romans8

Members
  • Posts

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to laronius in Moses 1:39   
    Yes, that is what it boils down to. That recognition of our actual parent/child relationship is one of the first truths Satan attacked in the great apostasy. When you lose that truth so much of the gospel becomes unraveled, including our identity and our eternal potential. We also see in this truth the motivation behind our Heavenly Father's actions, His love for us His children.
  2. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to zil2 in Will the Statue Moroni on Top of Temples be Replaced with Jesus?   
    From draft 2 of the same document, footnote 18 on page 5.  (Your link is to draft 3, where the text in question is found on page 6.  Draft 1 starts after these events, so I didn't look further.  The error is continued into the "fair copy", also page 6.)
    Not that it really matters, but I think it's safe to stick with Moroni as the correct name.
  3. Like
    romans8 got a reaction from Traveler in Blessed are the Peacemakers Question   
    Welcome to the forum.
    In addition to what others have mentioned, I believe the phrase child of God also describes a specific
    group of people in the spiritual sense, for Jesus referred to some as children of the devil.
    This is from Romans 8:14-17. I will bold the key parts.
    For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the
    spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
    Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children,
    then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be
    also glorified together.
  4. Confused
    romans8 got a reaction from LDSGator in Blessings   
    Children are in danger every day despite any attempts to warn or protect them.  Children could be killed,
    kidnapped, or harmed in other ways.  My parents knew this before they ever conceived me.  I suppose
    your logic would also make other parents (including you if you had children) of being complicit parents
    because they foreknew all these things and still decided to have children.
    As for Adam and Eve, they had nothing to fear from the serpent as long as they remained obedient to
    God.  He had already warned them of the consequences of eating from the forbidden tree.
     
    Cain and Abel were born in a spiritually separated state from God because of what their parents did.
    God is not to blame for that.
  5. Like
    romans8 got a reaction from laronius in Blessed are the Peacemakers Question   
    Welcome to the forum.
    In addition to what others have mentioned, I believe the phrase child of God also describes a specific
    group of people in the spiritual sense, for Jesus referred to some as children of the devil.
    This is from Romans 8:14-17. I will bold the key parts.
    For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the
    spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
    Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children,
    then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be
    also glorified together.
  6. Like
    romans8 got a reaction from mikbone in Blessed are the Peacemakers Question   
    Welcome to the forum.
    In addition to what others have mentioned, I believe the phrase child of God also describes a specific
    group of people in the spiritual sense, for Jesus referred to some as children of the devil.
    This is from Romans 8:14-17. I will bold the key parts.
    For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the
    spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
    Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children,
    then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be
    also glorified together.
  7. Like
    romans8 got a reaction from askandanswer in Adam, the fruit and the cursing   
    The church does teach this as truth however.
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/06/christ-and-the-creation.p2?lang=eng#p2
    Christ is the Creator and Redeemer of worlds so numerous that they cannot be numbered by man. 
    As to his infinite and eternal creative and redemptive enterprises the divine word attests: 
    “And worlds without number have I created,” saith the Father, “and I also created them for mine 
    own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. … But only an account 
    of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you.” As to all of the other worlds of 
    the Lord’s creating we know only that it is his work and his glory “to bring to pass”—through the 
    Redeemer—“the immortality and eternal life” of all their inhabitants. (Moses 1:33, 35, 39.)
    In what is probably the most glorious vision given to mortals in this dispensation, Joseph Smith 
    and Sidney Rigdon saw “the Son, on the right hand of the Father,” and “heard the voice bearing 
    record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—That by him, and through him, and of him, the 
    worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto 
    God.” (D&C 76:20, 23–24.) Christ is thus the Creator and the Redeemer. By him the worlds were 
    made, and through his infinite atonement the inhabitants of those worlds are adopted into the 
    divine family as heirs with himself.
  8. Like
    romans8 got a reaction from mikbone in Blessings   
    Here are a few teachings to support my earlier premise - that they had to disobey one
    commandment in order to obey another.
    Old Testament Instructor’s Guide, Religion 301–2
    Eve was deceived and beguiled by Satan into partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge 
    of good and evil (see Moses 4:5–6, 19; 1 Timothy 2:14). As a result, Adam was required to make 
    a choice. He chose to obey the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, which choice 
    was in harmony with the will of God. Nevertheless, because of his choice and his partaking of 
    the fruit, Adam, with Eve, was removed from the Garden of Eden. The following statement by 
    President Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies the account of this event:
    “What did Adam do? The very thing the Lord wanted him to do, and I hate to hear anybody call 
    it a sin, for it wasn’t a sin. Did Adam sin when he partook of the forbidden fruit? I say to 
    you, no, he did not! Now, let me refer to what was written in the book of Moses in regard to 
    the command God gave to Adam. [Moses 3:16–17 quoted.]
    Discuss why Adam’s transgression was “the very thing the Lord wanted him to do.” In giving 
    Adam the two commandments, the Lord placed him in a position to choose between a higher law 
    and a lesser law. In either case, Adam was responsible for the consequences of his choice. 
    He could not blame the Lord.
     
