Traveler
-
Posts
15848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by Traveler
-
-
<div class='quotemain'>
The ideas of how someone uses the name of G-d has always been of great concern to me. Any time his name is used without respect and reverence it is done in both error and misunderstanding. But this has even greater meaning to me. I believe that this commandment also means that we should not take upon ourselves the name of G-d and then desecrate it with ung-dly behavior. Nor should we take upon ourselves his name and consider it lightly or deny where using his name leads. To take upon us the name of G-d is a covenant not unlike marriage and is the first step that man takes toward G-dhood. It is done only with the deepest respect and recognition that in truth G-d is our master and we are his apprentices.The Traveler
Perhaps the reason it has become so difficult to share the gospel is that the Lord's name or title is used so flippantly. Quite frankly, I'm less offended by a nonbeliever who utters the F-word than I am one who calls down a curse from God as a matter of emphasis, rather than true prayer.
This brings up a matter that might deserve another string, but I'll throw out the idea here. The Old Testament concept of prophet was such that few would be brave enough to apply. He was the one who spoke for God, usually to political leadership, and then to the people. His words carried the authority of "Thus saieth the Lord," and usually offered words of warning, judgement-to-come, and a last call for a wicked generation to turn from their ungodly ways.
Quite often these men were reluctant messengers. Consider Jonah. Also, who was it that said he tried not to speak, but the words burned within him? All this to say, that in an age in which God is love, and judgment is...well "judgmental," it would be no wonder if prophets in the near future end up jailed for their "intolerant utterances."
The LDS doctrine concerning your point is the doctrine of "Agency". Most LDS do not understand this doctrine but when we take upon ourself anothers name we do so as an empowered agent. We believe Peter was given this power when Jesus refered to "Power" to seal on earth what would be in heaven. The LDS doctrine also indicates that if we do not become an agent of the L-rd we will, by default, become an agent of the devil. Many LDS think of agency as any choice - like choosing to be a teacher or lawyer and they miss the main point.
The Traveler
-
<div class='quotemain'>
BTW (PC) G-d is the only one I know that has ultimate power – I do not believe ultimate power ultimately corrupts. Selfishness ultimately corrupts.The Traveler
Lord Acton was speaking in the context of human politics. In the spiritual realm, you may be right. However, the reason I will never support a specifically Christian political party is that the Church had its crack and raw political power, and muffed up a few centuries quite badly.
Politics are a whole other issue by itself - You might find the book "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat an interesting read. You can buy it at Amazon for 3 or 4 bucks. This is the single most powerful book I have read on how the "Law" ought to be used. And it is a simple read - not hard to understand and short enough to read in a single evening. You will find why power in politics corrupts. There are a few simple principles that if followed establish just law. For example the first need for law is to protect the innocent. The second order of law is to punish the guilty. Using the force of law for any other purpose (regardless of how needful or beneficial it seems) will result in abuse of political power (punishing the innocent and/or protecting the guilty).
I wanted to add one other thought going on in this thread for your consideration. Considering the concept or doctrine of "As man is G-d once was - and as G-d is man may become". Consider this as an expression or view of the life and sacrifice then the ressurection of the Messiah.
The Traveler
I think God is spelled "G O D" not "G-D". There is something unsettling about that to me.
No matter what we are Father's children and those who choose to believe in a vaporous, vague, power,etc. as the father of thier souls, go for it. Somethings are true whether you believe them or not. B)
I do not feel the need to express all of my reasons as to why I represent G-d on the internet as I do, but I would point out something interesting for you to think about. In every case of ever ancient text - Never is the L-rd's name or title spelled our completly. We can speculate the reason for this but I wonder what they could of known then that has somehow been lost in our day.
The Traveler
-
That is amazing. I never thought of it that way. I always believed that the Lord operated on successful principles but I never imagined selflessness as being one of the highest ones. It is quite interesting to compare success in business with success in life and the fact that if the right principles are applied, it will lead to success in both.
You bring up a point about success in business I really had not thought about before. I have met a number of successful business men that I consider in ways like my father but they have always been the owner or the business. It seems that success in the corpert world is based or selfishness and greed (if you have ever watched the TV show "Apprentist").
The Traveler
-
I grew up one of 6 sons of a very wealthy man but I did not know of my father’s wealth until I was an adult. He was not always rich. He was one of 14 children of a sheep herder. He grew up very poor. He once told me wealth is free - it is poverty and debt that is expensive. He used one of his downtown properties to demonstrate. I remember when he bought it. It was rundown and falling apart and hardly considered worth anything. We had to work long and hard to fix it up. I fell through the roof when we were taking it down to repair it. It was rotten and just gave way beneath me.
After we fixed it up, the front was used for offices and there were apartments in the back. We tore out the diseased trees and weeds in the back lot and paved it. There was a old barn garage thing at the way back that had to be repaired. We did all the work as a family. Later my father told me that every penny he put into the property payed itself back the first year. Before we finished fixing the old barn garage a man rented it as a small warehouse for his business. Downtown business rented parking on his paved property so they could park close to their business that more that paid for the paving. He told me that not only was that property free to him but it had paid for itself over 4 times by time the city came with emanate domain, took the property from him to expand the telephone building and paid him 8 times what he had bought the property for in the first place.
