Traveler
-
Posts
15848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Posts posted by Traveler
-
-
Concerning children - you might want to read my post on Sodom and Gomorrah in reference to children. Just as a side note this also relates to the state of children being froced to pass through "the fire".
The Traveler
-
Even with a casual background most people are aware of the symbolic meaning of Sodom. Few have clue concerning the symbolic meaning of Gomorrah. How close are we to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah?
I would propose that the “sins” of Sodom and Gomorrah were not a new development unique to the time of Abraham nor did they end with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. See Ecclesiastes 1:9-11. I submit that there are 3 times of special destruction mentioned in scripture, the flood of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah and the “Last Days”. There are other minor events of destruction but I thought I would stick to the major events. I submit that the reasons for destruction in each of the major event epochs are basically the same. We learn from one of the books of prophecy of Enoch some interesting things about addiction to sin by those destroyed in the Flood:
1. They knew what they were doing was evil and destructive to religious society devoted to G-d.
2. They loved their evil addiction and called it good.
3. They demanded under their law that all within their society not only accept but conform to their evil standards, outlawing the standards of those devoted to G-d.
4. They refused to give up their evil and in defiance challenged G-d to destroy them.
I submit that these are the elements that comprise what is known as the ripening in inequity for destruction.
Turning again to Enoch we find the shadow of Sodom in the pre-flood society in some rather interesting statements:
1. We are told that the “order of marriage” was changed. This is open to speculation but I think this has to do with seeking sexual pleasure other than men and women under the covenant of a marriage blessed by G-d. (I think it is interesting that some religious movements are trying to redefine the marriage union that G-d blesses)
2. Enoch also tells us “Children were conceived only for carnal purposes”. I am not sure what this means but I speculate that it means either children were conceived not by loving parents but adulterous partners seeking lustful pleasure. Or children were conceived and prepaired for the sole purpose to be used by adults seeking pleasure with children.
I would comment that in today’s society there really is not a term for the blessed intimate family relationship of a man and a woman in marriage. The only word we have to describe such a thing is sex, which has come to mean a wide variety of activities that rewards participants with “sexual pleasure” of which the relationship of married couples are but a subset.
What then were the sins of Gomorrah? The ancient term was filthy lucre. Anyone care to offer a perspective?
The Traveler
-
There are horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon and there are breeds of horses native to the Americas. The native horses are quite small and are not big enough to ride. An example are the native horses of the grand canyon. Interesting there is no mention of horses in the Book of Mormon except for pulling carts and such. No mention of horses being ridden. Of course none of this proves anything for those that require such prof.
The Traveler
-
The Book of Revelation tells us that the "testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophesy”. I would understand that if the spirit of prophesy is no longer with mankind there could be no prophets. Jesus told us that all scriptures given to mankind through the ancient prophets were likewise a witness of him. I am sorry and with deep regret that you do not recognize prophets with the Testimony of Jesus Christ among man in this day and age as there was in ages long past. But then Jesus says that for the most part – prophets have been rejected in their time – I do not see why our time should be an exception.Originally posted by USNationalist@Jan 19 2004, 12:45 AM
It is my personal opinion that there are no "prophets" anymore. But i was at a mormon church today and they were talking about the reaons they have prophets.
So my question is, how do the LDS and RLDS view each others prophets? They both claim that God communicates his will through them, so what makes one side their faith has legitamate prophets and the others are false?
The Traveler
-
Cal: It has been sometime since there was activity on this thread. The comment I made to you was in response to a previous post, which does not seem to be with us anymore. I may have misused your name when the particular response belongs to someone else – I do not remember. If you were not the author of the missing post my deepest apologies. Thanks for your kind attempt to straighten it out.Originally posted by Cal@Jan 17 2004, 11:25 AM
Traveler....the word "hate", nor the feeling, is in my vocabulary. I enjoy debate and discussion for its own sake, and is not meant to be taken personally. If I find what I think is illogical in a person's responses, I may seem to attack the response, but I bear no ill feeling toward anyone of any religion on this board.
I find many of your postings informative and well considered. I find others hard to follow without making a lot of questionable assumptions. Be that as it may, your previous posting where you address me as though I had said something about being created in God's image mystifies me a little. I don't remember addressing that issue in THIS thread. What were you refering to?