    The Fall of Adam and the Gift of Agency
    [Adam and Eve] transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their 
    garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death. To 
    add further sorrow and complexity to their circumstance, their transgression had spiritual 
    consequences as well, cutting them off from the presence of God forever. Because we were 
    then born into that fallen world and because we too would transgress the laws of God, we 
    also were sentenced to the same penalties that Adam and Eve faced.

    This same curse of Adam was inherited by his descendants.
    Teachings of President Joseph Fielding Smith
    But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being under the curse 
    could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, for they also were under 
    the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse to atone for that original sin. 
    Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were also powerless to atone for our individual 
    sins.
  9. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to Just_A_Guy in The spirit body   
    One analogy may be the idea of a box that seems “full” of bowling balls, but then it is still perfectly capable of accommodating large quantities of a “finer” material such as sand.  
  10. Like
    romans8 got a reaction from askandanswer in Signs of the Times   
    Found this:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/revelation/chapter-54-revelation-4-11?lang=eng
    Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated, “No doubt they will be members of the Council of
    the Twelve or the First Presidency of the Church” (Doctrinal New Testament
    Commentary, 3:509).
  11. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to Just_A_Guy in Saved from our sin instead of in our sin   
    @Carborendum’s answer here is magnificent, but I will just tack on the following: 
    —Depending on the rhetorical/pedagogical needs of the moment, LDS speakers/texts may take either an “anything that isn’t perdition is a form of salvation” or “anything that isn’t exaltation is a form of damnation” approach.  Both are, in some sense, correct; but the first approach is common when the speaker wants to build appreciation for Christ’s mercy whereas the second is common when the speaker is focusing on the necessity of action/ orthopraxy.
    —I may be an idiosyncrasy in the Church here, but I don’t think people get into the Telestial Kingdom without ever repenting.  We are told that, at the last day, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ; and one presumes that that submission and confession will be genuine (else, what’s the point of it?).  I am inclined to believe that the thousand years of “hell” for the telestial is not so much punishment for the sake of punishment, but a chance for the soul to experience existence without God’s light so that  the soul finally stops fighting Him and understands the need to be reconciled to Him (including, His holiness and His law).
    Besides, the notion that people in the Telestial Kingdom are running around and continuing to do the things that got them there (lying, stealing, fornicating, exploiting, etc), throughout all eternity (or at least, trying to do so but stymied by a God who at the last has deprived them of their ability to act); seems . . . incongruous to me.  
  12. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to Carborendum in Doomsday   
    Aww, man. You don't need to buy it.  It's free online.
    Since you're getting it, you have to keep in mind that it consists of four types of changes.
    1) Updated phrasing/vocabulary due to semantic shift). (About 40-45%)
    2) Commentary/clarification. (About 40-45%)
    3) Things that were lost have been restored. (about 2-5%)
    4) Actual corrections. (The remaining 2-5%).
    5) Changes because he was modifying principles for our dispensation only.  But is correct as it stands. (2-5%)
    Since no one today really knows where those lines were drawn, those percentages are only my own top-of-the-head estimation from what I've read so far.
  13. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to Carborendum in Saved from our sin instead of in our sin   
    This is a fair question that many Saints have posed.  And there doesn't seem to be a consensus.
    There are two common lines or reasoning on the topic.  I'll share one of them.  There seems to be a disagreement on whether the Telestial and/or Terrestrial Kingdoms are a form of salvation or a form of damnation. I tend to think it is both. 
    You're saved from hell.  But you don't get to live with God.  So, if you don't live with God, but you don't stay in hell, is that salvation?  Or is that damnation?  If you were LDS and believed these things, how would you see it? ************
    I don't see the phrase "saved in our sins" anywhere in that passage.
    We all sin all the time. We're all sinners.  And even when we try to change, we still have sins which stain our souls. If you want to use that as a definition of "in our sins" then we believe the same thing.  By that definition, we are saved "in" our sins.
    But the gospel of Jesus Christ requires repentance.  The word is used in various form about 60 or 70 times in the New Testament alone.  In each case, it means to feel remorse and turn away from sin.  Repentance at least requires effort, even if you think you're not making progress, you keep trying.  You're on the wagon.  You may fall off, but you get back on.
    The Book of Mormon meaning of "in our sins" means that we refuse to feel any remorse or make any effort to turn away from the sin.  If we are still looking toward sin, we cannot be looking toward the Savior.  They are in opposite directions.  One cannot say that they embrace sin and love the Lord.  That is a lie.
    Which direction does your tent face?
  14. Like
    romans8 got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Doomsday   
    I came across a copy on Ebay and purchased it.
  15. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to Just_A_Guy in Doomsday   
    Joseph Smith Translation, baby.  
  16. Like
    romans8 got a reaction from askandanswer in A conclusion from Mark 6:7?   
    Reading further shows a more detailed view of the method of evangelism and the extra role the
    pairs of two would undertake.
    And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. And if
    any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust
    that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” So they went out and proclaimed that people
    should repent. And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and
    healed them.
     
