The saints tend to magnify the doctrines and truths that the living
prophet does. Pres Hinckley speaks little about fire and brimstone
(except for abusive husbands and fathers), and speaks much on hope and
joy. He is giving us the direction we should generally go, while not
forgetting what his pred
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
EVERY ward or branch has a little old man or lady who speaks in tongues
every fast and testimony meeting! Usually they spew forth sermons about
fire and brimstone. Of course, everyone understands what they are saying
even before they speak, since w
Je stehe correctidad ;-)
Gary Smith wrote:
> Marc,
> EVERY ward or branch has a little old man or lady who speaks in tongues
> every fast and testimony meeting! Usually they spew forth sermons about
> fire and brimstone. Of course, everyone understands what they are saying
> even before they spea
Marc,
EVERY ward or branch has a little old man or lady who speaks in tongues
every fast and testimony meeting! Usually they spew forth sermons about
fire and brimstone. Of course, everyone understands what they are saying
even before they speak, since we all expect it
So, I don't see your poi
I don't think our spirituality is the issue. I think if you study the history of
dispensations you will see that things unfold in a certain way, for a certain
reason, and when some gifts are no longer necessary they are no longer manifest.
Or they are manifest in different ways. I was blessed with
At 07:18 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
After much pondering, Jim Cobabe favored us with:
This really is a hypothetical, sadly enough. We apparently are not
currently faithful enough to commonly enjoy such precious manifestations
of the Spirit in our testimony meetings. This is simply a
generalizatio
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 06:18 PM, John W. Redelfs wrote:
I agree with this. Next time you are in sacrament meeting, evaluate
each speaker. Ask yourself how effectively he used the scriptures in
his talk. Give him a score on a 1 to 5 spectrum: 1=poor, 2=fair,
3=average, 4=good, 5=o
After much pondering, Jim Cobabe favored us with:
This really is a hypothetical, sadly enough. We apparently are not
currently faithful enough to commonly enjoy such precious manifestations
of the Spirit in our testimony meetings. This is simply a
generalization of the notion I posited earler in
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
---
What would happen if an elderly lady stood up in your next fast &
testimony meeting and started talking in tongues?
---
Unworthy soul that I am, nonetheless I believe I would weep for joy.
This really is a hypothetical, sadly enough. We apparently are not
currentl
Paul points out that these types of miracles tend to accompany the very beginning
of a new dispensation, but then are inappropriate (when you read all of I
Corinthians 13 you'll see that he's saying that signs and miracles aren't as
important at that point than Christlike love). I think we see that
I don't know how else to say it. You're trying to compare like with like, when the
argument is about what that "like" is in essence. That's why it's a circular
argument and doesn't help. I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's still
circular. "actually happened" -- of course, but what do
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
>I'm saying that it should not be absolutely _necessary_ for God to have
>parted the Red Sea, a'la Charlton Heston, to have a testimony that He
>guided the Israelites across it. The fact that He helped them cross the
Red
>Sea is literal, but the
But you just ignored the obvious--that the event as described in scripture,
actually happened the way it was described.
--
Steven Montgomery
At 12:29 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
In other words, we should be concentrating on the spirit of revelation,
and not
on events, which are simply that, events
In other words, we should be concentrating on the spirit of revelation, and not
on events, which are simply that, events.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
> At 09:31 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not going to say "Yes, of
> > > course the actual event happened as described", because it really do
At 09:31 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
> I'm not going to say "Yes, of
> course the actual event happened as described", because it really doesn't
> matter. If it did, great; if not _so what_. I refuse to
The Book of Mormon prophets believed that the water actually parted for
the Israelites but then
Although I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, the logic begs the
question, since it's scripture quoting scripture. If scripture is written in some kind
of code, or compacted language, then a quote, reference to allusion to another
scripture would follow the same format.
Mark Gr
> I'm not going to say "Yes, of
> course the actual event happened as described", because it really doesn't
> matter. If it did, great; if not _so what_. I refuse to
The Book of Mormon prophets believed that the water actually parted for the Israelites
but then closed in upon the Egyptians.
Or maybe, like a good joke, you just had to be there to get it.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
> At 06:33 PM 11/7/2002, JWR wrote:
>
> >How do you apply this reasoning to Jesus calling Lazarus forth from his
> >tomb, or raising the daughter of Jairus? Maybe these two were not really
> >dead, but b
Good on ya, mate. Have a root beer for me!
