moksha wrote:That flesh and bones without blood presents problems on so many levels. It is illustrative of the need to examine speculations more thoroughly before committing them to paper.
Jeffery Holland taught:
If the idea of an embodied God is repugnant, why are the central doctrines and singularly most distinguishing characteristics of all Christianity the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the physical Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? If having a body is not only not needed but not desirable by Deity, why did the Redeemer of mankind redeem His body, redeeming it from the grasp of death and the grave, guaranteeing it would never again be separated from His spirit in time or eternity? Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ. No one claiming to be a true Christian will want to do that”
I'm assuming then that you do not believe in or at least have a hope regarding the actuality/reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Regards, MG
I am a believer in Jesus and hold both the resurrection and the hope it provides as very dear. When we speak of having a body after the resurrection, it seems strange to me that we would hold it to be exsanguinated so as to be devoid of the same physiological functioning that is furnished through the presence of blood in the pulmonary cycle. Instead, we have to resort to other wackier explanations to cover for this initial speculation that arose through a lack of understanding regarding human physiology.
In any case once this point was realized, it would seem best to acknowledge that new light and understanding has entered the world and such resurrected bodies will from now on have blood and a fully functioning pulmonary system. This would also help in propagating new worlds through having a fully functioning you know what.
just me wrote:What is ironic (in a hilarious kind of way) is that the Book of Mormon doesn't even achieve the declared purpose! How many Mormons when asked would declare that Jesus Christ is the Eternal God? A few, but not many.
Oh my goodness. I never thought about that. Thanks for pointing it out.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
Polygamy-Porter wrote:Oh it is there, but only if you have a need to find it there.
Yeah, one of the endowment signs is in Facsimile 2. Oh wait - Hey Min, what is that thing?
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
why me wrote:When one adds the Book of Mormon to the Bible, the book does contain the fulness of the everlasting gospel. I think that it is difficult to read into someone's words. I kind of feel sorry for Joseph Smith. Almost two hundred years later, we have people attempting to analyse every word that was said by him or purportedly said by him.
I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith
Maybe the reason Joseph Smith's words are analyzed so much is because of statements he made such as the one in your signature quoted above.
And also statements like the one following:
Joseph Smith boasted he did more than Jesus to keep a church together. History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409 Address of the Prophet - His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo. "A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet."
Here is the problem with what most Joseph Smith said: it was purportedly said. Likewise for the boast quotation. It comes from someone's notes. And again, it is constantly taken out of context by people like you to make a point. It was based on the boasting of Paul in the new testament. But the quotation was taken from someone's notes as they listened to the sermon.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Doctor Scratch wrote: Wow, this response really sucks. You have to wonder why the FAIR apologists are relying on "the book itself" when the comment about the "fulness of the gospel" came from Joseph Smith. It seems to me that a legit apologetic argument here is going to have to explain why the Book of Mormon's prophetic translator would describe this sacred text in a way that contradicts the text itself.
I guess maybe FIRM is right, and the "academic" apologists are willing to toss Joseph Smith under the bus?
Well, hey: I suppose I have to thank you for equating me with the Prophet Joseph. And I'm also delighted that you seem to grasp my point. The problem with FAIR's astonishingly crappy response is that it doesn't address Joseph Smith's comments at all. The whole entry cited by WW amounts to little more than a dodge.
That isn't what Joseph Smith said, why me.[/quote]
Who knows what he meant. He said what he said. But again, is it what he purportedly said based on someone's notes or did he actually write it?
The Book of Mormon serves one purpose: it testifies as a second witness of chirst. And when one puts both books together they get a understanding of human nature and the battle between good and evil. And the power of god to change lives.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith
why me wrote:Here is the problem with what most Joseph Smith said: it was purportedly said.
So if you don't believe that Joseph Smith said it, then why are you using a quote from him on your signature?
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Joseph Smith actually dictated the Book of Mormon to scribes. So technically based on your logic of someone else writing down what Joseph Smith purportedly said could discredit the entire Book of Mormon.
why me wrote:The Book of Mormon serves one purpose: it testifies as a second witness of chirst. And when one puts both books together they get a understanding of human nature and the battle between good and evil. And the power of god to change lives.
I believe that there are 66 books, inspired by God and recorded as scripture. I believe that the Bible itself testifies as more than a second witness of Christ.
I also see no reason for Christ to visit the America's. Since we have the Bible here today, that means that it was passed along and made it across the ocean divide.
scripturesearcher wrote: So if you don't believe that Joseph Smith said it, then why are you using a quote from him on your signature?
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Joseph Smith actually dictated the Book of Mormon to scribes. So technically based on your logic of someone else writing down what Joseph Smith purportedly said could discredit the entire Book of Mormon.
Well, that is the problem. People took notes about what he said. And most of what the lds have of Joseph Smith are what he purportedly said by trustful notetakers. But quite often the context can be missing from the notes. And yes, I am perfectly aware that my sig line may not be exactly what he said. There is nothing to do about it. My guess is: he spoke without pieces of paper in front of him. He just spoke to the audience. But that is only my guess. Now the Book of Mormon is different because he is translating something from one language to another. But his sermons were listened to and notes were taken.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
scripturesearcher wrote: I believe that there are 66 books, inspired by God and recorded as scripture. I believe that the Bible itself testifies as more than a second witness of Christ.
I also see no reason for Christ to visit the America's. Since we have the Bible here today, that means that it was passed along and made it across the ocean divide.
Well that may be. However, it could be conforting to know that there is another book that also testifies of christ as being the son of god. And that he also visited other people who were using the old testament as a guide.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:My guess is: he spoke without pieces of paper in front of him. He just spoke to the audience. But that is only my guess. Now the Book of Mormon is different because he is translating something from one language to another. But his sermons were listened to and notes were taken.
The Book of Mormon being different because he is translating something from one language to another would only be true to those that believe that Joseph Smith was actually translating anything, for which we have no proof.