aliasgeorge Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 At any rate, we don't have to guess about 1, 2, or 3. All are solid and reliable scientific theories for which there is more than ample evidence.I respectfully, but resolutely disagree. You should try reanalyzing the scientific observations from a new paradigm--that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Hmm....to see the past, we are entitled as [Elders] Priesthood holders of our FATHER. Seers are not just for the fifteen Elders of the church. Justice, have faith in GOD to receive such an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliasgeorge Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Hmm....to see the past, we are entitled as [Elders] Priesthood holders of our FATHER. Seers are not just for the fifteen Elders of the church. Justice, have faith in GOD to receive such an answer.Hemi, not sure what you're trying to say, but there is an order when it comes to revelation. You're right in that elders can receive revelation to know the truths of God, but such truths will NOT conflict with that which has already been revealed. If we can throw out the words of the prophets based on whatever we think was revealed, then what is the point of having a standard to measure all things against? I have known many individuals who have left the church b/c their "revelations" from "God" taught different things than what the brethren have taught. In other words, if we do not stand upon the firm foundation of revelation, which God has given to us via the prophets, we are built upon sand and stand ready to be decieved. Many "scholars" in the church have come up with different theories and explanations which refute the standard of the prophets and apostles. Cleon Skowsen's "God is subject to intelligence" is but one example (which is an expansion of BH Robert's theories). God is all powerful, subject to nothing. He is the law giver, not held in court to a higher power of "intelligence." CS and BHR are smart guys and all, but personal revelation cannot refute any of the principles of the standard. Another example--BH Robert's "dual creationism" theory. He's done wonderful things for the church, but he has asserted things in this area which step off of the sure foundation, and into sepculation which refutes the words of the prophets. There is an order in the kingdom, and if we don't follow it, we stand ready to decieve. (read D&C 107:27-29) By all means, seek to understand the mysteries of God, but only do so upon the sure foundation. If your ideas conflict with the BD IMHO, you're not standing upon firm ground.As for the bible dictionary, you should look at Elder Bednar's conference talks and count how many times he references the BD as the basis for his statements. Not to mention who it was written by and who had to sustain its contents in order to be included in the cannon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Good point George. For us priesthood holders, Seeric is a gift from GOD that can be earned. Like Unto Moses.—A seer is one who sees. But it is not the ordinary sight that is meant. The seeric gift is a supernatural endowment. Joseph was "like unto Moses;" and Moses, who saw God face to face, explains how he saw him in these words: "Now mine own eyes have beheld God; yet not my natural, but my spiritual eyes; for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him." Such is the testimony of the ancient Seer, as brought to light by the Seer of Latter-days. [saturday Night Thoughts by Orson F. Whitney]Deception? This is why you must check all that is received by the Holy Spirit for a confirmation. One must live such a life, more than, what is expected from a normal member of the church, in receiving such that comforter for additional instructions. Now, there are doctrines, principles, and [visons] instructions that are given and may not be written at this time but for them who are of the Church of the First Born. You may not have that opportunity to substantiated what is received against canonized writings today, accept, through other CFB members of the same. These instructions as I called them is usually taught by the Second Comforter or those assigned ministering spirits. Ether 4:7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliasgeorge Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Good point George. For us priesthood holders, Seeric is a gift from GOD that can be earned. Deception? This is why you must check all that is received by the Holy Spirit for a confirmation. One must live such a life, more than, what is expected from a normal member of the church, in receiving such that comforter for additional instructions. Now, there are doctrines, principles, and [visons] instructions that are given and may not be written at this time but for them who are of the Church of the First Born. You may not have that opportunity to substantiated what is received against canonized writings today, accept, through other CFB members of the same. These instructions as I called them is usually taught by the Second Comforter or those assigned ministering spirits.Hemi, I agree, the spirit confirms truths to us. However, if God has revealed through his prophet the truths, he does not need to reveal them again to you. God reveled this to the early church leadership in commanding them to keep a record--God requires we learn for what is already revealed, and use it to direct our thoughts and beliefs. As for the scripture you are quoting in Ether, IMHO, it is referencing the millenium. Before then, the people will not have the faith of the brother of Jared, and the sealed portion of the BofM will not be opened until then. There are, however, other scriptures that teach that man can know the truth of all things, understand God's mysteries, etc, so I agree with you in