L'evidència bíblica d'una pre-existència
per BenQ: Els mormons poden recolzar el seu punt de vista de la pre-existència amb Déu abans de néixer en aquesta terra ... utilitzant les escriptures només?
Eclesiastès 0:07 (la cursiva és nostra) Llavors la pols torni a la terra, com era, i l'esperit torni a Déu que el va donar.
Jeremies 1:5 (la cursiva és nostra) Abans que et formés en el ventre et vaig conèixer, i abans que vas sortir de la matriu et santifiqui, et vaig donar per profeta a les nacions.
Judes 1:6 (la cursiva és nostra) I t ell els àngels que no van guardar la seva dignitat, sinó que van abandonar la seva pròpia morada, els ha guardat en presons eternes, sota tenebres per al judici del gran dia.
Apocalipsi 12:7-9 (la cursiva és nostra) I va haver una gran batalla al cel: Miquel i seus àngels lluitaven contra l'hàbit del drac, i lluitaven el drac i els seus àngels, i no van prevaler, ni el seu lloc va ser més trobat en el cel. I l gran drac va ser llançat fora, la serp antiga, que es diu diable i Satanàs, el qui enganya el món sencer; va ser llançat a la terra, i els seus àngels foren llançats amb ell.
Abraham 3:22-24 (la cursiva és nostra) Ara el Senyor li havia mostrat a mi, Abraham, t que les intel · ligències que van ser organitzades abans que el món era: i entre totes aquestes hi havia moltes de les nobles i grans. I va veure Déu que aquestes ànimes eren bones, i es va parar enmig d'ells, i ell va dir: A aquests faré els meus governants, puix era entre aquells que eren esperits, i va veure que eren bons, i va dir: a mi: Abraham, tu ets un d'ells, tu vas ser escollit abans de néixer vas ser. I no estava entre ells un que era semblant a Déu, i digué als qui eren amb ell: Anirem cap avall, ja que hi ha espai enllà, i prendrem d'aquests materials i farem una terra sobre la qual aquests poden habitar;
Es desprèn de la Bíblia que només hi havia un "pre-existència", on nosaltres, com esperits, viu amb Déu. L'Escriptura que Déu ens ha donat per mitjà de José Smith (vaig prendre només un) confirma aquesta doctrina. Gràcies per la seva consulta.
Això no prova res sobre la pre-existència. I Abraham és un llibre fet pels mormons.
Estimat Bill,
Quan paraules com "retorn" i "abans" s'utilitzen, com ja he assenyalat en els versos, per a mi això és evidència que hi havia alguna cosa o algun lloc on jo estava abans que jo estava en aquesta terra.
Quant al Llibre d'Abraham és un llibre compost per, bé, tenim les nostres diferències d'opinions, i que està bé. Un dia ho sabrem amb seguretat.
Si bé hi ha moltes Escriptures que es relacionen amb això, jo tendiria a sentir aquests dos han de ser inclosos.
Romans 9:23-24
"I això podria donar a conèixer les riqueses de la seva glòria sobre els vasos de misericòrdia que ell va preparar per endavant per glòria, a nosaltres, als qui ha cridat, no dels Jueus, sinó també dels gentils?"
Joan 9:2
"Qui va pecar, aquest home o els seus pares que havia nascut cec."
Com anava a pecar que ell hagi nascut cec? Òbviament hauria d'haver existit abans del naixement i els deixebles es pregunten si va pecar en el pre-existència.
La pregunta dels apòstols sobre la possibilitat d'haver pecat abans de néixer no necessàriament ha de ser jutjat com el que indica una creença existent en la pre-existència. Més aviat confirma que algunes faccions religioses creu que el fetus pogués d'alguna manera el pecat en el seu ventre de la mare. Si Jesús hagués considerat abans de l'existència per ser veritat, segurament s'hauria aprofitat aquesta oportunitat, com tenia per costum, per explicar-los com funcionaria en una situació tan peculiar. Jesús mai va perdre aquestes oportunitats per instruir els seus deixebles sobre assumptes espirituals, i la pre-existència hauria estat una doctrina fonamental perquè ells entenguin.
No obstant això, en la resposta que va donar Jesús, va rebutjar les dues opcions suggerides pels apòstols. Ambdues idees de pecar abans de néixer i el càstig pels pecats dels pares estaven equivocats. Jesús va dir: "Ni aquest home ni els seus pares han pecat, però això va succeir perquè l'obra de Déu es manifestin en la seva vida" (Joan 9,3). "L'obra de Déu" es descriu en els versos següents, quan Jesús va guarir el cec com una prova de la seva divinitat (v. 39).
Rico, tens raó en que això no és un moment d'ensenyament directe sobre la vida preterrenal del Salvador. És una petita part del context de la conversa. Ell ho va prendre com un moment d'ensenyament per explicar que no tot sofriment és un càstig, i no hi ha algun tipus de patiment perquè pugui ser alleujada i portar la gent a Déu.
On ets amb la idea que "algunes faccions religioses creu que el fetus d'alguna manera podia pecar al ventre de la seva mare?" Li sembla que la creença en altres parts de la Bíblia? O en els escrits de Josep? Si us plau, ens mostren! Estic ansiós per aprendre més.
Jo estaria encantat de compartir una mica del que els Pares de l'Església pensa de l'existència pre-mortal, així com el que va ser revelat a la dels últims dies profeta José Smith. Aquestes coses apuntalar la meva pròpia interpretació quan altres vénen a trucar, però estic disposat a veure qualsevol evidència que hi és fora.
Rich, com saber que Jesús no fer precisament això i simplement no s'inclouen en els evangelis. Em resulta molt difícil creure que els evangelis són cada paraula que va ser pronunciada per Jesús. Jo estic segur que hi ha moltes lliçons que van rebre que no es van incloure. A menys que vam estar allà, és impossibble saber quines coses podrien haver estat deixats de banda.
Iván,
La seva última frase o comentari també podria acabar amb "les coses o el que es van afegir, per qualsevol raó". Estic d'acord!
Si la Bíblia és la Paraula de Déu, inspirada per Déu, que alguns autors 40-llavors Jesús hauria impartit el que ell volia conèixer el que hauria estat escrit i que han seguit de prop la redacció, per assegurar-se que no està corromput.
Sé que això pot ser difícil per a vostè com jo sabem que LDS, així com molts altres creuen que és imperfecte. Jo treballo amb un mormó i hem de discutir en profunditat amb bastant freqüència. La meva posició és que, si bé gràcies a la traducció no pot haver lleugeres diferències (en l'original hebreu, ja que les versions catòliques i altres utilitzen els escrits grecs que van ser qüestionats per ser exacte), la Paraula de Déu no tornarà buida. És a través d'aquesta Paraula que Jesús (la Paraula) es descriu i s'exposa en la mesura que puguem conèixer-lo i, amb la guia de l'Esperit, l'experiència d'ell d'una manera més personal. Crec que si vostè anés a estudiar i comparar el B de M i D & C i considerar la línia de temps d'escriptura, quan va ser escrita i segur si es tractava de la revelació o de rotllos escrits (el meu amic diu que la revelació ha de ser el més precís ) que es veuria alguns descrepancies en la naturalesa de Déu, així com altres àrees. A més, la història SUD demostra que el mateix José Smith va produir versions en dates posteriors, que no era el mateix que l'original (que acrediti un concepte en evolució, suposo) i no era més que un escriptor enfront de la Bíblia que té molts. No estic jutjant que el que vostè creu que està malament, ja que és entre tu i Déu, però explicant que si jo no creia que la Bíblia és la Paraula exacta llavors la meva fe seria buit de substància. En la meva experiència la majoria de la gent que ho expliquen a ser deficient tendeixen a usar això com una raó per no participar dels articles que no els agrada i / o afegir-hi amb l'escriptura que s'adapti a la seva agenda, ja sigui formada o d'una altra manera. Un cop més, no estic dient que és però, com he esmentat en primer lloc, si crec que la Bíblia és la Paraula una precisió absoluta de Déu (que jo) llavors crec que el que Déu volia que transmet a través de Crist hi és.