Regarding atrocities perpetuated in the name of religion, I'm sure those that committed the MM massacre thought they were doing so in the name of God, as other religious acts of 'rightousness'. Religious fanaticism has been one of the great social plagues that humans have brought on themselves. If you are going to single out Trinitarianism, you might as well get even more "sweeping" and condemn Christianity as a whole, as well as many other authoritarian religions.
The root of much of religious violence on its neigbors has its roots in the age old "us against them" mentality that is found even in other primate and even lower mammalian societies. It's a way of preserving the integrity of a social group against the threat of extinction from outside groups. It's an evolutionary protection mechanism for survival. It is no big surprise that it survives in many modes, shapes and forms in societies today. Religous separatism is just another way for a social group to promote itselt and insure survival. This separatistic trait of groups gives rise to all kinds of conflict and animocities between people. As we have come so far technologically, we have yet to catch up in our social evolution. IOW, we are still behaving a lot like the cavemen we once were.
On the topic of Trinitarians vs. the Mormons as far as authoritarian misuse of power I do not think there is that much to compare. Whereas the Mountain Meadows was a single exception of LDS behavior brought about by a minority group of LDS members the several hundreds of years of genocide on three continents by the Trinitarians is hardly the exception of their minority or majority behavior. According to my research it was not until 1823 before any Trinitarian society publicly went on record with a law allowing religious expression by someone belonging to a non-Trinitarian religion. It was not until 1549 before a Trinitarian society allowed by law the practice of another Trinitarian religion other than the one in political power. Generally any decent to Trinitarian authority was dealt with the punishment of death. If I have misrepresented history on this account I hope someone will correct me. I would like to think better of sincere folks that live out their lives with bible scriptures in hand. I believe something went major wrong.
As far as the basic doctrine being preserved in the evolution of the Bible text – I have heard this said but for the life of me I do not know why anyone says such a thing. Perhaps if you or someone else would take the time to show how a specific doctrine has been preserved and remained unconfused during the last 2000 years it would really help me to understand what is meant by the Bible as a means of eliminating the evolution of Christian thought. As I read documents from history I find Christians of every age beginning with the death of Christ locked in struggles to keep doctrines from being overrun by popular doctrines of any particular time influencing the interpretation of scripture. There is a very good bench mark in the Dead Sea Scrolls which indicates how to interpret most of the Doctrines of the New Testament – But to be honest most Christian societies today would rather not make the comparison.
The Traveler
-
The logic is not to prove G-d but the demonstrate that good and evil are opposit and have no intersection in their logical sets. The logic is to demonstrate that as G-d exist all good will always be opposed by evil. Also that only be selecting good can one remain happy. The happiness of ignorance is not happiness and only exist while the ignorant are protected.
The Traveler
-
As I understand this thread we are discussing the matter of authority within the structure of the Church or the kingdom of G-d. Mr. Duck is correct, there are means and protocol for dissent and/or giving opinions. In fact the term “councilor” implies that council is to be given within protocols. However, we are addressing authority and how it operates within the kingdom, which is defined by the priesthood. I have made efforts to bring to light covenant and the responsibility of that covenant of authority as it relates to the priesthood.
I believe it is important to understand what your covenants are. There are a number of ideas that have been missed in a rush to make certain points. For example I have learned something about the exercising authority as a parent within the family structure. There are two parents in a covenant family – a father and a mother. It is impossible for parents to completely agree on every matter – there is bound to be disagreement. How is this to be resolved? By each telling the other that they have prayed and will stand their ground at all costs?
I have found that it is better that parents are “one” than it is that one of the parents to be right. Let me clarify this by saying that it is better that my wife and I act as one in exercising authority as parents than it is that I be allowed to be right even when I am right but we are divided. Being right but acting alone is still unrighteous dominion.
I would also point out that there several examples of the course of things being altered because of this principal. For example a lessor law was given to Moses, the Book of Mormon manuscripts were given to Martin Harris. Under the covenant of the authority of the priesthood there are only two options. Either those under the covenant act as one or the covenant is broken and not completed.
When I address Elder Brown about supporting your bishop when you “know” he is wrong he answered me directly. He said “You support your bishop – especially when you know he is wrong for he will need your support more then than at any other time.”
How do we define support? There may be many way, but one thing for sure, when your support your bishop or your spouse you do NOT usurp their authority.
