Importance of location

[Seminarysnoozer]

Reading through Ezekiel this week, anticipating the Gospel Doctrine class and started to wonder why location is so important. Why exactly does the temple have to be rebuilt in Jerusalem? Besides saying "because it fulfills the prophecies", is there a reason that location is important to God? Why not anywhere in the world. The whole world is His footstool. What difference does it make where these events occur?

Why is the location Adam-ondi-amon important? Even if it is where Adam and Eve dwelt after they left the Garden of Eden or whatever historical significance it had, why is that location an important meeting place in the future. Why not just all meet where most of the saints are located, or the headquarters are located at that time.

In other words, are these prophecies simply saying this is where it is going to happen and there is nothing more to it. Or, do the locations, the land, that place have some significant power or purpose in and of themselves that make it necessary for those things to happen only there?

Why does the house of Israel, literally have to gather in that location? Yes, I realize the gathering takes place all over the world in individual wards and stakes etc. But why is it also important that the lord wants to give back to the Israelites the same land as their fathers? Why not keep them where they are at, or give them new land? Why is that place so important?

“But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers” (Jeremiah 16:14–15).

thanks.

[ryanh]

There was an interesting quote (not sure of it's veracity) posted in the following thread in regards to the significance of Adam-ondi-Ahman.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/26893-adam-ondi-ahman-far-west-sacred-ground.html#post434252

It's interesting to me that both locations are associated with notable deaths/sacrifice.

[rameumptom]

These locations are important because they are consecrated holy places. Why is any temple important, and why does the Church put so much effort into picking "the right place for it?" Because we are not just looking to put up a pretty building in a centralized location, but a sacred space where man can commune with God.

Anciently, Adam-Ondi-Ahman was a sacred space, where Adam gathered all his righteous children to him and prophesied. Jesus Christ descended and appeared to the group - perhaps the very first theophany. It was the first sacred space outside the Garden of Eden established on the earth. In ancient texts, Adam's residence was the Cave of Treasures, and was a sacred spot.

The Jerusalem temple is also tied to sacred events. Traditionally, it is where Abraham offered Isaac (or Ishmael for Muslims). It is the center place for God's people Israel in the ancient Promised Land. For almost one thousand years, it was the Temple of God, the place where man conversed with God. It was sacred space.

To this day, in revelation of future events, these are still considered sacred space. Christ will appear again to his temple in Jerusalem. Christ will appear to the faithful at Adam-Ondi-Ahman. In this we find a pattern. And in patterns we can learn symbolism and the importance of sacred space. Except for brief moments in time when such places are profaned, sacred space is sacred always.

[Seminarysnoozer]

These locations are important because they are consecrated holy places. Why is any temple important, and why does the Church put so much effort into picking "the right place for it?" Because we are not just looking to put up a pretty building in a centralized location, but a sacred space where man can commune with God.

Anciently, Adam-Ondi-Ahman was a sacred space, where Adam gathered all his righteous children to him and prophesied. Jesus Christ descended and appeared to the group - perhaps the very first theophany. It was the first sacred space outside the Garden of Eden established on the earth. In ancient texts, Adam's residence was the Cave of Treasures, and was a sacred spot.

The Jerusalem temple is also tied to sacred events. Traditionally, it is where Abraham offered Isaac (or Ishmael for Muslims). It is the center place for God's people Israel in the ancient Promised Land. For almost one thousand years, it was the Temple of God, the place where man conversed with God. It was sacred space.

To this day, in revelation of future events, these are still considered sacred space. Christ will appear again to his temple in Jerusalem. Christ will appear to the faithful at Adam-Ondi-Ahman. In this we find a pattern. And in patterns we can learn symbolism and the importance of sacred space. Except for brief moments in time when such places are profaned, sacred space is sacred always.

Thanks for your response. I easily comprehend the sacredness of a temple which is actively being used but I am having a harder time understanding the significance of a "sacred space" because of past events or even future events for that matter. How is that land any more "sacred" than the space that is 10 miles north, south east or west of it? Isn't this whole earth dedicated to God's work and purpose. How is one spot any more sacred than another because something happened there a long time ago or something will happen in the future there?

Why is Adam-Ondi-Ahman any more sacred than my local temple?

