SeattleTruthSeeker

Actually, my purpose here is to engage in discussion of various thoughts on Religion and Religious philosophy. Both inside and outside the LDS Faith. I find the topic of religion a very intriguing and pervasive thought. I am neither here to defend my position, nor pit one doctrine over another. The presumption is on your part for quickly presuming any alternate motive here. Such a quick judgment is very disinteresting and I personally will not tolerate it. If you do not want to engage in discussion, then the choice is for you to not reply to posts such as this. Again, if you have something worthwhile to contribute to any discussions presented, please do so, if you would rather attack an individual then please keep such tactics to yourself and don't belabor any conspiritorial theories of any alternate purposes. Thank you.

Recently, I came across information concerning first century Christianity and the historical perspective that this has on the pervasive discussions regarding whether or not Mormonism is truly a restored gospel of First Century Christianity. In my current study and research, I have found support for the Latter-day Saint proposition that there was a "falling away" from the original teachings and foundations of First Century Christianity as understood by the intimiate disciples of Jesus Christ. This premise and support is found when comparing two movements that came about at the close of the First Century. To begin with, our understanding is that Peter, James and John were the three most prominent and closest individuals and disciples of Jesus Christ. These three individuals were not only called to be disciples but to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ, his mission, teachings, death, burial and resurrection. They were charged with teaching, baptism, healing, having the authority to do such under the commission of Jesus Christ himself. These three men were Jews who became followers of Jesus Christ. They were the progniters of the Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem, a movement heavily persecuted by both Jewish leaders and Roman Citizens and governing officials. The other individaul is Saul of Tarsus, or better known as the Apostle Paul. It is my attempt to hopefully show that the original first century christian church, teachings and doctrines were that of Gnostic Christianity. It is this Gnostic Christianity that was "falling away" due to the rise and popularity of Paul's teachings, discourses and missionary efforts. It is evident that modern protestant and evanglical christians are based on a variety of interpretations of what is referred to as Pauline Christianity. Accordingly, it is the rise in Pauline Christianity that suppressed and led to the eventual apostasy of Gnostic Christianity. A Christianity that was based on Judiac tradition and teachings of Jesus Christ. If anyone has information on this, I would greatly appreciate it for I am going to be studying out this as best as possible and if what I find to be true, then I have some serious repenting to do and have the long awaited information needed to come to my bishop and say "I have fallen into apostasy and have spent several years attacking and declaring the LDS Church heretical and false". Again, any and all information would greatly be appreciated.

I never said that Moses did not originally write the first five books of Moses, however, what I am saying that what he originally wrote and what we have today are most likely different. The Old testament as we have it today (especially dealing with Genesis to Deuteronomy) have definite influences and writings from five different sources. That is what the documentary hypothesis states and is easily proven. Let us not forget that the Old Testament of most English translations are based on the Masoretic Text (which if one studies out); a weaker rendering of the Old Testament all together and was produced by 2nd century Rabbinical Jews. The LXX or the Septuigant is a more accurate rendering of the Old Testament than the Masoretic Text, when it concerns the Old Testament.

I have always held to the authenticity of the Documentary Hypothesis. It makes sense when you read in Genesis the various accounts. For example, in the account of Noah and the Flood, there is actually two different versions of God commanding Noah to take animals into the ship. One says for Noah to take them in by 7 and the other says for Noah to take them in two by two male and female. There is also two different Creation accounts. The detailed version and then the more summarized version.

You can also read the Coptic and the Syriac versions of Enoch online as well....

The question is specific. While I understand the general consensus of the Eighth article of faith, I am not discussing the Bible overall, but the Documentary Hypothesis specifically. This is in reference to the Pentetuech (first five books of Moses). This is also discussing the assimilation of the first five books prior to any conception of an english bible. Please be a bit more specific in your response and not subject to a more generalized answer that diverts attention from the initial posting. Thank you.