The Traveler
-
I do not disagree with your thinking. But let me ask a question - Do you support your Bishop if you know he is wrong? I asked this question of Hugh B Brown (an Apostle and councler to president David O. McKay) when I was a teenager - what do you think was his reply to me?Originally posted by Peace@Jan 12 2004, 05:24 PM
I have a problem with the 'accountability line of reasoning'. It seems to illiminate individual accountability.
We each should be responsible enough to ask the Lord for guidance on any issue which comes down from the authority in charge.
In this way...no one can be lead astray.
The Traveler
-
Perhaps I did miss the point - do you understand the oath and covenant of the priesthood explained in D&C 84 see verses 33-38.Originally posted by Snow@Jan 12 2004, 05:29 PM
Well, first, I disagree and second, you missed the point.
If the Church, meaning the Brethren, decide that the saint should do this thing, or stop doing that thing, they may or may not be communicating the will of the Lord. We all know numerous examples. If a saint, on the other hand, understands the will of the Lord by virtue of the Holy Ghost and it is different than the counsel of the Brethren, then personally, I'll take my chances following the dictates of my own conscious rather than the dictates of someone else's. I am just as, or more, entittled to recieve revelation for my own benefit as is someone else.
Next, I am asking about how control and power are wielded inside the corridors of power. Does the prophet dictate and the brethren follow or do they vote or what?
Have you considered the meaning of agency and what it means to become an "agent unto yourself"?
Now let me ask you - what is more important than obedience? Remember we are not talking about any opinion but those who have been called by G-d to preside. What happens to those who preside with unrightious dominion? See D&C 121:36-46
One last thought or question - are you speaking more like Nephi or Laman and Limuel?
The Traveler
-
My friend Snow: You should understand this better. The Chruch is run according to covenant. The covenant of the church is much like the marriage covenant. That is there is a line of authority as established by the organization specified in the D&C starting with the First Presidency which is presided over by the President.
The line of authority is under covenant to obey the Lord through the priesthood line of authority. This line of authority is to obey and pass on revelation. If a link in the chain is not being obedient then there are options for those under that link of the line of authority.
For example Eve was under covenant to "obey" Adam as Adam "obeyed" the L-rd.
According to the covenant one must answer for their obedience to revelation and the line of authority. If however, one feel that there is a unrightious dominion they have a choice.
1. Be obediant anyway and according to the covenant they are not responsible but all responsibility lies in the line of authority.
2. Act according to their conscience or desire they take full responsibility for their actions and release all responsibilitiy from the line of authority.
Some examples: Lets say that the line of authority suggest that the membership not get tatoos. Then a bishop tells home teachers to inform the familes. The home teacher brings a message and tells a yourg man or women that they have been advised to inform members not to get tatoos. But some young man decides on his onw to get a tatoo anyway. That man is responsible to the L-rd for that tatoo. If however the young man decides not to get a tatoo even though he would really like one and there is noting wrong with having a tatoo then whoever decided to make this an issue must answer to the L-rd.
Hope this help you understand the structure of the covenant and oath of the Priesthood.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 7 2004, 08:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 7 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--AFDaw@Jan 6 2004, 09:23 PM
Very interesting questions Wiggins.
All I can truly say is that the BoM will not be re-translated because there is no need for it. The Bible was translated many times, and many times by political money to have it suit the needs of the king. Many truths were changed or lost. The BoM only has 1 translation, so there are not different variations out there to confuse people, therefore no need to try to find the most accurate one.
Actually, there are several different variations (translations) of the BoM.
The BoM that the LDS use now is vastly different from the one first printed in 1829. There are grammatical changes, changes in versification, changes in theology, etc. The one that most closely resembles the original one is the Restored Covenant Edition printed by the Zarahemla Research Foundation in Independence, MO.
They used the original manuscript as well as the printers manuscript to put the BoM back to it's original form. Here is the URL of the ZRF and an online copy of the BoM if you are interested. http://www.restoredcovenant.org/RCE.asp?CAT=RCE
There could be a claim that the original was used to produce a current version of the first publication but the origional manuscript was hidden in Joseph Smith's grave. When the grave was moved to the current site in Nauvoo the there was very little of the origional manuscript left that could be used.
A printer version was created because parts of the manuscript were being released for publication in news papers and othere such things while the printing plates for the Book of Mormon were being prepared for printing. The printer version was released to the printer in sections (just enough for setting the type) and then returned with a new section released to the printer.
The biggest difference between RLDS and LDS versions have to do with foot notes (including cross references) and breakdown of verses. Until recently the two orginazations have not been willing to assist each other in reasearching the origional publications. Neither the RLDS or LDS have admitted having the origional "golden plates".