Bona pregunta.
Pecar al ventre era part de la barreja de grec / Plató / jueu / Filosofia confusió que estava succeint en aquell moment ... la qual cosa està ben documentat en molts cercles, encara que jo no hi era i no puc comprovar :)
No és estrany que necessitava Jesús o Yeshua (més correctament) per redreçar tot això.
Rico
És bo saber d'un protestant sincer. Òbviament, vostè creu que tot el que estan dient i sent que té una relació creixent amb Crist.
Tinc algunes idees que vostè pot desitjar per mastegar.
Joan 21:25 ens diu que Jesús va fer moltes coses que si s'escrivissin tot el món en si mateix probablement no podria contenir els llibres que s'escriurien. Es suggereix a mi que el mateix podria dir-se de les seves paraules, oi?
No obstant això, estic d'acord amb el que Déu ha fet tot el disponible que sigui necessària, en la Bíblia. De fet, jo diria que en el llibre de Mateu sol. Però la gran cosa sobre Déu és que ell s'adona que som lents per sentir. Així que és un cas dels llibres més, millor.
El meu coneixement dels errors en la Bíblia (que és un gran volum, després de tot) no significa en absolut en detriment de la meva creença en el missatge de Crist en la Bíblia i amb el testimoni de l'Esperit Sant. Sí, també puc veure que el llibre dels escriptors mormons van tenir diferències doctrinals i també la Doctrina i Convenis conté declaracions que demostren l'augment dels coneixements de José Smith, en lloc d'una precisió absoluta continuïtat.
La meva creença és en Déu, no en la capacitat de l'home per escriure correctament el que ell ha inspirat. Caifàs va ser inspirat sobre Crist i, no obstant això va decidir que la inspiració de la qual ell s'ha d'assegurar que Crist va ser condemnat a mort (Jn 11:51-53). El que un toc d'inspiració! És la relació que tinc parla amb el Pare i el Fill es barreja amb la inspiració personal de l'Esperit Sant, que confio en polzades li aconsello que faci el mateix, i no posar la seva fe en el seu conjunt en el llibre, perquè s'hi Creus que tens la vida eterna. Jo dic que l'última, ja que diuen que si el llibre està malament vostra fe és vana. Jo diria que només la fe en el protestantisme és en va de ser el cas. És només el protestantisme que li ha ensenyat que el llibre ha de ser impecable. Les paraules de Déu són perfectes. Però l'home tractant que escriure és un assumpte diferent.
M'agradaria afegir un pensament més per a la seva consideració en relació amb el cec de la discussió.
El moment de l'ensenyament que Crist va fer va ser demostrar que les dificultats que les persones neixen amb tot té un propòsit a aquesta persona: Que Déu deliberadament li dóna a aquest esperit perquè pugui desenvolupar les habilitats que d'altra manera no es desenvoluparien fins a aquest punt (recordant que creiem que tots els esperits preexistents, són diferents entre si, pel que requereixen les diferents experiències de creixement).
En el cas d'aquest home cec, òbviament, ja no calia que ell té aquest inconvenient. Així, Crist ho va sanar. Les obres de Déu que es van complir van ser a l'interior de l'home mateix. Déu no va fer a un home patir dècades de ceguesa acaba de tenir a Crist mostrar. Tal seria fer de Déu un horror d'un ésser en el millor?
Aquest pensament que vostè ha presentat ha estat transmesa per vostè i jo pels ben intencionats, però ignorants de les obres de Déu. Déu és amor. Aquí està, així de simple.
Gràcies per la resposta. Per desgràcia he d'estar agrupats en un "protestant", que abasta un vast grup de diferents creences, però vaig a acceptar això i no m'avergonyeixo d'aquesta :) Suposo que no és diferent que el prop de 100 diferents organitzacions de mormons (tot i que només hi ha un grapat que són grans) que diuen ser l'església legítima i denunciar als altres. I sobre la base de les diverses raons alguns d'ells van trencar quan José Smith va ser assassinat em recorda a les diverses religions protestants que la clau en un aspecte de la Bíblia i fer que el seu "credo" si es vol. Algunes d'aquestes organitzacions mormons són molt crítics dels últims escrits de José Smith i altres, com no ser consistent amb la Bíblia i el Llibre de Mormón és així, sí, estic d'acord que els escrits dels homes no són la "fi de tot".
Jo no baso la meva fe en el mateix llibre, i estic sorprès que suggereixen que. Baso la meva fe en l'Evangeli de Jesucrist es defineix en la Bíblia, juntament amb l'ensenyament en aquest, el meu coneixement personal de ell em va revelar per l'Esperit Sant ia través de l'experiència caminant en els seus camins, tant en l'èxit i no a través d'aquest "pressionant" . La meva filla es va curar de leucèmia (molt més que aquesta història increïble) i no hi ha dubte que l'oració i la imposició de mans era la manera que Déu va obrar a través d'aquest complert. He tingut experiències similars, encara que no en aquesta escala (els nens sempre tenen un lloc especial), que han revelat a Déu d'una manera que no es pot negar.
La Bíblia és el full de ruta o "MapQuest" cap a la destinació, però he de saber el "destí", que és estar en relació correcta amb Déu, així que ara pot experimentar la seva presència directa per a l'eternitat (no és que don "t" experiència "ho ha fet).
He de creure que un Déu amorós no "donar" cap infimity al seu fill que "ja ha estat la seva mirada", però bé, si vostè creu que això.
Ciaiphas era humà i va prendre una decisió, independentment de la inspiració, el que suposo que podem dir els altres fan tot el temps que fa a la "correcció".
DEBAT A genial!
Rico
Em vaig alegrar d'escoltar de la seva experiència espiritual amb la seva filla. Déu és meravellós, no?
Estic d'acord que, tot i que els Sants dels Últims Dies que tots tenim la nostra pròpia manera de veure com són realment les coses. Fins i tot he vist a diversos graus de coneixement a partir d'un estat a un altre.
Pel que fa el Llibre de Mormón ho sé està torpemente escrita. Els autors van admetre que. I sé que un munt de coses que soni una mica simplista. Cal recordar que el Llibre de Mormón va ser escrit abans de Crist en la gran majoria.
Havent dit això, seria curiós saber les coses que se senten en conflicte amb la Bíblia, ja que, òbviament, s'erigeix com una barrera perquè pel que fa a l'església. No he trobat res fins ara sense resposta.
Pel que fa a Déu, ens posa en una posició única, alguns dels quals creen grans dificultats físiques i / o emocional. Voldria assenyalar a la història d'una persona que conec bé. Va ser un any d'edat quan els seus pares es van separar, i més tard es van divorciar. Va haver de passar cada segon cap de setmana amb el seu pare, qui ho maltractava (sent el més jove) per venjar-se de la seva mare. La mare tenia massa por de perdre la custòdia dels seus 2 fills (com el pare tenia una gran quantitat de coneixements jurídics) que no van fer res al respecte.