I understand this will happen, but I am trying to understand the reason ... Why does Jesus have to return to a specific place and not simply to His people at any given place (or temple) where they happened to be gathered when He comes back?

I guess I just don't see how that would affect my testimony or even symbolic understanding of the gospel if I were to think that the gathering place was in Brazil or China or Russia or wherever.

[rameumptom]

The earth is in a telestial state right now. It is not sacred in its current state. However, God establishes places, special places, in the dark and dreary world, where we can enter into his presence. These are the sacred spaces. These locations (not just the building, but the actual place) has been dedicated and set apart for God's purposes. Whether it is currently being used as/for God's house is immaterial. It has been dedicated by the priesthood of God, and remains eternally sacred.

The day will come when the entire earth will be changed and become celestialized. At that day, the entire earth will be consecrated as a sacred space. But it is not now.

There is much symbolism involved in this. For example, we recently had a person state they had been investigating the Church, but it wasn't until he stepped into the Kirtland Temple that he received his spiritual witness and chose to be baptized. While the Kirtland Temple is no longer an active temple, it is still sacred space dedicated by Joseph Smith himself.

[ryanh]

I think that instability of location preference could cast doubt on the reliability of God. Were we to hear now: "God changed His mind, the declared place in prophecy is no longer the favored site, it is now in X", wouldn't that be contradictory to the revealed nature of God?

And what would it say if God didn't favor those spots where acts central to the Plan of Salvation occurred? Why would there not be greater fidelity to those sites than any other unless God did not value the Plan?

At some point He had to figuratively strike His staff in the sand and say 'this is the place for Y event'. It probably could have occurred anywhere (10 miles north or south or in another country) but did occur at some point, and so now is fixed. Once it was fixed, there is a fidelity to it.

I honestly don't understand the question of how any one spot could be more sacred than another. We understand temples are more sacred than downtown streets. So, why would it not be the case that the locations where the Creation, Fall, or Atonement occurred be more sacred than Brazil or China or Russia or wherever?

To my logic, the locations where the three pillar events of the Plan occurred are far more significant than temples even. Without those pillar events, temples would be moot.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The earth is in a telestial state right now. It is not sacred in its current state. However, God establishes places, special places, in the dark and dreary world, where we can enter into his presence. These are the sacred spaces. These locations (not just the building, but the actual place) has been dedicated and set apart for God's purposes. Whether it is currently being used as/for God's house is immaterial. It has been dedicated by the priesthood of God, and remains eternally sacred.

The day will come when the entire earth will be changed and become celestialized. At that day, the entire earth will be consecrated as a sacred space. But it is not now.

There is much symbolism involved in this. For example, we recently had a person state they had been investigating the Church, but it wasn't until he stepped into the Kirtland Temple that he received his spiritual witness and chose to be baptized. While the Kirtland Temple is no longer an active temple, it is still sacred space dedicated by Joseph Smith himself.

Thanks, great answer.

[LDSVALLEY]

Hey you all forgot about Jackson County Missouri, the future site of Zion in this part of the world!

I never worry about why this spot over that one, that's Gods concern, I have enough trouble remembering where I park my car at the mall!

[Bensalem]

Reading through Ezekiel this week, anticipating the Gospel Doctrine class and started to wonder why location is so important. Why exactly does the temple have to be rebuilt in Jerusalem? Besides saying "because it fulfills the prophecies", is there a reason that location is important to God? Why not anywhere in the world. The whole world is His footstool. What difference does it make where these events occur?

Why is the location Adam-ondi-amon important? Even if it is where Adam and Eve dwelt after they left the Garden of Eden or whatever historical significance it had, why is that location an important meeting place in the future. Why not just all meet where most of the saints are located, or the headquarters are located at that time.

In other words, are these prophecies simply saying this is where it is going to happen and there is nothing more to it. Or, do the locations, the land, that place have some significant power or purpose in and of themselves that make it necessary for those things to happen only there?

Why does the house of Israel, literally have to gather in that location? Yes, I realize the gathering takes place all over the world in individual wards and stakes etc. But why is it also important that the lord wants to give back to the Israelites the same land as their fathers? Why not keep them where they are at, or give them new land? Why is that place so important?

“But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers” (Jeremiah 16:14–15).

thanks.