P.S. I used RLDS as it was the historical refference; though they have decided of late to change their public title to "The Community of Christ" or something similar to that. They also concluded that it is not necessary to have a direct decendent of Joseph Smith involved in leading their organization. I am uncertain if their theology holds that the Book of Mormon is sacred scripture as important as the Bible scriptures. In the past when I have had discussions with our RLDS friends they indicated that some believe the B of M is sacred while other hold mostly to the Bible.
The Traveler
-
The Book of Mormon is intended to testify of Christ. Read it as you would anything else that testifies of Christ and remember that to many LDS the Book of Mormon is as sacred an anything written of Christ including any of the Books of the Bible. This is because unlike any of the books in the Bible the Book of Mormon was brought forth through a prophet without any changes by Scribes.Originally posted by wigginsmum@Jan 2 2004, 10:36 PM
Hi there - I'm an evangelical Christian and I recently picked up a copy of the Book of Mormon so that I could read it and discuss it with LDS online friends. However I've found it really hard-going. Should I attempt to read it from cover-to-cover or are there particular bits you would recommend? I've also got Bruce McConkie's book on LDS doctrine which I dip into.
Thanks,
Jules
The Traveler
-
As we consider the history of Christian thinking over the past 2000 years we see an evolution of sorts. The experts in history call this "reform". To LDS reform means in essence changes brought about by man or men inspired to make things better.
LDS do not believe man should "reform" the things of G-d. It is our basic belief that if the doctrines, orginaztion or practices have become corrupt that in essence G-d will start over with a restoration.
This is because the things of G-d are to be kept "pure" and "clean". Sometimes the scriptures talk about being "unspoted" from the world. The idea is that G-d does not operate using a reform method but rather the method used by G-d is that of "rebirth". Sometimes called "borne again".
I hope this helps.
-
Sorry again Cal: Your efforts to imply that the Mountain Meadow Massacre was about doctrine is once again complete nonsense. I am not saying that those involved did not break the law in fact they did break the law and they acted contrary to their own declared doctrine from our LDS prophets. The publishe doctrine that applies is that LDS believe in being subject to kings, presidents ... and honoring obeying and sustaining the law. Every where LDS have lived and established their society there have been people of different doctrine and religious notion living pecefully among them. Not so of Trinitarian societies prior to 1826.Originally posted by Cal@Dec 20 2003, 09:02 AM
Traveler,
I can also cite several cases where MORMONS also enforced their belief by force--just read some of the diaries and histories of some the events of the early saints in Utah---the Mountain meadow massacre was not the only example. There were numerous cases of physical punishment for disobeying the brethern and it wasn't a matter of law--it was good old fashioned religious persecution---so be careful when you get so critical of early Christian atrocities--we have a few of our own to cover up.
If there was a Trinitarian society trying to live the teachings of Jesus (ie. treating others of a different religion or doctrine ideas as you would like to be treated) prior to 1826 I find no evidence it. I will be glad to update my understanding on this if you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction.
That some LDS do not live their declared and published religion is no more proof of false doctrine than Judas is proof Jesus was a false prophet.
Why do you distort everyting about us so? It give me the impression you hate us.
The Traveler
The Traveler
-
Cal: I am so sorry but I have no idea where your are getting such palpably absurd ideas.
First: This spiritual realm and physical realm is complete nonsense and not based on any creation doctrine taught in scripture. Man was created by G-d in the “Garden of G-d” and the “Garden of G-d” was completely in the realm in which G-d resides. Man as a “physical” creation was meant to reside with G-d, as a companion to G-d, in the realm that G-d resides. To live with G-d has always been the purpose of man’s creation – Why do you so vehemently deny this doctrine. This concept of physical creation of man in the realm of G-d is so prevalent in scripture I am left wondering where your contrary to scripture ideas are coming from. I do not for a moment believe that the physical creation of man took place in a realm contrary to the nature of G-d as you imply. I thought for a time your idea sprang from some liberal interpretation of scripture but your concept of man’s creation is without any correlation to any scripture I know about. You must provide a source for your realm concepts of creation.
