Can someone please be honest with me?

[rameumptom]

I think the problem goes deeper than that. I believe the God of the Old Testament is the God that we worship but I don't know if I accept the belief that the Old Testament was originally written in purity and then corrupted over generations through mistranslations or changes made by scribes. The reason for this is that even though much of the theology of the OT is different than the NT and the revelations of JS, the books of the OT are completely consistant with themselves.

Rameumptom: Actually, they are not. There are very major differences within the books, as they were combined together. There's also major differences in various books (Kings vs Chronicles) because of who wrote them.

For example, Margaret Barker just gave a speech on Temple Music, where she shows a major difference between the D (Deuteronomist) and P (Priest) groups. The Deuteronomists attempted to change the original temple rites, so as there were no other Divine Beings in the temple, no angels, no music, no Tree of Life, etc.

Genesis 1 and 2 show us two completely different versions of the Creation. And yes, I know that some LDS believe one was the spiritual creation, and that is a fine way to read it today, but it isn't how they came about. Two different authors having different views of Creation wrote them. I recommend the book, "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Friedman as a great starting place to understand some of the main differences. Margaret Barker's books discuss a lot of the changes made by the Deuteronomists and Priest groups.

There is far more evidence to show that the full theology of the Bible was a system in the making. One in which many precepts that we take for granted like life after death, the coming of a messiah, belief in the devil, even monotheism itself were not held nor taught by the ancient Hebrews prior to a certain time in their history.

Ram: As we now have the Bible, I totally agree with this. Or rather, I'd say that perhaps some of the ancients had a fullness of the gospel (Adam, Noah, Abraham), but that it was replaced by the Law of Moses, which is the major portion of the Old Testament. The prophets wrote little on the Messiah, etc., because the people were not ready for it. The Book of Mormon notes several prophets' writings that are not in the OT (Zenock, Zenos, etc), who did prophecy of a Messiah.

I would mention that the Book of Mormon also shows a developing Christology. What Lehi knew was much less than what we get from Jacob, who actually gives us the name of Christ. And King Benjamin develops it even further, etc.

Yes, I agree with this. Joseph Smith got many things right that he couldn't have gotten right unless he knew about them through supernatural means. But he also got quite a few things wrong and that makes it extremely difficult for a person who was taught to believe that revelation is more accurate than any other form of learning.

Ram: That's part of the fun! Joseph Smith was no different than any of us. He received revelation and then had to do his best to understand it, in terms he understood already. Nephites and Lamanites with a narrow neck of land? North and South America!

Upon beginning the translation of the BoM, he once asked Emma if Jerusalem had a wall around it. She told him yes, and he said that was good, because he did not know it until he translated it in the BoM! We learn through our ignorance. Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling gives a few examples of Joseph learning and advancing his understanding, line upon line. Even D&C 93 teaches us that we go from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace.

IOW, if the prophets were perfect and gave us all the information, none of us could be saved. Like Oliver Cowdery, we have to work to earn every bit of inspiration, and then realize that greater inspiration can update or change stuff later down the road (see D&C 8 and 9).

Yes, that can account for some of the problems in the Bible but not all of them. There were many other factors as well. There is strong evidence for outside influences that contributed to the ideas, stories and religious teachings in the Bible. The Presians, the Caananites, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, and later on the Greeks seem to have all influenced the Bible in more than a few ways. Other beliefs seem to have generated as a result of the developing history of the Hebrews themselves. As they faced knew challenges, prophets came up with new, updated (sometimes contradictary) answers to people's questions.

Ram: And I agree with this. Truth is not just in one religion, people or place. Remember, Moses' father-in-law held the Melchizedek priesthood, but wasn't descended from Isaac or Jacob. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, who was a Canaanite, and high priest. There were inspired men in other nations and lands, from which some Israelite traditions and teachings evolved.

The problem is that not all of the corrections Joseph Smith made were doctrinal. Many of his claims were historical and modern research has shown (to me) that many of them were wrong. This creates a problem because more than a few of Joseph Smith's historical interpretations were the crux for many of the docrines he taught. The history of the gospel is tied up to the docrines of the gospel.

