    2) The ship is tilting and the entire ship knows we're in deep trouble.
    3) The ship has sunk with some people in lifeboats, and others treading water.
    4) Rescue ships are there to take people up from the lifeboats.
    My personal opinion:
    1) When I read so many times in the D&C that the Lord is nigh and we're in the eleventh hour, I believe that in terms of the existence of the Earth, we've hit the iceberg already.  Of course, that is longer than any of our lifetimes.  So, "nigh" is a relative thing.
    2) I would, for my political background and understanding, believe that we're right at the point where we're seeing the ship tilt.
    3) The ship sinking would be when we don't see the US as a single united nation anymore -- even by the skin of its teeth.  OR the US government denies organized religions the right to exist.
    4) Rescue ships here would be the founding of the New Jerusalem.
  15. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to Carborendum in D&C 2   
    An "angel" is an "other worldly" being acting as a heavenly messenger.  When Moroni came to visit Joseph, he brought a message.  So, his role "at that time" was that of "angel."
    A Prophet is one who represents the power of the Lord on Earth.  What Elijah was to do upon his return was to restore the "sealing power".  This may be meaningless to you.  But to us, it is quite important.  So important that without it, the Earth would be "utterly wasted" at His (the Savior's) coming.
  16. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to CV75 in D&C 2   
    Sometimes, often, yes, no, depends, etc. I recommend looking these words up in the Gospel Topics and other Church dictionaries.
  17. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to mordorbund in 1 Nephi 3:7 and D&C 124: 49   
    My experience with the Spirit has been similar to what you describe. And my reading of Nephi's account matches yours as well.
  18. Like
    Jonah got a reaction from mordorbund in 1 Nephi 3:7 and D&C 124: 49   
    I don't hear an audible voice but feel promptings of the Spirit.  From reading the account
    of Nephi, it sounds like he heard a voice and responded with his voice (unless he was
    talking to himself).
  19. Like
    Jonah got a reaction from MrShorty in Was Jesus married   
    I was born in a Catholic family and remained such.  I know that the Catholic Church
    teaches it is the only true church, but I believe the Body of Christ includes members
    of various Christian faiths - who worship the true God.  I don't hold this view of JWs
    since they teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel. As for other faiths (Islam, Buddhism,
    etc), I also study them to learn their beliefs.  They hold critical views of why I believe
    Jesus is God but that is understandable because they don't believe he is the way, the
    truth, and the life or the only way to salvation.
  20. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to Traveler in Pres Nelson: Gathering Israel   
    This may help:
    Romans 4: 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
     
    Please note that the ancient term from which we obtain the modern concept of "righteousness"  meant one that entered into and was loyal to their covenant with G-d.  The point is that being "loyal" to divine covenant is what makes an heir of G-d.  Since Jesus was loyal to his covenant he is the heir of the Father.  Those that covenant with Christ become joint-heirs with Christ.
    One difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Catholics is the covenant to which each institution remains loyal - in a historical context  - For example, the covenant to love your enemies and do good to those that despitefully use you.  We can test such claims  historically how the religious institutions in questions treated "heretics" or how the Defender of the Faith (by Papal decree) of Charlemagne for the murder of more northern European Pagans (including women, children and infants) than died of the Black Plague.
     
    The Traveler
  21. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to JohnsonJones in Pres Nelson: Gathering Israel   
    A joint heir inherits everything that all the other heirs receive.  Thus, if you and I were the sons of a King and joint heirs, than when he died, we would inherit the Kingship together.  We would inherit everything together, so what you have, I would have.  In such a situation, it could mean that we would also be co-regents or co-rulers.
    In the light of the Lord and being Joint heirs it is similar.  The Father of us all is eternal and is not going to pass away, however he has granted unto his son the inheritance of all he has.  Our Father can do this because he is Omnipotent and has the ability to give his son the ability to do as he does.
    From a more Catholic standpoint, it would be in the understanding of the idea that the Son, though not the Father, is of the same substance and thus is also God at the same time, thus he and the Father are also one.  In this way, we can also be one with the son, as he and his father are one (and in fact, this is referenced directly by him in the New Testament as being something he desires).  In that light, you would be a separate person, but at the same time be one with the Lord, even as he and his father are one.  It does not mean that you would supplant either or gain the power of either, but that you could be one with the Lord even as he is one with the Father.  That you are part of his church and children, even as he is the only begotten of the Father.
    For the Saints, or members of the Church, it would mean that as the Lord attains all that his father has, we can also inherit those same promises of eternal life and living with the Father through eternity that the Lord has received. 
    In a nutshell for both religions, it means that we can inherit going to heaven just like the Lord is in heaven.
  22. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to mordorbund in Pres Nelson: Gathering Israel   
    @theplains was trying to make sense of some similar teachings.
    God made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that included promises to their descendants. Moses renewed these promises with them. You can read more about it in the Gospel Principles manual.
  23. Confused
    Jonah got a reaction from scottyg in Cunning of the devil   
    In an earlier post, Carborendum talked about the persecution of the LDS Church
    and how it almost got snuffed out.  He said "so he set things up to be restored 
    at a time when the world would be more prepared to receive the fulness of the 
    Gospel.  Even then, it almost got snuffed out".
    So my question was how prepared he believed the Jews and Gentiles were to receive
    the fulness of the Gospel under Roman rule?
    I have read literature describing the persecutions and murder of the Latter-day Saints
    in the 1830's and beyond, but I would say it was much worse for the Christians under 
    Roman rule before Christianity became acceptable under Constantine.
    When NeedleinA said, "Ah, the classic 1997 GP reference", I made the comment that 
    maybe the 2009 version would someday be viewed as a classic too.  I think the next 
    version, whenever it comes out, will be just as valid as the previous versions 
    though.
  24. Thanks
    Jonah reacted to mikbone in Rending the Veil of Unbelief   
    A spirit child is a personage of spirit.  No tangible matter that is discernable by scientific means.  
     "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter" (D&C 131:7-8).
     
    Heavenly Father on the other hand has a body of flesh and bone.
    D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
  25. Thanks
    Jonah got a reaction from Traveler in Who is G-d that I should know Him.   
    I have never met these beings, but I was thinking about those who are considered to be the one-third of
    Heavenly Father's spirit children who rejected his plan of salvation. I think these are classified as the sons
    of perdition, destined for outer darkness.