Paul Osborne wrote:
> You know what? We could list all the fantastic stories and miracles in
> the scriptures and especially from the dreaded Bible and explain them all
> away. Then, we could all just quit the church and go have a beer together
> and la
We all feel the same joy, John. It might be hard to believe, but the wonder of
the resurrection and the atonement, and the word of God through his scriptures
are just as meaningful to some of us whose views you might look askance at. Let's
just say it takes more than one voice to make a choir, so l
You know what? We could list all the fantastic stories and miracles in
the scriptures and especially from the dreaded Bible and explain them all
away. Then, we could all just quit the church and go have a beer together
and laugh about how stupid we were to ever have believed in such things.
Put I'
At 06:33 PM 11/7/2002, JWR wrote:
How do you apply this reasoning to Jesus calling Lazarus forth from his
tomb, or raising the daughter of Jairus? Maybe these two were not really
dead, but by the power of God they recovered while if it hadn't been for
the blessing they would have died? Is th
You will, of course, have to ask Elder Widtsoe that.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the
> experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening
> of the he
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the
experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening
of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep [12 metres] or
deeper would easily
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
I'm saying that it should not be absolutely _necessary_ for God to have
parted the Red Sea, a'la Charlton Heston, to have a testimony that He
guided the Israelites across it. The fact that He helped them cross the Red
Sea is literal, but the exact
Sorry, I hit the send button too quickly. The false dichotomy is that it's your
view or your understanding of another's view. I believe the witness of the Holy
Ghost. Period.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> > > And if they are false in this
>
That your view is the only credible one.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> > > And if they are false in this
> > > instance, they may be false in many others, perhaps most others. And there
> > > goes my confidence in the scriptures. Even the
Depends on what you mean by "happened." I'm with John Widtsoe on this one. Here's how
he answered the question regarding whether the Flood was universal: John A. Widtsoe,
Evidences and Reconciliations, p.126-127
=
The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and v
Mark:
I'll answer Marc and Dan together here. Marc didn't address my questions
but Dan does. So, Marc, what's your take on the Red Sea, the walls of
Jericho, et al? Did they happen as described?
Dan's answer has a hint of "When the Israelites say they crossed over the
Red Sea on dry ground wh
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> And if they are false in this
> instance, they may be false in many others, perhaps most others. And there
> goes my confidence in the scriptures. Even the Book of Mormon has a
> disclaimer indicating that some things in it might contai
> Israelites? In what way can it be said how willing and capable God is in
> helping you succeed in following His commandments?
>
> Dan:
> They overcame the people of Jericho. I do not question that the city of
> Jericho, or the people of Jericho were destroyed by the Israelites. God
> promi
Another thing to contemplate if the higher critics haven't gotten around to
this one, let me be the first higher critic of one of them to show how
preposterous some of the tales can be and yet I ought to have my head
examined for believing it because I have believed these individuals to be
real
Then stay away from it. There are other ways to learn.
Stacy Smith wrote:
> I've read some of the higher criticism and don't really appreciate or like it.
>
> Stacy.
>
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
“The first duty of a university is to teac
On a lighter side of discussion, just for fun and humor I took my little
electronic device to the bishop one day and told him I had the gold plates
for the triple combination and promptly showed him my electronic computer
wherein was displayed one line of my triple combination. It was meant to
I've read some of the higher criticism and don't really appreciate or like it.
Stacy.
At 10:51 PM 11/06/2002 -0700, you wrote:
There was, in the most recent conference, a reference to the Pentateuch
(although
not by that name) as being by Moses, or written according to what had been
passed
do
There's so much bathwater I'm drowning in it!
Stacy.
At 03:34 PM 11/05/2002 -0700, you wrote:
John:
I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water when
we start labeling as figurative those things that might be literally
true. And we need to remember that just because
There was, in the most recent conference, a reference to the Pentateuch (although
not by that name) as being by Moses, or written according to what had been passed
down to him, so we already know that the Bible wasn't inerrant and hasn't come to
us as originally revealed by God -- that's pretty cle
If a testimony is only based on how often the Lord can get me to follow
Him, then I could be in trouble not because of God but because of my
stubborn will. How do I know I'm not at fault? My testimony never alone
rests on my puny experience.
Stacy.