principle i think. I'm not sure what you're referencing about the second comforter... read what Joseph smith says about it in teachings, and it is equated to calling and election, personal visit of the Son, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Then you miss the point - read Ether 4:7. There are many Brother of Jareds since his time that are not known to the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliasgeorge Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Then you miss the point - read Ether 4:7. There are many Brother of Jareds since his time that are not known to the world.I agree with you in principle. But I know many of the brethren have taught that this day quoted in ether specifically referrs to the milleniual enjoyments. You should look it up on lds.org talks. Also, if you read the whole chapter, he is talking about opening the sealed portion of the book of mormon. That is where and when we will read the brother of jared's accounts. Again, I agree with you in principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I can see your point....thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Technically, the only scripture God ever "wrote" was the Law given to Moses. All other scripture was written by His prophets and apostles. The Bible dictionary was written by His prophets and apostles also. I see no difference. The only scripture God Himself ever delivered was to individuals, personally. Some of these, like Moses, He burdened with the calling to share the info with others. The rest, like you and I, get it straight from the Man. Sure, we listen to His prophets, but still we MUST confirm their words via prayer to Him who gave the word in the first place. All else (including General Conference talks and the Bible dictionary) are the philosophies of men, mingled with scriptures. As the temple teaches us. If you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and you question the veracity of the Bible dictionary, I think there is reason for concern. Especially if that concern includes believing science and theory over God and His prophets.I don't agree. I believe the Church is true, that the prophets are to be followed, and that they can be mistaken in their views and opinions. I believe all of this is doctrinal. The Church's official (doctrinal) position is neutral on evolution. The only doctrinal statement they have made concerning it is that Man is the offspring of God. I agree. That leaves open the question of how Man came to be, physically. Anything more that I, or you, may speak, is the philosophies of men. Thus the value of prayer and inspiration. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I respectfully, but resolutely disagree. You should try reanalyzing the scientific observations from a new paradigm--that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true...I don't know what to say about that. You disagree that for the age of the earth and evolution there are solid and reliable scientific theories for which there is more than ample evidence.There are flat-earthers who persist in the mistaken belief that the earth is flat in spite of solid and reliable scientific theories for which there is more than ample evidence pointing towards a non-flat earth. Arguing with them, however, is pointless because they dogmatically believe what they want despite the evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (by Aliasgeorge) I respectfully, but resolutely disagree. You should try reanalyzing the scientific observations from a new paradigm--that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true...I don't know what to say about that. You disagree that for the age of the earth and evolution there are solid and reliable scientific theories for which there is more than ample evidence.There are flat-earthers who persist in the mistaken belief that the earth is flat in spite of solid and reliable scientific theories for which there is more than ample evidence pointing towards a non-flat earth. Arguing with them, however, is pointless because they dogmatically believe what they want despite the evidence.I guess aliasgeorge doesn't realize how ignorant (or insulting) he sounds, when he assumes that the gospel doesn't allow for scientific truths. What a shame. You are very kind not to retaliate, Snow. All truth can be combined into one great whole. That is what I believe. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliasgeorge Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 All truth can be combined into one great whole. That is what I believe. HiJollyI couldn't agree with you more.I guess aliasgeorge doesn't realize how ignorant (or insulting) he sounds, when he assumes that the gospel doesn't allow for scientific truths. What a shame. You are very kind not to retaliate, Snow. I accept all scientific observations, just not the conclusions which refute the gospel of jesus christ. In fact, the assumptions that science makes in order to get to some of their conclusions refute the gospel as well. I change the assumptions, based on my religious beliefs, and then reanalyze, and the conclusions go along perfectly with the restored and revealed gospel of jesus christ.I'm such an ignorant fool. I actually believe that the prophets speak the truth! Would you ever claim that someone who accepts God's truths as I do would be anything other than ignorant? I mean seriously, I don't think the same thing as you. I must therefore be dumb oh all knowledgable one. I'm smart enough to trust God over the vain and foolish theories of men which conflic with His words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 That leaves open the question of how Man came to be, physically. Anything more that I, or you, may speak, is the philosophies of men. Thus the value of prayer and inspiration.HiJollyI think