O Come O Come Emmanuel

[KevinSim]

Yeah...he's referring to the Church. Gathering Israel is a euphemism for baptizing.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. But if it's a euphemism for baptizing, then the Israel that is being gathered is not the Church until after they're gathered, aren't they?

[honorentheos]

Yeah...he's referring to the Church. Gathering Israel is a euphemism for baptizing.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. But if it's a euphemism for baptizing, then the Israel that is being gathered is not the Church until after they're gathered, aren't they?

Point being?

[msnobody]

I could be wrong, but I see the song/hymn(?) as referring to true Israel finally being enabled to recognize Messiah after the fullness of the Gentiles has been grafted in, such as in Romans 11: The Mystery of Israel’s salvation.

Romans 11:25-27
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
“and this will be my covenant with them

Pretty much like my post about the contrast between the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant— The Promise Plan of God
1. I will be your God
2. You will be my people
3. I will tabernacle with you

I see it as looking forward to the consummation of the promises of God and the return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom on earth. So, I suppose, I view the song as pro-Semitic.

Hasten the day 1 Peter 3:12,13

[huckelberry]

It is a bit of a surprise what things you see as weakening Judism. I do not see any of that as a problem, I do see the idea of destroying all the Canaanites as a real problem.( I remain uncertain how much difference it makes that in fact that genocide did not happen.)

I didn't want to get to into that Judaism discussion in my reply but basically, the monotheistic religion that we have today is a very obvious descendant of a pagan faith but no one in the Bible bothered to mention this fact. And in fact, they just pretend the pagan Judaism didn't even happen at all. El and Yahweh are two different beings, but they are treated as if they were one in the Bible's totalitarian rewrite of history.

The stories of Joshua and the Judges being instructed to kill neighboring Canaanites don't appear to reflect real history, but they did serve to create a tradition of divinely sanctioned genocides which do occur later in the somewhat more historical narratives of Kings and Chronicles.

In those books, the violence and lies wielded against Judaic adherents of Canaanite deities, including El and Jehovah's wife Asherah, are really horrifying once you realize they are evident in the text.

The monotheistic Israelites repeatedly tried to totally kill off Baal and Asherah worshipers, even though Baal and Yahweh are basically the same being, just with different names.

One thing I will give at least some Mormons credit for is that they do recognize the importance of preserving the memory of God's wife, Asherah, and her worship tradition which was so violently extinguished.

Alphus, I suppose I started the exchange in order to engage my own thoughts. I can reply without promising a conclusion.

I find the observation that the Jewish faith grows out of pagan soil both reasonable and reassuring. It indicates that the pagan soil is not all bad but the natural human desire to improve opens the possibility of leaving what was for what might be (a might hopefully be better). There are clues in the Bible, consider who Moses is married to and what religious station her father has. It is connected to the mountain where Moses encounters God. (Jethro, priest of Midian) I do not know where else in the real world the faith would come from but out of the world wide varieties of ancient observances. It is true the Bible downplays that background which has allowed some people to imagine some strain of pure religion going back to even Adam, a fanciful idea.

I have a couple of thoughts about those attacks on Baal worshipers. I am aware primarily of two bloody periods. Josiah reform and Jehu. Josiah is trying to consolidate power and show strength towards threatening neighbors. It is a memorable effort but a failure, he is killed in battle and Judah slides away from his enforced unity and is taken into captivity. I do not see much prophetic support for these forced unifications. Jeremiah may have had doubts but there is no unity about this.

When the book of kings is reached one is well into stories containing all the conflict and uncertainties of real experience. Perhaps nowhere in the old Testament is the best policy arrived at. I think there are better hints in the New but Christians have often been happy to repeat old mistakes and build narrow walls.

[KevinSim]

I sometimes doubt that anything in the Book of Mormon is true, or anything in the Book of Abraham. I sometimes wonder if Joseph Smith made up the visit with God the Father and Jesus. Things like that.

Ah, thanks. I recommend watching this deep dive series on the Book of Abraham:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TgWvGUd7ns

Even though I thought I had a fairly good take on the Book of Abraham, I realized I didn’t know nuthin’. I believe it’s a three-part series, so very thorough.

