Turn it off

[_Albion]

I see no contradictions on this issue once it is looked at in its entirety throughout scripture. Yes God did appear and speak to man according to scripture but words can and do mean different things unless taken in the overall context. Moses is said to have spoken with God "face to face" and yet we know that the most notable "meeting" he had with God was when God appeared to him out of a burning bush. He did not see God but God did appear out of a burning bush. Even this experience is described in scripture as Moses speaking with God "face to face". What appears as a contradiction is simple word usage, a figure of speech, to describe the close relationship God and Moses had. It is the same God who told Moses he could not look upon him, full on in his majesty and holiness, or he would die.

For Mormons to even come close to accepting what I offer, a view supported by virtually all of Judaeo/Christianity, would mean they would have to jettison the claims of Joseph Smith and therein lies the problem. I understand that, but a belief system based on one huge falsehood does not make it easy to look at a bigger picture in comparison. IMV, basing one's beliefs on the testimony of someone like Joseph Smith is a poor basis from which to start. So, likely we have arrived at impasse...so be it, but from my perspective and understanding nothing has been presented that comes close to changing my position. As I have said before, I'll take Jesus' words as my ultimate support: "No one has seen the Father except me."

[_SteelHead]

Gen 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

So what do we do? Count up all of the instances where you can, and where you can't and see which wins by simple majority?

Do the 100s that (reportedly) saw the resurrected Jesus not count?

I understand that, but a belief system based on one huge falsehood does not make it easy to look at a bigger picture in comparison.

Now apply this to your own belief system. Take an honest inventory. Just because a religion has lots of adherents, does not make it true. You can not offer any conclusive evidence to the veracity of your own belief system. And there is now scads of geological, archeological, etc evidence against it. Why continue in a belief system founded on falsehoods? Your basis is no more secure than theirs. They are both built on fluff.

[_Albion]

I respect your right to believe it is all based on "fluff" ...that has no bearing on my own belief nor really any bearing on a discussion between those who believe that it is not "fluff". Those on both sides of this discussion can agree on that. That said, did you really pay any attention to what I said above? Let me repeat: I do not reject the idea within the discussion that God has appeared to men. My contention is that he has not ever appeared to men in his full and radiant glory and holiness. You use the story in Genesis of Jacob wrestling. This is no support of anything other than what I have said if you read the entire passage. The figure Jacob wrestled with is described as a man...it is not God in all his glory...a man such that Jacob had to ask what his name was. Humor me for a moment. If it really was God in all his radiant glory, holiness and light Jacob would know it from the get go and he certainly wouldn't have to ask the "man" his name. There would be no doubt who is was he wrestled with. Yes Jacob had an encounter with God...yes Jacob saw (a manifestation of) God...yes, he looked into that face of that manifestation...but he did not see God in his radiant, glorious, all powerful as he "sits" on his throne in heaven.

[_Albion]

Franktalk, thank you for your last post above. At least you appear to consider what I am saying and what scripture is telling us even if you do not see it the way I do. I believe that seeing God in all his power and glory with Christ in his glorified state is a huge part of the joy that will be there for believers when they see heaven. Then, in a fully resurrected righteous state we will be able to gaze upon God but it will not happen until them because we live in a dark and corrupted world subjected to our sinful state. Just as flicking a light switch eliminates darkness in a room so, too, would God's radiant light eliminate our darkness were we to stand before him in our current position.

I have a particular liking for the verse from John that you quoted. John is talking to believers, those in Christ, and is looking to that day when we really shall see Christ in all his glory and as he truly is. The life lived in Christ, the life emulating the example that Christ gave, will change us into, if you like, replicas of him. We are charged to become imitators of Christ...like him in his character....exemplifying his qualities. I don't think that has much to do with understanding the mechanics of how God created the universe or the mysteries behind his ability to create and be God. I do not believe I will never be a god...for that matter, I have no desire to be a god. I do have every desire to be the kind of person that Jesus, when I see him, will see himself reflected in me. I think that is what John is talking about....that is the journey I am on.

[_Albion]

Read...ever be a god.

[_Franktalk]

Albion,

Since I believe all of scripture has layered meanings I see many meanings in each verse. So the following can mean many things.

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.

1. We will obtain a new body and we will have new abilities in the physical body.

2. A change will take place that allows us to see more clearly. It is like the veil of the world is removed. Our acceptance of a spiritual path clears our vision.

3. Once we obtain all knowledge then we can understand what Christ is. The depth of our understanding limits us to a surface view of Christ.

4. Behind the physical shell of the body is our spirit. Once we become spiritual creatures then we can see past the shell and see the true being.

Just a few possible meanings.

[_Jutta]

I have let the LDS behind myself for a long time. The church has no more direct influence until my life. And but I have got an inheritance by the church. And while I am sitting just at my Notbook, slurps tea (Turkish apple); and it lets go for me well; I think of all my LGBT brothers and sisters who suffer in the church. Sufferings because they are that way as God had created them.
It is unimportant whether God speaks to Mose, Jesus, Joseph Smith or Chancellor Merkel; what counts is as the church handles topics.
And the church has failed up till now there!

[_Tobin]

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.

For me to even care about what you are saying, you need to demonstrate the translation is wrong in this instance. To date, I see nothing from you so I guess your comment is meaningless.

[_Albion]

C'mon, Tobin...why so short? Can you not make some allowance for Jutta writing in a language not her own?

[_Tobin]

C'mon, Tobin...why so short? Can you not make some allowance for Jutta writing in a language not her own?

I think I understand what Jutta is saying, but she never made the case. I don't care if English is her native language or not. That wasn't my point. Knowing English doesn't prevent her from coming forward with an argument that is well-reasoned and worth considering.