My father told me many times he loved to work. He said he never worked for the money - he just liked making thing better. That is his joy in life - the benefits from work he considered free to him. With all his wealth he never bought a new car or a big house. He never felt he was worth expensive things or deserved them. He never worked for opulence. He worked to help others and out of the joy of working. For all the wealth he accumulated he says it came to him for free. He says he never paid for anything even the people he helped he says have paid him back in many ways more that double and he is really in their debt. But then he never lived in real debt. He paid cash for the house I grew up in and every home he has owned. The home we lived in was rebuilt while we lived in it and a basement apartment paid him back more than he paid for the house while we lived there. Much of the food we ate was grown in a garden and our fruit trees and we raised our own chickens for meat and eggs. He also told me living does not cost much - we can live for almost nothing if we are willing to work a little. It is laziness, greed and selfishness that is expensive and robs us of our heritage. Why do so many people insist on being poor when it is so expensive and wealth is free?
I think of salvation like my father’s wealth. Everything we do and every commandment we keep we are paid back many times for in blessings and benefit. Everything the L-rd ask of us is for our development and righteous prophet and eternal treasure. Every good thing we do is paid back to us many fold. It is impossible to do any thing for G-d that we do not receive the greater benefit for it.
I have heard some say salvation is free to those that believe regardless of what they do, as if what a person does has no impact on true happiness and joy. How can they think they believe in G-d and not find joy in doing everything G-d ask of them? How can they think they believe in G-d and say it is not necessary to be obedient to G-d? How can they criticize those have found joy in G-d’s service and do so without regard for self? Salvation, like my father’s wealth, is free but not to those whose laziness, greed and selfishness has convinced them that salvation is all about their exaltation and their reward. For some their eternal reward will be more than even G-d can afford, which greatly pains me - the best of eternal treasures are as free as my father’s wealth was to him.
I know a man and his wife that inherited a great fortune that they have squandered and now in their sunset years they must live on the graces of their children (social security is not good enough) - and they claim their children are selfish with their money and are not thankful at all for their children taking care of them, they want more.
Salvation is free - It’s damnation that is so darned expensive.
The Traveler
-
There are 5 principles I believe are necessary to understand G-d.
1. G-d will not do anything for man that man can do for himself.
2. G-d will do for man what man cannot do for himself.
3. G-d will not do anything for the eternal detriment of man.
4. G-d will do everything possible for the eternal benefit of man.
5. G-d will not do anything for man without man’s concurrence.
All of the above must be understood in the context of the other principles. It seems to me that whenever someone does not believe in G-d they do not understand how these principles operate in their life. When people do not think a prayer has been answered it is because they are trying to get G-d to violet one of these principles. I also believe these 5 principles define G-dly love.
BTW (PC) G-d is the only one I know that has ultimate power – I do not believe ultimate power ultimately corrupts. Selfishness ultimately corrupts.
The Traveler
-
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS OBSERVE THEM?
All of the great religions that proclaim belief in one God submit to the 10 Commandments. Yet, how do we, as Christians, understand and obey these so-called Jewish commandments?
Please read Exodus 20:1-17
For the Christian, the 10 Commandments are more stringent, yet more achievable, than Jewish practice demanded. How is the Christian understanding of the 10 Commandments more stringent, and why can we more easily achieve them?
The third commandment reads: YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD. Ancient Israel hesitated to use the name of God at all. This is why you so often see the terms “GOD” and “LORD” in the Bible, rather than YAHWEH. Today, the more conservative Jews even hesitate to use the title God. In their writings they write G-d instead. Jesus teaches that we can use the name of God–in power. He still insists that the name be revered however. Jesus says that in his name you shall heal the sick, cast out devils, and do works greater than he has done. Many shall say to Jesus, “Did we not do great works in your name?” And He will respond saying, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” Recall that the seven sons of Sceba used the name of Jesus to deliver a man from demons. Yet, they did not know Jesus. The demons left the man–but attacked those who would disrespect Jesus name by using it in ignorance.
The ideas of how someone uses the name of G-d has always been of great concern to me. Any time his name is used without respect and reverence it is done in both error and misunderstanding. But this has even greater meaning to me. I believe that this commandment also means that we should not take upon ourselves the name of G-d and then desecrate it with ung-dly behavior. Nor should we take upon ourselves his name and consider it lightly or deny where using his name leads. To take upon us the name of G-d is a covenant not unlike marriage and is the first step that man takes toward G-dhood. It is done only with the deepest respect and recognition that in truth G-d is our master and we are his apprentices.
The Traveler
-
Now concerning prophets and if there should be prophets among Christians:
Ephesians 2:19-20: Now Therefore ye are no mor strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of G-d: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
It is not unusual for New Testament writers to refer to the prophets, or the "law and the prophets" in reference to the Scripture of their day--the Old Testament. I do not believe there is anyone in the New Testament who is referred to as a prophet--though John was "the revelator."
This is not exactly true. In the days of Jesus it was generally believed that there were 3 parts of the scriptures. The first is "The Law" or the Torah. The second is "The Prophets" and the third is often called "The Writings" because Jesus would often say in reference to these scriptures "It is written". However we find another part in the Dead Sea Scrolls which I will call the commentaries. Now that we have the DDS we know that sometimes when Jesus said it is written he was referencing this part.
I think it is a stretch to assume that a reference to “prophets” should be understood to be scriptures for several reasons. The Torah, even today, is considered by the Jews to be the most important of all scripture. To reference the scriptures of the prophets outside of the context of the Law would be an incomplete reference. BTW it is interesting to me that Daniel is not considered with the prophets and one of the main points of reference in the NT and the DDS.
If someone wanted to point out the importance of scripture to their fellow Christians they would not do so without referencing “The Law” and perhaps the other scriptures. Sometimes when making emphases or importance of a notion they would reference the Law without the prophets but it makes no sense the other way around. The context of Ephesians is clearly concerning organization of Christ’s Church.
Lets take a look at another scripture in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time which was before us.”