I haven't peaced it all together yet, but the theory I'm toying with now is what I call "revelatory impressionism" (made it up myself) which means that a prophet (like Joseph Smith) can only receive revelation about things he's meditated on and prayed for and those revelations can only be given as thoughts and impressions and would be interpreted through JS's on preconceived ideas.

Ram: Several LDS scholars tend towards this thinking. It is the Catalyst Theory. Joseph Smith asks which Church is true, and receives a revelation. Joseph asks about tobacco spit on the floor and receives the Word of Wisdom. Joseph asks, and receives. I do believe much of it was impressions, and not necessarily word for word.

When I give priesthood blessings, or receive revelation in my callings, it is rarely word for word. It is all based on the impressions I get. Occasionally after a blessing, I'll speak for a while with the person to give them a more indepth understanding of the impressions I received, as I may have not been adequate in sharing it during the blessing.

It does seem that Joseph Smith was requried to do a lot more guessing than we as members are inclined to believe. There even seems to be evidence that JS embellished and made a few things up. But I don't know for sure. Lately I've been concentrating just on the Bible.

I'm not reavaluating my beleif that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I have a strong testimony of that. I'm reavaluating my understanding of what a prophet is and how he gets his revelation and whether that revelation is always right.

Ram: Nothing wrong in trying to understand the true role of Prophet. Especially since each of us needs to learn how to don the prophet's mantle in our own lives. I am not perfect in the revelations I receive, and sometimes I am deceived. Why should I think Joseph Smith would be any different from me?

Edited to add: I've skimmed through much of Joseph L. Allen's Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon as well and think its incredible how that Mesoamerican scholar has been able to demonstrate that that area of the globe fits so perfectly with the landscape described in the BoM. Throw in the BoM's description of the Arabian Penninsila and the loyalty of the witnesses to what they saw and experienced and you've got far more evidence that Joseph Smith was receiving divine help than not. What I've been learning lately only makes things more complex. But one of my favorite sayings by a philopher (who's name I can't recall) is, "A little philophy inclineth a man to atheism but a lot of philosophy brings a man back to religion."

Likewise I fully believe that if I continue to study and pray that all of these things will be satisfied in some way and that I'll emerge with a greater testimony of the whole thing than I had before.

Ram: And that is how I look at it. I have no problem with an imperfect prophet. If Joseph Smith can make it to heaven with his imperfections, then perhaps I can also make it to heaven, as well.

Previous peoples have questioned their prophets, as well. Why was Moses challenged frequently, including by Aaron and Miriam? Perhaps they were close enough to him to see him as flawed? It is just too easy for us to reject a prophet, because he isn't perfect in our own eyes. Yet, we gladly accept Peter, who denied Jesus 3 times. And we accept others, even though they definitely had weaknesses and failures.

The question isn't whether they are occasionally wrong. The question is: was the person called of God? If so, then following that individual in righteousness will assure us exaltation.

[Elphaba]

This was actually one of the key issues in 1978 when Pres Kimball and the 12 sought for the revelation. The temple in Brazil was about to be dedicated, people there were being baptized very fast. The only way to tell someone's "race" was through a patriarchal blessing. It was holding the Church back in Brazil from progressing forward, as someone who looked European, could easily have African ancestors.

P.S. - I got this info from Elder Haight, who was present when the revelation was given.

I had heard this before, but it was a while ago, and was considered "anti-Mormon" information at the time. It's nice to see it has been verified.

What I am asking about is a comment Keith made where a blonde-blue-eyed person was discovered to be of African descent. I assume this was through his patriarchal blessing.

I'd like to know more about this, if it is out there.

Thanks,

Elphaba

[martybess]

Lovely12! Is that YOU at the end of the mp3? :)

Pretty sure that's her.

[Hemidakota]

I had heard this before, but it was a while ago, and was considered "anti-Mormon" information at the time. It's nice to see it has been verified.

What I am asking about is a comment Keith made where a blonde-blue-eyed person was discovered to be of African descent. I assume this was through his patriarchal blessing.

I'd like to know more about this, if it is out there.