  17. Like
    romans8 reacted to Vort in Where are the 12 Tribes?   
    When we speak of "the brotherhood of man", that implicitly includes the sisterhood of women. Both "man" and, to a lesser extent, "brotherhood" generalize to cover all people*. I have assumed that Peter's use of the term "priesthood" is thus a reference to the body of Christ in general that enjoys Priesthood protection and blessings, and that constitutes the purpose of Priesthood, rather than the individual men ordained to hold that Priesthood. (So basically what you said, only wordier.) I think it's also relevant to point out that women, who of course do not "hold" the Priesthood in the sense that men do, nevertheless are the other necessary half to the couple that enters into the ancient order of the Priesthood that we call the new and everlasting covenant, an order that endures throughout eternity and that is the very foundation of Priesthood power.
    *The meaning of the English word "man" was originally "human" or "person", as opposed to a beast or a tree or a rock or something. A male human, especially a husband, was in Old English called a werman, meaning literally "male person", just as a woman was called a wifman, literally "female person", and whence we derive the terms wife and woman. We use the wer- prefix today only very rarely, such as in werewolf "man-wolf" (with man used in the modern sense of "male human"; I guess women can't be werewolves—sorry, ladies).
  18. Like
    romans8 reacted to Just_A_Guy in Where are the 12 Tribes?   
    I (not necessarily the LDS Church, but *I*) think that Paul is riffing off of various phrases from Hebrew scripture, including Exodus 19:6. I doubt that he means “priesthood” in the sense of having been ordained to a formal order of God’s priesthood (ie Aaronic or Melchizedek); but rather primarily as a literary metaphor for a group of people who are called out for a sacred purpose from among a broader, “profane” population.  In that sense I think he means the entire church, male and female.
  19. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to Just_A_Guy in Where are the 12 Tribes?   
    Hmm.  I think you're mostly right here, but in the church we don't usually talk about ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood as something that one "inherits" by "birthright".  I suppose one could call such an ordination an "inheritance" that Christ offers to us through His grace; and in that sense, yes--it comes directly from Christ Himself, and one's lineal ancestry and one's sequence of birth within one's own family are generally irrelevant to whether one is eligible to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.  
    Conceptually:  yes, one can be a member of the patriarchal order regardless of which tribe of Israel one is descended from.  But I have perhaps been a bit careless upthread in the way I define "patriarchal order", and I should probably clarify that the patriarchal order can also involve people who have not been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  Specifically:
    --When a man and woman are sealed in the temple, only the husband has previously been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  But they are both participants in the patriarchal order even though the wife has no priesthood ordination at all. 
    --Any children born to parents who have been sealed in the temple are also considered participants in the patriarchal order, in that they can be heirs to the covenants made by their parents.  
    But this is, perhaps, overly pedantic for the purposes of our discussion.  Again, fundamentally:  you are right, the patriarchal order/holding the Melchizedek priesthood is not tied to one's Israelite lineage.  
    I don't believe we know the answer to that.  I think I mentioned upthread that for the roughly 400 years between the death of Joseph and the ministry of Moses, the scriptures don't give us a lot of information about how the priesthood functioned. 