I would say that in general when G-d has sent a prophet to warn or lead the people - the people have resisted. The last days leading up to the time of the return of Jesus is a critical time to G-d and his people. Just as the prophet John the Baptist came before Jesus so shall there be a prophet in these last time just as “it hath been already of old time which was before us”
The Traveler
PS. President Hinkley is the prophet of G-d to the world and not just the LDS, which is the reason for the "Declaration" link I gave in a previous post. It is a warning to the world about the greatest concern of G-d to our generation.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
Tell that to the Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and everyone else that reside here.
It was never meant to be a Christian nation, as the founders knew the danger of allowing religion to govern.
Thank goodness. B)
Thank goodness we know that America was established as a Christian nation!
Let us be very careful how we define things. It was not until the year 1829 before legal efforts were ever used in this country (the State of New York) to keep a Christian from killing (without cause) someone that did not believe in the Trinity. Although this involved the Jews and not Native Americans (or LDS) the particular importance of this new Law has meaning in History to the LDS. I would also point out that just less than 100 years ago killing Blacks in some places of this country was not considered a crime.
BTW - abusing a pet in many places today caries greater penalities than abusing a child.
The Traveler
-
<div class='quotemain'>
From Amos I believe the scripture tells us that G-d does not do anything unless he tells his prophet. I believe this scripture. If he ever reveals anything he is going to do to someone other that a prophet and does not reveal it to a prophet then the statement by Amos is FALSE. It does not say that he won't tell anyone else only that anything the he will do he will tell it to a prophet. It does not say most things he will do nor does it say most things up to 74 AD. It does say that if G-d is going to do something - and if he is going to tell anybody - a prophet must be on that list of who he tells.
Some important understandings about Amos.
1. He was a prophet of God for Israel.
2. His audience is national Israel.
3. The overarching theme of Amos is righteousness and divine retribution for sin.
God is warning Israel that they have a deal, and that they've broken it. Punishment is coming, and God is explaining it to his prophets. These prophets, including Amos, will be compelled to proclaim what God is going to do. No one will have an excuse, "I didn't know...why weren't we warned?" It's all laid out. You sin, you suffer.
To wrest Amos 3:7 from this context, and insist that the whole of Christianity is wrong because it does not have the office of prophet is an incredible and unnecessary stretch. Can God still speak through prophets? Of course. Does God still communicate through gifts of prophecy? Absolutely. Does Amos 3:7 mean that there must be ONE living appointed church leader for all of Christians, who's words are so inspired, that written Scripture must be interpreted in the light of his/her truths? I'm not seeing that teaching in Amos. Hard as I look, that is an incredible stretch--at least based on this passage.
The problem I have with the Bible is that G-d did not command it. He did not command what books should comprise it. He did not command what manuscripts should be used. He did not command that it be translated. I believe that like so many things that man does other than what G-d commands that G-d still knows ways to use these things to acomplish his will. This is because he knows all things from the beginning to the end. Now you may think that the Bible is a rather obscure detail that is way beyond the kind of things that G-d considers important to mention in prophesy - and that is where I think you and I differ.Except that God did command that the words be written and compiled. As evidence I present this testimony:
For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. That you mightest know the certainty of those tings, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:1-4
So Luke wrote his gospel so that there would be a perfect understanding of what was believed and what was to be taught.
And perhaps the most famous passage concerning the value of Scripture:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, troughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
I guess that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not reall apply to all scriptures - we need to understand it's context so that we can exclude Amos for the reasons you posted.
In addition since you like to consider the context of scripture lets explore context concerning the scripture I quoted a while back in Isaiah. Isaiah is not what one would call regular scripture it is written in an ancient Hebrew poetic that is quite complex and in gulfs a rash of other minor poetic forms. Perhaps the most accurate Biblical scripture text is the Isaiah scroll found among the Dead Sea Scriptures. The scroll itself is special and there has never been a find like this. But that aside. The complete scroll is one of the only scripture text to be translated from the Dead Sea Scriptures. The translations that have been published are almost exclusively from non-Scripture or commentary text. Okay enough of the drum roll. The poetic structure of Isaiah connects Isaiah 46:9-10 with Isaiah 44:6-8. The following is a translation of those verses as translated by a Jewish Rabbi connected to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: by poetic form.
Isaiah 46:9- 10
“Review the prophecies of the events of old!
I am G-d, there is none other.
I am divine; nothing resembles me.
I foretell the end from the beginning,
from ancient times things not yet done.
I speak, and my purposes take effect;
I accomplish all my will.”
This scripture thought is also linked as follows:
Isaiah 44:6-8
“Thus says the L-rd, the King of Israel,
the L-rd of Host, their Redeemer;
I was at the first and I am at the last;
apart from me there is no G-d.
Who predicts what happens as do I,
and is the equal of me
in appointing a people from of old ‘as types,’
foretelling things to come?
Be not perturbed or shaken.
Have I not made it known to you from of old?
Did I not foretell it, you being my witnesses?
Is there a G-d, then, apart from me?
There is no Rock unknown to me.”
There is a very important doctrine given in these verses:
That is that G-d does foretell what he will do. He does this by telling us of what he has done anciently. In other words the story of Moses delivering the children of Israel out of Egypt is not just a story of Moses delivering the children of Israel out of Egypt. It is also a prophesy of G-d delivering his children from spiritual bondage throughout many ages.
Now concerning prophets and if there should be prophets among Christians:
Ephesians 2:19-20:
“Now Therefore ye are no mor strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of G-d:
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”
also Ephesians 4:11-13
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of G-d, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;”
Since Christians are so perfectly united and of a unity of faith - we can no get rid of prophets?
Thanks for listening
The Traveler
-
Perhaps it would help some people to understand what the word "canon" really means, and for that I suggest that people consult a thesaurus or language lexicon.
