He IS cute..he can not help it:>)
Posted on 08/10/2002 5:45:29 PM PDT by JMJ333
Maybe you think we should have all the answers, but the LDS Church has never claimed to have all the answers. We think we have more of the answers, but nobody's got them all.
You keep demanding proof that the LDS Church is true. You keep posting stuff that in your opinion proves that it's not. Fine, everybody's got an opinion on the subject. But if your goal here is to drive all of us existing LDS members out of the LDS Church, just because somebody managed to do the same with you, then you're wasting your time and ours.
Hugh Nibley, on discussing the foundations of the Latter-day Saint position, had the following to say:
If the Church has any first foundation, it is the unimpeachable testimony of the individual. Since this is nontransmissible, one might dismiss it as irrelevant, an absolute beyond discussion, criticism, or demonstration. Even for the individual, the testimony comes and goes in accordance with faith and behavior. If it is real, then it is indeed unassailable and imponderable. I cannot force my testimony on you, but there are certain indications to which I might call your attention. People who lose their testimonies and renounce the Church or drop out of it, if they are convinced of their position, should be totally indifferent to the folly of their deluded one-time brethren and sisters: if they want to make fools of themselves, that is up to them, but we are intellectually and socially above all that. Well and good, that is how it is in other churches; but here it does not work that way.
Apostates usually become sometimes feverishly active, determined to prove to the world and themselves that it is a fraud after all. What is that to them? Apparently it is everything-- it will not let them alone. At the other end of the scale are those who hold no rancor and even retain a sentimental affection for the Church-- they just don't believe the gospel. I know quite a few of them. But how many of them can leave it alone? It haunts them all the days of their life. No one who has ever had a testimony ever forgets or denies that he once did have it-- that it was something that really happened to him. Even for such people who do not have it anymore, a testimony cannot be reduced to an illusion.
That is interesting . Does the LDS have original manuscripts in JS hand indicating that the plural Gods or progression was his belief at all?
That is kinnda what I thought..so actually there is a 'kind" of doctrinal stand that would be expected if not stated clearly??
BTW I went to the farm sight and read the article..but I had a hard time understanding all the information on it ..that is why i have not returned to discuss it with you..
All of Religions that are TRINITY CAN HAVE YOU DOCTRINE OPINION Of the LDS concept of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost!
Still you have not the right to LIE and DISTORT and PAINT the LDS Church, and leaders as RACIST!
1- A mark is not a skin color it is a mole, birthmark, scare.
2- Cain was not turn black 3- The Egyptian were black
THE SEED OF CAIN HAD TO BE PRESERVED
Could it not be said of Ham that he was righteous in that he followed his father into the Ark? The seed of Cain had to be preserved, and Cain was chosen for that mission. It is very possible that Ham received his name due to the fact that he married a black woman. We learn that the names of many individuals in those early years were given them—and often changed—due to incidents which occurred in their lives. For example, Esau's name was changed to Edom, and Jacob's name to Israel, and Abraham was at first known as Abram. It is likely that Ham's name was changed because he had a black wife, for ham is an adjective in Egyptian for black. The name Egyptus means forbidden. ("Abr. 1:23Abraham 1:23.) Is it not reasonable to believe that this has reference to the fact that her descendants, as well as her ancestors, were denied some great blessing? And that that great blessing was denial of the priesthood?
We are informed that the right to the priesthood was denied Pharaoh, and this is in full accord with the attitude of Enoch and others before the flood. Then is it not reasonable to think that Ham named one of his sons Caanan after Cain? We may not be justified in declaring that the daughters of Ham were fair before the flood. We have no evidence that Ham had either sons or daughters before the flood. We have no evidence that it was the sons and daughters of any of the sons who entered the Ark who received the condemnation of the Lord. It could have been sons and daughters of other sons who refused to hearken to their father, and to the sons who rebelled, there may have been daughters who were fair. In fact, this is the plain implication of the scriptures.
In those days their was not race ideas like today so be careful when trying to think of modern day thinking and how people saw things in those day. And The is the trouble that these myobic men PM & Steve try to make a connection on something that was not so!
I love studing history and trying to see what really was going on and we can not judge by today's ignorance of ancient times unless we study with Holy Spirit of the Lord to help us see and feel those days. It is a different mearsuring stick!
