Turn it off

[_Albion]

For some reason, I missed ldsfaqs lengthy post earlier on the board. Likely unlike those who congratulated him on his post I did take the time to look at all the scriptures he gave and yet I remain unconvinced of his argument.

Gen 17:1, Gen 18:1, Acts 7:2, lst Kings 9:2 and 11:9 all use the term the Lord "appeared". As I have explained, I have no argument with the idea that the Lord "appeared" to people but that usually his "appearances" were in various manifestations that are not him in all his glory and holiness as he sits upon the throne in heaven. His first appearance to Moses was in the form of a burning bush, an amazing appearance that likely had Moses shaking in his boots but he did not see the glorified throne of God with God upon it.

Ex 3:6 This makes very clear what I am talking about. God appeared in a burning bush and even that glory of God was enough for Moses to hide his face.

Ex. 19:11 "...the Lord will come down on Mt. Sinai in the sight of all the people..." Again, no mentioned of God in glory. Whatever the people saw it was some kind of manifestation but not a full on glorified and holy God. The people of Israel were a stubborn, disobedient, and sinful people denied even seeing the Promised Land. It is inconceivable they could gaze fully upon God in all his glory and holiness.

EX33:11 I could find no mention of anyone seeing God.

Ex 24: 10-ll This is the scripture that Tobin used to make his point. I quoted the identical incident as recounted in Deuteronomy that clearly contradicts his argument of these people seeing the glorified God.

Num. 12:7-8 Uses the expression "face to face". I believe an expression to demonstrate the closeness that a faithful Moses had with God and not to be taken literally. I realize that Mormons believe God is an exalted man with human features. I reject that...he is Spirit so the idea of Moses looking into a literal face of God makes this a device to demonstrate closeness rather than how Mormons read it. Perhaps a discussion for another day.

Isaiah 6: 1,5 Clearly a visionary or dream experience. Not an experience in real time or place.

Deut. 5:4 "The Lord spoke to you FACE TO FACE out of the fire." Clearly demonstrates that Moses saw a burning bush manifestation of God and not a glorified God. Despite not literally seeing God in clear he still spoke with God "face to face." The verse proves my point above.

JUdges 13: 22. The earlier verse 21 clearly shows this was an angel and not God.

Gen. 3 The Garden account. Does not say at all that they saw God.

Heb. 11:27 "By faith he (Moses) left ....not fearing the king's anger, he persevered because he saw him who is invisible." Again, the burning bush experience. He saw an amazing manifestation of God in a burning bush....not God is his glorious, holy majesty but a representation of it.

The Job references are interesting since there is much debate over whether this is true history, allegory or poetic in nature. I subscribe to the latter. There may well have been a man name Job around whom the poetry is written...there may have been a King Arthur around whom Tennyson wrote his famous poem. The lessons of the book are more valuable than any debate as to their factual nature. Again, just my view.

Ezekiel 1:1 An account of a vision of God...as is Ezekiel 8:1-4

Joshua 5:12 He did not see God...he saw an angelic person, the commander of thbe Lord's army as he is described.

Revelation 22:4. No debate here. Those in Christ will literally gaze upon almighty God IN THE FUTURE when they will stand before him clothed in the righteousness imputed to them by God's grace through their faith.

As I said above, I remain unconvinced and am perfectly willing to accept that those of you with an opposing view also remain unconvinced. I suspect that you have far too much invested in the false seeing God claim claim of Joseph Smith in whatever vision account he finally settled on to give up now. That's what makes for interesting discussion.

[_Franktalk]

Albion,

Why do you play with us the way you do? You have so much knowledge and wisdom. Why do you just give us a taste of your wisdom in these small posts? Just rewrite the whole Bible and tell us what it means. And please include the new book labeled "The book of Albion" where you define for all of us the mind of God.

[_Franktalk]

.......As I said above, I remain unconvinced and am perfectly willing to accept that those of you with an opposing view also remain unconvinced. I suspect that you have far too much invested in the false seeing God claim claim of Joseph Smith in whatever vision account he finally settled on to give up now. That's what makes for interesting discussion.

Maybe you can clear this up for me.

Rev 1

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Is this a mistake? It seems to me that Jesus is telling John to write about what he sees.

Yet John writes this:

Rev 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

Who did John see?

[_SteelHead]

I don't know who John saw, but I know what I see.

Two groups arguing about whether a man can see god, both using the same Bible to prove their correctness, neither willing to admit that the Bible is so self contradictory as to be worthless in establishing the mind, nature and characteristics of god.

So I offer myself and my argument that the root of your contention is the contradicting worthless junk that is the Bible itself, as your common enemy.

You can not prove anything regarding this point on the Bible as it says on one hand that no man can see the face of god and live, and then has plenty do it. The problem is the Bible, not your respective interpretations of it.

[_Albion]

Franktalk, I think sarcasm is beneath you. If you have a different view than mine refute it point by point in the way I responded to ldsfaqs.

Since you appear to have missed it first time around let me restate my position. God has "appeared" to numerous men through the ages...he has spoken to numerous men through the ages. His appearances (the word used often to describe these times) have been in many ways such as his appearance as a burning bush to Moses. Scripture tells us of this time that Moses saw God and spoke with him face to face but the reality is he saw a burning bush representation of God. He did not see God in all his majesty of might, power, light and holiness. This is my point and why the scriptures (New Testament) emphatically state that no man has seen the Father except Jesus and that no man can see God (the Father) and live Old Testament. Men have also seen God, perhaps even more clearly, in visions, as in the instance of Revelations you mention above.

