LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[KathleenGee]

Peter John,

Agree…it is still confusing what was their original beliefs, then all the ones in between…then there are the Eastern seaboard Mormons and then there are the Western ones that I associate Joseph Smith and Bringham Young…more ‘orthodox’.

Then there are the New Mormons…sounding like a more eclectic group of sophist scholars who come in here every so often, cleaning up their beliefs, and settling into one focused on a more humanist view, self-development, working towards a benevolent society here…with anticipation of perfection in the next life…but does it include self-deification???’

You are a great help with comparatives, history and how Mormonism is evolving.

After visiting the Deseret store with their books down the street from the State temple, going home and doing alot of readings online, I read that there is a development within Mormonism of standardization, that in 100 years or so, they will be more in conformity with Christianity.

Thus, several of us are working to form a prayer group for the Mormons, and I include them every day now, as well as my Masses.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Agree…it is still confusing what was their original beliefs, then all the ones in between…then there are the Eastern seaboard Mormons and then there are the Western ones that I associate Joseph Smith and Bringham Young…more ‘orthodox’.

Then there are the New Mormons…sounding like a more eclectic group of sophist scholars who come in here every so often, cleaning up their beliefs, and settling into one focused on a more humanist view, self-development, working towards a benevolent society here…with anticipation of perfection in the next life…but does it include self-deification???’

You are a great help with comparatives, history and how Mormonism is evolving.

After visiting the Deseret store with their books down the street from the State temple, going home and doing alot of readings online, I read that there is a development within Mormonism of standardization, that in 100 years or so, they will be more in conformity with Christianity.

Thus, several of us are working to form a prayer group for the Mormons, and I include them every day now, as well as my Masses.

I see more of a transition to a fourth Biblical related World religion, the second to emerge as a Christian heresy (the first being Islam). Within it there will be more moderate factions. more orthodox factions. The real evidence will come with the rising of militant factions – I would expect it to claim precednt from the Danite movement – legitimate or not. Christianity, not just Islam and Judaism, has produced Terrorist groups. Arguably the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian terrorist group when it started.

I can see the potential for true militants to take things like Brigham Young praying for enemies to be speedily exterminated as mandate. Such extremism has almost always preceded increased movements toward tolerance within world religions. We see that happening in Islam now, as the majority of Muslims try to distance themselves from the few radicals that make them all look bad.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

I disagree that I implied “they have all been duped.” People tend to reiterate in their own mind that which reinforces their own desired belief. That doesn’t mean they are “duped”. It means they do what people do.

There is also the possibility that a Catholic could look at Catholic teaching with a reasonable mind and knowledge of “simple grammar” and, infused with the gifts of the Holy Spirit received in Baptism and Confirmation, grasp the fact that it actually teaches the truth, and then embrace that truth as their own.

Add to this the fact that if Catholics have been unduly influenced by the teachings of their Church so that they are prevented from perceiving the plain truth, as you assert, the same would have to apply to all adherents of a particular faith tradition, including Mormons.

No, He would have been answering their specific question with a specific answer that had to do with the very question that had been asked.

One more time, Parker. They were trying to trap Jesus concerning the idea of the resurrection in general. He had to have known that. To suppose that Jesus’ answer did not concern the resurrection in general, but rather referred only to the eternal destiny of the Sadducees is reading in something that just is not there.

So, if I understand you correctly then Jesus was saying those seven brothers were believers, even though the passage highlighted that the Sadducees don’t believe in the resurrection, which means they don’t believe in a Redeemer? So then how did Jesus teach these Sadducees about the need for repentance and for believing in Him as their Redeemer, if He was saying those brothers would go to heaven?

If they ended up in heaven, which was the hypothetical case given, then yes, it would have to be implied that the seven brothers were believers who made it to heaven, would it not? Their religious affiliation was not stated. The context of the passage did not concern the question of whether or not Sadducees would be resurrected, but rather the idea of the resurrection in general, in which they did not believe. The argument they used to refute the idea of the resurrection was this particular case concerning marriage in heaven and Jesus very clearly told them that there was no such thing, confounding their argument and at the same time upholding the truth of the resurrection for all people.

Matthew reminded us readers that the Sadducees don’t believe in the resurrection. The words “with us” mean that the seven brothers were also Sadducees.