The problem is deeper than the Book of Abraham, Doc. Far deeper. The problem is, for a person of conscience who believes there is a God (which I am), does it make sense to trust direct communication with God, or does it instead make sense to trust institutional rigor? It looks to me like we've got to choose one of the two. We're beyond reading a book or a website that somebody's produced. People critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produce their books and websites; people who praise that church produce theirs. If we can't establish direct communication with God then we need a forum where both sides are motivated to make their best cases, and I don't see how we can do that without an institution of some kind.

[KevinSim]

I guess that's one way of looking at it. But if it's a euphemism for baptizing, then the Israel that is being gathered is not the Church until after they're gathered, aren't they?

Point being?

My point is that Russell Nelson doesn't consider Israel to be the Church; Israel to him is those people who he'd like to see come into the Church.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I sometimes doubt that anything in the Book of Mormon is true, or anything in the Book of Abraham. I sometimes wonder if Joseph Smith made up the visit with God the Father and Jesus. Things like that.

Ah, thanks. I recommend watching this deep dive series on the Book of Abraham:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TgWvGUd7ns

Even though I thought I had a fairly good take on the Book of Abraham, I realized I didn’t know nuthin’. I believe it’s a three-part series, so very thorough.

- Doc

Did you by chance watch the video?

- Doc

[KevinSim]

Ah, thanks. I recommend watching this deep dive series on the Book of Abraham:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TgWvGUd7ns

Even though I thought I had a fairly good take on the Book of Abraham, I realized I didn’t know nuthin’. I believe it’s a three-part series, so very thorough.

- Doc

Did you by chance watch the video?

No. I did respond to your post, though. I don't see much point in watching videos on the Book of Abraham, and then waiting 2, 5, 10, or 20 years for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to come out with a response to that video, and then keep going back and forth, back and forth. If someone really wants to know the truth (about the Book of Abraham, about the LDS Church in general, or for that matter about anything controversial) then that someone needs to set up a forum and get enough people involved in that forum that the LDS Church (or whatever organization is involved) feels motivated to make its best case regarding the matter. Only after an open ended debate of the matter has resolved itself can that someone (or any of the rest of us for that matter) have any degree of confidence that we really know the truth.
Back in 1999, and then again in 2003, I was on the verge of setting up such a forum myself, but each time when my wife found out about it she was terrified, so much that she got me to promise her I wouldn't do it, and I intend to keep those promises. But I still maintain that the way to find out the truth on such matters is via that forum. My promises to my wife are more important to me then finding out the truth that way. How about you, Doc?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Did you by chance watch the video?

No. I did respond to your post, though. I don't see much point in watching videos on the Book of Abraham, and then waiting 2, 5, 10, or 20 years for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to come out with a response to that video, and then keep going back and forth, back and forth. If someone really wants to know the truth (about the Book of Abraham, about the LDS Church in general, or for that matter about anything controversial) then that someone needs to set up a forum and get enough people involved in that forum that the LDS Church (or whatever organization is involved) feels motivated to make its best case regarding the matter. Only after an open ended debate of the matter has resolved itself can that someone (or any of the rest of us for that matter) have any degree of confidence that we really know the truth.
Back in 1999, and then again in 2003, I was on the verge of setting up such a forum myself, but each time when my wife found out about it she was terrified, so much that she got me to promise her I wouldn't do it, and I intend to keep those promises. But I still maintain that the way to find out the truth on such matters is via that forum. My promises to my wife are more important to me then finding out the truth that way. How about you, Doc?

How about me what?

Also, you should watch the videos.

- Doc

[Chap]

If someone really wants to know the truth (about the Book of Abraham [...] then that someone needs to set up a forum and get enough people involved in that forum that the LDS Church (or whatever organization is involved) feels motivated to make its best case regarding the matter.

There, I regret to have to say, I disagree with you. There used to be an ExMormon poster on this board, who once coined the immortal saying "The Mormon religion isn't just not true, it's obviously not true". That may perhaps be unfair when applied to the religion as a whole.

I suspect, however, that any reasonable person accustomed to weighing historical evidence, and who was not brought up in the Mormon religion by their parents, has only to read a neutral factual account of the origins and nature of the piece of 19th century English prose known as "The Book of Abraham" to realise that it is simply not worth spending time on any further investigation of whether it is what it purports to be. Historians of folk religion in early 19th century America will no doubt find this text of interest but they are a fairly limited group.