一個預先存在的聖經的證據
由本 2009年9月21日，
社會按鍵由Linksku
問：能否摩門教支持他們的前生與神才出生在這個地球上的看法......只用經文嗎？
傳道書12:7 （斜體加）然後塵埃返回地球，因為它是： 對神的精神應返回誰給了它。
耶利米書1:5 （斜體補充） 之前我在肚子裡，我知道你形成你和你前16:8我聖你的子宮，我祝你獻給列國的先知。
猶大書1:6 （添加斜體）和T 他不守天使，他們的第一個房地產，但離開自己的住處 ，他所保留的偉大的日子，你們的判斷下永恆的黑暗鏈。
啟示錄12:7-9 （添加斜體），並有在天上的戰爭 ：邁克爾和他的使者戰鬥反對票龍和龍戰鬥和他的使者，並沒有得勝， 也不是他們的地方在天上的任何 。 和他大龍被趕出去，那古蛇，名叫魔鬼，又叫撒但，是迷惑普天下的： 他倒在地上，他和他的天使投出 。
3:22-24亞伯拉罕 （斜體加）現在主向我顯示，亞伯拉罕， 他智力，組織在世人面前 ：在所有這些有許多高貴而偉大的。 和神看到這些靈魂，他們是很好的，和他站在他們中間，他說：“這些我會讓我的統治者， 他站在那些靈中，他看見了，他們是很好的，他說：對我說：你藝術之一，其中亞伯拉罕;何竟選擇之前，你赤身露出生。 站在那裡，其中之一是，像對神，他對那些與他的人說：我們會往下走，那裡有空間，我們將利用這些材料，我們將盡大地聳立這些可能住;
這是明確的只是“聖經”，有“前生”精神，我們與神住。 上帝已經給我們的經文通過斯密約瑟（我拿起唯一的一個），證實了這一學說。 感謝您的詢問。
這並不能證明任何有關前生。 亞伯拉罕是一個摩門教的書。
親愛的比爾，
話時喜歡“回歸”和“前”，正如我剛才所說的詩句，我是有東西或地方我之前，我在這個地球上的證據。
至於亞伯拉罕是由書的書，很好，我們有我們的意見分歧，是正常的。 有一天我們會知道。
雖然有許多與此經文，我往往會覺得這2應包括。
羅馬書9:23-24
“他可能使船隻的憐憫，他AFORE準備你們的榮耀，即使是我們，因為他所調用，而不是唯一的猶太人，但也外邦人稱為他榮耀的財富是什麼？”
約翰9:2
“誰犯了罪，這個人或他的父母，他生來瞎眼。”
他怎麼可能犯罪，他將生來是瞎子嗎？ 顯然，他需要在出生前已經存在的弟子都在質疑他是否在前生罪。
使徒約在出生前犯罪的可能性問題，不一定要被評為表明在預先存在的現有信念。 而證實，一些教派認為，胎兒可以在某種程度上罪在其母親的子宮。 如果耶穌曾考慮預先存在是真實的，他肯定會利用這個機會，是他的習慣，向他們解釋，它將如何在這樣一個特殊的情況下工作。 耶穌從來沒有錯過這樣的機會，對屬靈的事指示他的弟子，並已經預先存在一個重要的原則，為他們了解。
然而，在耶穌給的答案，他拒絕使徒提出的兩個方案。 都在出生前的犯罪的想法和父母罪的處罰是錯誤的。 耶穌說：“無論這個人也不是他父母犯了罪，但發生這種情況，使神的工作可能會被顯示在他的生命”（ 約翰 9,3）。 “上帝的工作”是描述在未來的詩句時，為證明他的神（39節）耶穌醫治瞎子。
豐富的，你說得對，這是不是一個直接的教學有關救主premortality的時刻。 這是一個的談話中的一小部分。 他擔任教學的時刻，它解釋說，並非所有的痛苦是處罰，而是一些苦難存在，因此，它可能得到緩解，並給人們帶來神。
你在哪裡遇到一些宗教派系的想法，“相信在其母親的子宮，胎兒可以在某種程度上犯罪嗎？”你其他地方找到這個信念，在“聖經”嗎？ 或在約瑟夫的著作？ 請告訴我們！ 我很想了解更多。
我很樂意分享一些基督教教父想到前生的存在，以及什麼是後者先知斯密約瑟透露。 這些東西支撐我自己的解釋，當別人來敲門，但我願意看什麼證據是有。
豐富你怎麼知道耶穌沒有這樣做，他們只是沒有包括在福音。 我覺得它很難相信福音，包括耶穌所說的每一個字。 我米有許多經驗教訓，他們收到了不包括。 除非你在那裡，它是impossibble知道什麼事情都有可能被淘汰。
伊万
你最後森坦斯也結束“或什麼東西無論出於何種原因，增加了”。 我同意！
如果“聖經”是神的話語，神吹然後耶穌會傳授他想要的東西已知所以它會被寫入，並會監察寫作40一些學者，以確保它不被損壞。
我知道這可能是你的困難，因為我知道，摩門教，以及其他許多人認為它是有缺陷的。 我的工作與LDS，我們經常有相當深入的討論。 這是我的立場，雖然通過翻譯，可能有輕微的差異（從原來的希伯來文，因為天主教和其他版本使用被質疑是準確的希臘著作），神的話語將不會返回void。 這是耶穌（字）描述和闡述的程度，我們可以知道他的精神指導，經驗，他在一個更加個人的方式，通過這個詞。 我覺得如果你要研究和比較，M B，D＆C和考慮的時間線，當某些經文寫，無論是啟示或從寫春聯（我的朋友說，應該是最準確的啟示）你會看到一些在descrepancies神的本質，以及其他領域。 此外，摩門教的歷史表明，斯密約瑟自己製作的版本，在稍後的日期，原（證明一個不斷變化的理解，我想不完全）相同，他是唯一一個與聖經有許多作家。 我無法判斷，你認為是錯誤的，因為這是你和上帝之間，但解釋，如果我不相信“聖經”是準確的字，然後我的信心將是無效的物質。 在我的經驗，說明它是有缺陷的人最傾向於使用為理由不參加的項目，他們不喜歡和/或添加編寫適合自己的議程，是否取得或以其他方式。 一次，我不是說這是你的，但是，正如我第一次提到，如果我相信“聖經”是一個絕對準確的神的話語（我做），那麼我相信神要藉著基督轉達了在那裡。