At 05:50 PM 11/05/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>
Matter is not empty. Recently it was discovered that Einstein was right
concerning the cosmological constant that maintains the universe
spreading out at an ever increasing speed. This means there is an
invisible force that acts on all matter. I think LDS would call this the
Light of Christ, which
Originally it was written by Moses. However, we do not know how many
iterations it has gone through since then. How often was it translated
and retranslated by Jewish scribes. Which version was found by Josiah's
people in the temple?
There were different versions of ancient writings, depending on w
Cute, but it doesn't say anything. We've been explicitly told that there are all
kinds of things we don't know, that haven't been revealed to us yet.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> > It's not that the history isn't important, but to get the
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
> >The tumbling of the walls of Jericho can be seen the same way; it doesn't
> >particularly matter whether they fell as described, or the Israelites
> >pushed them down after conquering the city. The fact is that Jeri
I Nephi 13 says that the brass plates were *not* the same as what we would call
the OT, actually. Furthermore, it says that the G&BC in the days following Christ
removed plain and precious parts from the *Gospel*, not the Pentateuch. By the
time we get to verse 29 it does also include the OT, but
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
The tumbling of the walls of Jericho can be seen the same way; it doesn't
particularly matter whether they fell as described, or the Israelites
pushed them down after conquering the city. The fact is that Jericho was
conquered by the Israelites as
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
...one sees echoes of that ancient emnity in the NT). For us LDS this is a
step backwards and in a way represents an excising of a "plain and
precious truth." After all, as we'll
all soon be learning about in GD
The 13th chapter of 1
Mark:
If the walls of Jericho did not fall as described in the Bible, then in
what way were the covenant people successful? If the Red Sea did not part
then in what way can we say that God's power is great and that He led the
Israelites? In what way can it be said how willing and capable God i
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
It's not that the history isn't important, but to get the real message
you have to transcend the history.
In order to transcend something, you have to have it to transcend. --JWR
/
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
That it rewrote the Torah with the issuing of a document scholars think is
the precursor to the modern Deuteronomy (which was later finished by Ezra
after the Exile), is also part of this strange and complex historical soup.
Deuteronomy w
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I should add, too, that Hebrews 11 goes on to show
that it is through faith that the actions of the ancients are "well-attested." We
accept the stories on faith, not on historicity, because they tell us something
essential, and that something transcends actual
I think your list contains false choices. For an explanation of the difference
between secular and sacred histories, I suggest:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/kschindler/frye_1.htm
Your questions seem to me to proceed from the false assumption that narrative
accounts are to be read in the same manner
He had even stronger language about Bible stories in some discourses. Note though
that the lesson Pres. Young gets out of this isn't that a physical act led to
faith, but that the telling of the story, and the reading of the story, is the
act of faith -- this is what I get out of his likening it to
Hebrews 11:1 -- that's where we get our faith from.
Mark Gregson wrote:
>
> > - Is it more important that the walls of Jericho fell as described, or
> > that the people of the covenant were successful as long as they followed
> > Him?
>
> If the walls of Jericho did not fall as described in the
Gary Smith wrote:
> And I think that Marc and I would agree. The point we are making, is we
> need to be careful not to go too far in the other direction, either. We
> are not like the evangelist Christian movements out there who are literal
> Biblicists. We realize that the Bible is not perfec
What Brigham Young had to say about the "symbolic" story of Jericho:
If we are the people of God, we are to be the richest people on the
earth, and these riches are to be held in God, not in the devil. God
tells us how we may accomplish this, as plainly and as surely as he told
Joshua and the
Providing authoratative interpretation of the scriptures is one of the
explict roles of prophets, seers, and revelators who lead the Lord's
people. Followers of academics, apologists, revisionists, agnostics,
and assorted fruits and nuts, will be sadly misled.
---
Mij Ebaboc
> - Is it more important that the walls of Jericho fell as described, or
> that the people of the covenant were successful as long as they followed
> Him?
If the walls of Jericho did not fall as described in the Bible, then in what way were
the covenant people successful? If the Red Sea di
Gary Smith wrote:
> Elder McConkie wrote that Eve really wasn't created from the rib of Adam,
> that it was symbolic of their equality. I guess that means it isn't a
> secular history, eh?
SWK also said this. BY was much, much harsher on the 'secular history' of the
Bible. I assume most here o
And I think that Marc and I would agree. The point we are making, is we
need to be careful not to go too far in the other direction, either. We
are not like the evangelist Christian movements out there who are literal
Biblicists. We realize that the Bible is not perfect (see the AoF that
says we b
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
And the prophecies coming to pass? Somewhere we must come down to
objective measurements.
Stacy.