The same account in Mark (12:18) does not contain the words “with us”. This was most likely a hypothetical question, we can’t be sure, but there is nothing to indicate that it was not hypothetical and even if it was not, the question still has to do with the resurrection in general, not just for the Sadducees. The fact that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection is a given or they would not have asked the question, so I’m not sure what this lends to your position. Not only does Jesus refute marriage in heaven, he states that the question itself is evidence that they did not understand the scriptures. If this is true, then this statement would also apply to those who adhere to the LDS doctrine concerning eternal marriage, would it not?

That was my earlier point–that Jesus knew perfectly that His words would be taken and be misunderstood, but He gives free will choice, even about so important a thing as eternal marriage.

The question is, who is misunderstanding? What this has to do with “free will choice” I have no idea. Do you mean that someone has the choice to twist the meaning of scripture or to “choose” to misunderstand? Of course they do. The question remaining, then, would only concern who is doing the twisting?

He answered the Sadducees’ question brilliantly, specifically, and they went on their way understanding that the seven brothers would be “as the angels” in their resurrection.

Well, there is no possible way that you could know what understanding they left with. Jesus had defeated their argument, whether or not they were now convinced that there is, indeed, a resurrection is not mentioned. They just walked away.

Again, it is very simple grammar. It is taking a subject, understanding the use of verbs and pronouns with an understood subject, and seeing how the subject is carried through in the entire conversation.

And again you are implying that those who do not believe as you, do not have the ability to understand simple grammar.

My earlier point was that free will choice allows you and anyone to have that situation in the resurrection that you desire. God can do that. He does do that. Marriage is a desired condition for some in their resurrection–not for others.

The marvelous thing is that God preserves free will choice all along the way toward that resurrection that gives people what they have desired and lived for.

The notion that we will determine our own heaven is unbilblical. Our choices in this life will determine whether or not we will spend eternity in heaven, but it is not left to us to determine what that heaven will be. What we do know is that no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor mind conceived of what God has prepared for those who love Him.

 

[Peter_John]

If they ended up in heaven, which was the hypothetical case given, then yes, it would have to be implied that the seven brothers were believers who made it to heaven, would it not? Their religious affiliation was not stated. The context of the passage did not concern the question of whether or not Sadducees would be resurrected, but rather the idea of the resurrection in general, in which they did not believe. The argument they used to refute the idea of the resurrection was this particular case concerning marriage in heaven and Jesus very clearly told them that there was no such thing, confounding their argument and at the same time upholding the truth of the resurrection for all people.

Most theologians agree that the Sadducees (priestly class, as opposed to the synagogue leaders, the Pharisees) referred to the commonly known story from the Book of Tobit

Tobit 3
7 On the same day, at Ecbatana in Media, it so happened that Raguel’s daughter Sarah also had to listen to abuse, from one of her father’s maids. 8 For she had been married to seven husbands, but the wicked demon Asmodeus killed them off before they could have intercourse with her, as it is prescribed for wives. So the maid said to her: "You are the one who strangles your husbands! Look at you! You have already been married seven times, but you have had no joy with any one of your husbands. usccb.org/nab/bible/tobit/tobit3.htm

It should also be importatn to LDS because it is the only Biblical book which discusses the Angel Raphael, beginning with:

Tobit 3
16 At that very time, the prayer of these two suppliants was heard in the glorious presence of Almighty God. 17 5 So Raphael was sent to heal them both: to remove the cataracts from Tobit’s eyes, so that he might again see God’s sunlight; and to marry Raguel’s daughter Sarah to Tobit’s son Tobiah, and then drive the wicked demon Asmodeus from her. For Tobiah had the right to claim her before any other who might wish to marry her.In the very moment that Tobit returned from the courtyard to his house, Raguel’s daughter Sarah came downstairs from her room. usccb.org/nab/bible/tobit/tobit3.htm

This plain and precious part of the Bible removed after the Bible went from the Jews to the gentiles should be important to LDS because LDS consider it scripture that Raphael visited Joseph Smith:

Doctrine & Covenants 128
21And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! And the voice of Michael, the archangel; the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!

Yet they know nothing of him, or what keys he brought (to use their terms) and only Tobit tells of Raphael. The story of Tobit does suggest that Raphael’s mission involves the defense of holy matrimony from evil influence. LDS could also draw much regarding the order and practice of their own Celestial marriage from these verses:

Tobit 8

4 When the girl’s parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, “My love, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance.” 5 She got up, and they started to pray and beg that deliverance might be theirs. He began with these words: “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever. 6 You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself.’ 7 Now, Lord, you know that I take this wife of mine not because of lust, but for a noble purpose. Call down your mercy on me and on her, and allow us to live together to a happy old age.” 8 They said together, “Amen, amen,” usccb.org/nab/bible/tobit/tobit8.htm#v3

anf the 8th husband did not die. As far as I know this is the most detailed account of a married couple putting God at the center of their relationship.