Quan tenia uns 8 anys d'edat el nen va pensar en el seu pare i què pensar de tot això. Es va decidir que Jesús sabia el que el seu pare estava fent i encara ho estimava, així que ell també ho faria.
Algú podria dir que Déu havia posat a aquest noi en una situació terrible. No obstant això, la posició li va fer aprendre a estimar a aquells que el van maltractar i que poc més. Agraeix a Déu per aquesta oportunitat de créixer i ajudar-lo a esdevenir una millor persona.
Tots podem veure la vida i veure alguns llocs i experiències que eren difícils i ens donen oportunitats de creixement. Creiem que una persona es converteix en el que ells mateixos fan en aquesta vida. En altres paraules, Déu no utilitza la màgia per fer-nos feliços o tristos després. Es tracta d'una part del que nosaltres fem en seguir o rebutjar els principis correctes.
Creiem en els principis eterns que fins i tot Déu mateix està limitat per. Si ens estimem ens sentim bé per dins. Si ens agrada ens sentim malament per dins. Això altera mai. Així que Déu ha de tenir a aprendre aquestes coses per tenir èxit en l'eternitat.
Com a pares enviem els nostres fills a l'escola sabent que la violència i altres problemes socials que sorgeixen. Ens agradaria ser-hi per evitar qualsevol coses dolentes que succeeixen. Però sabem que els nostres fills han d'aprendre a bregar amb aquestes coses per sortir endavant en la vida.
Així que el nostre Pare Celestial ens va mirar, els seus fills espirituals, i va veure als reptes que es necessiten per créixer. Sabia que alguns no ho triaria per créixer. Però per a aquells que es tenia interès particular per veure que anàvem a passar per aquestes coses.
Així, amb aquest cec (i amb tots nosaltres) els propòsits de Déu es compleixen en els reptes que se'ns dóna. A més altres poden créixer a partir d'ella.
Hi ha moltes preguntes pel que fa a la verificació de les activitats de la llengua (que no es troba en cap altre lloc en la dècada dels Estats Units) que s'utilitza en les taules (egipci reformat?) I per què (menys d'espai que ocupen?), La prova d'origen de l'escriptura, Moroni, etc , etc Sé que moltes coses s'han de tenir fe, però quan el llibre de Mormón es desvia de la Bíblia, considerant que és en un llenguatge qüestionable, escrit i interpretat per una persona, que avançava en la traducció fins al punt que ell deixés 't necessita l'ajuda de Déu sempre i en algun moment semblava que la progressió de causar altres que creien en un primer moment per anar una altra direcció i solució del que es va dir més endavant ..... he de seguir amb la Bíblia.
És difícil per a mi creure que si hi va haver influències egípcies en tot el que hi ha no és una combinació de les doctrines de continuar un únic i veritable. És interessant però, no parla ni a mi ni sonen veritables en el meu pit. Gran part de la Bíblia va ser escrita també abans de Crist, però no sembla inconnex. Si algú té una forta convicció d'un / a continuació, l'escriptura, estic d'acord, les diferències es poden explicar o com vostè ha dit no són "incontestables".
Suposo que algunes de les diferències en els affirmities que estem discutint és la creença en la preexistència. No puc creure que un poble (fills espirituals) que són a la presència real de Déu vol que les deficiències que haurien de ser resolts en un lloc menys perfecte i que intencionalment els posaria en una posició a fallar, possiblement. Els meus fills poden posar-se en una situació que és dolent, però mai els posaria en una situació com aquesta i jo seria el primer a ajudar-los a sortir encara que fos dolorós. Quant més ens estima Déu?
Jo crec que un Déu d'amor va crear l'home a la comunió amb ell i l'home, a través de males decisions i el funcionament i / o temptació de Llucifer (recordeu que va temptar Jesús, sinó perquè Jesús era el Fill unigènit de Déu, no va vacil · lar) que va haver d'enviar un sacrifici final per a la humanitat per tornar a una relació correcta amb ell. Només a través de l'acceptació que el sacrifici podem arribar a ser empeltats i esdevenir cohereus amb Crist, que ens permeti estar en la seva presència per tota l'eternitat. Sé que una vegada que acceptem que hem de fer servir a Jesús com l'exemple i "treballar per la nostra salvació" o assemblar més a Ell a través de prendre en tots els fruits de l'Esperit, però sobretot amor.
Un altre punt:
Les persones poden treballar en dons profètics com Déu els dóna, però no hi ha cap profeta, que ens parla de Déu en conjunt. Ell pot i no parlar amb nosaltres en forma individual i si és la veritat, llavors no hi ha confirmació donada per mitjà de la Bíblia i altres que ell ha parlat de per confirmar. Hi ha tones dels profetes van proclamar que a qui escoltar ..... hmm.
Aquest versicle Descriviu perquè crec que la Bíblia és l'autoritat final (per no parlar de tots els vincles entre l'Antic i Nou Testament, així com per altres raons).
"Déu, havent parlat moltes vegades i de moltes maneres en altre temps als pares per boca dels profetes, en aquests últims dies ens ha parlat pel seu Fill, fent-lo hereu de totes les coses, i per qui així mateix va fer l'univers "Hebreus 1:1-2
Sé que es pot dir que l'Escriptura donada a José Smith va ser escrit abans de Crist, i per tant pot ser considerat part de la "va parlar en el passat als nostres pares per boca dels profetes", però hi ha massa forats en la creació del llibre, no parlar dels canvis dràstics en els llibres posteriors que va escriure per a mi. Si el llibre va ser donat per un àngel, llavors hauria d'haver estat correcta la primera vegada. Comentaris estaria bé, però els llibres posteriors s'usen com si fossin igual d'important, encara que no del tot la malla de manera que altres organitzacions mormons no els reconeix o el profeta designat propera .......... forats massa per a mi deixar un llibre que s'ha provat per a un llibre d'un home va dir que se li va donar i es considera més precís. Recordeu, tenir converses regulars amb el meu GM, que és un mormó devot, que forma part del grup més gran, com suposo que ets de la conversa. Rebut d'entrada educació d'ell i ell em permet la gràcia de fer el mateix. Estem d'acord i en desacord en temes, però es respecten prou per considerar una altra veritat cada punt dels altres i per què.
Estima la seva posició i no tenen cap dubte que vostè realment té les seves conviccions, però el més important .... Déu ens estima tant com per sacrificar el seu Fill i per això estic molt agraït i estic segur que ets.
Perdó per la llarga la resposta :)
És un punt interessant en relació amb el bit d'Egipte i el que és i no és. Nosaltres els camperols estan a l'exterior sense el coneixement interior. Aleshores, qui li creiem?
A la part davantera del Llibre de Mormón, que solia dir que va ser escrit per Joseph Smith. Ara diu que va ser traduït per José Smith. Sense un només pot escriure que a la part davantera d'un llibre. Ha de ser demostrat ser precisa primer. Això es va fer en un tribunal de justícia amb els protestants que presenten els seus punts de vista de per què sentia que no era i l'església la presentació del que l'evidència que tenien. He llegit una forma simple de la caixa. Les evidències per al Llibre de Mormón sembla gairebé interminable.
El resultat va ser que el tribunal va considerar que era impossible per a qualsevol persona que en aquell moment per haver escrit un llibre així. Les evidències en favor del llibre que han sorgit des que sigui aclaparadorament obvi que és un veritable rècord.
Aquesta decisió va ser impugnada i la pèrdua de l'apel · lació.
Les evidències presentades es trobaven en camps fora del meu coneixement, en molts casos. Així que només ha de prendre la decisió de la cort el més precís.