For instance, according to the thesaurus I use, which is usually the one in Word, "canon" is another word for "standard, rule, norm, principle, tenet, or law".
Or in other words, "canon" is another word for "standard", not an exhaustive collection of everything in agreement with the "standard".
Or in other words, determining what is "canon" for scripture does not determine everything that constitutes "scripture", any more than a "canon" for law determines everything that is law, although all scripture should be in harmony with the scriptures in a canon or standard used to show what scripture is.
And btw, to those who scoff at "semantics", I suggest you consider how much it can help to understand the meaning of the words we use.
Your points are good. I will change my thinking about what is cannon and standard works. But I still feel that if we are talking about the cannon or standard works that G-d, and not man has that right to declair it. And somewhere in that cannon or standard work ought to be an explanation by G-d concerning such a matter. (there is in the LDS Standard Works or Open Cannon or what ever else it it called) But I see no such G-dly recognization in the traditional Christian Cannon - and that I believe is a matter of concern because if we can trust the Cannon for important things this I would think is an important thing?
The Traveler
The Traveler
-
How does G-d declare his word or by what method does G-d revile his secrets to man? Again the Bible Scriptures answers this question. Consider Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord G-d will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”. Contrary to the non scriptural heresy being taught in this thread, G-d does not “inspire” a committee to declare his word nor does he lead men in ways that are not declared.
Amos does not address Scripture canon either. It neither predicts nor denies the possiblity that a later council of church leaders might discern which books belong and which books do not belong in the canon. Keep in mind--no matter how you parse the verbage, the LDS Church does have a canon. Open or closed, there are writings that the church does not regard as Scripture (i.e., the Syrian additions).
You seem to be reading way too much into this passage. This is not an all-encompassing promise that God will always reveal every detail of his work to prophets. Rather, God is saying that to Israel that He warns them when punishment is coming--and that He compels his prophets to issue the warnings. The people are without excuse when judgment comes--they've been warned. This is akin to dad saying, "I told you that if you didn't clean your room you'd be grounded, so why are you crying now that you are grounded?"
From Amos I believe the scripture tells us that G-d does not do anything unless he tells his prophet. I believe this scripture. If he ever reveals anything he is going to do to someone other that a prophet and does not reveal it to a prophet then the statement by Amos is FALSE. It does not say that he won't tell anyone else only that anything the he will do he will tell it to a prophet. It does not say most things he will do nor does it say most things up to 74 AD. It does say that if G-d is going to do something - and if he is going to tell anybody - a prophet must be on that list of who he tells.
The problem I have with the Bible is that G-d did not command it. He did not command what books should comprise it. He did not command what manuscripts should be used. He did not command that it be translated. I believe that like so many things that man does other than what G-d commands that G-d still knows ways to use these things to acomplish his will. This is because he knows all things from the beginning to the end. Now you may think that the Bible is a rather obscure detail that is way beyond the kind of things that G-d considers important to mention in prophesy - and that is where I think you and I differ.
I find it rather interesting that at this point of the discussion that I as LDS am saying that we can believe and trust what the Bible tells us and that you as an evangalical are saying we need to believe and trust in continious revelation concenring this matter. :) Shall we take a poll as to when the two of us will reverse this stand? :)
I am greatful you have consider my thoughts. I have read your as well.
The Traveler
-
Let me begin by reviewing a few things.
1. I believe that the Bible contains some of G-d’s words of scripture given to man.
2. Consider what G-d tells us in Isaiah 46:9-10 - “I am G-d, and there is non like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” Here we learn that G-d knows all things from the beginning to the end. We also learn that he declares this same knowledge to man. A complete set of scriptures (Cannon) must declare all things from the beginning to the end. This is not my opinion but G-d’s word. No man has the right to say otherwise or declare a subset of scriptures as the final set of G-d’s word.
3. How does G-d declare his word or by what method does G-d revile his secrets to man? Again the Bible Scriptures answers this question. Consider Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord G-d will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”. Contrary to the non scriptural heresy being taught in this thread, G-d does not “inspire” a committee to declare his word nor does he lead men in ways that are not declared. Remember he promised through Isaiah that he declares what he does - if he is going to do it then he will declare it. To say G-d does otherwise is to claim the scriptures lie. If G-d revealed his will concerning Canonization then that scripture was lost. If G-d has other methods of revealing his secrets then would someone please quote the scripture?
4. It has been suggested that G-d inspired man, contrary to scripture, to create a scripture cannon. This he did to answer prayer of good believers. REALLY? Every time the good believers got to gather to discuss the scripture cannon there were many different opinions of what that should be. To be honest, history seems to record that the group that one won were those that had the biggest army and killed the most people. (Example Charlemagne that declared by his blood stained might his personal preference that would become the most used Christian cannon as it is defined today among Western Christians)
5. The concept of the LDS “Standard Works” as our “Open” cannon is strictly a matter of semantics. The concept of cannon is that of fixed which does not mean open. I will concede the LDS “Standard Works” as a open cannon but with the following exceptions:
A. The Standard Works are scriptures that have been given through prophets and are G-d’s word to all. Because G-d (according to his promise) does reveal his work through his servants that are called by him to be prophets LDS know that the Bible contains some of G-d’s Word. No other Christian denomination can make that claim and demonstrate the Bible by prophesy.