很好的問題。
在子宮內的犯罪是混合希臘/柏拉圖/猶太/哲學混亂，一切都發生在那個時候......這是記載在許多圈子的一部分，雖然我不存在，無法驗證自己:)
難怪我們需要耶穌或（更恰當）耶穌整頓出這一切。
豐富
這是良好的聽到真誠新教。 顯然，你相信所有你說，覺得你有一個增長與基督的關係。
我有一些想法，你不妨來啃。
約翰21:25告訴我們，耶穌做了這麼多東西，如果他們都寫的世界本身可能不包含將所寫的書。 它建議，同樣可以說，他的話，一定給我嗎？
然而，我同意你的上帝已經取得了一切可用的，是必要的，在“聖經”，。 其實，我想說在馬修單獨預訂。 但關於上帝的偉大的事情是，他意識到，我們聽到緩慢。 因此，它的書越多越好。
我在“聖經”的錯誤（畢竟，它是一個大容量）的知識，並不影響所有從我的信仰在聖經和聖靈的見證在基督的消息。 是的，我還可以看到，摩門教的作家的書有教義上的差異和教義和聖約包含報表表明斯密約瑟的知識，而不是持續的絕對精度，越來越多的。
我的信仰是上帝，而不是寫正確，他的靈感與人的能力。 該亞法是關於基督的啟發和尚未決定，靈感，他應確保基督死亡（約11:51-53）。 什麼是靈感的扭曲！ 它是講關係，我與父親和兒子夾雜著個人的靈感，我相信進來，我會建議你做同樣的，而不是把本書的整個信仰的聖靈;在你我覺得自己有永生。 我說後者，因為你說，如果這本書是錯誤的，你的信仰是徒勞的。 我會說，只有你在新教的信仰是徒然既然如此。 這只是新教教你，這本書有被天衣無縫。 神的話語是完美無缺的。 但男子試圖寫他們是不同的事情。
我想為你考慮添加更多的思考，在討論把盲人。
基督了教學的時刻，是證明困難的人都出生的目的，那個人神故意給它這樣的精神，以便它可以開發的能力，否則就不會發展到那種程度（記住我們相信所有的預先存在的精神;是彼此不同，因此需要不同的成長經歷）。
在這個盲人的情況下，顯然不再是必要的，他有這個缺點。 因此，基督把他治好了。 裡面的人自己得到滿足神的作品。 上帝沒有讓一些人患上失明幾十年來，只是有基督炫耀。 這將使上帝是一個最好的恐怖？
你提出的這個思想流傳下來的，你和我的那些神的工作的含義，但無知。 神就是愛。 在那裡，它是，簡單明了。
謝謝你的回應。 不幸的是，我有“新教”，其中包括不同信仰的一個龐大的群體混為一談，但我會接受，我不慚愧，我想這是沒有什麼不同，:)，近100個不同的摩門教徒組織（即使是只有極少數大）聲稱是合法的教堂和譴責他人。 和基於各種原因，他們中的一些斷絕時，斯密約瑟被殺害，我提醒各新教，關鍵在“聖經”的一個方面，使他們的“信條”，如果你願意。 這些摩門教組織一些斯密約瑟在後來的著作和其他不與聖經和摩門經洽場都相當關鍵，所以，是的，我同意男人的著作不是“結束”。
這本書本身，我不立足於我的信仰，我驚訝你建議。 我根據我的信仰，對聖經中的定義，連同其中的教學耶穌基督的福音，我對他的個人知識向我透露，由聖靈通過經驗，走在他的方式，無論是在成功和失敗，通過這種“按” 。 我的女兒被治愈白血病（得多，真棒故事），毫無疑問，祈禱和鋪設手模式，神的工作，通過完成，。 我有類似的經歷，雖然沒有透露神在一個不爭的方式，規模（你的孩子總是舉行一個特殊的地方），。
“聖經”是路線圖或“Mapquest服務”向目的地，但我要知道這是在與神權的關係，所以我現在可能會遇到他直接永恆存在（“目標”不是我“T”的經驗“他已經）。
我相信慈愛的上帝不會“放棄”任何infimity“已經在他面前”，但“如果你認為自己的孩子。
ciaiphas是人類做出了選擇，無論靈感，我想我們可以說對方做所有的時間，關於“正確”的。
大Dicussion！
豐富
我很高興聽到你的精神的經驗與你的女兒。 上帝是美好的，是不是？
我不得不承認，即使作為聖徒，我們所有看到的東西真的是有我們自己的方式。 我什至看到不同程度的知識，從州。
關於摩門教的書，我知道這是笨拙地寫。 作家自己也承認。 我知道很多事情聽起來有點簡單化。 它摩門教本書是寫在大部份基督前，要記住。
儘管如此，我很想聽到的東西，你覺得在與聖經衝突，因為這顯然是代表在障礙方面的教堂。 我還沒有發現任何無法回答為止。
關於上帝把我們獨特的位置，其中一些創造偉大的物理和/或情緒的挑戰。 我想指出我深知一個人的故事。 他一歲，當他的父母分開，他們後來成為離婚。 他被迫與他的父親，虐待他的人（最小的）每花的第二個週末，在他的母親。 母親是太害怕失去她的兩個兒子（父親有很多法律知識），這樣做一點也不保管。