En els canvis respecte al llibre de Mormón, diverses còpies del manuscrit van ser fetes. Aquests errors continguts (no hi ha equips en aquests dies). En conseqüència tenim, fins i tot dels últims temps alterat el llibre quan l'Església Reorganitzada ens va vendre els manuscrits més originals que tenien. Aquests havien anat a Emma Smith, quan José va morir.
Pel que fa als profetes no he declarat en qualsevol lloc que només un home és un profeta. Ni jo discuteixo amb vostè en què tots hem de ser profetes en la nostra relació personal amb Déu i les nostres famílies.
Dit això Déu té tota la Bíblia va fer una organització de l'església amb una persona profètica per dirigir els assumptes de l'església com una organització. Part dels deures de l'església és per lliurar el missatge de Déu a la humanitat. Així veig la necessitat d'un home que rep la revelació, en aquest sentit, per mantenir l'ordre.
La declaració de Pau a Hebreus reflecteix la seva alegria que mentre que en el passat només han sentit coses de segona mà, que són beneïts d'haver escoltat de primera mà (per dir-ho). Qualsevol inferència que això es planteja que Déu no dirà res de nou, no es recolza en la Bíblia mateixa. Moltes revelacions de Déu van ser rebuts després de la mort de Crist, i de fet el llibre de Apocalipsi és un bon exemple d'aquests.
Si anem a tractar d'estendre això a dir, "ah, bé, després de la Bíblia va ser escrita", que mata a la lògica de l'argument - que és el que Crist va dir de tot i res més que havia de dir.
Quan vostè parla de Josep escriure llibres posteriors Suposo que es refereix a la Doctrina i Convenis i La Perla de Gran Preu. Aquests dos volums no tenen rellevància per al Llibre de Mormón. El BofM és una història escrita feta per la gent antiga. El D & C és un registre de les revelacions de José va rebre més de anys d'establiment de l'església i va fer augmentar el coneixement de la gent de la doctrina i el que Déu volia que es fes en aquell moment. El PofGP és un grup de coses diferents que no estan en l'última categoria.
Les diferències doctrinals que José es van presentar ja sigui cap amunt o cap avall en la doctrina en la doctrina. Déu va decidir donar i després portar els coneixements que els membres van fer bé o no. Això tenia alguns problemes amb aquest moviment s'ha d'esperar.
Pel que fa a Déu i la lògica. Se'ls ha ensenyat d'un Déu que s'acaba d'inventar tot el món. Però aquest ideal es va fer als éssers que amb el temps va mostrar que tenien falles en la producció. I, de fet, Ell encara està produint aquests éssers defectuosos. Una invenció ha de reflectir el seu inventor.
Vostè ha expressat que no es pot veure per què havia de venir i millorar nosaltres mateixos. Cal recordar que som éssers eterns. Nosaltres ja existia molt abans que Déu mai no va venir aquí a la nostra àrea. Déu i la Deessa ens va donar un cos espiritual per naixement. Hem desenvolupat la capacitat d'utilitzar la matèria esperit i fer coses amb ell. Després vam haver de venir aquí i fer de manera similar amb la matèria física. Tot això presenta oportunitats per al creixement i el desenvolupament com a individus.
Doug,
Gràcies per la resposta.
Espero que no m'entenen a venir només des d'un angle (el que vostès anomenen) protestant. Quan jo era jove (20 anys) tot i que havia crescut en una església protestant que volia provar el que havia cregut per ser veritat contra altres ideals del cristianisme. La meva primera dona va créixer catòlic, però el seu germà es va convertir en LDS i ell i jo vaig estudiar escriptura mormona junts. Tot i que va fer això per un temps mai em vaig sentir la "crema" o revelació per a mi que era exacta i que tenia una ment molt oberta. Poc voltant d'aquest temps m'havia anat també a algunes classes de formació per el Camí Internacional, que també (no és exactament el mateix que tu, encara) creuen que gran part de la Bíblia es tradueix incorrectament. Vaig sentir que ells estaven usant la "edat de la Gràcia", va dir que estem en per justificar fer el que volia i semblava que no hi havia directrius en absolut.
Després de provar les aigües d'alguns anys em vaig divorciar i després es va tornar a casar amb una dona que va ser educat com a catòlic (no sé com ha passat de nou :) i vam començar a discutir sobre les Escriptures, etc, ja que la seva àvia havia mort i ella "no podia entenc com / per què tot el que va passar en la vida i després. Durant les llargues converses que Déu va portar l'escriptura per a mi (que jo no havia pensat en anys) que era just el que necessitava i la seva vida va canviar per complet quan ella va acceptar el sacrifici de Crist (encara que jo no tenia cap intenció de viure bé, en aquest moment ). Llavors em vaig adonar que jo havia conegut la veritat, ja que tan dràsticament va canviar (sense que això sigui la meva intenció, ja que no estava vivint la dreta) que per mantenir una relació amb ella i que ella sigui la meva dona, jo hauria de " tornar al meu primer amor ", com les converses de les Escriptures sobre i renovem. Des de llavors he vist Déu moure poderosament en les nostres vides així que no tinc cap dubte que estic en el camí correcte. A cada cosa li dono la glòria, com és per això que hem estat creats. Al llarg de les Escriptures a Déu i altres es refereixen a moltes coses com "per la seva glòria".
M'agrada la diferència entre el gat i la teologia del gos. El cristià amb la mentalitat de gat (la personalitat) diu: "tu m'estimes, que em donis de menjar, a cuidar de mi, així que ha de ser Déu". La mentalitat de gos (la personalitat) és "tu m'estimes, que em donis de menjar, a cuidar de mi, per tant vostè ha de ser Déu". Així que molts pensen que el personatge principal de la Bíblia és la "gent", perquè parla de moltes persones a tot a través de, però no s'adonen el personatge principal és Déu i que constantment se'ns revela a través de l'Escriptura que hem estat creats per a la seva glòria (hi ha un munt de versos que descriuen aquest). No és un concepte fàcil d'entendre i requereix molta feina per mantenir el "gos" en la mentalitat, però una vegada que ho fem, la vida adquireix una escala completament diferent i superior. Llegint l'Escriptura des d'aquesta perspectiva ens pot ajudar a entendre l'amor que sent per nosaltres.
Entenc el que dius dels tribunals, etc, però sabem que els que poden deixar-se portar i / o no necessàriament a la veritat. Els judicis de Salem 1692 són un exemple, però n'hi ha molts més. L'home i el seu ordre del dia i / o diners semblen treure el pitjor de la gent. A més, crec que és la doctrina feta per l'home, la veritat és el que Crist va ensenyar, així que pot entendre la doctrina de dalt a baix a causa de la comprensió de la humanitat.
Encara he de trobar alguna evidència concreta dels seus 2 últims paràgrafs de la Bíblia. Igual que moltes organitzacions (incloent a Christian) no hi pot haver una mica de veritat utilitzat en una mentida gran, així que trio creure en la Bíblia com és. Mentre ho llegia, Déu és perfecte i ell ho va crear tot per donar-li glòria (si no ho lloen, fins i tot les pedres clamaran Lluc 19: 28-40). No obstant això, encara no ha creat titelles i tenim una opció, el que hauria estat molt més clar a excepció d'induir a error de Llucifer. Des de la seva creació va escollir egoistament en el principi sacrificis havien de ser fets per sense sang no pot haver un sacrifici pel pecat. Ell ha proporcionat un camí a través del sacrifici del seu fill per a la reconciliació i per tant evitar l'eternitat sense.