    Joshua 24:15 suggests that the Israelites, while in Egypt, fell into the worship of the Egyptian gods.  One might speculate that when the Hebrews fell out of favor among the Egyptian pharaohs, Joseph's progeny would have been sorely tempted to downplay their descendance from him and instead emphasize their descent from his wife Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian priest.  And we are told, in the Church, that Moses received his priesthood ordination under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro (D&C 84:6), who was of Abrahamic descent but not an Israelite and not entitled to any Abrahamic birthright (D&C 84 specifically says that Jethro's priesthood came from an alternate line).  This might suggest that at some point in Egypt, the Israelites fell into such a profound state of apostasy that the priesthood wasn't functioning among them at all--until Moses brought (a portion of) it back.   
    With the caveat that this is what I think, and not formal LDS teaching, I would surmise:    
    Jeremiah 31:  I think it's both.  There are references to Ephraim being the firstborn, but I think the main thrust of the passage is about the reunification/gathering of Israel as the rebellious return to their God and old animosities are healed. Hosea 4:17:  Given its connection with backsliding Israel in the prior verse, and the distinction between Judah and Israel in verse 15, I suspect that "Ephraim" here is primarily a metonym for the leadership of the kingdom of Israel.   Hosea 5:3-4:  Ditto; and notice how Israel and Ephraim are lumped together but distinguished from (the kingdom of) Judah in verse 5. Hosea 6:10:  Ditto; and again, notice how the whoredom of Ephraim and defiling of Israel are lumped together in one breath, and then Judah is spoken of distinctly in the next verse.   Hosea 7:  I'm inclined to read this as a broader indictment of the tribe of Ephraim, though its role in polluting the larger kingdom of Israel and preventing that kingdom's repentance (v 1) gives this some political connotations as well. Hosea 8:11-13:  I suspect here, Ephraim is again a metonym for the northern kingdom (see v 14, and also consider that vv 12-13 are likely an allusion to the high place at Dan that was constructed by the Ephraimite king of Israel, Jeroboam). Hosea 9:3, 11-17:  Ditto; and note the conjunction between Ephraim in v 11 and Israel in the preceding verse 10.   Hosea 10:6:  Ditto; again, note the conjunction between Ephraim and Israel and Samaria.   Hosea 12: Ditto.  Note v 1, where Ephraim is accused of entering political intrigues with Assyria--that was done by the Ephraimite kings on behalf of the entire northern kingdom.  It wasn't just the tribe of Ephraim. Hosea 13:1:  The KJV is a little opaque here, but other translations clarify that "when Ephraim spoke, there was terror".  In other words, it's talking about Ephraim wielding secular/political power; so I read this as referring to Ephraim as a metonym for the northern kingdom. Later on in the chapter, the curses on Ephraim are broadened to include "Samaria" (ie, northern Israel).   Hosea 14:8:  Nothing in the surrounding verses directly ties Ephraim to the broader northern kingdom; this may be tribe-specific.   Yes, I think that's fair. 
    But again, in modern times, no particular lineage is a prerequisite to ordination in the Aaronic priesthood--lineage only comes into play when we are talking about serving in the office of "bishop", and even then, it's contingent on worthiness and subject to the authority of other church officials who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.  
  20. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to Traveler in Where are the 12 Tribes?   
    This question shows that you do not understand the ancient Biblical (and other) meaning of "first born" or "birthright".  In all cases when two brothers contended for the birthright it was maintained by the younger of the two - not even once to the oldest.  Anciently first born was the most nobel or best - kind of like first class travel.  When Isaiah was talking with King Ahaz - Isaiah stressed that loyality to G-d was required of those that serves G-d - not just be be apointed but also to maintain one position before G-d.
     