 

[Tony888]

Tony has only been a Mormon for a year, so he is not aware of all of its teachings throughout the years.

Actually I’m quite aware of many historical aspects of the LDS.
The difference is I work hard to differentiate between what is doctrine and what is not.

Many things individuals have done or said over the years contravene doctrine.
This sin of man is present in all religions, including Catholic.

 

[SteveVH]

Most theologians agree that the Sadducees (priestly class, as opposed to the synagogue leaders, the Pharisees) referred to the commonly known story from the Book of Tobit

It should also be importatn to LDS because it is the only Biblical book which discusses the Angel Raphael, beginning with:

This plain and precious part of the Bible removed after the Bible went from the Jews to the gentiles should be important to LDS because LDS consider it scripture that Raphael visited Joseph Smith:

Yet they know nothing of him, or what keys he brought (to use their terms) and only Tobit tells of Raphael. The story of Tobit does suggest that Raphael’s mission involves the defense of holy matrimony from evil influence. LDS could also draw much regarding the order and practice of their own Celestial marriage from these verses:

anf the 8th husband did not die. As far as I know this is the most detailed account of a married couple putting God at the center of their relationship.

Thanks for this, Peter John. Very informative.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually I’m quite aware of many historical aspects of the LDS.
The difference is I work hard to differentiate between what is doctrine and what is not.

Many things individuals have done or said over the years contravene doctrine.
This sin of man is present in all religions, including Catholic.

But these are not just “individuals”, these are the leaders of your church. I find it hard to imagine having to work hard to decide what is doctrine and what is not because the leaders of my faith regularly contravene doctrine. This has nothing to do with being a sinner. Every man and woman is a sinner. It has to do with making public statements that contravene or contradict the very doctrines they are obligated to teach and uphold.

If the Pope made a statement that he does not believe in the virgin birth, or the divinity of Christ, or transubstantiation, for example, or defined these things in a way that contradicted Catholic doctrine, I guarantee you that it would be a huge issue, probably one about which the entire world would hear.

 

[Peter_John]

Actually I’m quite aware of many historical aspects of the LDS.
The difference is I work hard to differentiate between what is doctrine and what is not.

Many things individuals have done or said over the years contravene doctrine.
This sin of man is present in all religions, including Catholic.

You have not been involved in Mormonism enough to know what you are not being told, or what has been down played in the last 25 years. LDS communities often, intentionally or not, put a bubble around new members, and expose them to new doctrines a little at a time. This passes as “line upon line, precept upon precept,” in their justification. I always felt differently, and believed that this was wrong. If it is the truth I always believed there was nothing to hide. More than once I was reprimanded for sharing some “deep doctrine” wtih relatively new members before priesthood leaders thought they were ready for them.

You will find many interesting things about LDS organization. For example, with a few exceptions, most LDS leaders are related to each other, usually no more than cousins a couple of times removed. This counts historically as well. This is considered because of the doctrine of priesthood in the lienage of the earliest leaders of the Church, whose familes all married together. In most cases of general authorities who were not born in the church, their family was proselyted by someone who became a prominent leader, or their family marreid into the family of an existing general authority. There are exceptions, but the family bonds are tight in LDS leadership.

It is LDS doctrine that nobody has done more for the Salvation of man except for jesus, than Joseph Smith. Ask yourself is this is true when you consider that without Mary risking her life by agreeing to bear him he would not have entered the world. Who really did more?

Here is an experiment for you. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints claims to be the only church on Earth that jesus organized – his own church. Count how many times speakers in Sacrament Meeting each week actually talk about Jesus Christ. Count how many times people bearing their testimony on fast Sunday bear a testimony of him. Saying, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” does not count, and being in a hymn does not count. It has to be unique expressions from that meeting, the substance of what is taught.

If you start feeling that Jesus is not talked about enough, and ask a leader about it, he will say, “There’s more to it than that,” or words to that effect.Then you will know I am telling you the truth. I went six weeks hearing Jesus’ name mentioned only three times when I tried it – including two testimony meetings: Ninety minutes of testimony and nobody testified of Christ in the church that was supposed to bear His name. This was in a ward full of families that had settled there when Brigham Young personally sent them to colonize the area.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually I’m quite aware of many historical aspects of the LDS.
The difference is I work hard to differentiate between what is doctrine and what is not.