Com vostè diu que vostè ha d'acceptar la decisió judicial, he de triar entre acceptar Déu per qui es descriu com a través de la Bíblia i com el sacrifici del seu Fill i la cobertura per la seva sang elimina la "pena", si es vol de l'home egoisme. Hem d'acceptar però. Déu no ha canviat, però el seu Fill ha donat la gràcia fins que es dicti sentència per la qual cosa no són jutjats ara. Tenim la responsabilitat de seguir després d'ell, però i no pot simplement viure com volem ja que això seria "trepitjant el sacrifici de Crist", com l'Escriptura parla sobre Hebreus. Crist sempre la profecia final sobre el que vindrà i com viure, pel que he llegit.
Per cert, he comprovat que el seu lloc web també. Molt interessant i m'agradava llegir algunes coses en aquest país.
Rico
M'alegro que hagi gaudit d'aquest lloc, i espero que va guanyar alguna cosa. L'Esperit Sant m'ha ajudat en la seva creació i Déu ha beneït realment. Les classificacions són absurdes. Aneu a Google i escriviu "doctrina profunda" o fins i tot "Doug torres" i veureu que qualifiqui.
És una cosa difícil quan s'acosti a una persona de qualsevol filosofia de la religió per saber exactament el que pensaran. Així que és cert que només es pot generalitzar pel que fa als seus pensaments en relació als protestants en el principal. No obstant això, jo no he vist cap desviació del que jo tindria en l'opinió de molts altres protestants (acceptant que en algunes doctrines protestants té grans canvis de les idees d'església en església).
In regard burnings there are several reasons why people may not obtain one. I didn't until I was asked by a Sunday School teacher to bear my testimony to the Book of Mormon as a recent convert. As I went to the Lord in prayer asking for the sake of others I received a burning (very small, as it was at the time). Since then I have had powerful ones that have gone on for minutes. But as I already knew the church was true I didn't get a burning before.
To get burnings requires 3 things. 1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that He will answer you. 2. You must be sincerely wanting to know rather than being halfhearted. And 3. You must have the right intent (reason) for asking. It is no good asking because you want to see a sign for the experience's sake. Or that you are just curious as to what they feel like.
If in a person's heart they already know it is true, then the heart within can't pray in earnestness to find out that which it already knows. No burning!
The “age of grace” needs to be accompanied by the constant companionship and direction of the Holy Ghost. Else, as you say, what are the rules?
I am glad about your spiritual experiences. And I know that God helps anyone who turns to him for help, as much as he can under the circumstance. God has performed miracles for Muslims and all sorts of religious persuasions. So He's no respecter to persons. As we seek after him we will begin to find him.
I see what you are saying in regard cat and dog theology. Yet I would pose that my relationship with God is a two-way thing. As John posed, “we love him, because he first loved us” (1 Jn 4:19). I can testify to the truth of this. It is my experiences of feeling the love of God toward myself and mankind, in my discussions with him, that taught me what real love is. The Father and I have a father-son relationship. We walk and talk together. He tells me of his feelings and I feel his patience, love, unselfishness, faith, hope, charity etc. It is amazing to feel a being with ABSOLUTE power, yet ABSOLUTE patience with us. Am I glad for the latter at times.
In regard courts; I agree with you that courts aren't infallible by any means. What I was presenting is that I have read all these claims on the one side of how this can't be Egyptian and then counter claims on the other. I know that even Egyptologists don't agree with each other. So how much faith do I place in their opinions?
I know that when Joseph Smith claimed to have writings on plates from the ancients that it was laughed at. So why make such a wild claim if he was really a fraud? – considering that obviously the Book of Mormon wasn't written by an idiot. Why make claims that elephants and tigers existed in the Americas (which also has since been proven true)?
The reality comes down to the fact that there is a lot of evidence to prove the book. But as to the claims and counter claims of what could or couldn't have been (which are in areas outside our knowledge) I have to accept that the court could be right. Yet my sense tells me that neither side can really prove their claims about Egyptian or any other thing outside our present civilization. In the main I think it is as airy-fairy as people telling us what happened millions of years ago.
Alma 32 gives a rundown on faith that is exact in every detail. The first time I read it I thought it was long-winded and repetitive. Yet experience has shown me that each segment is important. Mosiah 2:38 teaches about what hell really is. This was confirmed by my experiences before I joined the church. The D&C presents that we are made of 3 separate parts (intelligence, spirit matter and physical matter). I have had experiences which have demonstrated the truth of this concept. Joseph Smith received revelation that by the time we have turned 8 years old we have already sinned and need repentance. Experiences I had at 7 (long before I joined the church) demonstrated the truth of this. Joseph Smith received revelation of a preexistence. Once again I had experiences even before joining the church that totally confused my (then Protestant) mind as my spirit remembered the preexistence. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith demonstrating that we are indeed in their image and likeness. When Jesus appeared to me when I was young I refused to accept it because of the mind-washing I had received that they filled the universe and had no shape.
I could go on with this stuff. Admittedly it is personal experiences. But these are important to me. Man has attempted to come up with philosophies, religions and psychology to pretend to present truth they have invented. All I have seen is a pile of sounding-good nonsense. The stuff in all the Scriptures we have works. It is spiritually and physically sound. Nature proves it to be true. Life proves it to be true.
Before and since being in the church I have looked back at the Bible and found that it supports what the church teaches far more than Protestantism does.
I can assure you that the 3 qualifications you outlined were true for me. Otherwise, why would I have investigated multiple ideals of Christianity (I had searched out others) unless, of course, I already felt I knew the truth prior to studying the Mormon scripture? As you explained, if in the heart the truth is already known then no “burning”. I was seeking, earnestly, to know if I was off and the BofM held the truth and didn't get confirmation.
I would suggest that after talking to my friend there are small portions of the LDS doctrine that very closely mimic the Protestant doctrine as well as some Catholic doctrine. To suggest that LDS is totally void of that I would have to disagree with. The word Protestant has become so broad that the meaning is lost….part of which is “denying the universal authority of the Pope”. I would suggest you fall into that category but, yes, I know there is more to it.
As far as the evidence of the BofM, I would be interested to find out where there is archaeological (or otherwise) evidence of the battle between the Nephites and Lamanites or the earlier battles involving the Jaredites, considering their relative close proximity to our time versus some of the archaeological findings that prove much older biblical battles, etc. In addition to that, there are small things like the difference between documented science and Mormon scripture regarding the introduction of bees into the New World.
Speaking of the PofGP, it still records ancient things (Abraham and Moses?), true? What is interesting is that (which I asked my LDS friend but got no definitive answer other than revelation would supersede transcripts) is that the book of Abraham was transcribed from papyri and talks about the plurality of gods and the book of Moses (which was inspired from revelation, if I understand correctly) agrees with the Bible, multiple times, on their being one God and there are no others. Mosiah talks about the Father himself coming down to redeem his people but being called the Son because he dwells in the flesh, etc. I am sure that one person could put this all together and then rewrite their translation of the Bible so it seems to fit in a nice neat box but I struggle with the constant evolving doctrine of one person. I can almost understand if multiple people's opinion created an offshoot of doctrine but not one man who was given a revelation and the ability to translate the Word of God. If I am correct, the BofM itself was translated in 1830 and retranslated in 1837 with one of the most fundamental difference being the understanding of God and the Son. In 1 Nephi (paraphrased) “beheld the Lamb of God……the Everlasting God” vs “beheld the Lamb of God…..the Son of the Everlasting God”. There are other verses therein that include the same change. Big difference!