No one, not Tobin, not you, not ldsfaqs, seems to want to address the Deuteronomy clarification of the Exodus story of Moses together with more than seventy elders "seeing" God. Why does Deuteronomy clarify their experience by telling us that they did not really see God in the literal sense? When I brought it up to Tobin he called it "baloney". Apparently scripture is baloney when it doesn't fit neatly the ideas Mormons have formed based on their trust in Joseph Smith. You don't study the counterfeit to learn if it is a fake, you study the original and compare the counterfeit to it. But apparently in doing so and presenting what the spirit speaks to me it becomes the subject of sarcasm.

[_SteelHead]

And yet the Bible also says that Moses spoke to god face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. I don't know about you, but my friends don't look like burning bushes.

Again, the problem is the Bible being contradictory.

[_jo1952]

And yet the Bible also says that Moses spoke to god face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. I don't know about you, but my friends don't look like burning bushes.

Again, the problem is the Bible being contradictory.

Hello Steelhead!!

I believe that the problem is NOT that the Bible is contradictory. If, as believers claim, God does not create confusion, then any type of orthodox belief has no choice but to do a lot of arm-waving, misdirection, and labeling of different passages which turn those passages into unimportant, oddly explained inconsistencies which require various points of view to side with, or as irrelevant issues, etc., in order to support their own beliefs.

OTOH, as a believer who claims that God is not the author of confusion, it is my belief that if passages appear to be contraditory it is because I do not yet understand the message. As such, I do not believe the Bible is contradictory. Rather, it is my own fallability in interpreting the Bible which causes any perceived contradictions. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and when I am ready to have more parts of Truth revealed to my spirit, the more and more consistency and clarity is opened to my mind. In this way, many passages which at first appeared contradictory to me, have been clear, and my interpretation of the Bible gains more and more consistency. I confess that I do not yet understand everything written in the Bible. Of course, my method causes me to ignore much of what man has to say about what the Bible is teaching them; and this, in turn, causes them to call me unsaved, ignorant, unlearned, foolish, etc., because I refuse to agree with them. I suppose I am just a rogue in this respect......

If God TRULY is not a God of confusion, believers should be able to just admit that they do not yet understand messages which appear to be contradictory. However, our egos cannot allow this. Hence the distortions and the need for so many different denominations and sects.

Shalom,

jo

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk, I think sarcasm is beneath you. If you have a different view than mine refute it point by point in the way I responded to ldsfaqs.

Since you appear to have missed it first time around let me restate my position. God has "appeared" to numerous men through the ages...he has spoken to numerous men through the ages. His appearances (the word used often to describe these times) have been in many ways such as his appearance as a burning bush to Moses. Scripture tells us of this time that Moses saw God and spoke with him face to face but the reality is he saw a burning bush representation of God. He did not see God in all his majesty of might, power, light and holiness. This is my point and why the scriptures (New Testament) emphatically state that no man has seen the Father except Jesus and that no man can see God (the Father) and live Old Testament. Men have also seen God, perhaps even more clearly, in visions, as in the instance of Revelations you mention above.

No one, not Tobin, not you, not ldsfaqs, seems to want to address the Deuteronomy clarification of the Exodus story of Moses together with more than seventy elders "seeing" God. Why does Deuteronomy clarify their experience by telling us that they did not really see God in the literal sense? When I brought it up to Tobin he called it "baloney". Apparently scripture is baloney when it doesn't fit neatly the ideas Mormons have formed based on their trust in Joseph Smith. You don't study the counterfeit to learn if it is a fake, you study the original and compare the counterfeit to it. But apparently in doing so and presenting what the spirit speaks to me it becomes the subject of sarcasm.

I think there is some truth in what you say. I will admit that the flesh is limited. So our sight will not see all that God is if He decides to come into our presence. But we will see all that we can see. Just like we can see each other in this physical world. We can see a limited spectrum of light and we can not see things like spiritual seals or the spiritual heart or the things written on our heart. So in that sense we can not see God in all that He is. But if we are given the right eyes we can see God in all of His power and glory. Now you may make the case that to have new eyes requires a new body. In that sense the old body is dead and we have a new one. So it may be as simple as understanding the physical limits which make all of scripture make sense. So we can see God but our limits make us see only part of what God actually is. And to see more requires the death of the old body and the use of a new body with a wider range of abilities.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

With this view all of scripture makes sense and there is no contradiction.

[_Jutta]

Something has different meanings in the Bible for "see something". So I can see a little what is in front of me. I can do this with my "natural" eyes. I then can "see" something with my spiritual eyes. The first witnesses of the Book of Mormon did not see the golden plates with their natural but with their spiritual eyes as Harris and Whitmer often confirmed.

Uh huh. That must be why the translators used the past tense of the verb "to see", because obviously that isn't what the writer's meant to communicate there. I find such arguments rather weak, especially in light of my own experience. I defintely saw and experienced something, so I find such interpretations distorted and only an attempt to explain away what is clearly stated.

The problem is not the argument but the translation. In German Luther translation it e.g. is said that two people "recognize" (erkennen") themselves. This is a paraphrase for sex at some passages of the Bible. We must always go to the original text at first to be able to understand a word or a sentence correctly.

[_Jutta]

I saw a report on the election of the new pope in German television few days ago. People who became victims of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests were also questioned. A woman said that it was asked of her, in front of themselves and other people, to deny what had happened.A "turn it off" feeling came up in me again.
To deny something wasn't good for a society or church. And it is fault for many emotional illnesses of modern times.