Do you believe what your prophet teaches in general conference to be doctrinal?

Many things individuals have done or said over the years contravene doctrine.
This sin of man is present in all religions, including Catholic.

The difference with JS is that he taught sin as doctrine. Being married to more than one person at a time is adultery, yet, he taught it was divinely inspired doctrine. Do you believe polygamy is a doctrine?

 

[ParkerD]

In that case show me how your interpretation of the passage I broke down means what you say it does rather than what it seems to mean in light of Paul’s other writings. Show me how your interpretation can come from just reading the Bible.

Peter John,

First, I might as well point out that 1 Corinthians 15:28 is clearly a verse that makes a distinction between the Son and the Father (God), by saying that “the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” Thus, the Son is “subject” unto God the Father, according to Paul, which is correct doctrine.

Verse 40 answers the question Paul offered in his discussion, in verse 35: “and with what body do they come?”

Verses 40 and 41 use the word “glory” in a way that shows differentiation about those resurrected bodies (including particularly the phrase “another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory”) in answer to the question of verse 35–that they do not all have the same glory–“so also is the resurrection of the dead.”

Paul was urging the saints to be “stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (v. 58) through answering that there is indeed a resurrection of each of them, and that the glory of the resurrected body that they should seek is the “glory of the sun”, or in other words, “the glory of the celestial”.

 

[ParkerD]

One more time, Parker. They were trying to trap Jesus concerning the idea of the resurrection in general. He had to have known that. To suppose that Jesus’ answer did not concern the resurrection in general, but rather referred only to the eternal destiny of the Sadducees is reading in something that just is not there.

If they ended up in heaven, which was the hypothetical case given, then yes, it would have to be implied that the seven brothers were believers who made it to heaven, would it not? Their religious affiliation was not stated. The context of the passage did not concern the question of whether or not Sadducees would be resurrected, but rather the idea of the resurrection in general, in which they did not believe. The argument they used to refute the idea of the resurrection was this particular case concerning marriage in heaven and Jesus very clearly told them that there was no such thing, confounding their argument and at the same time upholding the truth of the resurrection for all people.

It does seem a fruitless conversation. You seem to be saying that Jesus not only changed the subject from the subject the Sadducees had presented, but yet was talking to them and all the general audience of believers by discussing the resurrection of everyone using the verb conjugation that meant He was talking about someone else besides anyone there in the audience–“they”. If this Greatest Master of all Teachers and Greatest User of language ever to walk the earth, was so imprecise and impersonal when He could have been precise and personal when according to you He was now presenting a general teaching for all humankind including everyone there present, then it was a grammar mistake which the disciples would have immediately asked that He clarify, just as other times they asked for clarification.

How often, a student of the Bible would logically ask, did Jesus say “ye” (in the verb conjugation) when He was addressing the people and directing their attention to a general teaching for their personal application? Or, how often, on the contrary, did He say “they” when He really meant “ye” (in the verb conjugation since the verb carries the pronoun)?

… What we do know is that no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor mind conceived of what God has prepared for those who love Him.

Yet Paul answered that verse of Isaiah which he quoted, with the answer “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” In other words, those deep things had been revealed “by his Spirit”, and Paul was aware of those deep things, but was reminding the Corinthians that those deep things can only be known by the Spirit, not by the intellect alone and not by the wisdom of men. (1 Corinthians 2–for the benefit of a general reader).

 

[Peter_John]

It does seem a fruitless conversation. You seem to be saying that Jesus not only changed the subject from the subject the Sadducees had presented, but yet was talking to them and all the general audience of believers by discussing the resurrection of everyone using the verb conjugation that meant He was talking about someone else besides anyone there in the audience–“they”. If this Greatest Master of all Teachers and Greatest User of language ever to walk the earth, was so imprecise and impersonal when He could have been precise and personal when according to you He was now presenting a general teaching for all humankind including everyone there present, then it was a grammar mistake which the disciples would have immediately asked that He clarify, just as other times they asked for clarification.

How often, a student of the Bible would logically ask, did Jesus say “ye” (in the verb conjugation) when He was addressing the people and directing their attention to a general teaching for their personal application? Or, how often, on the contrary, did He say “they” when He really meant “ye” (in the verb conjugation since the verb carries the pronoun)?