sometimes things are so simple we overlook them as truth.How has every other man that ever lived been created on this earth? Even the very Son of God was born in the same manner as all men.I see very, very little logic, reason, or evidence that Adam was brought into this world any other way than by birth.The Spirit has revealed this to me to be true. I know Adam was born of a Father and Mother. Whatever man-like life that existed before, or at the time of Adam, did not evolve into man. Man is not an animal and can not evolve from an animal. You can not evolve into a conscience, nor can you evolve into being offspring of something you are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Flat Earth theories were only taught during the dark ages of europe and not before that timeframe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I think sometimes things are so simple we overlook them as truth.How has every other man that ever lived been created on this earth? Even the very Son of God was born in the same manner as all men.I see very, very little logic, reason, or evidence that Adam was brought into this world any other way than by birth.The Spirit has revealed this to me to be true. I know Adam was born of a Father and Mother. Whatever man-like life that existed before, or at the time of Adam, did not evolve into man. Man is not an animal and can not evolve from an animal. You can not evolve into a conscience, nor can you evolve into being offspring of something you are not.True but why explained it in another way vice the truth of what really happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 True but why explained it in another way vice the truth of what really happen? Sorry, Hemi, but would you mind rewording that comment? HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I think sometimes things are so simple we overlook them as truth.How has every other man that ever lived been created on this earth? Even the very Son of God was born in the same manner as all men.I see very, very little logic, reason, or evidence that Adam was brought into this world any other way than by birth.The Spirit has revealed this to me to be true. I know Adam was born of a Father and Mother. All of the preceeding comments, I agree with. Whatever man-like life that existed before, or at the time of Adam, did not evolve into man. Man is not an animal and can not evolve from an animal. You can not evolve into a conscience, nor can you evolve into being offspring of something you are not.Hmmm... I don't agree with these statements, however, depending on a few semantic details, such as the exact meaning of the word 'man'. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 If man was indeed born into immortality by Heavenly Parents [see comments by President Young and Elder Parley P. Pratt] why would Moses explained it differently as revealed in Genesis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 If man was indeed born into immortality by Heavenly Parents [see comments by President Young and Elder Parley P. Pratt] why would Moses explained it differently as revealed in Genesis?Very good. "By proving contraries, the truth is made manifest." -- Joseph Smith, Jr. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Hmmm... I don't agree with these statements, however, depending on a few semantic details, such as the exact meaning of the word 'man'. HiJollyBy "man" I mean the race or species of man, or children of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Hijolly, you believe that there were pre-adamites? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Hijolly, you believe that there were pre-adamites?That depends on when you think Adam lived on the earth, not to mention how literally you view Adam himself. Or does it depend on how literally *I* view Adam? heh. I am undecided, as Heavenly Father has not revealed to me yet the literality of Adam's mortality, nor the chronology of his mortality. So, I accept on FAITH the teaching that Adam was a literal, physical man. Until our Father decides to make it a matter of knowledge, there I shall remain. I don't accept Ussher's chronology of Adam at 4,000 BC., however; and I absolutely accept that there were thinking, culturalized bi-pedal humanoids on the earth over 20,000 years ago. The evidence for this is compelling and indisputable, IMO. For those that have taken the time and effort to review the evidence personally, anyway. Do I label these "Man"? Again, I am undecided. I am compelled to accept truth as I find it. On this basis, I accept the Church as true. I do not accept the every word spoken at the pulpit as true, though. That was a tough lesson, but one I managed without losing my testimony of God, Joseph Smith and the Church, thank goodness. If you wish to phrase my belief as "pre-adamites", then be my guest, but *I* didn't say it that way. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I don't believe Moses explained it differently. Perhaps you can show me the verses you refer to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I don't believe Moses explained it differently. Perhaps you can show me the verses you refer to?I think Hemi was referring to the Early Church leaders (ie, BY, et. al.) speaking of Adam being born to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, as Adam and Eve by them partaking of the physical fruit in the Garden of Eden, and thus being able to provide Adam a physical, Telestial body, versus the Genesis account of Adam being formed of the "dust of the earth". BY called the Genesis account a "children's story". Very interesting stuff. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I misspoke. Adam was indeed born into immortality, so it wouldn't be telestial, it would be terrestrial. I think. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.