Burning in the bosom for the Bible?

[BJ_Colbert]

MrS:

Perhaps their burning is somewhat similar to what most (not all) charismatics say they feel. It is all too often a self-induced, or self-generated feeling.

How does a former LDS remember his experience? And how was the fire “doused”?

I would imagine a former LDS feels the spirit in the Catholic church or whichever church he joins. Are you saying you have never felt that fullness of the spirit that Tkdnick described so perfectly?
If you are sincere in your prayers and scripture study all persons should feel the spirit. It is unmistakeable when you feel it you will know. The feeling is sent by God through the Holy Spirit to any who are trying to follow his teachings and communicating with Him through prayer and sincere scripture study.
If you are sincerely searching for the spirit you will find it, no matter what church you belong to . You are God’s child and he loves all of his children, equally no matter what church they choose. BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

tkdnick:

I must say that I find it a little odd that LDS don’t use the complete Bible. For example, there is a pretty good proof for baptism of the dead and spirit prison in Maccabess.

I wonder about that too, I haven’t read the Maccabees, but I intend to do that now. I wonder why the protestants left those books out of the KJV. Maybe, we should start a thread to find out why, it should be interesting.
BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

papist1:

All doctrine on faith and morals in Christ’s one Church he built upon kephas(cephas,rock) is infallible.

His Church holds the fullest Truth available to mankind at this moment in time. The Church has NEVER chnaged a doctrine to mean something different at its root teaching. Doctrines can develop for the times. (ie. internet pornography is addressed now that it is invented and available, but the teaching at the root of not committing adultery is still the same, unchanged. ) Doctrine can develop, but it cannot be changed to mean something different or contrary to the original teaching, such as in the case of black elders in the LDS church.

The one holy catholic and apostolic church has the fullness of the Truth and always has, historically unchanged for almost 2000 yrs and going. The LDS church has made many claims since it;‘s inception in 1829, yet has no evidence of anyone preaching anything of its’ sort or interpretation before this date.

Of course LDS believe in God’s continuing revelation about modern things, and as far as anyone “preaching anything of the LDS sort”
Jesus Christ established His Church when He was on earth and that is what has been re-established in its original form, with the Prophet and 12 apostles, not a Pope and umteen hundred Cardinals.
Also, when he was baptized it says in the Bible that “he came up out of the water”, as he would if he were immersed. If he was sprinkled, the Bible would say John the Baptist sprinkled Jesus with water. They would not have had to be in the river Jordan to do it. Just a little bit of common sense there to my way of thinking.
Black Elders were allowed by God to hold the priesthood as soon as they understood and were willing to accept the responsibilities of the priesthood. The black members of the LDS church understand the concept of being prepared to accept the Priesthood. There are many whites who are not prepared and are not given the priesthood. Also, women are not given the priesthood and I would not want the responsibility that it entails taking upon oneself.
Just a few thoughts from my own understanding and to me common sense, no books, just off the wall. I’m sure you will think I have been bouncing off the walls, cause I know none of this makes any sense to you. BJ

 

[papist1]

the KJV DID NOT EXIST when the protestants took those books out of their new and unofficial canon of scipture.

It was Martin Luther and His German Translation that first took them out. There were over 600 translations done by the time the KJV came about, and all of them were the official and original canon of 73 books.

If you haven’t read them, then you haven’t read the Bible, plain and simple.

The fact that JS was a protestant previous to claiming his claims is the reason you have the KJV without them. The King James version exists because the king wanted his own Bible, it is not even a good translation of scripture really.

Plus it is easier to fool people by making your new book sound a bit like the english written in the KJV, even though you can’t compare the two at all, the literary and inspired form in the Bible can’t be touched by the _______ in the BOM.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

Are you saying you have never felt that fullness of the spirit that Tkdnick described so perfectly?
If you are sincere in your prayers and scripture study all persons should feel the spirit. It is unmistakeable when you feel it you will know. The feeling is sent by God through the Holy Spirit to any who are trying to follow his teachings and communicating with Him through prayer and sincere scripture study.
If you are sincerely searching for the spirit you will find it, no matter what church you belong to . You are God’s child and he loves all of his children, equally no matter what church they choose. BJ

You’re going to make my head big with all the compliments. I don’t think it’s possible to describe it perfectly because it’s really beyond description. Anyway, Catholics do not necessarily need to rely on this for affirmation of truth. Someone (I think Karl Keating) made the comment that the “feeling” can come and go at any time, which is why we need the knowledge. He was making it the context of confession and not “feeling” forgiven, yet still actually being forgiven because Jesus said we would be.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

papist1:

the KJV DID NOT EXIST when the protestants took those books out of their new and unofficial canon of scipture.