B. Besides the Standard Works, LDS know that there are other scripture prophesies. For example sometimes G-d reveals scripture specific to a generation as he did through the prophet Noah concerning the flood or through the prophet Jonah a warning to the city of Nineveh. As with Noah G-d has revealed to the world his will concerning families. This warning prophesy and indication of blessings is not just to the LDS but to all the world and can be read at the following link <http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html>
C. Beside the Standard Works, LDS know that there are other scripture that is given only to special followers. For example Jesus often taught his 12 apostles things that were not taught to his other followers. Although Jesus taught many things to his Apostles at the last supper most of what he taught is not in the Bible. LDS have learned that certain things are not taught in scriptures open to public. These things are taught as sacred “pearls” in the temple as prophesied (once again G-d declares his knowledge in advance) in Isaiah 2:2-3 (BTW the Ute word “Utah” means the top of the mountains. Is it not amazing how G-d’s words are fulfilled?)
D. Beside the Standard Works, LDS know that there is scripture given specific to an individual person. This is known as “Patriarch Blessings”. The example in scripture is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when they blessed their children. LDS are also given personal scripture specific to them and their time of probation. Again only LDS fulfill the prophesy of giving G-d’s specific declaration to individuals as was done in scripture.
Without this understanding I am not sure anyone can understand the LDS stand concerning scripture. And again I ask the question? Does no one believe the scriptures - That G-d must declare it in his way if there is to be a cannon and what that cannon must be.
The Traveler
-
The Christian can only believe that this history, set in motion by the earthly Lord, has been superintended by the risen Lord, who will not lead His Church into error. We believe that He has built His Church upon this Scripture, and that all future development must spring from the grateful obedience exercised by a Church that may hear its Lord speak in the OT and the NT canon.
What you are saying here is exactly what I do not understand. You say that the Christian church is build upon the scripture. But I do not see the doctrine of cannon in that scripture. It also seems to me that this building of the kingdom (or church) upon the scriputres is a doctirne of the Pharicees and Scribs in critizism of Christ. They had the law and the prophets which was their guide. Jesus said that the purpose of these things (scripture) were to testify of him. It it Christ (the Messiah) that we must look for as the corner stone upon which the church must be built - not scripture.
The Traveler
-
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
We know from discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the modern Bible is only a small part of sacred scriptures from the past. The problem is not what is there but in what is missing.
I repeat my question. Is the LDS Church considering adding any of these texts to the canon of Scripture? If not, your suggestion is 'radical' not only to evangelicals, but to your own church.
[
I am interested in this too.
Traveler,
What discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls that are not already canonized, should be canonized?
I am not at home and do not have access to my library. If there really is interest I will post some of the changes. However, I would point out that most versions (KJV excepting) has revised their Versions based on some changes brought about from the DSS.
To PC
Thanks for doing some research. LDS do not believe in cannonizing Scripture. Although we believe in what we call the standard works these are not cannon. We believe that G-d will always add to scripture, at his will, and it is not for man to close off G-d speaking to his people.
According to my personal research the doctrine of cannon is a Pagan doctrine. I find no such doctrine in scripture. It therefore appears to me that the doctrine of cannizing scripture is a heresy and false and part of the paganization of Christianity. That the concept is popular is hardly a reason to say that it is of G-d. In fact the more popular a doctrine is - that is not in scripture - the more I am inclined to not believe it without some divine indication.
Here is my point, if the Bible is indeed cannon for doctrine - would this not mean that all validity of doctrine is to be based on if it is reflected somewhere in the Bible. If the doctrine is not in the cannon then it must be heresy. But the doctirine of cannon is not a Biblical doctrine. Therefore, whereever the doctrine of cannon came from would have to be a more reliable source than the Bible but if there is something more reliable how could the Bible be cannon? The doctrine fails within itself. Which is exactly my point. The doctrine of cannon is proof of Apostasy - which is the only reason for the LDS doctrine of a "restoration".
One of the great critizism of LDS is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture (The Word of G-d). This is because we have means to add scripture. We publically recognize that G-d speaks again. I understand that other do not believe this - which is fine. But I have posted because I do not understand the doctrine of Cannon or why it has such power over so many. The LDS method of determining scripture is different from the world. The reason I brought up other scripture is not because it meets LDS standards for scripture but becuse many of these manuscripts meet the historical standard that was claimed to be the standard when the Bible was determined. And I do not see that the determination came from G-d as scripture.
The Traveler
-
So, Traveler, for you to suggest that we really don't have a true Bible, but only a shadow of what God intended, implies some pretty radical departures from both Mormon and LDS orthodoxy concerning Scripture. Am I wrong, here?
We know from discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the modern Bible is only a small part of sacred scriptures from the past. The problem is not what is there but in what is missing.
Do you not believe that God would preserve enough of his Word to "feed" his followers?
I do not believe G-d forces his word on anyone - He will only give what man will accept. The scriptures tell that man must seek in order to find. Those that do not seek will not fine. Do you disagree with this notion?
More often than not, so-called "lost books of the Bible" turn out to be extrabiblical texts, that might be historically useful, but which were not intended by God to be part of the sacred canon.
I think you have missed the point. These manuscripts were written when the Apostles were still leaving - before man decided what the Bible ought to be. And those in control will not even let their fellow Christians know what the books in the manuscriptures are. About 7 years ago I joined with a team of Eastern Orthodox Christians to have these manuscripts released. In general these manuscripts were not released because there was not enough interest. I Do not understand Christians that refuse to care - I do not understand it. Some of these manuscripts may have been written by the very hand of Apostles. The most correct New Testament scriptures available and Christians just do not care. It appears to you thay you do not care eather - you would make excuses rather that seek answers. That is fine but I am not like that - I seek answers and I want to know.
.
The problem with the National Enquirer is that once in awhile a story proves true. Since they don't have to wait for verification, they get the story out first. There are many "stories" about hidden or lost biblical texts. I'm convinced we have what God wants us to have.
.