The Bible gospel (on its own, barring opinion) provides proof that it is unquestionably unequaled in power and confirmation in the Spirit and I have seen time after time the proof in my life in the physical as well as the spiritual. I agree God is no respecter of persons as it is scripture that relays that and I have seen that throughout my life as well.
Rich,
Some interesting thoughts there.
Your lack of burning could be from either direction. I can only say that I have had a burning in regard one thing a president (“the prophet”) of the church said. I have also had a strong and lasting burning that a woman was to be baptized. I have had many burnings on other things. But those directly relate to the church and its truth.
Protestant means to protest against the existing church (Catholic). It stretched out further to be those protesting against all the other protesting churches as well. What it comes down to is that Protestant churches are churches where someone decided that the existing churches weren't teaching all the truth. They had come up with one or more areas where they felt the Bible wasn't being adhered to correctly. So they began a church in the name of Christ without any authority from him directly. They concluded that their interpretation gave them authority from Christ.
What makes the LDS church different is that the church didn't come about because Joseph Smith found some new way of interpreting the Bible or some text that had been ignored in his opinion. The church came about as a restoration of authority from Jesus Christ himself. Jesus Christ started the church. Thus it is the restored church of Jesus Christ, not a protestant church made by men.
As to the Bible and evidence of battles mentioned in it. There is absolutely not one shred of evidence of any of the Old Testament battles. Anyone telling you so is talking one sided philosophies. They claim to have found Jerico. But how do they know it is Jerico? Did it have a sign saying, “Welcome to Jerico?” Those against the Bible point out that there is no evidence at all that it is Jerico.
What is more is that this great civilization under Solomon and David has no ruins that have been found. There is no mention of a Moses in Egypt. Neither the Medes, Persians, Babylonians or Greeks have any record of having conquered Israel or Judah. They mentioned conquering all these other nations. And so the list goes on. Does this disprove the Old Testament?
In regard science and bees. I have read these claims. My belief in science outside of provable areas (that is were a working product is produced or we can go and see it) is absolutely ZERO. I studied the evolution of the atomic theory in learning to be an electronic technician. One person proved that protons travel to electrons and then the next one proved that electrons travel to protons. This went back and forth. Each change wasn't done by disproving the hitherto believed concept, but purely by acceptance of the latest “proven” “fact.”
When at high school we were informed by scientists that the rings around Saturn were continuous and most likely of an oil substance or maybe of a gas. When we sent a probe past they got zero out of two. They are made of broken up rocks.
I could go on seemingly forever on this stuff. No real proof. No facts.
I'm sorry that your friend didn't know the answer to your question. Perhaps you'll get to teach him something about the church. The Book of Abraham is actually quoting the Bible correctly. The first chapter of Genesis says, “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth.” In Hebrew any word ending in “im” is like our words ending in a single “s”. It makes it a plural. Thus we have 1 cherub and 2 cherubim. You may recall that when upon the cross Jesus cried out to “El” (God the Father) (Matt 27:6). This is why so many Israelite names have God's name in them – IsraEL, MichaEL, EzekiEL. ELijah, RachEL etc. These are interpreted to mean something relating to God (Matt 1:23).
Christ also quoted the word from the OT in talking with the Scribes and Pharisees. He said that the word meant “Gods” (in spite of translators attempts to downplay this by putting the word “Gods” with a small “G” it is the same word as used in Genesis where he's quoting from). He is declaring it to have the full authority of the title of God (no pretense that it means judges or something) as he relates it to God. (Jn 10:35)
Joseph Smith probably didn't want to create friction at the time he received the Book of Moses interpretation. Either that or God didn't burden him with that issue at the time.
In 1837 it is possible that Joseph Smith made that change for clarification. As he isn't here to ask I really can't know. But as to the Father and Son bit. This is explained in the Book of Mormon. He is the Father in that he does what the Father would do if there himself. Thus to Philip he made this same point. Yet he is the Son because physically he is not God the Father. He is himself. If I go out to represent a company then I may say to a potential client, “I will throw in an additional product if you order in the next 7 days.” But in reality I won't give him anything. The company does. I am the company to him. But I'm not the company really.
As to the Bible and the Spirit; that gets into my conversion story. It is the Bible and the Spirit in it that converted me to the church, in driving me away from Protestantism.
Doug,
I see what you're saying as I have had (my wife as well), what you describe as, “burnings” when I know God wants me(us) to move in a certain way or pray for an individual and I had no preconcieved idea of doing those things so I think we're talkking the same or similar thing here.
In fact one time after moving back from Ca to Wa we started going to my childhood church, when we first got back for the sake of the transition, and then after a bit felt impressed by the Spirit to move on. We were invited to a friends church and as my family approached the steps leading up to it my wife and I looked at each other and both felt the Spirit say “this isn't where you are to go”. I told her what I sensed and she agreed that she sensed the same thing (which you know married couples strive for but isn't always the case:). This was prior to setting foot inside or hearing the message or meeting the people, etc. I could definately describe it as a “burning”. We went in and attended that service out of respect for the couple that had invited us and we told we were coming. Once inside we could feel a misleading spirit and because the Holy Spirit had pre-warned us something was not right (prior to going in we both felt it was almost evil but I will call it misleading) we were ready to discern properly (but couldn't wait to get out of there).
I will need to do more research in some of the other areas and, yes, you are right about differing opinions in science but there have been archaeological finds (and many archaeologists don't believe the Gospel) that follow the timeline and location of the Bible events in many areas. I know the Jericho issue isn't clear but it does appear that based on what they have found and the area it looks as if the city and event happened, even if the original description of the city, etc was suspect.
In John 10:35 isn't Jesus quoting Psalms 82:6, which the context refers to wicked judges, since that's who they were at that time?
Researching just a little in “non-Protestant” circles it appears that Elohim is (in it's construction) a grammatically singular word in current and ancient Hebrew unless it's used with plural verbs so I'll do some more research in the history and Hebrew with a person that is and has been knowledgeable in the language.
I would suggest that the truth is the truth, as I said previously, and that you say Joseph Smith probably didn't want to create friction so it wasn't interpreted correctly or clearly the first time is a little ambiguous for me. I thought his interpretation was assisted divinely. It all seems a little mistake filled and later corrected for me, especially for a man that got divine help translating one and divine revelation for the other. I would think God would match since it wasn't thousands of years between those 2 events, just 1 lifetime between 1 God and 1 man.
Question: Is it accurate that 2 (or 3, I'ma little cloudy on that as it's been a while) of the 8 initial witnesses of the BofM left the church, even though they were listed in it as testifying to its validity? Not sure if they were from the first 3, second 5 or a combination.
Regarding Joseph Smith's late changes to the Book of Mormon, I found these articles to be elucidating:
Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon's Book by Brant A. Gardner
The Mistakes of Men: Can the Scriptures be Error-Free? by John A. Tvedtnes
Rich, all three of the “three witnesses” and one of the “eight witnesses” left the Church. None of them recanted their testimonies even in their bitterest hours. Here's a summary I wrote a while back: The Testimonies of Witnesses .
OK, I can see that there was a group of people that testified about an event which, by the way, doesn't make it true if you're trying to create another doctrine as we've seen down through the ages. IF I were to say that they had all seen what they said, the reality is that the ever changing doctrine of much of what was written after, by the guy who had received the clarity, didn't really jive with it completely so I have no choice but to question it. That appears to be why some left the church. My opinion is that truth is truth and God would not give a doctrine that needs to be adjusted. Many other doctrine's include a bunch of ritualism that I don't see in the Bible either.