    The Traveler
  21. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to laronius in Where are the 12 Tribes?   
    Not necessarily but I will defer to others who might know more. First of all, Lehi's sons married Ishmael's daughters who were of Ephraim, but I don't know if the father's tribe always dictated tribal lineage. Also there are instances now days where a person's tribal designation is different than both parents, presumably because somewhere back in time there where other tribes present in that person's ancestry. It's possible the same could be true with Lehi's family. Then of course there is the argument that tribal designation could be assigned based on one's responsibilities in life rather than inherited.
  22. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to Just_A_Guy in Where are the 12 Tribes?   
    "Answer to the question, Was the Priesthood of Melchizedek taken away when Moses died? All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself.”
    --Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 180-181, emphasis added.
  23. Like
    romans8 reacted to Traveler in Where are the 12 Tribes?   
    According to the blessings of Jacob’s sons – Joseph is blessed in Genesis 49: 22-26.  We believe that descendants of Joseph (Lehi and his family) would be separated from Israel (brought to the Americas) as a part of the prophesy (with more to follow).  Note in verse 26 a reference to the upmost bound of the everlasting hills.  There is perhaps multiple parallel thoughts concerning what is the upmost bound of the everlasting hills that pertains or extends into our day.  The rocky mountain chain is part of a continual tectonic chain with out end and stretches to the north into the artic ocean and into South American through Chili towards the Antarctic.
    Another interesting thought to ponder comes from Joseph’s sons.  In every scripture account where two brothers contend for the birthright – it has always (without a single exception) been given to the “younger” of the two as the “firstborn”.  Anciently firstborn meant the most noble, which was often thought to be the oldest.  I have pondered a great deal about the symbolism – why when brothers contend that the birthright always went to the younger.
     
    Have a cool yule all and even though this is not likely the season when Christ was born - Enjoy the celebration anyway.
     
    The Traveler
  24. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to CV75 in The broken and scattered branches   
    Both. The geographical location of each individual person's inheritance will be based on what they will be asked to do during the Millennium. So, for example, there will be some from the tribe of Judah with inheritances in Israel, and some living elsewhere. Eventually the entire earth will come together into one land mass again, and all the covenant people will be resurrected members of the Church of the Firstborn -- kind of a post-inheritance inheritance.
  25. Thanks
    romans8 reacted to laronius in Lehi's vision of the tree   
    What I meant by non-linear was that the blessing of the love of God, as represented by the fruit, and even in a sense eternal life are not held back until only after you have reached some predefined point of progression. The moment we enter the path by baptism and covenant those blessings become available to us immediately. There is still much progress along the path that is required of us but so long as we remain faithful and endure to the end we are promised a fullness of those same blessings. Those who fell away after partaking of the fruit were still in the process of moving along that path when they allowed the world to distract them and they moved off the path and therefore away from the tree of life at the same time.