當8歲左右的男孩想到他的父親認為這一切。 他決定，耶穌知道他的父親在做什麼，仍然愛他，所以他將太多。
有人會說，上帝把那個男孩在一個可怕的位置。 但立場使他學會了愛，虐待他位。 他感謝上帝，成長的機會，並幫助他成為一個更好的人。
我們都可以看人生，看到一些地方和困難的經驗，給我們成長的機會。 我們相信，一個人成為他們自己這輩子。 換句話說，上帝不會使用魔法使我們高興還是難過以後。 這是我們自己，因為我們遵循或拒絕的權利的原則的一部分。
我們相信，即使上帝自己是受永恆的原則。 如果我們的愛裡面，我們感覺很好。 如果我們恨我們心疼內。 這從來沒有改變。 所以神要我們學習這些東西在永恆成功。
作為父母，我們送孩子到學校知道會出現暴力和其他社會挑戰。 我們想在那裡停止任何不好的事情發生。 但我們知道，我們的孩子必須要學會處理這些事情在生活中得到的。
因此，我們的天父看著我們，他的精神的孩子，看到的挑戰，我們需要成長。 他知道，有些人會不會選擇增加。 但是，他特別希望看到通過這些東西，我們會去的。
因此，這個瞎子（與我們）神的目的是滿足在他給我們的挑戰。 此外，其他人可能會從它一起成長。
有太多的問題，任何語言的片劑（改革埃及？）和為什麼（更少的空間採取？），寫作的原籍證明，莫羅尼，等上使用（沒有發現在美洲其他地方）的核查等我知道有很多東西需要信心，但要採取摩門教書時偏離了“聖經”，考慮到它是在一個可疑的語言，寫下來，由一個人，誰在翻譯進展點他沒有解釋'T需要提供幫助神，在某些時候，進展似乎導致其他人相信去另一個方向和爭端，後來說......我一定要堅持與“聖經”。
這是我很難相信，如果有在所有埃及的影響，是不是有些教義結合起來，繼續一個真實的。 有趣的是，但不跟我說話，或響在我懷裡的真實。 “聖經”的大部分也被寫在基督之前，但它不會出現脫節。 如果有人持有/寫一個堅定的信念，然後，我同意，差異可以解釋或像你說的不是“無法回答”。
我想在我們討論affirmities的差異，有些是在預先存在的信念。 我不能相信，一個人（精神子女），在神的實際存在的不足，需要在一個地方不完美，他將在一個位置可能會失敗，他們故意把。 我的孩子可能是壞的情況下，投入自己，但我永遠不會把他們的處境那樣，我將首先幫助他們走出國門，即使它是痛苦的。 如何更神愛我們嗎？
我相信慈愛的上帝創造窮人的選擇和工作/路西法（記得他試探耶穌，但因為耶穌是一個只有上帝的兒子，他沒有動搖）誘人，他不得不把他與人交流的男子，他回到正確的關係，最終為人類犧牲。 只有通過接受這樣的犧牲，才能成為嫁接，並成為與基督同作後嗣，讓我們在他永恆存在。 我知道，一旦我們接受，我們需要使用的例子，耶穌和“拯救我們的工作”或成為更多像他那樣，通過聖靈的果子，但大多是愛。
另一點：
上帝給了他們，但沒有一個單一的先知，統稱為神對我們說話的人可以在預言送禮。 他可以和我們說話單獨和他的真理，如果它是再有就是通過“聖經”和其他國家的確認，他已經發言確認。 有自稱先知噸，那麼，誰聽..... HMM。
這首詩說明為什麼我相信聖經是最終決定權（更不用提的舊約和新約，以及其他原因之間的所有鏈接）。
“上帝，雜項次和時間的過去你們先知的父親在潛水員的舉止說話，就由誰來給我們講他的兒子，他所任命的所有事情的繼承人，這些最後的日子也是他的世界“希伯來書1:1-2
我知道你可以說，不給斯密約瑟的經文寫在基督之前，因此可以被視為“老發言由先知向我們的祖先”的一部分，但有太多的書創造孔何況在隨後的書，他寫道劇變，對我來說。 如果這本書是天使，那麼它應該是準確的首次。 評將是確定的，但隨後的書籍，如果他們是同樣重要的，然而不網格完全是為什麼摩門教其他組織不承認他們或未來的委任先知..........對我來說實在太多了孔離開一個已經證明了一本書，一個人說他被視為更準確的書。 記住，我有我的總經理，他是一個虔誠的摩門教，最大的群體的一部分，定期談話，我以為你是從你的談話。 我從他的教育投入，他讓我的寬限期，以做同樣的。 我們同意，不同意的問題，但相互尊重不夠，要真正考慮每個人點，為什麼。
我很欣賞你的位置，毫無疑問，你真正有你的信念，但最重要的是....神愛我們都不夠犧牲自己的兒子，我真的很感謝，因為我相信你是。
對不起，冗長的回應:)
這是一個有趣的觀點和關於埃及位是什麼，是不是。 我們農民有沒有內在的知識外。 所以我們相信嗎？
在這本書的摩門教的前面，它說，它是由斯密約瑟寫的。 現在，它說，它是由斯密約瑟翻譯。 沒有人可以只寫在一本書的前面。 它必須首先證明是準確的。 這樣做是在法院提出他們的意見，為什麼他們認為這不是教會介紹，他們有什麼證據的新教徒。 我已經閱讀了的情況下簡單的形式。 這本書的摩門教的證據似乎幾乎是無止境的。
其結果是，法院認定，這是當時任何人都不可能有寫這樣一本書。 贊成本書出來以來的證據，使絕大多數明顯，這是一個真實的記錄。
這一決定是有爭議的，並失去了上訴。
提出的證據，在許多情況下，超出了我的知識領域。 所以，我只是有準確法院的判決。