Thanks,

Elphaba

If Keith is referring too Scott XXXXX, he was my friend who fit that description.

[prisonchaplain]

You always amaze me how beautifully you write about prejudice hurting humanity, but for some reason, gays and immigrants aren't included in your . . . inclusiveness.

Elphaba

Some here may remember a string done about a year ago here. The topic was a local highschool that hosted an African-American minister, who shared his experience about growing up in 1950s Jim Crow South. He did so for a Martin Luther King Day assembly. He did not preach, or quote scripture. He was at a public school, and simply spoke of his personal experience of racism.

At the end of his talk, a gay activist teacher (she sponsored the GLBT student group at the school) stood up and demanded to know how he could stand there and talk about racism, when he was so publically against gay marriage and gay rights??? Another teacher joined in the heckling.

At the time, the string revolved around public schools being bureaucratic, circling the wagons, and avoiding damage, rathering than doing what's right, and being consistent and fair. But, with Elpha's quip, perhaps the question has to be asked:

Is sexual orientation equivalent to race--an unalterable biological reality, rather than an immoral, sacreligious lifestyle? Something in between?

[cyoung]

Some here may remember a string done about a year ago here. The topic was a local highschool that hosted an African-American minister, who shared his experience about growing up in 1950s Jim Crow South. He did so for a Martin Luther King Day assembly. He did not preach, or quote scripture. He was at a public school, and simply spoke of his personal experience of racism.

At the end of his talk, a gay activist teacher (she sponsored the GLBT student group at the school) stood up and demanded to know how he could stand there and talk about racism, when he was so publically against gay marriage and gay rights??? Another teacher joined in the heckling.

At the time, the string revolved around public schools being bureaucratic, circling the wagons, and avoiding damage, rathering than doing what's right, and being consistent and fair. But, with Elpha's quip, perhaps the question has to be asked:

Is sexual orientation equivalent to race--an unalterable biological reality, rather than an immoral, sacreligious lifestyle? Something in between?

Not a true comparison.

[applepansy]

First, I think if we're going to discuss racism vs sexual orientation we need to start a new thread and not highjack this one.

Second, I agree with CYoung. Apples and Oranges. Anyone who chooses to can hide their sexual orientation. No one can hide their skin color, or the shape of their eyes, etc.

I won't post further on this thread about sexual orientation.

[prisonchaplain]

Apple, I thought about starting a new string, and perhaps I should have. However the issue does seem like an extension of this one about blacks and the priesthood. And since the issue proceeds, rather than interferes with the flow, I just went ahead and responded.

I agree btw that there are differences. Further, I do not support gay marriage, nor theological efforts to downplay the biblical opposition to any same-sex activity. But, other than insisting "It's difference," how do we explain ourselves to someone who sincerely wants to know? "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it," may be our bottom-line, but surely there are also some sound "secular" reasons for our stance.

[Elphaba]

Apple, I thought about starting a new string, and perhaps I should have. However the issue does seem like an extension of this one about blacks and the priesthood. And since the issue proceeds, rather than interferes with the flow, I just went ahead and responded.

I agree btw that there are differences. Further, I do not support gay marriage, nor theological efforts to downplay the biblical opposition to any same-sex activity. But, other than insisting "It's difference," how do we explain ourselves to someone who sincerely wants to know? "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it," may be our bottom-line, but surely there are also some sound "secular" reasons for our stance.

PC, Would you like me to respond to your above post here, or on a new thread?

Elphaba

Later: I'm not comfortable discussing this on this thread if other posters are against it, as it does not address the OP. PC, can we start a new thread? E.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Elphaba

[Traveler]

Apple, I thought about starting a new string, and perhaps I should have. However the issue does seem like an extension of this one about blacks and the priesthood. And since the issue proceeds, rather than interferes with the flow, I just went ahead and responded.

I agree btw that there are differences. Further, I do not support gay marriage, nor theological efforts to downplay the biblical opposition to any same-sex activity. But, other than insisting "It's difference," how do we explain ourselves to someone who sincerely wants to know? "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it," may be our bottom-line, but surely there are also some sound "secular" reasons for our stance.