Too much is made of the territorial Israel of the Middle East as being the definition of the promise God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Neither is the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem by those in denial of Christ a milestone I look forward to. Considering that Jesus proclaimed our bodies to be the temple of God, even the LDS temples look suspect until one understands that these temples are, for the most part, used in administering the ordinances for the dead (people who no longer have a body). In this context it makes perfect sense to me that the LDS would have physical temples (not to mention that they also play a critical role in protecting marriage against the gay agenda of having their same-sex-marriages recognized in the other churches).

The Restoration as proclaimed by the LDS church is the fulfillment of the promise God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (renamed Israel). The promise of Israel is the LDS promise of eternal marriage; meaning “descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven”.

Israel is the only nation (and family) preserved beyond the grave and for all time and eternity. The Middle East is a patch of land I have little interest in. When Jacob bedded down for the night near the place called Luz, with a rock he used for a pillow, and dreamt of the ladder which extends to heaven with angels going up and down it, the earth was his mattress, even as his LORD spoke of the glories he would receive.

Genesis speaks of four rivers, the Euphrates being the forth out of Eden. When Abraham was shown the land he and his descendants would receive extending to the Euphrates, I see the spiritual Euphrates not the physical one and paradise is still three crossings away.

I recommend looking beyond the earthly and toward the heavenly doctrine of eternal progression in Christ restored in the LDS church for the safe trip all the way home. Death only continues our journey. Much learning and privilege is in store for us beyond the grave.

[volgadon]

Too much is made of the territorial Israel of the Middle East as being the definition of the promise God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Underestimating it doesn't help things much either. "Arise and walk in the land, along its length and breadth, for to you I give it."

Israel is the only nation (and family) preserved beyond the grave and for all time and eternity. The Middle East is a patch of land I have little interest in. When Jacob bedded down for the night near the place called Luz, with a rock he used for a pillow, and dreamt of the ladder which extends to heaven with angels going up and down it, the earth was his mattress, even as his LORD spoke of the glories he would receive.

Yet that is not how Genesis depicts it. If you look at 28:15 God indicates that he will return Jacob to the land he is leaving. Also, Jacob realises that his dream of a staircase connecting heaven and earth means that the spot of ground he is on is a holy one.

[rameumptom]

I can understand Bensalem's focus on the spiritual aspects of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yet, two things LDS miss in their own doctrine are:

1. Symbolism. The completion of the material/physical prophesy foresees the spiritual completion of the prophesy. Isaiah's prophesy of the birth of Christ was first a prophesy of a maiden (the king's new wife) bringing him a son as heir. This physical symbol foresaw the importance of the spiritual event in Christ's birth, and in our own spiritual rebirth. There are countless other examples such as this in scripture.

2. For LDS, in essence there is no separation of physical and spiritual. For all things are spiritual unto God. All of us, including body and spirit, are made of the same matter that the chair we sit on is made of. What makes up the difference is the organization of that matter through the infusion of the Light of Christ, and the formation of higher intelligence that has individualism and agency. So, what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven, as well. When we sanctify a sacred space on earth through the priesthood authority, it remains sacred, unless and until God desecrates/de-sanctifies it through that same priesthood authority.

So, the fact that Israel will build a new temple in Jerusalem is important to us. This is true regardless of whether the temple is built according to the authority of either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. Both contain keys and ordinances necessary for salvation.

God made a promise with ancient Israel. The physical Israel, and thus symbolically with spiritual Israel, as well. To ignore or pay no attention to the physical Israel is to short-shrift one important component of the entire work of God. We see this in Nephi's statement of the latter day Gentiles: "A Bible, a Bible, we have a Bible and are in no need of any other Bible." We are reminded of the importance of ancient Israel for providing that Bible through its prophets and inspired leaders. ( 2 Nephi Chapter 29  )

Surely we need to give thought and consideration to both the physical and spiritual components of Israel, temples, sacred space, and the ancient and modern work of God through his people Israel.

[Bensalem]

Underestimating it doesn't help things much either. "Arise and walk in the land, along its length and breadth, for to you I give it."

How can we walk in the land of Israel if we don't first have a spirit unto Israel? The Jewish people deny Christ...yet it is our Lord Jesus Christ who has the charge to restore the kingdom of Israel. The Christian churches deny reveled scripture and the living word of God in prophets...yet the restored Israel is a nation of prophets.