書摩門教本身方面的變化，提出了幾個手稿副本。 這些包含錯誤（在那些日子裡沒有電腦）。 因此，我們最近甚至改變了本書時，重組後的教會他們更原始的手稿賣給我們。 這些已經埃瑪·史密斯當約瑟夫去世。
在考慮到先知，我沒有任何地方指出，只有一個人是先知。 我也不與你的糾紛，我們都應該在我們的神和我們的家庭與個人的關係先知。
話雖如此神整個聖經教會組織與預言的人，直接教會本身作為一個組織的事務。 部分教會的職責是提供給人類神的消息。 因此，我看到一個人在這方面的啟示，需要，維持秩序。
保羅在希伯來書的聲明反映了他的喜悅，而那些在過去只聽說事情秒針;他們是有福聽過它的第一手（這麼說）。 “聖經”本身不支持任何推斷，這是冒充上帝不會說什麼。 之後收到許多來自神的啟示，基督的死，其實這本書的啟示就是這樣一個很好的例子。
如果我們要嘗試和擴大這一說，“哦，”聖經“後寫”，它殺死的論點的邏輯 - 這是基督說，一切並沒有什麼更多的需要可說。
當你寫隨後書籍的約瑟夫的發言，我假設你指的是教義和聖約及無價珍珠。 這些卷都沒有這本書的摩門教的相關性。 在BOFM是一個有記載的歷史，古代人。 在D＆C是約瑟夫接到過多年建立的教會，並增加人們的知識，學說和神想當時記錄的啟示。 PofGP是一組不同的事情，而不是在最後一類。
教義上的差異，約瑟夫提出的學說，無論在理論或向下。 God decided to give and then take away knowledge as the members did right or failed. That some had trouble moving with this should be expected.
In regard to God and logic. You have been taught of a God that just invented everyone. But this perfect being made beings that eventually showed that they had faults in production. And in fact He's still producing these faulty beings. An invention should reflect its inventor.
You have expressed that you can't see why we needed to come and improve ourselves. It must be remembered that we are eternal beings. We existed long before God ever came here to our area. God and a Goddess gave us spirit bodies by birth. We developed an ability to use spirit matter and do things with it. Then we needed to come here and do similarly with physical matter. All this presents opportunities for growth and development as individuals.
Doug,
Thank you for the reply.
I hope you don't understand me to only come from a (what you call) Protestant angle. When I was young (20′s) even though I had grown up in a Protestant church I wanted to test what I had believed to be true against other ideals of Christianity. My first wife grew up Catholic but her brother became LDS and he and I studied Mormon scripture together. Although we did this for a while I never felt the “burning” or revelation to me that it was accurate and I had a very open mind. Shortly around that time I had also gone to some training classes for The Way International, which also (not exactly the same as you though) believe that much of the Bible is translated incorrectly. I felt that they were using the “age of Grace” they said we're in to justify doing whatever they wanted and it seemed there were no guidelines at all.