What is the LDS Position on the Documentary Hypothesis? For those not familiar with what I am talking about, the Documentary Hypothesis (or better known as the J, D, E, P theory) is the idea that the pentatuech (first five books of Moses as contained in the modern English Bible) are editorial reflections of the original manuscripts that are now lost. There is verifiable support to suggest that Genesis - Deuteronomy are not from the original penned hand of Moses, but a mixture of Rabbinical Priests. Here is the breakdown of the J, D, E, P. J = Jawhist source, purported to be written c. 950 BC in the southern kingdom of Judah. (Yahweh begins with a J in Wellhausen's Native German Tongue). E = Eloist, source, written c. 850 BC in the northern kingdom Israel. D = Deuteronomist, source written c. 621 BC in Jersualem during the period of religious reform. P = Priestly, source written c. 450 BC by Aaronid priests. I am getting back into the study of the Documentary Hypothesis and am wondering what the LDS Take on this is. Thank you, Timothy

Here is what I found on Wikipedia: Southern Mesopotamia and The Persian Gulf The mouth of the river Tigris, a proposed location of the Garden of Eden. Satellite photos reveal two dry riverbeds flowing toward the Persian Gulf near where the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia also terminate. This would account for four easterly flowing rivers. Archaeologist Juris Zarins claimed that the Garden of Eden was situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers run into the sea at 29°47′0″N, 48°38′0″E, from his research on this area using information from many different sources, including Landsat images from space. In this theory, the Bible’s Gihon River would correspond with the Al-Qurnah in Iraq, and the Pishon River would correspond to the Wadi Al-Batin river system (also now called the Kuwait River) that 2,500-3000 years ago drained the now dry, but once quite fertile central part of the Arabian Peninsula from the Hijaz mountains 600 miles to the South West. This theory is supported by C. A. Salabach [4]. Genesis 2:10-14 also states that "the name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone." In the Biblical Table of Nations, Havilah is associated with Arabia but without a specific location being identified. The Cradle of Gold at Mahd adh Dhahab in the Hijaz mountains is the primary gold area of the peninsula. The Hijaz region also produces bdellium, a gum associated with myrrh or guggul plant.[5]. A corresponding theory is that the "there" or "thence" of verse 10 references greater Eden and not the garden, and that the description is of looking upriver from the garden into Eden and that from "there/thence" the river "separates" or "diverges" [Heb פרד = PRD] into four separate rivers. Following each of these upstream, past the various lands, leads you to their headwaters. Rejected is the commonly held idea of a fifth unnamed river from an unstated source that divides into four separate paths. This theory also puts the Garden of Eden in the vicinity of the northern end of the Persian Gulf, supporting the theory of Zarins. This 'folk memory' about the changeable environment and coastline of the Persian Gulf is also resonant of the geological evidence about the reflooding of the lower Tigris-Euphrates Valley circa 12,000 years ago.

Actually, I saw an episode where it talked about the Garden of Eden and there is the theory that the Tigris and Ephrates rivers at one time ran backwards and that there are two dried up river beds an archeologist discovered while looking over satellite footage of the current Tigris and Ephrates. In fact, the hypothesis is that the present day location of the Garden of Eden is actually under water. I can google and look up more concrete information for those interested, however, I do not believe that the Garden of Eden originally was in Missouri. My personal theory (based on evidence of all continents being part of one large mega=continent) that the Garden of Eden was at one time in the center of this mega continent.

Rebky.... I am trying to figure out how to change the IM things for msn, icq, aol and yahoo lol...but can't find them....but they show up on my posts...

Hello there, haven't been to www.ldsforums.com for some time and when I typed in the URL, it kept bringing me to this site...thought I had the wrong site and when I updated my password and everything, viola....so much has changed...... Well greetings from the Pacific Northwest.