I guess I have less tolerance than the average latter-day saint in allowing the sacred name of Israel to be shared by non-believers.

Yet that is not how Genesis depicts it. If you look at 28:15 God indicates that he will return Jacob to the land he is leaving. Also, Jacob realises that his dream of a staircase connecting heaven and earth means that the spot of ground he is on is a holy one.

Perhaps I see grander things in the Genesis story and in the dream of Israel. The sacred ground of Israel is the LDS church, not the patch of land in the Middle East as presently occupied. The "staircase connecting heaven and earth" is the apostolic power in the Melchizedek priesthood to bind on earth what is bound in heaven and vise-a-versa. The angles going up and down the staircase is the authority of the Aaronic priesthood in the ministering of angels.

Jacob’s journey was one in search of eternal marriage. The LDS church has the gospel of eternal marriage.

Genesis is not just a history of our forefather’s relations with God, it is the predictor of the world, and the Israel, and the family God would build in Christ and His Church.

[Dravin]

How can we walk in the land of Israel if we don't first have a spirit unto Israel?

Presumably with feet.

[Bensalem]

Presumably with feet.

Yes, and our spiritual feet must take us first into the waters of baptism, which is the gateway into the LDS church and into Israel.

[Dravin]

Yes, and our spiritual feet must take us first into the waters of baptism, which is the gateway into the LDS church and into Israel.

No. I'm fairly sure that unbaptized members can walk in the geographical locations promised to Israel as part of the Abrahamic covenant. Then we have the political nation of Israel, which last I checked was a physical location on a map which one could walk without being a member of the Church.

You really need to stop your whole nonsensical the only Israel is the LDS Church kick. If the gathering of Israel is the gathering of Israel into the LDs Church then the gathering of Israel is the gathering of the baptized members of the LDS Church into the LDS Church? It also creates conflicts with D&C 14:10. The Gentiles shall carry the Gospel to the LDS Church?

Your continued No True Israel... er Scotsman fallacy is wearing thin.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

No. I'm fairly sure that unbaptized members can walk in the geographical locations promised to Israel as part of the Abrahamic covenant. Then we have the political nation of Israel, which last I checked was a physical location on a map which one could walk without being a member of the Church.

You really need to stop your whole nonsensical the only Israel is the LDS Church kick. If the gathering of Israel is the gathering of Israel into the LDs Church then the gathering of Israel is the gathering of the baptized members of the LDS Church into the LDS Church? It also creates conflicts with D&C 14:10. The Gentiles shall carry the Gospel to the LDS Church?

Your continued No True Israel... er Scotsman fallacy is wearing thin.

You keep equating Israel with a physical patch of land. It is not! Israel is a family in Christ. Israel is united in Christ. Until you can see these things my preaching the one true Israel in the LDS church is meat you are incapable of digesting.

D&C 14:10 “Wherefore, I must bring forth the fulness of my gospel from the Gentiles unto the house of Israel.” …speaks of the restoration of Israel coming through the gentiles, which it did through Joseph Smith.

No conflict; only fulfillment.

[Dravin]

You keep equating Israel with a physical patch of land.

No, I'm saying it is one thing that the term Israel can be applied to.

Until you can see these things my preaching the one true Israel in the LDS church is meat you are incapable of digesting.

Or it's false doctrine that I'm rejecting.

D&C 14:10 “Wherefore, I must bring forth the fulness of my gospel from the Gentiles unto the house of Israel.” …speaks of the restoration of Israel coming through the gentiles, which it did through Joseph Smith.

It does not say the house of Israel will be reconstituted by the Gentiles, it says the gospel will be brought unto the house of Israel. It's speaking of an already extant entity.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

There are many prophesies that relate to spiritual Israel (the LDS Church). But there are many prophesies that also deal with physical Israel, the actual blood descendants of Abraham. Dravin mentioned one or two.

Both are of importance to God. If not, why spend so much prophetic time on physical Israel? Why was it important for Joseph Smith to send apostle Orson Hyde (a Jewish descendant) to dedicate the land of Palestine for the return of the Jews? Why did we build a BYU center in Jerusalem, if it does not matter? Why not build it in some other place, instead?

