rameumptom

Actually, Sam did have children. Check the blessings that Lehi gives his children. He tells Sam that his children would be adopted into Nephi's line. I would suppose that Sam had some mental or physical handicap(s) that prevented him from easily raising his own children, and so Nephi stepped in and did a lot of it.

Each Bishop establishes his own procedures/policies as to how tithing and temple recommends work. You need to discuss it with your bishop quickly, in case you need to make adjustments to your plan.

Another key is found in Alma 32. When we begin with a desire to believe, and study the word, we can begin a spiritual test. We plant the word in our hearts, if we feed and nurture it, and if it is a good seed, it will begin to grow. How does it grow? It swells in our bosom (heart/emotion), it enlightens our understanding (mind), it expands our soul (spirit), and it becomes "delicious" to us. These 4 events should begin to occur for the sincere and true seeker. Alma then tells us to continue nourishing the seed and not cast it out, so that it can continue to grow, until it matures and bears full fruit.

There's lots of internal evidence that others were here when the Nephites showed up. For example, Nephi states they build a temple, similar to Solomon's. If it were only the Nephites, who would have built it? 50 people are not enough to build a temple in 10-20 years, but thousands of people conquered and made Nephites by cultural adoption could. The Jaredites were Asian, as the majority of Native American DNA tests agree with. But that doesn't mean others weren't here before the Jaredites, either.

I think it is very important that we not take one passage and create a core doctrine out of it. Core doctrines will be well-defined and established in many passages of scripture. Each of those points brought up can easily be researched to find the deeper and most correct understanding of each and every one of them. But it requires digging deeper than most Christians care to go. And it requires more pondering than most Christians are willing to think.

If you believe them to be different Gods, then do you also believe that God the Father and Jesus do not hear and answer prayers of Catholics or Methodists? Is it no different than if they were praying to a tree or rock? I personally believe there is a difference, and that God answers sincere Catholic and Methodist prayers. I think I must agree with Charlie. We all worship the same God, albeit imperfectly. Some more imperfectly than others, but while some may worship in a Celestial form, there's still room for worship on a lesser level of glory. In the last General Conference, Elder Holland disagreed with the Trinitarian creeds, but still insisted we are also Christian.

I believe that Jesus truly believed (as did several of his apostles) that the 2nd Coming would be in that generation. I do believe that the prophecies are true, with that exception. You can claim I'm taking it out of context, but Occam's razor suggests the easiest reading is probably the correct one. When Jesus says it will all happen before that generation passed, I take him at his word. I do not believe the mortal Jesus knew all things. For example, he did not know the exact time of the 2nd Coming, as he stated only the Father knew. Of course, if we're talking Trinity, then we have a problem with a being keeping secrets from himself....

Dr T, And while we believe in three separate beings in a Godhead, we believe that the Godhead is eternal as a God in unity. In this way, Jesus may come to earth as fully divine and fully human, as LDS belief is they are of one substance, rather than the dualism taught at Chalcedon. We have LDS that believe that God the Father is from all eternity God the Father, and others that believe God the Father has a Father. Either way, there is one Godhead - or divine council, in which there are eternal Gods included. Next, what does philosophy have to do with the Trinity? The Trinity is described as incomprehensible and unknowable. There is an illogic to describing it, to the point that most "Trinitarian" lay people actually believe in modalism. While it seems logical to have an uncaused First Cause, what does that mean? What happened before the Big Bang? The rules of all physics and logic break down prior to the Big Bang, so we cannot guess what occurred before it. And does Eternal for God mean the same thing as Eternal for us? If one goes billions of years into the past to the Big Bang (or the beginning of time), is that not an eternity? There are ways for LDS to also explain the First Cause. Now, I accept you do not agree with that. No problem. But it is as with the Godhead vs Trinity, there are reasonings for both, some logical and others classified as mysteries. IMO, the more important issue isn't whether there were Gods before God, or whether God is a Trinity or a Godhead; but whether we are following in Christ's footsteps to be like Him. And I think we can all agree on that. Jesus did not spend his time trying to teach how many angels dance on the head of a pin. He taught us to love God with all our heart, might, mind and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. All of the commandments lead to these two commandments, which are for us to enter into a loving relationship with God and man. And I know we can all agree on that.