I have no intention to derail this thread (though it has run a good course) but I have asked the question and no one has ever answered. What does homosexual marriage bring to the table? For what purpose or end to benefit society is there that society should be asked to grant the relationship the highest status of privilege that society can offer.

Without heterosexual marriage and intimate heterosexual relationships all human society would end in a generation. What does homosexual marriage bring to the table that prompts proponents to declare it equal or of equal need? Why does the notion of equal find argument – is there any substance to the clame?

How can someone suport something when there is no substance of benefit to justify the support?

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

I have no intention to derail this thread (though it has run a good course) but I have asked the question and no one has ever answered. What does homosexual marriage bring to the table? For what purpose or end to benefit society is there that society should be asked to grant the relationship the highest status of privilege that society can offer.

Without heterosexual marriage and intimate heterosexual relationships all human society would end in a generation. What does homosexual marriage bring to the table that prompts proponents to declare it equal or of equal need? Why does the notion of equal find argument – is there any substance to the clame?

How can someone suport something when there is no substance of benefit to justify the support?

You have been answered. You just don't want to read it because it comes from me.

Elphaba

[Kenny]

Apple, I thought about starting a new string, and perhaps I should have. However the issue does seem like an extension of this one about blacks and the priesthood. And since the issue proceeds, rather than interferes with the flow, I just went ahead and responded.

I agree btw that there are differences. Further, I do not support gay marriage, nor theological efforts to downplay the biblical opposition to any same-sex activity. But, other than insisting "It's difference," how do we explain ourselves to someone who sincerely wants to know? "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it," may be our bottom-line, but surely there are also some sound "secular" reasons for our stance.

Whenever race or sexual orientations issues are raised I listen intently for someone to bring into the discussion what it is that offends God with regards to these issues.

Everybody on Earth is a child of God regardless of race, colour of skin or sexual orientation and everybody who accepts Jesus as the Christ and obey His commandments are subject to the mercy of God.

I think in the history of mankind there has never been a time when there is so much free agency we can just about do whatever we want that is legal.

God has set the minimum standard of how we should live like sex only within the bounds of lawful marriage. This was further clarified by a prophet of God to be between a man and a woman.

This does not mean that being of homosexual persuasion automatically puts those under the condemnation of God any more than those that are termed heterosexual who practice outside these bounds.

What puts us under the condemnations of God is not living in accordance with his commandments.

The Lord knew we would fall short thus a need for a Saviour. Jesus took upon him all of mans sins but we have to forsake them through repentance if we hope to be saved by the atoning sacrifice.

This includes judging our fellowman because the colour of their skin or sexual preference.

If however one chooses to go against the bounds the Lord has set willingly and continues to do so unrepentant then the Lord will judge that person justly and in His own time.

[MikeUpton]

During the time of proposition 8 there was a video being passed around about prop 8. It talks about the issues of gays and civil rights, (saying the two do not connect.)

Conversationally, (as you probably know) 70 percent of black voters voted in favor of proposition 8.

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

I like a lot of the points this guy is making.

edit: sorry about contributing to the derailing.

Edited June 17, 2009 by MikeUpton

[rameumptom]

There is plenty of evidence that there are emotional factors in many people becoming homosexual. Much of it has to do with the men in one's life. If a girl is abused by a father figure, she is very likely to have lesbian tendencies, out of fear/hatred for men. If a young boy is abused, he views it as the normal relationship with other men.

I think we did the nation a bad service, when we removed homosexuality from the list of emotional/psychological factors, and began to form it into something normal. It is in the same vein as alcoholism or any other addiction, which is very difficult to overcome; but not impossible, as there are people who have overcome their addictions and thought patterns over a long period of time in other areas, so can people do it in this area.

It is all a matter of learning to overcome the tendencies we have, and seek to do the Lord's will. Is it difficult for the drug addict or sex addict to overcome his addictions and desires? Of course it is. And it is the same with those with homosexual tendencies. We should not condemn them, but realize that they are hurting, confused, and emotionally ill as any other addict. We should lovingly and patiently work with them, to help them to manage until they can overcome this struggle; just as we each struggle in our own ways.