That is the beauty of the doctrine of Grace. Mankind can't be perfect no matter how strict of a law and command God gives. Look at all the laws God gave to the Children of Israel and in these laws, the High Priests had to perform animal sacrifices for every law that was broken as well as the yearly national day of atonement where the procedure was that a lamb, along with other animals, were set aside for the atonement sacrifice and burnt offering. Christ fulfilled this levitical law of burnt offering and sacrifice. Yet as a person who is (the term "regenerated" meaning from a natural being under the condemnation of sin and death because of sin to a being possessing the essence lost in the garden of eden) born again, regenerated or made alive in Christ, are justified. Justified in that the very perfect obedience and righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed unto the believer. In essence, Jesus stands before the throne as our High Priest and Mediator (the symbolizim of the Old Testament High Priests standing in the Holy of Holies) and Satan stands on the other side as our accusor. A hypothetical heavenly dialogue shows what I am talking about: To place this in simple terms: Since Adam, mankind has a propensity to sin. Some do not fall into grevious sins like those of Hitler, Bundy, Manson etc, but all mankind suffer from the effects of Sin. We are held bound to sin and death. Hence the statement in John where it says "And light came into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, lest they come to the light and their deeds are exposed." We all know that Jesus Christ is called the Light of the World. There is one thing that I do agree with. While each person born into this world possesses a concience, that concience can be lost over time. Every person has felt this concience of guilt. It is a natural propensity because of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Hence the reason why those who do not have the law are not judged according to the law but are judged outside of the law. Now, just because we look at someone and say "That person is a good person" does not mean they are a good person in the eyes of God. What this means is this: Since Adam, mankind has the propensity to bear false witness, covet, murmur, hate, become angry, lust, etc. In fact, Christ stated: "Does it not say in the law that ye shall not commit adultry?" Yes, the Levitical Law states: Thou Shalt Not commit Adultry. But Christ stated the spiritual aspect of the law: "But I say unto you, any man who lusts after a woman has committed adultry already in his heart" Essentially, if a man (whether married or not) gazes upon a woman and have lustful thoughts (Which is scientifically proven that men have constant sexual thoughts more than women) with a desire of a sexual nature or even the slightest sexual attraction, Christ equated this with him already commiting sexual sin. This is the beginning of sin. In fact, Charles Stanley stated that we don't "Fall into sin unknowningly" we walk into sin knowing exactly what and why we are doing what we are doing. Christ said the same thing about hatred and anger. Anger ultimately leads to murder. Murder is stealing, coveting, etc. If you actually notice all the ten commandments are linked to two fundamental pillars of truth: 1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart (first five of the ten commandments) and, 2) Love your neighbor as yourself (the last five ten commandments). When you violate one of the laws, you are in violation of all the laws - no matter the degree and depth of sin. It all is interrelated. Essentially, when you are stealing, you are also coveting. When you bear false witness, you are lying. It all interrelates one with the other. Hence, the reason why some New Testament passages (Especially James) says that if you keep one aspect of the law, you have to keep the whole law Perfectly. This is why there is none righteous (Which is an old testament and new testament passage of scripture). No one can keep the law perfectly except for Jesus Christ. When we violate one aspect of the law, we violate the entire law - that is why there is none not righteous.

Eschatology is the Study of End Times Prophecies. Preterism is also known as "Realized Eschatology" in that it claims that the Second coming of Christ occured in 70 AD at the Destruction of Jerusalem. I hold to the Partial-Preteristic viewpoint in that some of the End Times prophecies of the Bible were definitely fulfilled in 70 AD, however it was a typification of the true Coming of Christ in Judgment the Second Time. I don't believe that Christ came in 70 AD, I believe the Judgment of God on the First Century Jews did however. This is substantiated historically. And unfortunately, I can't access the Mormon Apologetics Board. I have enough time keeping up with www.writingforums.com message forum, this forum, writerscafe.org and the absolute writers forum, plus various msn and yahoo groups I belong to lol.... In fact, I am disengaging myself from much internet activity and getting focused on my writing again.