I agree that there was no way for 19th century anachronisms to not slip into the record, as it was not a nice and neat word for word Translation. It all came through his mind and thought process, and used words that best fit Joseph. However, several have shown that many ancient ideas have also shown up that Joseph would not have noticed. Brant Gardner gave a talk at the 2004 FAIR conference showing that the Ammon story fits in well with Mayan methods, for example. The Case for Historicity: Discerning the Book of Mormon's Production Culture

Shadow, I'm finished with these discussions with you. Your interpretations of the scriptures and scholarly points I've made seem to go right past you. I think a few others have also tired of this. It isn't a discussion, as you are hitting a couple verses that seem to sound as you'd like, but then ignore the vast majority of scripture that I have shared. And the one evidence that I believe it was you that shared, about Joseph Smith making a false prophecy of the 2nd Coming, showed anti-Mormon all over it. You conveniently used half the statement, and ignored the part where Joseph said he did not know when it would occur. So, as it is, I'm going to stop these discussions with you until you can play nicely.

I think a big difference is that we consider the truths in other religions a big bonus and plus for them. We believe they will receive a level of heaven and salvation. OTOH, when another condemns a Mormon to hell, because we believe in a different God than they do, they are not offering us much hope.

No worries. We all get caught up in the heat of the moment. Vigorous debate is good, as long as we discuss the issues. Unfortunately, some are focused on solely attacking without actually considering what is being discussed. Your actions show you are sincere in wanting to have a good discussion, and I appreciate that.

I agree that Genesis is scripture and is inspired. Now, does that mean that it came directly from the pen of Moses? Of course not. And that is one reason why we have the JST, to show that some things were lost from the original Genesis that Moses received. I mean, look at how much Enoch material the world would not have, if it were not for Joseph Smith's translation. And there is evidence that it is authentic, because the name Mahujah is also found in the DSS version of Enoch that was discovered in 1947 - a century after Joseph Smith died! Of course, the antis will tell us that Joseph must have gotten hold of a copy of it somewhere along the way.....

3rdPersonViewer, thanks for reminding us that Jesus is known as the Great Angel of the Presence. Margaret Barker discusses this extensively in her book, the Great Angel. So, if Jesus is an angel, and Moses and Elias are angels, and Enoch, then I guess angels, Gods and men are of the same substance!

Well, could you explain the three men who visited Abraham, who were also angels? Two of these went on to visit Lot and destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. How about Jesus at the Mount of Transfiguration, where Moses and Elias appeared as angels? Peter was so impressed, he wanted to build a booth for all three. And then there's the Jewish tradition that the man/prophet Enoch was Metatron, the archangel. Traditionally, angels and men were the same substance as God. Different? Of course. But the same substance. I guess my three examples should help to see that.

Yes it is in the JoD. However, that does not make it doctrine. Given Adam-God and the requirement for polygamy to be exalted that also are in the JoD, but not considered correct by current GAs, I'd say we need to do as the Church asks and separate out doctrine from sporadic teachings. As for it being taught in General Conference, I'd be careful on that, as well. Up until the last 25 years, a lot of speculative teachings came over the pulpit. In the last 25 years, however, the First Presidency has regulated the teachings at General Conference so that they solely "teach the doctrines" as Pres Packer insists. I think you'd find it difficult to find anything on the KFD in General Conference in the last 25 years. This isn't to repudiate it, but as Pres Hinckley stated, we just don't have a lot of information on the teachings in it, and so it is an outlier in understanding the specifics. How many members speculate about God having sex, God's Father having a father, etc., simply because we have two discourses that brush lightly on the topics? There's more speculation involved than what is actually taught by Joseph Smith. Of course, we also have the issue of whether it was recorded accurately. So, while I think it is valuable for my personal study, it is definitely not a core doctrine of the Church. And until the Prophet begins to actively teach it, we should walk circumspectly in our use of the KFD.

Joseph Smith had no problem with going back and correcting or enhancing a previous revelation with new information that he had received. At the time of the Book of Commandments revelation, he was only given the one gift. And until he was finished with the translation, there were no other gifts given to him of the Spirit. That is the benefit of continual revelation. However, once the D&C was being readied for publication, the Lord had given him other gifts to use, since his responsibilities and tasks had changed. Richard Bushman explains and demonstrates this in Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling. For Joseph, the concept of Zion was continually changing. It began as a congregation, then a place in Missouri, then it expanded to include a larger location, until Joseph finally realized that it encompassed all of North and South America. Today, the prophets tell us that Zion is wherever we find a stake or temple.

The original Book of Mormon states there was a Book of Moses, but was later changed to state the Books of Moses. Joseph Smith and others did not know the Documentary Hypothesis, or the possibility that there really was only one book that Moses wrote, and if so, perhaps only portions of the 5 books were in it. Other portions were possibly added later by the Deuteronomists and others. BTW, the DSS have at least one portion of a copy of all the books of the Old Testament, except for Esther (IIRC). Then again, there are also portions or full copies of dozens of other books, as well. The question then is: if we are going to believe in the reliability of the DSS for the Biblical texts, why don't we add these other writings to the Bible?