Second: Are you aware that man has a spirit? Do you not know that when spirit leaves the physical body that man is no longer considered a “living” soul? If the scriptures said that man’s spirit body is in the image of G-d’s spirit body your liberal ideas that man is in the image of G-d would have some credence. But you are trying to compare apples to oranges by saying apples are exactly like oranges and then say they are different because we are not really talking about the same things. The scriptures tell us that man is in the literal “physical” image of G-d. The ancient Hebrew is 100% clear on the notion that man was physically created to be just like G-d. There is no apples to oranges comparison of the creation in the scriptures as you are trying to pervert the sacred truth – the comparison is apples to apples and oranges to oranges or in the case of the creation of man, physical likeness and image to physical likeness and image. There is no other way that the ancient Hebrew words that are used can be understood on this point. The ancient Hebrew words have NEVER been used in the manner that you say is the only way to understand them. To imply such an outlandish understanding as you do, is to ignore the pure word of G-d as it was spoken by G-d to ancient prophets. The only question I have at this point is why do you hate truth spoken by G-d in purity to ancient prophets? Is it because it is too much like the pure truth he has spoken to modern prophets?
The Traveler
-
With your attitude you will fit right in with the Trinitarians. Perhaps you have already become one with the worldest bloodiest group to ever commit genocide. Not only did the Trinitarians bring about the Dark Ages. They sacrificed more women and children in Europe to their Trinitarian G-d that died in the Black Death.Originally posted by Jesus Saves@Dec 2 2003, 02:52 PM
God forbid I shall ever "become one " with the Mormon church! If I believed what the Mormon church teaches then I would have to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If I believed that he was a prophet then I would have to believe that the book of Mormon was true.
When the Trinitarians came the the Americas their were 40 million native Americans now there are less than 4 million. No where in the world has bloody genocide been so effective.
Prior to 1549 there was no Trinitarian society that would allow any one that disagreed to live. When that law was passed all it did was stop the blood flowing among Trinitarians. Talk about biggots and prejudice!!! Not until 1826 is there evidence of a Trinitarian not enslaving and murduring those that disagreed with their Trinitarian deffination of G-d.
If there were Trinitarians willing to shair the love of Jesus prior to 1826 would you please provide the public declariation that demonstrates it? I would like to hear about just one Trinitarian prior to 1826 willing to die so someone could believe in a non Trinitarian G-d. I would like to believe that in 1800 years the teaching of Jesus would have some effect.
The Traveler
-
We were modeled physically after God. ?Originally posted by Will_Drotar@Nov 12 2003, 12:21 PM
We were modeled physically after God. ?
? What's the problem? My you are rather aggressive in your post. I did not call you stupid or anything like that.
As I said, we must discuss the Trinity first, then move on to this. Which is more important?
Man was modeled physically after God's image. We were given dominion over Creation, a degree of His attributes- those communicable- and a physical body SHAPED AFTER His spirit body.
In reference to the fact that Creation was physical, *again* I'm not claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 is not a reference to man's physical creation. I am saying that it doesn't mean that God therefore has a physical body. We shouldn't make God into the image of man. Just cause we were created with a physical body, doesn't mean He does.
FACT: We live in a physical realm- He lives in a spiritual realm. We have a physical body- He has a spirit body. We were created with a physical body, to dwell inside the physical realm. Who were we modeled after? God. It makes no sense to say that God has a physical body and dwells in a spiritual realm. It makes even LESS sense to say that God and the heavenly mother have physical bodies, and that they give birth to 'spirit children.'
Of course we weren't made exactly in the image of God. My point exactly. My first premise was that man wasn't created exactly like God. I am kind of confused here.
But here I'm blown away: "When G-d manifested his physical body, as was done through Jesus Christ." Now it seems as if you're saying Jesus was God. That follows the Bible straightaway, but I'm not sure if that's LDS doctrine. Christ has a body. Christ is a person within the Godhead. The Father does not have a body. The Spirit does not have a body.
? What's the problem? The problem is that pesel and temuna require that something "Physical" exist inorder that a physical model be made. If man is pesel and temuna of G-d then G-d must be physical and that is the point of this thread and the holy scripture.
In reference to the fact that Creation was physical, *again* I'm not claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 is not a reference to man's physical creation. I am saying that it doesn't mean that God therefore has a physical body.
Why do you look right at this scripture and say there is no physical relationship. If you believe man is the spiritual example of G-d (not physical) then you have a lot of explaning to do about the history of man. The words "pesel" and "temuna" do not mean kind-a sort-a it means exact to every possible detail - and remember this is G-d doing the creating. Are we to believe man's spirit is what is like G-d? Are you serious or just attempting to avoid admitting the physical connection?