It was Martin Luther and His German Translation that first took them out. There were over 600 translations done by the time the KJV came about, and all of them were the official and original canon of 73 books.

If you haven’t read them, then you haven’t read the Bible, plain and simple.

The fact that JS was a protestant previous to claiming his claims is the reason you have the KJV without them. The King James version exists because the king wanted his own Bible, it is not even a good translation of scripture really.

Plus it is easier to fool people by making your new book sound a bit like the english written in the KJV, even though you can’t compare the two at all, the literary and inspired form in the Bible can’t be touched by the _______ in the BOM.

Thank you for the explanation, I will read the macabbees.
KJV is almost exactly the same word for word as the Douay-Rheims version of the Catholic Bible, except for the Maccabbees being left out of the KJV.
In the preface of the Douay-Rheims it says that it is directly translated from the latin and Greek bibles and that it is the most accurate of all other Catholic bibles. It says that other Catholic Bibles are translated according to thoughts of the person translating which is bad because it removes the ability of the Holy Spirit to speak to the reader through God’s actual word, and not the possibly wrong interpretation of other versions of the CB.
I have not bought another version of the CB yet, but I was told that other versions are much better and maybe more complete than the Douay-Rheims. My husband likes the Douay-Rheims and doesn’t see the need to have another Catholic Bible. Is there really so much difference between them?

BJ

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

My husband likes the Douay-Rheims and doesn’t see the need to have another Catholic Bible. Is there really so much difference between them?

There are many differences among the different versions of the Bible. There are those, like the Douay Rheims, which are literal translations. They translate word for word what the exact meaning of the word is. Then there are those which are called purely dynamic translations (can’t think of any off the top of my head) that don’t translate literally but translate what they think the meaning of the word was intended to be. And you could create a spectrum in between with some being more literal and some being more dynamic.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

tkdnick:

You’re going to make my head big with all the compliments. I don’t think it’s possible to describe it perfectly because it’s really beyond description. Anyway, Catholics do not necessarily need to rely on this for affirmation of truth. Someone (I think Karl Keating) made the comment that the “feeling” can come and go at any time, which is why we need the knowledge. He was making it the context of confession and not “feeling” forgiven, yet still actually being forgiven because Jesus said we would be.

I agree, we do not go around constantly filled with the spirit. It is a special feeling and I might experience it once a month or so, if I am in a special meeting where the spirit is present, or if I have fasted and prayed for a special reason.
I really must work at it with prayer and lots of study. If I go about my daily chores for a time and my prayers tend to get repetative, or I don’t find time to study the scriptures, then I don’t feel it, and I must work to get it back.
I do not rely on it for affirmation of truth, only for the affirmation of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I grew up in the LDS Church and also the Methodist Church, and my father was an athiest.
I received my testimony of the Book Of Mormon, by traveling to the ruins of the Yucatan and Honduras and Guatemala. I was not a member then(having been out of the LDS church for 20 years) but seeing those ruins and remembering the Book of Mormon stories made me know in my heart that the book was true. I did not want it to be true and fought against it, but in the end could not deny it. I did not feel any burning, just a knowledge, like a light bulb went on, and I eventually took the missionary lessons and came back to the LDS church. BJ

 

[Jerusha]

My husband likes the Douay-Rheims and doesn’t see the need to have another Catholic Bible. Is there really so much difference between them?

Go to the library and check one out, or go to your husband’s parish office and ask to look at one there. The language is just easier to understand.

Your husband just is old-fashioned to prefer Douay-Rheims-- there is nothing wrong with that. Just like you prefer KJV. However it is good to take a look at the newer translations.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Last Fall while taking an early American Literature class at the local college, I felt a “burning in the bosom” for Puritanism. Seriously. Reading Anne Bradshaw’s poetry and the sermons of Jonathan Edwards and Cotton Mather, really moved me. I suppose it was their emphasis on only the bible, simple living, and just devout lifestyle that appealed to me in that way.

Earlier I had felt a “burning in the bosom” for Islam. I suppose it was the exotic nature of another culture and religion that appealed to me. The idea of following a “Prophet”, being of a whole new religion and being part of a religion that mixed culture and faith so perfectly, attracted me.