Thanks, Dale. The reality is, both the Bible and Book of Mormon are imperfect writings. But are they reliable? Of course. The key is to take all the verses in context, and not take one verse out of the entire Bible (or Book of Mormon) and make a doctrine out of it. There are themes in both books that are clear, compelling, and complete. Those are the points we should focus on in both of these books. Trying to prove/disprove the Godhead and/or Trinity from a couple passages in the Bible is a massive effort in futility. There are evidences that can be found for both, depending on one's reading of certain passages. But those descriptions of God are found in only a very few passages. Found more abundantly are scriptures detailing God's love, mercy, and righteousness. Perhaps that is what we Christians should be focusing upon?

RAM: Once again, you are taking a verse of the Bible out of context. There are several scriptures that show that God and Jesus are separate beings, but are one God in that they are one Godhead. You can cherry pick verses out of the Bible, or you can seek to understand what the ancients believed and taught about it. This is why I suggest a good reading of Margaret Barker's writings. She is a Methodist preacher and Old Testament expert/scholar in England. She has no reason to support these issues, except they are what the ancients taught and she's sharing those insights. In fact, she didn't know anything about the LDS Church until she had written her book, The Great Angel, and began receiving letters from LDS scholars thanking her for her research. Isaiah's "monotheistic" statements are written as such because he knew that the nation of Israel only had one God: Yahweh. He is the only God of Israel. Secondly, as Trinitarians believe that their view of the Trinity is monotheism; LDS believe that the Godhead describes a singular God, as well, even though they are physically separated. Finally, explain the word "monotheism" as it deals with the Trinity. Ask any Jew or Muslim to describe the Trinity, and they would call it polytheism. Spinning words so as to make polytheism into monotheism still does not make it mean anything. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Describing Isaiah's writings by modern definitions does not work. We must study the ancient beliefs and practices to determine what Isaiah was all about. Margaret Barker explains that Isaiah saw the divine council (Isaiah 6), and saw the gods surrounding the throne of God. He understood there were many gods, but also knew that only one of them was the God of Israel.

RAM: Sigh. Can we get some people on here that know the Bible? It would make discussing these things so much easier. Guess what? That generation passed and the signs of the sun going dark, the moon turning to blood, and the Son of Man coming in glory did not occur. So, Jesus gave an incorrect or false prophecy.As for Joseph Smith's prayer on when the 2nd Coming would be, he even stated in that quote you give us that he did not know if that meant the 2nd Coming or not! If you are going to quote LDS scripture, please do not misquote it and twist it around. You conveniently left out verses 16-17. That seems to me to have been a correct prophesy. The 2nd Coming did NOT come before Joseph Smith's 85th birthday! This misquoting by you clearly shows you are trying to get your statements from an anti-LDS site, and not really studying LDS scripture. This is basically bearing false witness against Joseph Smith, by twisting his words. RAM: Orson Pratt wrote in several papers in 1858 that this prophecy was soon to come to pass. These papers ridiculed him. Joseph did not state that the war would begin in 1832. This is a straw man attack that Larry Jonas gives. And it does not explain the correct prophecy of England seeking aid, when world war would fall on the nations. Nor does it explain the other prophecies, which have been correctly understood by Church leaders in the past to refer to the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc. RAM: Or it can be taken literally that Moses saw God face to face. How is it that you are the chosen one to determine what is literally correct, what is metaphor/simile, and what is incorrect? Clearly there is a disagreement in the Mosaic record, probably due to being from two different sources. The early prophets had not problem with the idea of seeing God. Jacob called a place Peniel, because he saw the face of God. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God (suggesting he saw God). Isaiah stood in the presence of God and proclaimed he had unclean lips (Isaiah 6), but lived. Shall I go on, or are you going to stick with one verse to justify destroying the testimonies of all these prophets?

Gaea, would you specify in exactly what point they differ? I do not see anything that differs amongst them. Also, please note that early Abrahamic traditions agree with things in the BoA: Abraham being sacrificed, Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians, etc. Just because it isn't in the Bible, does not mean it didn't happen. One cannot fully describe Abraham's 100+ years in just a few chapters.