As I stated before, Bensalem, your statements ignore Nephi's condemnation of those Gentiles (which include LDS) who lightly viewed the Jews and their works to bring forth the Bible, etc.

Yes, there are spiritual applications to many prophesies, but the physical application is equally as important. That "patch of land" is one of the Promised Lands that God set apart for his chosen people. That is a very significant thing. It was that "patch of land" where Abraham was promised his descendants would have a place. It was where Jacob saw God. It was the place Moses led the children of Israel. It is the place of the first temple of God. It is where Christ was born. It is the place John the Revelator and others prophesied would be a holy city in the last days, with a temple rebuilt to God. If these were insignificant things, then we would not have them in our scriptures. Modern prophets would not speak endearingly of the place.

As it is, your "meat" is not taught by the modern prophets. Nor is it reflected in the scriptures. It is your own viewpoint, and is not based upon the doctrines and principles of the gospel. I can see no reason for Dravin to even desire such meat, as it is not based upon gospel concepts.

[Bensalem]

No, I'm saying it is one thing that the term Israel can be applied to.

Or it's false doctrine that I'm rejecting.

It does not say the house of Israel will be reconstituted by the Gentiles, it says the gospel will be brought unto the house of Israel. It's speaking of an already extant entity.

I find it incredible that I would have to defend as true the doctrine that the LDS Church is the only Israel in this world on a forum sponsored and participated by Mormons. The false doctrine would be to profess otherwise.

The following is some of what I have professed. Please show me where I am mistaken in my understanding of Mormon doctrine.

True or False:

1). Being a member of the LDS church makes you a part of Israel.

2). There can be only one Israel at any one time.

3). Persons of the Jewish faith are not part of Israel until they are converted in Christ.

4). Israel does not exist outside of Christ and His Church.

5). Baptism in the LDS church is the threshold for becoming a part of Israel.

6). Christians are not the anointed nation of Israel.

7). The LDS church is the gathering place of Israel.

In my book all of the above are TRUE.

If you can demonstrate how these statements are false please do.

[Dravin]

I find it incredible that I would have to defend as true the doctrine that the LDS Church is the only Israel in this world on a forum sponsored and participated by Mormons. The false doctrine would be to profess otherwise.

To date you have provided nothing but your own assertion of your meaty diet. A diet that runs contrary to the official curriculum of the Church.

1). Being a member of the LDS church makes you a part of Israel.

Yes.

2). There can be only one Israel at any one time.

False.

3). Persons of the Jewish faith are not part of Israel until they are converted in Christ.

False.

4). Israel does not exist outside of Christ and His Church.

False, there are senses of Israel that are not the LDS Church.

5). Baptism in the LDS church is the threshold for becoming a part of Israel.

Begging the question. It presupposes there is only one Israel. As such it is akin to me asking:

You have stopped beating your wife, true or false?

6). Christians are not the anointed nation of Israel.

Not sure where you are going with this one. If you are trying to go:

Christians aren't the anointed nation of Israel because the LDS Church is. Well your statement fails as the LDS Church is Christian.

7). The LDS church is the gathering place of Israel.

False due to singular. I note though you haven't touched the logical conclusion of your position that the gathering of Israel is the gathering of the LDS Church into the LDS Church.

In my book all of the above are TRUE.

Yay for you?

If you can demonstrate how these statements are false please do.

Um, no. If you are going to claim doctrine contrary to the curricula of the Church (which has been quoted to you), not to mention basic logic, the burden of proof is on you.

Edit: For the record I don't particularly care about convincing you of anything. My statements are for the benefit of those who may wander into the thread and be mislead by your self-proclaimed meaty diet.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

There are many prophesies that relate to spiritual Israel (the LDS Church). But there are many prophesies that also deal with physical Israel, the actual blood descendants of Abraham. Dravin mentioned one or two.

Both are of importance to God. If not, why spend so much prophetic time on physical Israel? Why was it important for Joseph Smith to send apostle Orson Hyde (a Jewish descendant) to dedicate the land of Palestine for the return of the Jews? Why did we build a BYU center in Jerusalem, if it does not matter? Why not build it in some other place, instead?