Marriage was instituted and supported by governments, realizing that strong families equated to a strong society. It provided for future generations. It ensured that children were raised by a father and mother. Studies show that children do best in such an environment. No other environment comes close.

Now, does that mean that kids can't grow up okay in other environments? No. I know many single Moms that do a wonderful job in raising kids. Still, I know even more that are not doing such a good job. And yes, I understand that many families with both parents present are not doing a good job right now, either.

None of this negates the point that there is an optimal solution for society. As a society, we should not just help homosexuals, but all groups that are not meeting a high standard for parenthood. Otherwise, we are risking the end of civilization as we know it; and can look forward to gangs and addicts to replace the solid future generations of the past.

[Enlil-An]

Rameuptom, I agree with everything you posted.

Just to clarify:

Rameumptom: Actually, they are not. There are very major differences within the books, as they were combined together. There's also major differences in various books (Kings vs Chronicles) because of who wrote them.

Yes, I'm aware of the contradictions. What I mean when I say that the individual books are consistant in themselves is that the theology of them is not mistranslated. They are consistant with what the Hebrews believed at the time. For example, 1 Chronicles 21:1 says, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." In 2 Samuel 24:1, however, it says, "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."

The reason for the discrepancy isn't a mistranslation. The reality is that the ancient Hebrews had no concept of Satan until after the exilic period. The idea of an evil adversary comes from Persia, not Israel. Prior to the book of Chronicles, God was the source of all good and evil. This is a consistant belief in the OT prior to 1 Chronicles.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, Would you like me to respond to your above post here, or on a new thread?

Elphaba

Later: I'm not comfortable discussing this on this thread if other posters are against it, as it does not address the OP. PC, can we start a new thread? E.

I will...I think your intuition, and my first thought (to start a new one) were probably right. Out of respect for the original poster, and others--I'll start a new one.

[Terrakota]

Lovely,

I wanted to share a couple of thoughts, too.

1) If you look in the Bible, then you would see that the only chosen people are Jews, they are called "special" and "above all". Does that mean that the rest of us are lost or inferior? No, not at all. We are told that through them "all of the nations of the Earth" will be blessed. That includes everybody. If we are not of literal Jewish descent, then we are adopted into one of the tribes (you know which one from your patriarchal blessing) and then you share in all the blessings.

2) God placed you and your family on Earth at this specific time, because it was right for you. Whatever the reason was for the ban on priesthood, you and your husband did not have to deal with it personally. No blessing was ever denied to you or your husband, because God didn't see it right for you. He deals with each of us personally. For me it's poligamy, I have a very hard time with it, but I wasn't born when it was around. We would go crazy if we start worrying about all the things that happen to other people, and about all the things that happened in the past. It's better to think about your personal relationships with God. Has He ever mistreated you because of your skin color, has he denied you any blessings because of that?

3) In Jacob 3:8 Jacob warns Nephites that unless they repent, Lamanites skins will be whiter when they are brought before the throne of God.

4) It is probably true that your skin is dark because you are a descentant of the one who was cursed and whose skin was made black. But that doesn't make you any worse. (And, by the way, I'm not sure that the curse was the black skin. I think the curse was that the land wouldn't bring forth fruit, and the sin color was just to separate them.) You were adopted into the House of Israel through one of the tribes, and this means that you share in all the blessings of the gospel.

5) You were told that you were a valiant soul in pre-existence. This was a word of God to you personally. And that means that satan hates you, more than some others who didn't give him as much trouble as you did. And that's why he works on taking away your eternal blessings through one thing or another.

6) I wouldn't worry too much about was was said by Church leaders in the past. And not even by Church leaders alone. When I read Old Testament there are a lot of things that shock me. It's good to study them, but we shouldn't take everything personally. Have you heard anything from Pr. Hinckley or Pr. Monson that made you feel bad? Probably not. This is what God speaks now to His Church. We wouldn't expect God to say same the same things century after century. People and times change. Again, it is not by a mistake that you live now, and not then.