Let's also remember that many groups worked to preserve the Bible over time. OTOH, the Spaniards destroyed all of the Mesoamerican documents, save a handful that survived (like the Popul Vuh). Still, there are many changes in the Bible over time. There are key differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts, for example. Then there is the Documentary Hypothesis that shows there are multiple versions of the scriptures combined into the Bible we have today. This explains the two creation stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2), and that there are two Flood stories combined into one story (one story has 40 days, the other 13 months; one has a raven, the other a dove; one has 2 animals, the other has 7 animals, etc). It also explains the two stories of Moses striking a rock to bring forth water at the same location twice. And why do we not find something as major as the defeat of the Egyptians at the Red Sea in any non-Biblical sources? Seems to me that would have been an astounding event, at least that's what the Bible teaches as the Israelites move forward and the people of the land are terrified of them. Professor Bart Ehrman notes that of the copies of the New Testament available today that were written prior to the Gutenberg press, there are more differences than there are words in the KJV New Testament! True, not all of the differences are major, but there are enough major differences to bring up questions on some readings. Of course, this includes the Johannine comma, which is a very big issue. Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia IOW, both the Bible and Book of Mormon require faith to believe them. They also require a studious mind to understand the actual doctrines within them, knowing that some mistakes may slip in due to the weakness of the translators and editors.

The LDS Church rarely quotes from the KFD. President Hinckley in a recent interview stated we do not know enough on the subject to really establish any particular doctrine. And that's the catch, we know Joseph taught some stuff, but we do not have enough revelation on it to clarify it beyond the many speculations that come from it. BTW, the Church does have this official announcement regarding doctrine: LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine

RAM: The Trinity is not understandable. Just as with science, I cannot prove a theory, all I can do is disprove a theory; I can only tell you what the Trinity is not. And I do not know of anyone that can deftly describe the Trinity, as the creed itself calls God "unknowable" and "incomprehensible." If you pretend to understand the mystery of the Trinity, then you do not understand the creeds. And your modalistic example you gave previously shows you do not understand it. RAM: Because the Trinity is a Spirit, without body, parts or passions. That is what the creeds teach. I cannot explain the Trinity, because I do not understand how God the Father can be without a body, and Jesus with a resurrected body, and still be one substance. According to the creeds, anything that is not pure would defile God, this would include any physical substance. For God to take into himself a physical body made from the impure materials of the earth would make God impure. The LDS view is that God is made of the same substance as we are. He has a physical body as we do, however his body has been purified and glorified. So, both God the Father and Jesus have glorified physical bodies. They are one in the Godhead - one in purpose, unity, and Agape love. RAM: I believe we are all to follow Christ as best we can. And yes, we should represent him in our lives. My point is, if the Trinity is a mystery, it makes it more difficult to follow a mystery. RAM: Once again, if we want to toss out Joseph Smith for a prophecy you think is false (and it isn't), then we have to reject Jesus for his false prophecy, as well. The Bible does warn about false prophets, but it does not state that one wrong prophecy makes a false prophet. It only states for us not to believe in a wrong prophecy. You need to reread the Bible. BTW, how many times have you read the Bible? I'd like to know if you are getting your points from your own studies, or if you are getting them off of some anti-Mormon site. I've read straight through the Old Testament 7 times, and the New Testament about 20 times. Oh, Peter tells us in Acts 3: IOW, the Second Coming cannot occur until there is a restitution of all things, which all the prophets had foreseen. Given that Peter was not declaring that restitution had occurred, it must have been a future event. This restitution of all things is, in LDS belief, the Restoration of the Gospel in the last days. RAM: Once again, you are taking one verse out of the entire Bible and interpreting it differently than the Bible was meant to be read. Isaiah knew and understood about the divine council, as he saw it in Isaiah 6. Margaret Barker and other non-LDS Bible scholars have written on this. I suggest you read a few scholarly sites, instead of the anti-LDS sites. As I stated, the early Christian Fathers believed God and Jesus to be separate beings. How else are we to understand going to the Father through Jesus? If they are the same being, then you automatically would go to the Father, with or without Jesus! Christ, as Origen and others taught, is God, but subordinate to the Father. Stephen saw two separate beings, the Father and the Son - was Stephen lying to us, or was God lying to Stephen? Or did Stephen tell us the truth? God the Father is in a Godhead relationship with Jesus and the Holy Ghost. They receive their godhood from the Father, and are subordinate to him. According to the ancient Hebrew belief, the Father was El Elyon or Elohim. He gave out the nations to his sons, giving the best place, Israel, to Jehovah (Jesus Christ). Later, Jehovah was awarded all the nations as his prize. We are unable to achieve a relationship directly with God the Father at this time. We need an intermediary, which is Jesus Christ. It is His atonement and resurrection that allows us to become purified and holy, in order for us to be able to enter into the presence of the Father. IOW, without Jesus, we cannot see the Father or be with Him. I recommend you read Margaret Barker's website Margaret Barker or buy her book, The Great Angel Amazon.com: margaret barker great angel: Books