I’ve felt a “burning in the bosom” for the doctrine of re-incarnation. The thought that I’ve lived many lives interests me.

When reading the Book of Mormon once I felt a similar “burning in the bosom.” I love adventure stories and the idea that I was reading a book written about people who may have been living on my property many years ago drew me to the story. The concept that there was missionaries, wars, churches, etc. in ancient American enthralled me.

And, of course, I’ve felt a “burning in the bosom” for Catholicism. These feelings are strongest when I’m at a traditional Mass or looking a stained glass windows, or watching the Coronation of the Pope a few months ago.

Now of course I don’t join every faith that I feel a drawing toward. And I’m glad that I don’t. It is human nature to feel attracted to things that strike a cord within us. Of course, we might not want it to strike a cord within us, but that is often outside our control, as my own examples have proven.

To discover the true religion we must not go by what attracts us, because that is different with every person. We should go by whether the claims of that religion are true.

In short, feelings aren’t the deciding factor.

In Christ,

Adam

 

[_MM]

Well, let me start by saying I am really glad to be here. First impressions are said to be everything…but who do we really need to impress…man or God?

With that said, I am ex-RCC, and contrary to rumors, have no ill-feeling to the religion. I do not agree with it all, and am well aware I will one day answer for that. Of this I know. (Whew…nuff said.)

As far as ANY bible goes, EVERYONE of us relies on the translations of Paul, Matthew, Moses, scribes, and those who from inception have handed down the scriptures over the years. How is it we KNOW without ANY doubt any one translation is the true one. MANY of the words that existed in early translations have no modern word for it…so we paraphrase. ALL Bibles are guilty of this. I am not to argue religion on this, for it is a mute point. Many things in the Bible are plain…thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc…
Some are open to interpretation: Does it HAVE to be immersion, or will a little sprinkle do ya? God knows, we don’t. True, Immersion was the “preferred way” but water was not always ample to immerse.
As far as many things so, I note LDS was brought up here. To my LDS bro & sis, greetings. I however am not LDS. I have studied the BOM somewhat and found some contradictions to the Bible, but the question begs to be asked…which Bible? KJV, CB, Message, BOM, NT, OT, it does matter. God’s Word NEVER contradicts it self…NEVER. So if the BOM contradicts God’s word, them by default, the BOM is in error. We must rely on the Holy Spirit to give us the wisdom and knowledge to decipher the scripture, and not ANY man. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

 

[majick275]

If we are to rely on “feelings”, burning bosom,etc. Then there is confusion aplenty.

Consider the testimony of the Muslim extremist. The willingly blow themselves up believing that they will go straight to heaven. Their belief is strong enough to cause them to willingly sacrifice their life.

Mystics such as the Sufis, Fakirs, many buddhists, taoists, shintoists, hindus, etc. all claim to experience extreme levels of religious ecstasy. (think burning bosom on steroids)

Charismatic christians base their churches on what they perceive to be the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. They certainly claim a burning bosom and then some.

God gave us scripture for a reason. Same with tradition. (in the Catholic sense) he also gave us the ability to analyze and reason. He tells us to study scriptures and learn what is in them. He tells us to follow his teachings.

The psychology of doing what the BoM recomends (in Moroni and Alma) requires one to try believing in it and then get “confirmation”.
If you want to believe badly enough you can probably convince yourself of anything. Using what the Lord has provided to determine what is spiritual truth requires a different process.

Jesus established his church on earth. He did so perfectly. True, we humans have messed up repeatedly in carrying on but the church itself continues. The gates of hell do not prevail against it. Jesus requires no man to restore anything that he established. What he has done was done at the right time and in the right manner and is eternal.

Do not listen to anyone who preaches a different Gospel than Christ taught. We have his words that show what he taught. The truth is obvious if you read them.

 

[Jerusha]

requires one to try believing in it and then get “confirmation”.
If you want to believe badly enough you can probably convince yourself of anything. Using what the Lord has provided to determine what is spiritual truth requires a different process

It particularly works well when one has difficulty with “Columbian” thinking that there was no contact before CC. As I have said before, there is a middle ground, and there is a crumb of truth in the BOM (only a crumb ) Coupled with some cultural biases. I recently read junebugbookstore.com/si/363.html which presents a short section on this, and her reasoning on why it was not accepted by people of her cultural heritage. (Chapter 6)