After testing the waters for a few years I was divorced and then remarried to a woman who was brought up Catholic (don't know how that happened again:) and we started discussing scripture, etc as her grandmother had died and she just couldn't understand how/why everything happened in life and after. During long conversations God brought back scripture to me (that I hadn't thought about in years) that was just what she needed and her life completely changed as she accepted Christ's sacrifice (even though I had no intention on living right, at that time). It was then that I realized I had known the truth as it so drastically changed her (without that being my intent since I wasn't living right) that to remain in relationship with her and have her be my wife, I would need to “return to my first love” as the scripture talks about and recommit. Since that time I have seen God move mightily in our lives so I have no doubt I am on the right path. In each thing I give him glory as that is why we were created. Throughout scripture God and others refer to many things as “for his glory”.
I enjoy the difference between cat and dog theology. The Christian with the cat mentality(personality) says “you love me, you feed me, you take care of me so I must be God”. The dog mentality(personality) is “you love me, you feed me, you take care of me, therefore YOU must be God”. So many think the main character in the Bible is “people” because it talks about many all through it but don't realize the main character is God and he constantly reveals to us through the scripture that we were created for HIS glory (there are a ton of verses describing this). It isn't an easy concept to grasp and takes work to maintain the “dog” mentality but once we get it, life takes on a whole different and higher scale. Reading the scripture from this viewpoint can really help us understand the love he has for us.