The Father does not have a body. The Spirit does not have a body.
Do you not see a contridiction here? If the Father does not have a body how can man's body be in the image and likeness (pesel and temuna) of it.
Let me help you with some doctrine. Jesus was born and had a physical body. Prior to his birth he was spirit without a body. Jesus said to his apostles that saw his physical body, that to see him (his physical body) was like seeing the Father. Think about that. The reason he said that is because man at that time could not see the Father. Why? Because of the Fall of man, man was (and still is) cut off from the Father. After the Fall man could not be with the Father and was cast out from the Father. Jesus was apointed as the mediator (the one and only mediator) between the Father and man and was the only G-d that man could deal with. As mediator Jesus represented the Father by:
1. Taking upon him the name of the Father - The taking upon one self the name of someone greater to represent them is not uncommon in scripture. It is an indication that they are "one with them". Jesus said clearly that he does all in the name of the Father. This use of someone else's name is very common not only in scripture but all of ancient society.
2. Speaking in first person as the Father. It is common for one sent in the name of someone else in scripture (and ancient culture) to speak in the first person.
This is why the Trinitarians are so confused - they will not accept scripture in its context.
As mediator Jesus is the G-d of the Old Testament following the fall of man - note that Moses did not need a mediator at the burning bush. And Jesus said "No man cometh unto the Father but by me". If this is not true Jesus did not tell the truth.
Next point
When a spirit is removed from a physical body it is known as death. The same death that Jesus suffered on the cross. But Jesus took his phisical body following the resurrection and went to heaven where Stephen saw Jesus sitting on the right hand of the Father. This demonstrates that physical beings are in heaven. Also note that Jesus will return with the same "resurrected" physical body. And remember that scripture tells us a resurrected body is immortal and will not die - ever. G-d is not dead or a spirit of a dead person.
One last point. Jesus said that when two or more are gathered in his name there is love. Prior to 1826 can you provide documentation where any Christian church that believed in the Trinity announced by public declaration that people that did not believe in the trinity should be loved and not put to death for their beliefs. The reason I bring this up is that the LDS publically declared that all people should be allowed to "worship how, where, or what they may". Has Christianity changed over the last 200 years? Are Christian churches today following the teachings of Jesus or were the previous Christian chruches of hundreds of years of traditions that gave us the Trinity Creed following the teachings of Jesus?
The Traveler
-
The ancient Hebrew word that tells us that there is one G-d is "ehad". There is no way "ehad" can mean a 3-1 Trinity G-dhead. If you can show me any context where 3 different kinds can be discribed by "ehad" in any ancient Hebrew text - sacred or otherwise I would be very interested.Originally posted by Will_Drotar@Oct 27 2003, 02:30 PM
The problem, as I said, or attributing a physical body to God, is that you by necessity can no longer believe in the 3-1 Godhead of the Trinity, and you must believe he is bound to physical dimensions. TTYL Jesus loves you!
As for love ther is no doube Jesus loves and his followers love their fellow man. But I see little historical evidence that Trinitarians love anybody. Since the declaration of the Trinitarian Creed the Trinitarians killed in the name of their trinitarian G-d anyone that would disagree with their 3-1 concept. The first law passed by any Trinitarian society I am aware of that would allow anyone to live that did not see eye to eye with their doctrine was 1549, but this law demanded that only other Trinitarians be allowed to live. Not until 1826 can I find any law on any Trinitarian societies books that did not attempt to stop killing in the name of their Trinitarian G-d anyone that disagreed with their 3-1 doctrine. And those laws did not stop the extermination of Mormons by Trinitarians in Missouri.
No my misunformed friend Trinitarians have a very bad history of manifesting love that Jesus said was the number one method of identifing his followers or those that gather in his name.
The Traveler
-
Will D: I am rather astonished with the extreme liberalistic licence you take when you claim certain doctoral notions are in complete accordance with scripture. In the first chapter of Genesis verse 26 the holy word of G-d tells us (KJV) “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” G-d spoke these things to Moses in the tongue of the ancient Hebrew. Two Hebrew terms of paramount interest to all that care of G-d’s sacred utterances are “pesel’ for image and “temuna” for likeness. These terms not only imply a physical modeling but demand it.Originally posted by Will_Drotar@Oct 24 2003, 10:20 AM
I don't recall myself being omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent...