At 11:37 AM 11/05/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousa
>A testimony should never rest on whether or not the sea actually parted
>a'la Charlton Heston, but on how willing and capable He is in helping
you
>succeed in following His commandments.
Hmmm. How about the Jaredites and their incredible floating barges? Could
they be nothing but a faith promoti
John:
I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water when
we start labeling as figurative those things that might be literally
true. And we need to remember that just because something is symbolism,
doesn't mean that is not also literally true. Literal facts can serve as
That's exactly how I see it Scott! Cool.
Paul O
Well, I see it like this. If my religious experiences are all in mind,
and the "real" world plays by different rules, I stick with my own little
invented world. The world invented in my mind by thes chemicals include a
Then we must ask ourselves if the Biblical accounts are a. Only
allegories. B. Lies. C. Half and half. D. Half truth, half error. If
they are erroneous our faith is in vain. For if God did not intervene in
the affairs of man, our faith is vain. If Christ be not raised, etc.
Stacy.
At
And the prophecies coming to pass? Somewhere we must come down to
objective measurements.
Stacy.
At 11:37 AM 11/05/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who
have not only experienced God but
The resurrection of Christ is not a figure of speech -- there is no slippery
slope here. One just has to realize what the difference between sacred and
secular history is.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> >People think Churchill's remark that s
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who have
not only experienced God but also written prophecies, etc.?
Maybe they are all part of my vivid dream? --JWR
///
After much pondering, Scott McGee favored us with:
Well, I see it like this. If my religious experiences are all in mind,
and the "real" world plays by different rules, I stick with my own little
invented world. The world invented in my mind by thes chemicals include a
caring God who loves me and
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
People think Churchill's remark that sometimes a truth is so precious that
it has
to be protected by numerous lies is a cynical reading of history, but
there's a
lot of wisdom to that. It doesn't matter when Jericho's walls came
tumbling
If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who have
not only experienced God but also written prophecies, etc.?
Stacy.
At 07:36 PM 11/05/2002 +, you wrote:
At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote:
>Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self ind
At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote:
>Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally
>occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the
>whole thing is a joke?
Well, I see it like this. If my religious experiences are all in mind,
Let me answer using a totally different example, to see if this helps. We have a
tendency to find it difficult to separate the ambiguities inherent in human
language and assume concreteness when it's not necessarily there. I think of
questions of literalness when reading the scriptures, for instanc
On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:59:01 -0900 "John W. Redelfs"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
> >Archaeology also shows that Jericho didn't have the "walls tumbling
> down"
> >when Joshua fought it.
>
> I don't believe archaeology knows what it is talking
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
Archaeology also shows that Jericho didn't have the "walls tumbling down"
when Joshua fought it.
I don't believe archaeology knows what it is talking about. The scriptures
say that the walls came tumbling down, so they did. And that's that. S
"Secular" seems to be a far more significant in our world and time. ACLU
advocates will not permit us to neglect the "wall of separation"
invented to introduce a new, post-modern meaning to the term. In a
scriptural context, any attempt to draw lines between religious and
secular seems largel
Elder McConkie wrote that Eve really wasn't created from the rib of Adam,
that it was symbolic of their equality. I guess that means it isn't a
secular history, eh?
There is history in the Bible and BoM. However, they weren't written to
be secular histories. They were written primarily to be books
-- "Elmer L. Fairbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote:
>Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally
>occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the
>whole thing is a joke? Maybe we don
At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote:
Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally
occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the
whole thing is a joke? Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone
pinch me please?
May
>Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with
naturally
>occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the
>whole thing is a joke? Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone
>pinch me please?
>>I know I exist, but maybe you're a figment of my imaginati
At 03:23 PM 11/3/02, Paul Osborne wrote:
Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally
occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the
whole thing is a joke? Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone
pinch me please?
I know I exist, but
>Paul Osborne wrote:
>---
>Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone
>pinch me please?
>---
>
>Sure, happy to--
>
>
OUCH!! You didn't have to do it so hard, you meanie.
;-)
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platin
Paul Osborne wrote:
---
Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone
pinch me please?
---
Sure, happy to--
---
Mij Ebaboc
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.ht
>That's exactly what I wrote: I *don't* believe the scriptures are
secular
>histories.
If this was so, the apostles and prophets from Joseph Smith on would have
told us so. everything I have ever heard from modern prophets teaches
that the old history of the world is true and historical unless yo
82 matches
Mail list logo