What is even more interesting (and I haven't given it anymore thought until just now when I was browsing the internet last night and reading some information on the Preterist Archives site) was that I had come across something where Peter was disputing with someone who was set against him. If I understand another little unknown debate is that the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter were at odds with each other doctrinally. Peter being the closest to Christ and Paul proclaiming that he had met the Resurrected Christ. Majority of the texts of the New Testament were written by the Apostle Paul, yet we only have the Gospel of John, the epistles of John and the Revelation of John and two epistles of Peter. Yet majority of the texts are from Paul. As I understand the debate, it goes something like this: Paul invented his version of Christianity. His version of Christianity was at odds with Peter. Paul teaching to the Gentiles and Jewish Christians, Peter teaching to the Jewish Christians. The debate centers around the idea that Peter thought the Jews were to be converted alone and not the Gentiles. Paul, being the missionary unto the Gentiles took up the title Apostle and wrote to the Churches he had established. While I disagree with the assertion that Paul may have invented Christianity, the question still arises why were there no more documents from the other Apostles closer to Christ than that of the Apostle Paul? I will have to investigate this and study this out, but my overall consensus is that Paul did not invent modern and Mainstream Christianity, and that he was a true apostle, but that because of the persecuation and the warning of the Early Church being in the Last Days of Judgment upon Israel as a Nation, Culture and People that the Early Christian Church went into "Apostasy" by going into the Wilderness, awaiting to be brought back out of the wilderness. If that makes any sense.

I do not know if any LDS member (General Authority or scholar from FARMS and FAIR) have investigated the doctrine known as Preterism. For those who are not aware of the doctrine of preterism, it is the Eschatological view that when Christ gave the Olivet Discourse, it was meant for the lifetime of the apostles. Now, while I have some of my questions and doubts to the veracity of the LDS Church (having been a member myself), I was reading on the main website for Preterist Archives and came across the following article The Effects of the Fall of Jersualem On Christianity by J. Julius Scott, Jr., Wheaton College Graduate school. Here is a portion of that article that brings this question to my mind: What is interesting is that I have come across the debate that Mainstream Christianity today is what is referred to as "Paulinism Christianity", which essential means that majority of the doctrines of Christianity today as we see it and possibly understand it came from the Apostle Paul. The LDS Church has the claim that Early Christianity went into Apostasy, however the consensus is when exactly the Great Apostasy occured, however my question is this: If the Apostasy of the Early Church occured, could it have occured at the time of Jerusalem's destruction? Which is 70 AD - and Revelation 12 being that of the Christian Church being taken away from the earth? If this is true, then I have more reasons to reconsider the LDS Doctrines Claims and teachings.

From my initiatory investigation into the gathering of Israel, the consensus I have received is that Israel in the Old Testament is the symbolism of the Body of Christ - the Christian Church and that the Gathering of Israel is that of a spiritual nature. One of the passages of scripture that intrigues me is that of Christ in John 8 (I think) where Christ is talking with the multitude about who their father is and the statement being made that not all who are of abraham's seed are abraham's children. The context is that of the Children of the Abrahamic Promise. 33They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 48Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. 50And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. I have to go back and study this again...but from what I had studied years ago, Israel is the Bidegroom of Christ and it is encompassing of both Jews and Gentiles who are the Spiritual restoration of Israel.

The nature of the discussion is that Christ died Once for All for our sins. Meaning, his death on the cross was completely, wholly, perfect and at once. Meaning that he died for our sins that we had committed before the Point of Salvation and initial forgiveness, for our present sinful state and nature that we are under condemnation for and because of, and for our sins that we have yet to commit. This is otherwise known as being justified. Our nature changes from that of the flesh to that of flesh and spirit. We then have to bring our flesh and the desires thereof under the subjugation of the Spiritual nature. This is hard and without the power and will of God, we are unable to walk in the "Perfect Obedience" because there is no one that is perfect. For now, the discussion is on the initial forgiveness and what it is we are initially forgiven for.

So, let us follow that thought out. You are driving down the rode and accidently curse and get a sense of anger because the person cuts you off. You just lost forgiveness because we are to not harbor hatred for our fellow man in our heart and to show mercy and peace? I do understand where you are coming from on that. However, this is for a different discussion. The nature of the original post is regarding the Initial point of Forgiveness which is at the initial point of salvation.