Wow - I think you are uninformed. We have known about the Nestorian Christians and their manuscript since the Crusades. There have been efforts to discredit their claims that have failed so most Western Christians just ignore the Nestorian Christians. They have been believers there with all the history we have here in the west. So you think G-d only cares about Christians in the West? Just to let you know they claim to be the decendent of the Magi that came to the Birth of Christ. Their tridition ought to at least be allowed to be considered by fellow Christians. But most Christians I run across behave like you. If you do not already have it you will not listen, but believe they should listen to your opinion about what is scripture. Regardless of what they have.
[.
I have a greater confidence in God's ability to communicate, and less confidence in corrupt religious leaders ability to supress that communication than you do.
I am glad you say you have confidence in G-d's ability to communicate - Where did G-d communicate that the scriptures should be cannonized and where did he communicate what scriptures were to be included in the cannonization he wants.
If G-s did not communicate this important knowledge - would you join me in telling the world that man should not put words into G-d's mouth that G-d had not spoken or intended and that the corrupt religious leaders in history had no authority what-so-ever to create a cannon of scripture and say what that cannon ought to be?
The Traveler
-
I normally do not leave entire posts with my responses, but I wanted to make sure people knew what I was referring to with this summary. If I interpret this correctly, you are saying the following:
1. There are extrabiblical manuscripts (writings near the time of the New Testament writings that did not make the canon of Scripture) that more accurately reflect the church practices and beliefs of the church than our Bibles do.
And, if so, you may also be suggesting that #2. The Bible as we have it now--meaning the 66 books that make up the Old and New Testament--is not what God intended for us to have as canon?
All of the books of the Old Testament are represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls with one exception that is open to speculation as to why. In addition all of the Old Testament books have at least 2 versions – something very troubling to the Jews concerning the Torah. The fact that the books were maintained in multiple versions is a very new concept in our time concerning sacred revelations but anciently 2 versions were considered critical. (See Genesis 41:25 and 32)
Interestingly, the Old Testament era book most quoted in the New Testament is missing from modern versions. Perhaps the real reason it is missing is because there are no complete and accurate copies in existence. But from what we have we know a couple of things about this book. We know for example that the scholars that claimed that this book was plagiarized from the New Testament are false because the fragments found among the DDS predate Jesus and the NT by 300+ years. It also means that Jesus and the apostles thought this book was important enough to copy it word for word in their teaching.
Isaiah tells us that G-d reveals things to man “line upon line upon line”, and “precept upon precept upon precept”. I submit to you my friend that G-d is not one to shove and force things upon people that do not want it or what they already have. Jesus told his disciples that he spoke in parables so that only those that wanted to understand would be enlightened by his sayings.
I believe that for most part the reason there are only 66 books in the Bible is not because Christians have all that G-d wants to tell them (I believe it was Paul that said there is not enough room to write all that should be written) but because they have all or more than they want and refuse to accept anything else – even if it once existed as sacred scripture. Most non-LDS Christians I have conversed with are very adamant about this idea concerning scripture – They will have no more of such sacred kind of things, regardless of reason or divine desire to enlighten and they make up all kind of excuses to justify it. Which is fine by me – if they do not want it I will not argue the point. But for me I wish for and pray daily for more and openly welcome anyone that will join with me or allow me to join with them in this quest.
The Traveler
-
I figured this subject could use its own topic, instead of random posts here and there. Can the Bible be trusted at all? Are you an all or none type, or something in between? And why?
What is the Bible – really? Where did it come from and how did we get it today in English? What has history contributed to determining our understanding of the Bible?
I offer the suggestion that there is no real Bible in existence, only a shadow of something that once was. Today we have some ancient text and we have some modern attempts based on medieval standards to unveil ancient thought in modern context but in reality we do not have a real Bible. As we look at the truth of various sciences and respect for accuracy and truth of information we find the medieval or Dark Ages did shamefully little to maintain accuracy of anything filtered through that time. Concepts of individual dignity and worth are historically shameful. The light of Christianity expressed in through the ages as honorable concerning wars, politics and social morals is ignored, covered up or distorted up in light of modern discretions.
The Bible of today and of history is not unifying - but a means of dividing Christians. There are more Christians of declared different concepts based on the Bible with each new generation.
The Bible of today and of history has not been a means of stabilizing doctrines and practices of Christians but has fueled changes to the point that Christians today are as different from Christians of 1000 years ago as they are from current Moslems, Hindus or most any other modern religion.
Even when Jesus and his apostles walked and taught, the historian Flavius Josephus recorded of massive and multiple efforts to modify and distort scripture text. His main purpose in writing was an attempt to preserve some small remnant of the store of accurate scripture that still existed while he lived.
Before the end of the first century of the Christian era the scriptures comprising the New Testament were hidden in an obscure Christian church at Mt Sinai to prevent distortions going on at the time. These texts were discovered over 150 years ago but the Christian scholars that control these text have never even allowed a list of the books that comprise this sacred cash let alone a translation of any text – yet without question these text meet all the criteria historically established in identifying the most accurate scriptural text. Most Christians do not even know of their existence (and are deliberately kept from knowing).
Most religious scholars are ether ignoring the Dead Sea Scripture or attempting to explain away their differences and doctrinal enlightenments or to keep them from being distributed.
The Christians of the East (often referred to as Nestorian Christians) have in possession a letter claimed to be written personally by the hand of Christ. Every effort to scientifically validate this manuscript indicates that it came from Jerusalem when Jesus lived. Yet most Christians do not know of its existence or of it contents.
It appears to me the modern Bible represents exactly and only what many modern Christians “want” to believe and the totality of all that they by their desire ever will except under covenant of G-d. Or as once was stated, “The scraps that fall from the masters table.” In other words it represents a collective will and perhaps man’s best efforts; rather than complete submission, desire and covenant to the will and power of G-d and his pure revelation and light that will and can only exist in his kingdom as he directs.