As far as the LSD Church was concern we are all sisters and brothers from the beganning.
One must keep in mind that the Lord took the Priesthool away from many who he had made a convanant with Cain was first, the the the Judah were next, Ephraim also losted it,the Pharaoh denied. Not all of the details are given us.
It was the bigots in the 1500's who distorted the scriptures.
I THINK ONE HAS TO BECAREFUL WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS AND MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS WE SHOULD LOOK FOR TRUTH! NOT TRY TO HURT ANOTHER BECAUSE YOUR DOTRINE IS CHALLEGNE!
WE HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED IN FREEDOM OF CHOICE- EVEN IN THE OPENING OF THE BOOK OF MORMON THE CHILDREN OF LEHI MADE AND OFFER AND PROMISE TO THE EGYPTIAN ZORAM AND HIS FAMILY TO BE A FREEMAN!
1 Nephi 4
31 And now I, Nephi, being a man large in stature, and also having received much astrength of the Lord, therefore I did seize upon the servant of Laban, and held him, that he should not flee.
32 And it came to pass that I spake with him, that if he would hearken unto my words, as the Lord liveth, and as I live, even so that if he would hearken unto our words, we would spare his life.
33 And I spake unto him, even with an oath, that he need not fear; that he should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us.
34 And I also spake unto him, saying: Surely the Lord hath commanded us to do this thing; and shall we not be diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord? Therefore, if thou wilt go down into the wilderness to my father thou shalt have place with us.
35 And it came to pass that Zoram did take courage at the words which I spake. Now Zoram was the name of the servant; and he promised that he would go down into the wilderness unto our father. Yea, and he also made an oath unto us that he would tarry with us from that time forth.
36 Now we were desirous that he should tarry with us for this cause, that the Jews might not know concerning our flight into the wilderness, lest they should pursue us and destroy us.
37 And it came to pass that when Zoram had made an oath unto us, our bfears did cease concerning him.
38 And it came to pass that we took the plates of brass and the servant of Laban, and departed into the wilderness, and journeyed unto the tent of our father.
He IS cute..he can not help it:>)
There is definitely a lot of doctrinal baggage that goes along with accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet.
BTW I went to the farm sight and read the article..but I had a hard time understanding all the information on it.
Yes, there is. Nibley is very thorough in documenting all of the references to the early church fathers. At the very least, you should now understand that baptism for the dead and salvation for the dead in general was a very hot topic for the early Christians. If Joseph Smith simply was guessing as what 1 Corinthians 15:29 is all about, he made some darn good guesses.
An equally suggestive figure is Zoram, Laban's trusted servant whom Nephi met carrying the keys to the treasury as he approached the building. Zoram naturally thought the man in armor with the gruff voice was his master, who he knew had been out by night among the elders of the Jews (1 Nephi 4:22). Nephi, who could easily have been standing in the dark, ordered the man to go in and bring him the plates and follow after him, and Zoram naturally thought that a need for consulting the documents had arisen in the meeting, "supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church" (1 Nephi 4:26), in which case he would act with great dispatch in order not to keep the officials waiting. He hurried in, got the plates, and hastened after the waiting and impatient commander, but not, it must be admitted, "without another word"-- for he talked and talked as he hurried after Nephi through the dark streets towards the gates. What did he talk about? "The elders of the Jews" (1 Nephi 4:27), about whose doings he evidently knew a good deal. For Zoram, as Laban's private secretary and keeper of the keys, was himself an important official, and no mere slave. Professor Albright has shown that the title "servant" by which Nephi designates him meant in Jerusalem at that time something like "official representative" and was an honorable rather than a menial title.
That the sarim, who, as we saw in another lesson, "were in permanent session in the Palace," were full of restless devices is implied not only in their strange hours of meeting but in the fact that Zoram seemed to think nothing strange of the direction or place where Nephi was taking him. But when he saw the brethren and heard Nephi's real voice he got the shock of his life and in a panic made a break for the city. In such a situation there was only one thing Nephi could possibly have done, both to spare Zoram and to avoid giving alarm-- and no westerner could have guessed what it was. Nephi, a powerful fellow, held the terrified Zoram in a vice-like grip long enough to swear a solemn oath in his ear, "as the Lord liveth, and as I live" (1 Nephi 4:32), that he would not harm him if he would listen. Zoram immediately relaxed, and Nephi swore another oath to him that he would be a free man if he would join the party: "Therefore, if thou wilt go down into the wilderness to my father thou shalt have place with us" (1 Nephi 4:34).