I would consider that as part of the Sanctification process. Meaning, it is the process where that now that the Believer is Justified in Christ at the initial point of salvation, the Believer then walks in those good works by the Will and Desire of God. The best way I can say this is that we are given a divine will to walk in faith, even though we sometimes may stumble and sin, we are still growing like newborn children and our faith increases with each step we take. The premise here is the effects of the Initiatory Forgiveness from God imparted unto mankind. Hence the term "Once for All".

Don't you mean Bruce Metzger and Bart Erhman?? I thought it was only Bruce M. Metzger who wrote this lol.... The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration

Here is an article I am currently developing. Parts of it will be posted on my personal blog. However, this is the second installment and would like to get some feed back as well as discuss the nature of this topic. What are your thoughts? comments and suggestions? If you disagree, for what reason and why? What is your understanding of some of the things discussed? Here is an introductory article I am working on for my blog (which can be viewed on my personal blog. Which is listed in my personal profile). I would like your thoughts on this. INTRODUCTION One of the most precious doctrines of the Christian faith is the central fact of Forgiveness. Several times do we read in the New Testament how we ought to Forgive one who offends us, forgive one another, and walk in forgiveness every day of our lives. Whether it is forgiving someone of a small simple offence, or forgiving someone of a grievouous offence, we must allow the working of the Spirit in our hearts to move us in a position to forgive - even though our natural tendency and humanity runs contrary in that we prefer to harbor bitterness, hatred and disgust toward the offender. And, while this article is about forgiveness, it is not about how one ought to forgive another but how we, as Christian believers are forgiven once and for all by Jesus Christ. This article is essentially about how we are ultimately forgiven at the point of salvation. It is about how God's Grace and desire to forgive those whom he has called into fellowship and grace by His sovereign divine will. This article is a study on Romans 5:7-9 and the scriptural premise and truth on how God calls us and redeems us, in that we are forgiven of our sins - once and for all. Paralleling this passage of the Apostle Paul with that of Hebrews 10:1-39 (specifically focusing on the context of Hebrews 10:1-22). DEFINING THE TERM "ONCE FOR ALL" The phrase, "Once for All" is a phrase that is used in the New Testament text on seven different occasions. Only one usage of the term "once for all" is delegated to the deliverance of the Gospel message. Within the NASB version - these seven instances are as follows: Romans 6:10 Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10 1 Peter 3:18 Jude 1:3 and 5 The greek word for this phrase is efapax, or the transliterated word of Ephapax (pronounced as ef-ap'-ax) and is defined as meaning: Once, at once; All at once, Once for All. The connotation of this greek phrase gives the meaning that the Forgiveness of sins is "complete and accomplished all at once." It is this definition that we will look at the discussion as to the purpose of our Salvation and the meaning behind true Forgiveness. IMPORTANCE OF SCRIPTURAL CONTEXT One of the other fundamental importance that needs to be addressed is that of Scriptural interpretation and context. Majority of the varying beliefs neglect the importance of true authentic interpretation of scripture and the appropriate measure taking to carefully see what Scripture truly teaches and authenticates. The first and foremost principle of looking at the scripture is to analyze it in the immediate context of the passage. Thus, while our initial examination of Romans 5:7-9 may initially seem out of context with the term and discussion of Forgiveness of Sins - Once for all, the overall application and context of the passage is directly linked to the context of the discussion and other various passages of scripture. The overall context if Salvation and the Forgiveness of our sins from the initial point of Saving Grace. In essence, the discussion is this: Once we are forgiven of our sins, is it a complete and whole forgiveness of past, present and potential future sins? Or is it forgiveness of past sins, but not of present and future sins? So, regarding the immediate context of Romans 5:7-9, we find that it is the Apostle Paul's thought being carried over from Romans 4. Romans 4 being carried over from Romans 3. Romans 3, carried over from Romans 2 and finally Romans 1 being the beginning of the scripture context. The immediate context is that of the doctrine of Justification and how and why the believer is Justified in Jesus Christ. The overall context is that of Romans 1-11. The next objective look would be the cultural context of the passage. Meaning, we have to look at the passage as if we were there ourselves at the time the Epistle was read and shared with those of our contemporaries. This is also called the Historical Context. Why this is important is because cultures and sociological evolution is in play. What we understand our world today is far different than what the First Century Christians understood their world at the time of the writing of the New Testament and the Epistles being written and sent out. The third understanding is seeing where this is supported within other passages of scripture. Essentially, we must also see where something like this is taught elsewhere in scripture. This solidifies the interpretation and understanding of the immediate context, historical context and the importance of establishing sound biblical doctrine. It is the test application of scripture. Testing the doctrine we have discovered, testing our understanding and interpretation of the scripture passage and then seeing where it lines up with other passages of scripture. Essentially, I have accomplished this already with the defining of the term "once for all" by supplying other passages that have this same greek word, context and understanding of the passage. WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS In my introductory blog, I discussed what my goal and attempt was and the passage of scripture that we will be looking at. The passage of Scripture is Romans 5:6-9, which reads: For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. {NASB - Romans 5:6-9} The King James Version rendering of this is: For while we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath through him. While there seems to be a difference between the NASB and the KJV, the thought and the content is still the same. This thought is a present tense. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. What this means is that in our present state of humanity, we have offended God. In fact, the whole premise of the Apostle Paul in Romans is the first preeminance of Universal Guilt. In fact, if you were to look up The Book of Romans: An Introduction, the reader will find the outline and synopsis of Romans chapters 1-11. The most prominent statement of truth regarding man's universal guilt and sin is found in Romans 5:12 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.. All have sinned. This is the theme of Paul's message: "as it is written, there is none righteous, no not one". Essentially, the Apostle Paul goes back to the beginning of human history and reveals that because of Adam and Eve's original transgression (See Romans 5:12-21). This doctrine and the nature of the doctrine is defined as "Original Sin". Meaning, that because of Adam's initial transgression in the Garden of Eden, mankind, since Adam have been subjugated to a nature of sin and rebellion against God. Essentially, it is the idea and doctrine that because of Adam's transgression, we inherit a nature of sin and death. It is this idea and premise that the Apostle Paul gives meaning to "while we were yet sinners". In essence, he was merely saying, "While in our sinful state and nature, Christ died for us." It is a present tense connotation of already being in existence. This is the first point of doctrine that we must understand and come to terms with before answering the question of whether we are forgiven once for all - meaning completely and wholly and all at once, or forgiven partially and then in a co-operative effort in a covenantal relation between us individually and God.