The Traveler
-
I know that Mormons often wonder why most modern Christian churches do not have the offices of apostle and prophet within their churches. I stumbled upon a rather substantial discussion of this at my fellowship's official page. As Snow would say, "Happy reading."
http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/...es_prophets.cfm
Thank you for your input. Much of what is given in the article is based on a “old school” of thinking about the bible, scriptures, the organization of the early church and how all these things should be interpreted.
However, we have an entire library of documents that include scripture and explanation of what was really meant by certain terms in the marvelous (and divine inspired find?) of the Dead Sea Scriptures and other scrolls. But Christian scholars have tried to discredit this find be calling them the result of an obscure group of Jews called Essens. This is a debate I would love to have with anyone well informed. That aside I will leave the following thought:
Paul was converted to Christianity on his way to a place called Damascus. He had a document signed by the high priests (Jews) of the temple at Jerusalem. He intended to gather some Christians to be disciplined when he returned to Jerusalem with them. For most of 2000 years Christians thought that Paul was on his way to the city of Damascus in Syria which is two Roman provinces away from Jerusalem.
To attempt to take Roman subjects from one Roman province to another Roman province to be punished by the law, Paul would need Roman authority or, pending of who he ticked off, Paul could be put to death. I very much doubt that Paul was that stupid. I do not think he was on his way to Syria. Guess what the place out by the Dead Sea was called in the days of Jesus? Would you believe Damascus? Paul would not need Roman authority for getting Christians from there.
Consider this: The manuscripts in Damascus that have been found could have been the exact same scriptures and documents that Paul studied from for two years (a requirement in the Damascus Document!).
We know Paul did not study the Bible and what we have in the Dead Sea Scrolls explain a lot about questions of how the kingdom (church) would be organized by the Messiah. In a way I intend to though a wrench into the old traditional way of interpreting things. The Dead Sea Scrolls are much closer to being the very scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles than what we have in the Bible today.
Here is another thought – the most quoted book of scripture by Jesus and his apostles in all of the New Testament is not even in the Bible. I wonder why? Could it be because Christians did not need it – or did not what it any more than they wanted a quorum of 12 priests after the order of Melchizedek (the significance of 12 priests after the order of Melchizedek is explained in the DSS, but you will not find a reference to this in the recommended article)
The Traveler
-
(Anyone see any dinosaurs around here?) B)
Perhaps if we knew what we are looking for. There is a possibility that birds are all that are left of the dinosaurs. This is an idea that is growing in support.
Sometimes what we want to see colors our opinion of what we think we see.
When we ask how old is the earth there are a few problem - consider the following.
A special space ship takes off from earth traveling in a stright line into space. It accelerates at a constant speed equal to the acceleration of gravity. But for fun let us pretend that this space ship continues a constant acceleration even as it apporaches the speed of light and beyond. As our space ship continues to accelerate it comes to what I will call a half way point and from there on the ship deaccelerates until it comes almost to a stop which we find is the same place where we started - back at earth. The trip for those on the ship would have lasted about a week. For those on earth the trip could take over 1,000,000 years.
There are two problems: 1. How could going in a stright line end up at where we started?
2. How long did the trip really take? 1 week or 1,000,000 years?
If we could ask G-d - what would he say? and is there any proof that what ever answer he gave would not convince someone that the answer was wrong? I think there are some people that want to believe certain things about the bible and then use a scientific view to prove they are right.
I am quite sure that most scientist I know will admid that there is still a lot missing and a lot to be learned. I have, for the most part found the opposit among relilgious thinkers. They seem to think they have all the information they need and therefore have everything all figgured out. To be honest - the more I listen the more I am convinced most scientific thinkers will be apoligizing less than most religious thinkers when G-d lets us all know exactly what happened and how things are - much like the answer to the question of what is at the center of the solar system, the sun or the earth.
The Traveler
-
Thank you for you consideration. If you will - one more thought. Jesus taught his disciples as the master of covenants. On his last night alive with them he warned them of one that would not prove loyal to their covenants. In the apostles we learn a great thing when all that remained loyal asked, “L-rd is it I”?
Understanding covenants is not so much to perceive others in their covenants but that we may know ourselves.
The Traveler
-
I'll put both verses here, so the context is clear: I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:18-19
What do we learn here?
1. Traveler's belief that Paul never spoke in tongues did not prove accurate. Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone in his audience. BTW, that was my only point in citing verse 18--to show that Paul had done so. Verse 19 addresses a broader concern, which I'll address, since Syble is interested, and I desperately want to help satiate her obvious hunger for more knowledge about this blessing.
It could be that Paul spoke in sarcasm and rebuke for making such things known publicly. There is no record in the Bible that Paul ever spoke anything in tongues worthy of being called scripture. On the other hand he spoke often words recorded in scripture that have edified many for hundreds of generations. Since this is a topic of greater interest to you - could you direct me to any edifying words in scripture that were spoken in tongues worthy of being made scripture? Or that Jesus spoke publicly in tongues? Or that anyone at any time in the history of man spoke anything in tongues edifying enough to become scripture?
Do not take this post wrong - It is not that I do not think such things are good and that they take place or that they edify. I am not sure that such things should be published and told but instead pondered quietly and privately in one’s heart. Thus to this cause I think Paul spoke.
The Traveler
-
<div class='quotemain'>
I do not post this to appear to support or not support spiritual things that happen to various peoples of religion. I am impressed with people of faith. I have sat in sweat loges. I have fasted for 40 days in the wilderness as recommended by a Native American. I have been in places of worship of many faiths. I have heard their spiritual expressions. This is my opinion.