As I stated before, Bensalem, your statements ignore Nephi's condemnation of those Gentiles (which include LDS) who lightly viewed the Jews and their works to bring forth the Bible, etc.

Yes, there are spiritual applications to many prophesies, but the physical application is equally as important. That "patch of land" is one of the Promised Lands that God set apart for his chosen people. That is a very significant thing. It was that "patch of land" where Abraham was promised his descendants would have a place. It was where Jacob saw God. It was the place Moses led the children of Israel. It is the place of the first temple of God. It is where Christ was born. It is the place John the Revelator and others prophesied would be a holy city in the last days, with a temple rebuilt to God. If these were insignificant things, then we would not have them in our scriptures. Modern prophets would not speak endearingly of the place.

As it is, your "meat" is not taught by the modern prophets. Nor is it reflected in the scriptures. It is your own viewpoint, and is not based upon the doctrines and principles of the gospel. I can see no reason for Dravin to even desire such meat, as it is not based upon gospel concepts.

I never said that the Jewish people were not important to God. I said that they are not Israel because Israel is located in Christ and the Jewish people deny Christ, who is btw the Anointed One of Israel.

I do not view lightly the works of the Bible and the people who brought them forth. I greatly respect those that accomplished it. It just so happens that the modern Jew had nothing to do with bringing forth the word of God. And since God continues to withhold His word through them, due to their ongoing apostasy, the modern Jew has nothing to add to the word of God.

Professing one Israel in the LDS church is hardly the meat of the gospel. It is more akin to pouring whole milk into the glass instead of 1%.

[Bensalem]

To date you have provided nothing but your own assertion of your meaty diet. A diet that runs contrary to the official curriculum of the Church.

1). Being a member of the LDS church makes you a part of Israel.

Yes.

2). There can be only one Israel at any one time.

False.

3). Persons of the Jewish faith are not part of Israel until they are converted in Christ.

False.

4). Israel does not exist outside of Christ and His Church.

False, there are senses of Israel that are not the LDS Church.

5). Baptism in the LDS church is the threshold for becoming a part of Israel.

Begging the question. It presupposes there is only one Israel. As such it is akin to me asking:

You have stopped beating your wife, true or false?

6). Christians are not the anointed nation of Israel.

Not sure where you are going with this one. If you are trying to go:

Christians aren't the anointed nation of Israel because the LDS Church is. Well your statement fails as the LDS Church is Christian.

7). The LDS church is the gathering place of Israel.

False due to singular. I note though you haven't touched the logical conclusion of your position that the gathering of Israel is the gathering of the LDS Church into the LDS Church.

Yay for you?

Um, no. If you are going to claim doctrine contrary to the curricula of the Church (which has been quoted to you), not to mention basic logic, the burden of proof is on you.

Edit: For the record I don't particularly care about convincing you of anything. My statements are for the benefit of those who may wander into the thread and be mislead by your self-proclaimed meaty diet.

Your logic is curious at best.

According to you a Jewish person who denies Christ is part of his anointed nation Israel. Does the Holy Ghost anoint with the spirit of denial?

According to you Christians (used to define those outside of the LDS church) who deny modern revelation, which brought about the restoration of Israel, can be part of Israel. If they deny the Israel which you acknowledge is in the LDS church, what Israel are they a part of?

Do you profess that any baptism will do as passage into Israel or that no baptism is necessary to enter Israel?

You may not like what I say and you may not agree with it, but my words are aligned with scripture.

[Dravin]

According to you a Jewish person who denies Christ is part of his anointed nation Israel.

Enjoying your strawman?

According to you Christians (used to define those outside of the LDS church) who deny modern revelation, which brought about the restoration of Israel, can be part of Israel.

I suspect you are engaging in a strawman but I can't be entirely sure due to the nature of your phrasing. Are you ascribing to me the position that such a Christian would be (if they are a literal descendant of Abraham/Israel and because of that) part of the LDS Church? If so you are engaging in a strawman and doing so deliberately as I've already denied holding that position previously.

Do you profess that any baptism will do as passage into Israel or that no baptism is necessary to enter Israel?