I understand what you say about the courts, etc but we know those can be swayed and/or don't necessarily bring out the truth. The Salem witch trials 1692 are 1 example but there are plenty more. Man and his agenda and/or money seem to bring out the worst in people. Also, I believe Doctrine is man made, Truth is what Christ taught so I can understand the up and down Doctrine due to mankind's understanding.
I have yet to find any concrete evidence of your last 2 paragraphs in the Bible. As with many organizations (including Christian) there can be a little truth used in a big untruth so I choose to believe the Bible as is. As I read it, God is perfect and he created everything to bring him Glory (if we don't praise him even the rocks will cry out Luke 19: 28-40). However, he didn't create puppets and we have a choice, which would have been much clearer except for Lucifer's misleading. Since his creation chose selfishly in the beginning sacrifices were to be made for without blood there can be no sacrifice for sin. He did provide a way through the ultimate sacrifice of his son for reconciliation and therefore avoid eternity without him.
As you say you have to accept the courts ruling, I have to choose to accept God for who he describes himself as through the Bible and how the sacrifice of his Son and coverage by his blood removes the “penalty”, if you will of man's selfishness. We do have to accept it though. God has not changed but his Son has provided the Grace until judgement so we aren't judged now. We do have a responsibility to follow after him though and can't just live like we want as that would be “trampling on the sacrifice of Christ” as scripture talks about in Hebrews. Christ also provided the final prophesy on what is to come and how to live, as far as I read.
By the way I have checked out your website too. Very interesting and I enjoyed reading some things on there.
豐富
I'm glad you enjoyed the site, and hope you gained something from it. The Holy Ghost helped me in setting it up and God has really blessed it. The ratings are absurd. Go to Google and type in “deep doctrine” or even “doug towers” and you'll see where it rates.
It is a difficult thing when approaching a person of any religious philosophy to know exactly what they are going to think. So it is true that I can only generalize in regard your thoughts relative to Protestants in the main. However I haven't seen any deviation from that which I would get in opinion from many other Protestants (accepting that in some doctrines Protestantism has large shifts of ideas from church to church).
在關於燒有幾個原因為什麼人們可能不會獲得一個。 我沒有，直到我被問一個星期天學校教師承擔我最近皈依摩門教書的證詞。 為我祈禱主要求為他人著想，我收到了燃燒（非常小，因為它在當時）。 從那時起，我有強大的分鐘了。 ，因為我已經知道教會是真實的，我沒有得到一個燃燒前。
為了得到焚燒需要三樣東西。 1。 在主耶穌基督的信仰，他會回答你。 2。 你必須真誠地想知道，而不是被半心半意的。 和3。 你必須有正確的意圖（原因）的要求。 這是沒有好問，因為你想看到一個標誌經驗的緣故。 或者你只是好奇他們感覺。
如果一個人的心，他們已經知道這是真的，那麼心臟內不能在語重心長地祈禱，以找出它已經知道。 不燃燒！
“恩典時代”，必須伴隨著不斷的陪伴和聖靈的方向。 否則，像你說的，什麼是規則？
我很高興你的精神經驗。 我知道，上帝幫助的人變成他的幫助下，他的情況下盡可能。 神穆斯林和宗教派系各種奇蹟。 所以，他是不待人。 正如我們在尋求他，我們將開始尋找他。
我看到你在貓，狗神學說。 然而，我會對我與神的關係是雙向的事情。 正如約翰提出，“我們愛他，因為他先愛我們”（若一4:19）。 我可以證明這個真理。 它是我感覺神對自己和人類的愛的經歷，在我與他討論，教我什麼是真正的愛情。 父親和我有一個父子關係。 我們一起走路和說話。 他告訴我他的感受，我覺得他的耐心，愛心，無私奉獻，信念，希望，慈善機構等感到絕對的權力，但我們絕對耐心的一個人，這是驚人的。 後者有時我很高興。
至於法院，我同意你的意見，法院是不以任何方式的萬無一失。 我提出的是，我已閱讀所有這些索賠如何這不可能是埃及的一面，然後在其他的反索賠。 我知道，甚至埃及學家不同意對方。 因此，如何沒有多大信心，我把他們的意見？
我知道，當斯密約瑟聲稱有上板，它是在笑從古人的著作。 那麼，為什麼做出這樣的野生聲稱，如果他是一個真正的欺詐？ - 考慮顯然不是由一個白痴寫這本書的摩門教。 為什麼大象和老虎在美洲的存在（這也已經被證明是真實的）索賠？
現實歸結為是一個事實，即有大量的證據證明這本書。 但是，可能或已經不能（這是在我們的知識以外的地區），我必須接受法院可能是正確的索賠和反索賠。 然而，我的感覺告訴我，任何一方都不可能真正證明他們對埃及或以外的任何其他的事情我們現在的文明要求。 在主，我認為這是作為人告訴我們發生了什麼幾百萬年前纖小。
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
謝謝！
豐富
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!