I will read more of these links you suggested as I am absolutely not opposed to absorbing information. Here is an interesting one I came upon while researching. I'm not saying it's accurate but if they truly have the letters they discuss at the end it would make for interesting discussion.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/ferg.shtml
Gràcies!
Rich
The most powerful of the burnings I have had fill the entire torso with a burning feeling so powerful that it isn't describable. Yet they are not always anywhere near that powerful. And the length can greatly vary. It depends on how open I am and how keen the Holy Ghost is to get over the message.
I should have made my comment on Psalms and John a bit more clear. It just seemed like I had written a lot and was trying to keep the comment as short as possible considering what needed covering. Jesus Christ used the logic that he can't be accused of blaspheming by merely claiming to be the Son of God, since men were referred to as actual Gods themselves. So the implication of the way he has used the word (while being used in regard to church administrators) was a statement putting these men on equal parr with God the Father. Demonstrating that we too can be referred to as Gods of the same station (even though we are far from being as spiritually superior as the Father).
In this instance we see an example of what you meant in regard the word being used as either a plural or singular. Looking at it then we could even say that it isn't false to present that on the one hand God (the Father) was the creator (Moses version) in that he directed it to be done. And on the other hand that many Gods were involved in that those of us who were capable and interested actually did the creating (Abraham version) in the preexistence.
As to truth being consistent. I remember when my oldest child was young I told her to never touch an electric socket. Yet one day I told her to turn it on (it was one of those with a switch to do so). She was somewhat surprised and reluctant to follow this instruction. Yet she had come of age to understand how to do the right thing. Eventually I taught her to dismantle one and put it back together. Had the truth changed? No. But she had in just a couple of years. And this meant an improvement of information.
We see a demonstration of this in the Bible as Christ taught a higher (change) doctrine that if followed makes some parts of the old one obsolete. For example _ They said of old time (Moses said) if you wish to make an agreement with someone and an oath is required, don't make the oath upon yourself or any other object. Make your promises to God. Yet Christ said that in following him you are to refrain from making oaths at all. That you should just keep your word (Matt 5:33-37).
Sacrifices are now pointless, as we have the record to show what they pointed to. More changing doctrine.
Moses received commandments that opposed what God accepted before in regard inter-family marriage. More changing doctrine.
While Christ taught that to those in him the law was fulfilled, the apostles went on to change that and insist on refraining from things offered to idols. More Changing doctrine. “Here a little, there a little” (Isa 28:10).
The Bible is loaded with ritualism in the law given to Moses. This was God's way of delivering information without delivering the information. A bit like parables. “That seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not” (Matt 13:14, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10). Temples continue to do this same concept today. God's ways have not changed. When people are ready and searching, the Holy Ghost will teach them the meaning of the symbols individually (as in ancient Israel).
It may be of interest for you to know about how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. In translating the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith saw what was being said, not a word for word translation. He then put this idea into his known language. This means that it has a limit in that it was translated by a Protestant (Joseph Smith at the time). This problem becomes obvious in reading it, to some degree.
What I mean by this is that he was ignorant of many of the doctrines that he later came to learn. So were the writers of the books of the Book of Mormon in the main (it would seem). Yet I must say that of the multitude of books that I have answered against the church Protestant writers of the material never seem to find any of these real inconsistencies.
But if I'm to reject the Book of Mormon because of the mistakes of men I would have to do the same with the Bible. The Bible tells me that Jerusalem was the city of David. But, wait, it tells me Bethlehem was the city of David. The Bible tells me that when the women came to the tomb the stone was already rolled away. But, wait, the Bible tells me the stone got rolled away when the women arrived, and the angel then sat on the stone. But, wait, the Bible told me there were two angels inside. No, it tells me there was only one. But, hang on, it tells me that one was standing and one was sitting. No, hang on again, both were standing. Jesus told Mary not to touch him because he hadn't ascended into heaven (whatever that would have to do with it). But, no, Peter went up and grabbed his feet and kissed them. The mistakes are seemingly endless. But you believe the book, as I do, because of the truth of its message and the Spirit letting you know it is true.
I understand Isa 28:10 to be about drunken priests being unable to teach, or even speak clearly, as they are drunk.
Original City of David = Bethlehem, where he was born, Jerusalem called that later as that's where he ruled, which could be considered as encompassing Bethlehem at the time being only a few miles away. On and on……..
Context and history make a difference…..all in one book.
It still makes sense that the Urim and Thummim should have accurately translated and there should have been no need for it to change in other books by the same man, especially recounting his experience.
Paul changed (due to experience) and I can't find where he changed. His letters only preached Christ and him crucified and he recounted what revelation he had received from Christ consistantly……and he persecuted Christians prior and probably had some Jewish influences that could have altered his doctrine but didn't.
Rich, the Tanners make Thomas Stuart Ferguson out to be some kind of authority on matters of Mormon apologetics. They're really just telling the story of one man's loss of faith. I suggest taking a look at FAIR's wiki any time you come across something that appears scathing to Mormonism just to see how we understand it. Here's what they had to say about Thomas Ferguson .
Thank you for the link!
Rich
I find your spiritual experience stories interesting, by the way. I don't always mention that, but it is good to hear more of the love of God to my brothers and sisters.
Interesting point about the City of David. I actually use it because it is used in some anti-church material against the Book of Mormon (as it refers to Jerusalem as the City of David also). So I point out that if this makes the BofM wrong then the Bible must suffer the same fate.
Yet this still doesn't explain the many other errors or even those few I mentioned.
Acts 15:20 & 29, 21:25 present that the church put out a decree that all were to abstain from things offered to idols. This was an establishment of a doctrine taken from the law of Moses as being binding upon them. This is a change of doctrine from what Christ taught.
Perhaps you are thinking the way you are in regard the D&C and PofGP because you see yourself as having one book, and therefore feel the BofM should be one all encompassing volume. Think of it like you have 2 collections of books. One has 39 books (the Old Testament – a Jewish volume) and the other has 27 books (the New Testament – a Roman volume). What you are presenting is that if the OT came from God why would he need to give more in the NT? Or that if the OT came from God why would he need to make changes to the knowledge in the NT? We could even use the same logic in regard the first 5 books of Moses. Wasn't the law given by God? So why a need to add to it?
The Book of Mormon is a history of one land, anciently. It isn't meant to complete the Bible. Nor is it meant to be a replacement for the Bible. It isn't some volume that contains all knowledge of all things past, present and future. It is just like the OT mixed with a tiny bit of the NT. We could find a spiritual record kept by the ancient people of Australia and translate that as well, and use it also as Scripture. It doesn't become an update to the Book of Mormon or Bible. The D&C and PofGP aren't appendixes to the Book of Mormon any more than the Book of Mormon is an appendix to the Jewish and Roman books. These aren'ta set of changes to the Book of Mormon to correct it.
In regard Isa 28:10, as he is always a bit obscure perhaps I would have been better to refer to Christ's statement. “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord has made a ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? (Matt 24:45). To me this poses increasing doctrines in time. Additionally the other evidences I gave demonstrate that God does change the doctrines where he deems it appropriate. This doesn't make him changeable. Nor does it make his ways changeable. It just means that some people are different spirits from others.
Consider the fact that you have the Bible. Throughout history how many people have had the 66 books you have? And how many today are even capable of reading or obtaining the library (Bible)? Large numbers do have it. But larger numbers don't. So is God a respecter to persons? It would seem so from this. Many Protestants have told me that God wouldn't allow the Bible to come to them with errors. What arrogance! God allowed all these people prior to now to not have a Bible, or have one with less books in it, but he wouldn't allow THEM to not have a correct one! Hmmmmmm?