I will have to check into that. I have had some good books and resources and a very good library I had built. Unfortunately, between moving and my parents "discarding" some of the books I had, I am attempting to replenish some of the books I lost. Some of these books were pretty interesting that did not deal with LDS Doctrine. One book I am having a hard time finding is about "Natural Theology" and Romans 1. Another was an Old Jamieson, Faucett and Brown commentary (however, I downloaded that one from CCEL at www.ccel.org). Several others dealt with Christian History and Doctrines. For instance James Stuart Russell's book the Parousia: A look at the New Testament Doctrine of Jesus's Second Coming (which can be viewed online and downloaded at the Preterist Archives). R.C. Sproul's The Last Days according to Jesus. I even had a copy of Joseph Smith: An American Prophet (which is out of print).

I have come to believe that the "Gathering of Israel" is the spiritual Gathering and not a physical Gathering.

Oh, I remember him now... He was the first LDS Apologist that when I started getting into reading Apologetics and defending the LDS Faith, he stated that Origen and other Early Church Fathers taught the doctrine of Pre-Existence and I had spent many years trying to find the source for some of his position of some of the things he claims he found from Early Church Fathers that seemed to support the LDS Apologist position. His book is the one where he starts out with describing the "Saints Alive" movement by Ed Decker (Which I have disdain for because I personally think he is very deceptive and will defend his marriage now that started out as an adultrous affair - blaming the LDS Church for his first wife leaving and divorcing him). Or, am I thinking of someone else? And, why doesn't the LDS Bookstores no longer carry such LDS Apologetics works?

Welcome Douglas and hope you are enjoying the forum here.