If a person is moved by a spiritual experience to love others (especially their enemies) and to be kind, and compassionate (again especially to their enemies), then I am impress and believe they are being influenced by the very spirit of Christ – weather they are Christian or not, I believe it is of Christ. But if they glory in themselves and think they are being lifted up to G-d (or something else) but do not show an increase of love towards others (especially to their enemies) – then I am convinced it is not the spirit of Christ.
For me it is not so much what happens in a moment but the commitment over the coming days, weeks, months and years to love and compassion. I find great joy in conversing with such and value their opinions, and think to myself that I would be more like them.
The Traveler
I was 14 and had just returned from Bible camp. My joyful report to my Sunday school teacher was, "I was filled with the Holy Ghost--I spoke in tongues!" Her response, "So, are you finding it easier to practice the FRUITS of the Holy Ghost?" (See Galations 5:22-23)
The "sign" of tongues is sort of like have your new car registration. It may be "proof," of ownership, but most people want to go for a ride! That would be the love, joy, peace, etc. :)
I am sorry PC. I do not think you understood my post. In essence I have little desire to speak in toungs for my edification. My efforts as far as the gifts of the spirit involve love and compassion - and not in the short term but of eternal nature. Speaking in tongues is fine for those that seek such things and I mean no criticism. But for me at this point of my understanding - I seek a more excellent way. (See 1Cor 13) It is interesting to me that from what I know of scripture, Paul never did speak in tongues. I am not sure why - unless he felt kind of as I do.
The Traveler
-
Trying to answer the question of covenants related to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
There are several covenant layers that relate and give history. First is the Abraham covenant which is the beginning of the covenant of Israel. This is then overlaid by the covenant of Moses that established Israel as a nation with Prophets/Judges as proctors (G-d’s proxy) of the covenant. This covenant is then modified to the Prophet/King and Prophet proctors of the covenant establishing Israel as a degraded nation under Kings (this change had great impact on the blessings of individuals under the covenant as given in the Book of Mormon). This covenant was broken with the death of Solomon in the division of Israel into Two Kingdoms (beginning of the scattering of Israel – as a result of breaking the kingdom covenant).
The Northern Kingdom broke the lesser covenant of divided kingdoms and was dispersed even more among the Gentiles. In the place of the Northern Kingdom a “pagan” or gentile people that did not know (covenant with) G-d, were established in the “promised land” of the dispersed tribes of Israel. These non-covenant peoples that worship different g-ds feared the G-d of Israel and without Prophet or proctor (or Levite, Priest) attempted to make their own covenants with the G-d of Israel. These people and their corrupt (blasphemous) covenants became know as the Samaritans. They created their own copies of scriptures justifying their corrupt covenant and sacrifices and changed their scriptures concerning Jerusalem and Mt. Herron (pardon my spelling)
Anyway when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon the Samaritans did not want a temple built and created lots of problems for the Jews. Perhaps the only reason there was not a major war was because the Jews and Samaritans were both subject peoples. The closest comparison of the Samaritans to our time Christians that I can use to demonstrate this divide would be the Anti Christ. That is, the Samaritans were considered of by the Jews what the Christians of today would consider the Anti Christ or followers of the Anti Christ. No Jew would talk to or have any dealing with a Samaritan any more than a Christian would befriend a known follower of the Anti Christ today.
When Jesus taught to love your neighbor as yourself he was asked who qualifies as a neighbor according to the covenant Israel had with G-d. The example he gave is that of a Samaritan in comparison to a Leavitt and Priest. This teaching of loving your neighbor in light of covenants confused and astonished many Jews anciently and is ignored by many Christians today that do not realize the full significances of what he taught based on the symbols he used in relation to covenants. The confusion today is, in light of “Good Samaritan” parable – what identifies a covenant disciple of Christ that loves their neighbor and who is it that is not a covenant disciple of Christ or a breaker of the covenant to love they neighbor (the real Anti Christ)? - The recognized teachers of correct doctrine or the vessels of compassion and love?
The Traveler
-
I would appreciate you expounding just a little further on the following:
Covenant:
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Good Samaritan.
Blindman.
It isn't that I couldn't come up with my own idea here, but I would be interested in just
how you are seeing how the covenant works in these as either positive or negative.
IOW is it Gods power which corrupts? The power He gives them, taking it back to the scripture written by JS when he stated that give a man a little power etc.
Or with the Good Samaritan. Was it an example of those who were covenanted not fulfilling their covenant but the one who wasn't fulfilled it and thereby became covenanted--- or--- was the Samaritan the one who was covenanted somehow in the pre-existence and fulfilling it, while others who had been covenanted maybe by word and deed, but not spiritually covenanted from the beginning? or was but didn't live up to it spiritually speaking?
As you can see there are many ways to go here and I would appreciate you nailing it down for me from your point of view.
If you could start your last post over and expound upon each and every thing as it pertains to the covenant.
Thanks.
I am sorry I have not the time to respond to all you have asked. Your questions are deep, as I would hope they would be. I will respond when I have more time - in the meantime I believe it is more important to be able to ask good questions than it is to be able to offer answers.
The Traveler
Moving This Weekend
in General Discussion
Posted
Sorry you don't like the South. By the way, not all Southerners have poor English! And obviously you aren't in NC if you don't think the landscape is attractive.
Hope you're getting adjusted, Prend!
Are you in NC? I did a lot of consulting out of Ashville - down the road not far from Bat Cave at a x-ray film manufacuring plant. Loved the area - would mountain bike every chance I got. Use to go to dinner (BBQ) with a Baptist minister and LDS Bishop (dentist) once in a while. Loved Carl Sandburg's place.
The Traveler