So, don't worry about that. You are beautiful (love your picture!), God loves you, and all the blessings are yours.

[Hemidakota]

Answering statement 1], the tribe of Judah was not the special called chosen tribe by GOD. It was the son who receive the blessing of the first-born. Who was it? Joseph. It was not Judah. Even Joseph vision or dream, reveal this fact, that the other brothers will bow down to him.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Kenny]

Lovely,

I wanted to share a couple of thoughts, too.

1) If you look in the Bible, then you would see that the only chosen people are Jews, they are called "special" and "above all". Does that mean that the rest of us are lost or inferior? No, not at all. We are told that through them "all of the nations of the Earth" will be blessed. That includes everybody. If we are not of literal Jewish descent, then we are adopted into one of the tribes (you know which one from your patriarchal blessing) and then you share in all the blessings.

2) God placed you and your family on Earth at this specific time, because it was right for you. Whatever the reason was for the ban on priesthood, you and your husband did not have to deal with it personally. No blessing was ever denied to you or your husband, because God didn't see it right for you. He deals with each of us personally. For me it's poligamy, I have a very hard time with it, but I wasn't born when it was around. We would go crazy if we start worrying about all the things that happen to other people, and about all the things that happened in the past. It's better to think about your personal relationships with God. Has He ever mistreated you because of your skin color, has he denied you any blessings because of that?

3) In Jacob 3:8 Jacob warns Nephites that unless they repent, Lamanites skins will be whiter when they are brought before the throne of God.

4) It is probably true that your skin is dark because you are a descentant of the one who was cursed and whose skin was made black. But that doesn't make you any worse. (And, by the way, I'm not sure that the curse was the black skin. I think the curse was that the land wouldn't bring forth fruit, and the sin color was just to separate them.) You were adopted into the House of Israel through one of the tribes, and this means that you share in all the blessings of the gospel.

5) You were told that you were a valiant soul in pre-existence. This was a word of God to you personally. And that means that satan hates you, more than some others who didn't give him as much trouble as you did. And that's why he works on taking away your eternal blessings through one thing or another.

6) I wouldn't worry too much about was was said by Church leaders in the past. And not even by Church leaders alone. When I read Old Testament there are a lot of things that shock me. It's good to study them, but we shouldn't take everything personally. Have you heard anything from Pr. Hinckley or Pr. Monson that made you feel bad? Probably not. This is what God speaks now to His Church. We wouldn't expect God to say same the same things century after century. People and times change. Again, it is not by a mistake that you live now, and not then.

So, don't worry about that. You are beautiful (love your picture!), God loves you, and all the blessings are yours.

Think this was intended for lovely12.

[Terrakota]

Answering statement 1], the tribe of Judah was not the special called chosen tribe by GOD. It was the son who receive the blessing of the first-born. Who was it? Joseph. It was not Judah. Even Joseph vision or dream, reveal this fact, that the other brothers will bow down to him.

No, I wasn't talking about the TRIBE of Judah. I was talking about Jews, the people of Israel, which includes all tribes. People of Israel are the ones with whom God made the covenant and we must be numbered among them (through direct descent or through adoption) in order to receive the blessings of the Gospel.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Terrakota

[Terrakota]

Think this was intended for lovely12.

Ah, I didn't realize there were many lovelies here. :)

[Kenny]

No, I wasn't talking about the TRIBE of Judah. I was talking about Jews, the people of Israel, which includes all tribes. People of Israel are the ones with whom God made the covenant and we must be numbered among them (through direct descent or through adoption) in order to receive the blessings of the Gospel.

While what you are saying is very interesting and right up my street I think you are replying to the wrong person here.

[pam]

How is terrakota responding to the wrong person? If you look in her post earlier she does says Lovely, wouldn't that mean she was responding to Lovely12?

[Kenny]

How is terrakota responding to the wrong person? If you look in her post earlier she does says Lovely, wouldn't that mean she was responding to Lovely12?

So when someone replies it goes to everybody in the thread?

[Terrakota]

Kenny said:

So when someone replies it goes to everybody in the thread?

.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Terrakota