The Oath of Power
What astonishes the western reader is the miraculous effect of Nephi's oath on Zoram, who upon hearing a few conventional words promptly becomes tractable, while as for the brothers, as soon as Zoram "made an oath unto us that he would tarry with us from that time forth . . . our fears did cease concerning him" (1 Nephi 4:35, 37).
The reactions of both parties make sense when one realizes that the oath is the one thing that is most sacred and inviolable among the desert people and their descendants: "Hardly will an Arab break this oath, even if his life be in jeopardy,"PEFQ (1895), 173. for "there is nothing stronger, and nothing more sacred than the oath among the nomads,"RB 12 (1903): 259. Cf. Charles S. Clermont-Ganneau, "The Arabs in Palestine," in Survey of Western Palestine, Special Papers (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881), 4:326-27. and even the city Arabs, if it be exacted under special conditions. "The taking of an oath is a holy thing with the Bedouins," says one authority. "Wo to him who swears falsely; his social standing will be damaged and his reputation ruined. No one will receive his testimony, even if it is true, and he must also pay a money fine."Die Beduinen von Beerseba: Ihre Rechtsverhältnisse, Sitten und Gebräuche (Lucerne: Räber, 1938), 44.
But not every oath will do. To be most binding and solemn an oath should be by the life of something, even if it be but a blade of grass. The only oath more awful than that "by my life" or (less commonly) "by the life of my head" is the wa hayat Allah, "by the life of God" or "as the Lord liveth," the exact Arabic equivalent of the ancient Hebrew hai Elohim.PEFQ (1910), 261. See especially Gustaf H. Dalman, "Aus dem Rechtsleben und religiösen Leben der Beduinen," ZDPV 62:59-61. Today it is glibly employed by the city riffraff, but anciently it was an awful thing, as it still is among the desert people. "I confirmed my answer in the Bedouin wise," says Doughty. "By his life . . . he said, . . . 'Well, swear By the life of Ullah' (God)! . . . I answered . . . and thus even the nomads use, in a greater occasion, but they say, By the life of thee, in a little matter."Travels in Arabia Deserta (New York: Random House, 1936), 2:27. Among both Arabs and Jews, says Rosenblatt, "an oath without God's name is no oath," while "in both Jewish and Mohammedan sources oaths by 'the life of God' are frequent."American Academy of Jewish Research 7 (1936): 231-38. Cf. Johannes Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten in seinem Verhlätnis zu verwandten Erscheinungen (Strassburg: Trübner, 1914).
So we see that the only way that Nephi could possibly have pacified the struggling Zoram in an instant was to utter the one oath that no man would dream of breaking, the most solemn of all oaths to the Semite: "As the Lord liveth, and as I live" (1 Nephi 4:32).
Even today how you folks argue with us over doctrine and the GodHead. We are a humble peolpe and keep the faith for we know a day will come that this will be made know to all with out them needing faith, but for many it will be too late!
IT IS BECAUSE WE GOT A WITNESS FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT WE CAN NOT DENY WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE!
To smile in an affected, often offensively self-satisfied manner. n. An affected, often offensively self-satisfied smile.
You may have committed the unpardonable sin!
I asked you a simple question "What Thread Was Pulled!"
You can have your opinion that we follow a false Church and Prophets. What I do take exception to is lying and ignoring the facts that malign the Church and Leader. Now you I am not talking about doctrine for we will agree to that. I am talking about events that we clearly show was not what some have said for self serving purpose!
When ever the LDS point out an outright deception or lie than the topic moves to area that subjective and is only Opinion and some times left is an impassed!
There are certain subjects that do have teeth to defend or show it is ridiculiou to even suggest!
On is maligning the Church and Leaders with RACISM! this can not be tolerated!
***
Now back to my origial point I ASKED YOU A SIMPLE QUESTION! "WHAT THREAD WAS PULLED!" ~ AND YOU MADE IT PERSONAL!
***
You choose to aline yourself with Trinitarian, WHICH THIS CONFLICT WAS NOT ABOUT, it was about PAINTING a PEOPLE FAITH Having a History of Racism!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.