Oh, you don't take that verse to mean that we were to completely in God's image either? So you place exceptions on this as well.
This verse happens right after God makes animals. This is stressing our dominion, distinctness, authority over Creation. We were made in God's literal image, we were given consciousness (something animals are not since they do not possess the mental capacity for such), we were given a spirit and a soul. We were made in God's image in contrast to Creation. I don't understand how people work this BACKWARDS into saying that God is in OUR image, ie He has a body of flesh and bones.
Question: Why is this so important to y'all? Why does your church stress that God has a physical body of flesh and bones? My question is why does your church remain silent on issues such as evolution (as from what I've seen) but stress that God has bones? I don't mean to sound mean, but I just hear this so often, and yet none ever talk about the important stuff whenever I talk to my friends, or the missionaries.
The fact that God is not bound to finite dimensions is one logical outworking of Trinitarianism. The fact that He does is an outworking of exaltation. By simply demonstrating the presence of the Triune God in the Scriptures, this issue ought to be settled. TTYL Jesus loves you!
If I were to say that I have a 1/60th scale model of the York aircraft carrier used in World War II at the battle of midway. Two thing would be understood. First that I have in my possession a PHYSICAL object. And second that it is a replica of the actual PHYSICAL aircraft carrier called the York. To imply that I make no physical reference could only be a blatant effort to distort my actual words.
Maybe I am ignorant and stupid but I have found no reference in any ancient Hebrew text sacred or otherwise where “pesel” and “temuna” are ever used in any manner remotely similar to the interpretation you insist is the only logical way this passage should be interpreted. The LDS view is that these words be considered to mean exactly what is implied within the context of the language as it was spoken to Moses by G-d. Nothing more and nothing less. I see no justification for men to expand on the wisdom of G-d.
I am most curious why you insist this passage be consider to reference something other than man as a physical model of a physical G-d. Can you give me any example in ancient Hebrew text where “pesel” and “temuna” are used to reference something non physical? Has G-d spoken to you or someone you know in the same manner as he spoke to Moses to explain that he did not really intend to use “pesel” and “temuna” but something else therefore justifying your wildly liberal interpretation of this sacred text?
To all reading my post I would ask you to carefully consider the options of doctrine being presented. Is it possible that man was physically created and modeled after G-d and that beyond the physical model man has little to claim that he be considered a g-d or like G-d? I would also point out that the creation being spoken of in Genesis is in reference to all things of a physical creation.
Most involved in religious thought agree that man is not just a physical being. Are we to imply that excluding the physical that man is in every other way just like G-d? Such a notion is laughable. As far as morals, love, kindness, compassion, mercy and ever other non physical aspect man is just like G-d? History proves this notion that you claim nothing but fantasy. One last consideration to pounder. When G-d manifested his physical body, as was done through Jesus Christ. That physical body was indistinguishable from that physical body of every other man according to all that witnessed and that is exactly what is being said and implied in Genesis 1:26.
The Traveler
-
One other thing. Note that man's image is not after something singular. The reference is plural and is translated as “our”. This would imply that something in eternity other than G-d and man have this same image. Other than the LDS view on this matter I have not heard of any other religion that has made an attempt to indicate what other that G-d in the singular sense is enough like the physical ness of G-d to be identified with him to account for the plurality.
The Traveler
-
You are on to a lot more than you think here. Sorry that I do not have the recourses of my library to give you the exact Hebrew words but in ancient Hebrew the words that are translated into modern English as "image" and "likeness" have more significance than you have provided. The Hebrew word used here for "image" specifically indicates a physical model of something physical. Therefore in order for the scripture to be correct the “image” must be a physical thing that is very much like another physical thing.Originally posted by Spencer@Sep 24 2003, 04:13 PM
Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Here God says Adam was created in his image correct?
Genesis 5:3
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Here the same term is used to describe the likeness of Adam and his son Seth.
Interesting, what say you?
Spencer
Though the ancient scriptures are very clear on this matter there are many that claim to believe scripture – except when is runs contrary to their opinion. In that case their opinions are more important than the scriptures. None-the-less – keep up the good research and check out opinions.
The Traveler
? What's the problem?
Human Sacrifice
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Not all cities were destroyed including the children. I attemempted to indicate why in another thread. The problem seems to stem around children that had been so abused there seems to be little hope.
On another note it is interesting the number of children sacrificed at the birth of Jesus. It appears that their innocient sacrifice allowed the Christ child to survive.
The Traveler