And why is it that he has allowed the Catholics to have a Bible with additional books and yet made sure that Mr and Mrs Protestant have only the correct ones?
God is no respecter to persons because he puts spirits in appropriate places. This can only be possible IF spirits are different BEFORE life begins. Logic tells us that if he is fair then each person must be born with some sort of appropriate equality. Yet how can a person born in Africa before the Bible came to their area be considered able to accept Jesus Christ in the same way as a person born in a church with a Bible? Yet God is no respecter to persons.
You have presented that you can't find evidence for a preexistence in the Bible. But I would say that your criteria of judgment had been incorrect. You are starting with a viewpoint and asking it to be proven wrong. That isn't the way to read the Bible. You must start with no viewpoint and examine the evidences for both sides. I can quote a lot of texts supporting the idea of a preexistence. Now while we might find ways to argue them away, why should we if the amount of them would satisfy us in regard another doctrine? So where are the Biblical texts that have given you the impression that there is no preexistence? Let's look at those also.
1 Cor. 15:46-47: Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. Gen. 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
Jer.1:5: This one talking about God's ordination and appointment of Jeremiah to be a prophet to his nation. “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” This was God's plan for Jeremiah, in the same way Eph. 2:10: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
Also, throughout some of my reading I have come across some interesting statements by Joseph, like “Would to God I could tell you who I am. Would to God I could tell you what I know. But you would call it blasphemy and there are men on this stand that would want to take my life.”
Interesting…one has to ask, “who did he think he was?”
Rich
Before beginning this I would first like you to consider the following as you read through that which comes after.
I could attempt to make all sorts of explanations for verses in the Bible. But what I'm saying to you is that instead of taking a one-sided viewpoint, and then getting someone to attempt to find a verse that you can't possibly interpret to say something other than what it says, how about just seeing what the BIBLE actually says?
If you read 1 Cor chapter 15 you will see that it is talking about the resurrection all the way through it. Verse 42 explains that relative to the resurrection our body is sown in corruption and raised in incorruption. In verse 44 the words are changed to include the terms natural and spiritual bodies. In the verses you quote Paul is saying that the natural (physical) body comes first and then, due to the resurrection of Christ (who had the first of these resurrected spiritual bodies), the perfected (physical) body comes second. This has nothing to do with whether our spirit existed before. It is only demonstrating that our physical body didn't.
Gen 2:7 is merely stating that man (which required the dust of the earth to exist) came into existence upon the earth at this time.
Interestingly the word translated as “being” there is used to state that man ceases to be a living being at death. Yet the spirit of man doesn't cease at death. This is just further evidence that using it as you have is taking it out of context. Of further interest there is another way that verse can be translated (in fact there are several), “and God breathed into man's nostrils his living spirit and man became a living being.” And there is no reason why we should accept one translation above the other. The words are totally interchangeable.
So you only have 2 verses that had led you to believe that our spirits didn't exist before. 1. Coming from an entire chapter showing it is talking of resurrected physical bodies. And 2. One that is only saying that the physical man didn't exist before Adam's birth.
In regard Jeremiah _
Note that it doesn't say that God knew OF him before he was formed in the belly, but that he KNEW him. He also states that Jeremiah had actually had an ordination before this. And also sanctified. – Hard to ordain a non-existence.
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Rom 8:29
Novament aquí se'ns informa que Déu sabia que la gent abans que naixessin. Ara per què es molesten a dir una cosa així si no existeix, llavors? I tingui en compte, un cop més que no ha indicat que ell sabia d'ells, però que ell els coneixia.
"I això podria donar a conèixer les riqueses de la seva glòria sobre els vasos de misericòrdia que ell va preparar per endavant per glòria. Fins i tot nosaltres ... "Romans 9:23-24
Aquí s'ha dit que abans de venir aquí tenia d'alguna manera ens va preparar per a la glòria. Una cosa difícil de fer si no existíssim.
"A l'esperança de vida eterna, que Déu, que no menteix, va prometre des d'abans del principi del món." Tito 1:2
A qui li va prometre Déu a aquesta vida eterna, abans que el món? Si no hi ha persona que pugui guanyar la vida eterna en l'existència abans que el món és món, que va ser el que promet?
As I said, we can re-interpret these statements to mean something other than what they say. Però per què? To keep tradition?
I can testify to you that I have remembered parts of my pre-existence from time to time. Some of these being when I didn't even believe is such. So I have the Bible and I have experience showing me the same message.
DougT
I'm disappointed that it sounds like you believe I cannot research on my own. It is very simple to find information that correctly translates Hebrew or Greek into English including emphasis and context. I can appreciate that you have studied and feel well equiped to answer everything with your own conclusion, which is wonderful. I am studying and coming to my own conclusions as well.
Wierwille of The Way International believed that scripture wasn't accurately translated and was a self appointed scholar/theologian that knew better and created an interesting doctrine. That I even wasted my time involving myself with that still irritates me but I believe all information and education can be useful, as it was. There are many others with slight to drastic variations.
In many of the explainations above it appears you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of. Those versus don't SAY what you are emphasizing that they mean. You are reading into them something other taking them for face value (well perhaps the face value you see), unless another text has brought you to that conclusion. You say things like “who did he promise if we weren't there?” Isn't that an assumption without using an outside influence? Also, things can be prepared for a subject without the subject being present, etc, etc.
Example: If he promised it before the world began, you assume it was to us but God just as easily could have promised it to the Son and Holy Ghost knowing, that with the departure of Lucifer, his creation would struggle with the influence of evil (or opposition to God). Ultimately I believe he knew how it was going to go down and a sacrifice was necessary, however we would still have to choose in order to have the “ hope of eternal life”.
I just looked at 15 translations of Gen 2:7 and none of them say ”his living spirit” but I guess I'll have to take your word for it that there is one. It is actually “breath of lives”, correctly translated and gave the spirit of life and understanding to a created lump of dust.
Apparently you don't believe God could have (fore)knowledge or be aware of what would come in the future and/or act on that (Jeremiah). He knew ahead that he would serve him.
I only included the 2 scripture as I can spend as much time as necessary to type more, but have other obligations to family and work.
It is informative and our conversation causes me to search further and for that I am grateful.
I am curious, though, about my last question based on what Joseph Smith had said……who did he think he was that would cause him to say those things?
Rich
I have to agree with you that we must be reading from our own perspective.
I'm not doubting God's ability to see the future. What I'm saying is that the texts themselves don't say that. I can also see that a person can make that assumption. When it says that some people were prepared for glory before, I know that I could assume he means that he was planning it that way. But it isn't what it says.
It talks of those he knew before. Now again we could say that he knew of all of us before. But he's got this special group it says he knew before. This, to me, sounds like where he says we have to come to know him to get eternal life. It seems that he would be referring to a special knowledge of him and us in a union. That is an assumption on my part. But the verse does say those he knew before.
In regard “breath” and “spirit”. I would feel that you would be familiar with the Strong's Concordance as a Biblical scholar. So I will quote from that. The word involved is 5397 – “neshamah” – a puff. Translated in the KJV as :- blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.
Interestingly the Greek has the same problem.
You are right that there would be those that God could have mentioned his promise of eternal life to apart from us. It just seems odd to mention that he promised eternal life in conversation with those not receiving it.
In regard Joseph Smith and who he was. That one got me a bit too. As we know who Jehovah, Gabriel, Michael and Elohim are I don't think he actually meant it as a “who” in regard a famous named character, but a “who” in regard what he did. It must be remembered that they were just learning at the time (though I think in some areas they were better informed than us).