豐富
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肺心病。 15:46-47：然而人的首先是精神的，但是，這是很自然的，後來，這是精神。 第一個男人是大地，泥土;第二名男子是從天上的主。 創2:7：“耶和華神人形成地面上的塵土，並把他的鼻孔呼吸著生命的氣息，他就成了有靈的活人。”
jer.1：5：這談論神的協調，並任命他的國家是一個先知耶利米。 “以前我在子宮內形成你，我知道你，在你出生之前，我奉獻你，我已任命你作列國的先知。”這是上帝的計劃，以同樣的方式弗，耶利米在。 2:10：“因為我們是他的做工，在基督耶穌裡創造了良好的工程，神事先準備好的，我們應該走在他們的”
此外，各地的一些我的閱讀中，我曾遇到一些有趣的報表由約瑟夫一樣，“會神，我可以告訴你我是誰。 惟願我可以告訴你我所知道的。 但你會打電話給它的褻瀆，有對這一立場的人，希望把我的生命。“
有趣......人們不禁要問，“他認為他是嗎？”
豐富
開始之前，我想首先你要考慮以下你通過後閱讀。
我可以嘗試作出各種解釋為“聖經”中的詩句。 但我對你說什麼，而不是採取一種片面的觀點，然後有人試圖找到一首詩，你不可能解釋說些什麼比它說什麼其他的，怎麼樣看到什麼居然說：“聖經”？
如果你讀哥林多前書第15章，你會看到，它是通過它的方式談論復活。 42節解釋說，我們的身體是播種腐敗和廉政建設提出了相對復活。 在詩44字改為包括自然和精神的機構。 在經文引述保羅說，自然（物理）機身自帶第一，然後，由於基督的復活（有這些復活的靈體），完善（物理）身體排第二。 這有什麼，做我們的精神是否存在前。 它只是表明我們的身體沒有。
創2:7只是說明那個男人（這需要在地球存在的灰塵）到在地上存在在這個時候來到。
有趣的是，這個詞翻譯為“是”有使用說明，人不再是一個生活在死亡。 然而，人的精神不停止死亡。 這是進一步的證據，使用它，因為你已經採取斷章取義出來。 進一步的興趣，另外，詩歌可以被翻譯（其實那裡是幾個），辦法“和神到人的鼻孔吹他的生活的精神和人成為一個活的生命，而沒有理由為什麼我們要接受1翻譯以上其他。 的話是完全可以互換。
所以，你只能有2個，導致你相信，我們的精神之前並不存在的詩句。 1。 顯示它從整個篇章談論復活的身體。 和2。 一個只說物理的人根本不存在之前，亞當的誕生。
在關於耶利米_
請注意，它並沒有說，上帝知道他之前，他在肚子裡形成的，但他知道他。 他還指出耶利米實際上在此之前協調。 也聖潔。 - 硬任命非存在。
“他沒有預知，他也注定要符合他的兒子的形象，他可能是在許多弟兄中作長子。”羅8:29
Again here we are informed that God knew people before they were born. Now why bother to say such a thing if we didn't exist then? And note, once more he hasn't stated that he knew of them, but that he knew them.
“And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared to glory. Even us…” Rom 9:23-24
Here he has stated that before coming here he had in some way PREPARED us for glory. A difficult thing to do if we didn't exist.
“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.” Titus 1:2
To whom did God promise this eternal life, before the world began? If there was no person who could gain eternal life in existence before the world began, who was he promising it to?
As I said, we can re-interpret these statements to mean something other than what they say. 但是為什麼呢？ 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?
豐富
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).