Baptism is not necessary to be a literal descendant of Abraham/Israel. To be a member of spiritual Israel, the LDS Church, and related to Abraham by virtue of shared volitional covenant requires baptism. Membership into the LDS Church makes one a descendant of Abraham/Israel and if one is not already a descendant they are adopted into his family. The reverse is not true, and the position that being a literal descendant of Abraham/Israel confers membership into the Church has already been previously denied as being held.

And of course you have the geographical Israel of which such a question is rather nonsensical.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Dravin

[volgadon]

How can we walk in the land of Israel if we don't first have a spirit unto Israel?

As somebody said, we have feet. You are trying to entirely spiritualise the Bible. There is much of value in seeking for spiritual lessons to be drawn from the biblical stories, yet that cannot replace the literal, physical meaning either. For myslef, I can draw a lesson in faith from Abraham's life, to survey and travel, so to speak, throughout what has been promised me, knowing that God can give it to me. We definitely should liken the scriptures unto ourselves. None of this though can mean that God did not promise the land of Canaan unto Abraham and his physical descendants, or that God did not himself initiates a covenant binding himself to fulfil that promise. People tend to forget about the covenant between the pieces.

The Jewish people deny Christ...yet it is our Lord Jesus Christ who has the charge to restore the kingdom of Israel.

As I said before, a mother may lose her love for her children, but God never will.

The Christian churches deny reveled scripture and the living word of God in prophets...yet the restored Israel is a nation of prophets.

And?

I guess I have less tolerance than the average latter-day saint in allowing the sacred name of Israel to be shared by non-believers.

Nobody here doubts that. Your intolerance remains misguided nonetheless.

Perhaps I see grander things in the Genesis story and in the dream of Israel. The sacred ground of Israel is the LDS church, not the patch of land in the Middle East as presently occupied. The "staircase connecting heaven and earth" is the apostolic power in the Melchizedek priesthood to bind on earth what is bound in heaven and vise-a-versa. The angles going up and down the staircase is the authority of the Aaronic priesthood in the ministering of angels.

You are welcome to your interpretation, yet it is not what genesis is teaching. The sacred ground Jacob slept upon was part of Canaan, a region promised to Jacob and his physical posterity. The staircase (sulam did not mean ladder, it is a cognate with an Akkadian word for staricase, a word used in a very similar context to Joseph's dream) connected heaven and earth, allowing heavenly messengers and envoys to travel between God's heavenly abode, and its earthly representative, the temple. Nothing whatsoever to do with binding. Jacob wakes up and sanctifies the place, offering up an offering and placing a marker there.

Jacob’s journey was one in search of eternal marriage. The LDS church has the gospel of eternal marriage.

Jacob's journey was mainly one in search of asylum. To find a wife from his own kin was secondary, a pretext not a cause.

Genesis is not just a history of our forefather’s relations with God, it is the predictor of the world, and the Israel, and the family God would build in Christ and His Church.

Yet it also has a plain, literal meaning.

[rameumptom]

Bensalem,

The scriptures discuss not only the spiritual gathering of Israel, but also the physical gathering of literal Israel. Why would that be so important to God, if they were no longer considered Israel any longer?

One of the appearances of Christ in the last days will be to the Jews, as he saves them from destruction by the Gentile nations. It will be at that time they will look upon the marks in his hands and feet and weep, realizing their ancestors slew the Son of God.

Isaiah and other prophets tells us repeatedly that God does not reject physical Israel forever. John the Revelator, Daniel, and Ezekiel see the future temple built by the Jews.

Why do all the ancient things with physical Israel, if God is only going to discard them as a meaningless thing in the end? Yes, for spiritual purposes they must all repent and receive Christ. And that will happen. They are still his people as a nation, even though as individuals they have yet to fully accept all his gospel.

As for your 1% milk, I don't really think you are getting what is being said here. Volgadon and I have extensive backgrounds in our studies of Israel. For example, you can read my Old Testament lessons here:

Old Testament - LDS Social Network Forums

And I did not discuss everything I know on these topics, as I didn't want to go too far over everyone's heads or write more than 10 or so pages worth of info per lesson.

I am certain if you were to take your interpretation of what connotes Israel to the ancient scripture department at BYU, they would be as nuanced as we are on this. Yes, there is a spiritual Israel that is very important for the exaltation of all mankind. But there is also a physical, literal Israel that is equally important to God and his eternal efforts.