Yet Paul answered that verse of Isaiah which he quoted, with the answer “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” In other words, those deep things had been revealed “by his Spirit”, and Paul was aware of those deep things, but was reminding the Corinthians that those deep things can only be known by the Spirit, not by the intellect alone and not by the wisdom of men. (1 Corinthians 2–for the benefit of a general reader).

Parker, you remind me of an old joke we used to tell to see if people were really listening or just laughing along: “Three elphants were sitting in a tub. The first elephant said, ‘pass the soap.’ The second elephant said,‘Pass the soap.’ The third elephant said, 'Not soap. Radio.”

We say, “Pass the soap,” and you say, “Not soap. Radio.”

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, you remind me of an old joke we used to tell to see if people were really listening or just laughing along: “Three elphants were sitting in a tub. The first elephant said, ‘pass the soap.’ The second elephant said,‘Pass the soap.’ The third elephant said, 'Not soap. Radio.”

We say, “Pass the soap,” and you say, “Not soap. Radio.”

Hi, Peter John,

I realized that you seemed to want an answer along the lines you had presented, but I had not the time or the interest. If you have a case of the use of the word “glory” by Paul that you think is a direct equal comparison to his use of that word in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 and that applies to a mortal person on this earth rather than to a heavenly person or to a resurrected person, then if you present a simple explanation of that verse, I’ll take a look.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

First, I might as well point out that 1 Corinthians 15:28 is clearly a verse that makes a distinction between the Son and the Father (God), by saying that “the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” Thus, the Son is “subject” unto God the Father, according to Paul, which is correct doctrine.

Verse 40 answers the question Paul offered in his discussion, in verse 35: “and with what body do they come?”

Verses 40 and 41 use the word “glory” in a way that shows differentiation about those resurrected bodies (including particularly the phrase “another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory”) in answer to the question of verse 35–that they do not all have the same glory–“so also is the resurrection of the dead.”

Paul was urging the saints to be “stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (v. 58) through answering that there is indeed a resurrection of each of them, and that the glory of the resurrected body that they should seek is the “glory of the sun”, or in other words, “the glory of the celestial”.

I am not sure what you are saying, as the passage is completely consistent with the Dogma of Trinity, as expressed in this Book of Mormon passage:

Mosiah 15

1And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4And they are one God, yea, the very EternalFather of heaven and of earth.

That fairly well summarizes the Father and Son’s role in Incarnation Theology within Trinity dogma. Lest any be left out:

Alma 11

44 … Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God ….

Had I really thought about it, I would have associated my exposition of 1 Corinthians 15 with this Book of Mormon passage.

Alma 11

45Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

It says that first is the natural or mortal state, then the spiritual. It calls the mortal state “corruption”. Doesn’t this say what I explained, right down to the use of the word “corruption” as an expression of humanity’s mortal state?

Not soap. Radio.

Joking aside, Parker, here comes an “I challenge you/I promise you” moment. I challenge you to attend a mass and open yourself to the experience. Have faith that nothing a human can do can hurt your soul. Open yourself to the experience. Corass your arms across your chest, and when all the others take the body of Christ, humble yourself to merely accept the blessing of the priest – and your eyes will be opened. It may be (as in my case) like the man blind from birth who took twice – the first time going from total blindness (not that I would have admitted so) to seeing men walking like sticks so to speak.
(For non-LDS, the “I challengeyou/I promise you,” refers to a classic work of inspirational LDS literature by the late Elder Paul H. Dunn of the LDS First Quorum of the Seventy)

 

[Peter_John]

Hi, Peter John,

I realized that you seemed to want an answer along the lines you had presented, but I had not the time or the interest. If you have a case of the use of the word “glory” by Paul that you think is a direct equal comparison to his use of that word in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 and that applies to a mortal person on this earth rather than to a heavenly person or to a resurrected person, then if you present a simple explanation of that verse, I’ll take a look.

Glory is a general adjective the use of which varies depending on the application. The mere use of the word “glory” does not mean it has something to do with heaven.

The reference , 1 Cor. 15 says our glory when we are resurrected will be greater than it is now. That is all it says in a nutshell.

You are so straining at gnats. I have to remind myself how brainwashed I once was myself to keep my patience. I wopuld have rejected these arguments myself, bevcuase Joseph Smith said they meant something different than what they seemed to mean.

Your request is immaterial to the verses incontext. Nothing makes the word glory inherent to applying to divinity. 1 Corinthians 15 presents “Glory” as relative, showing that the final state after resurrection is more glorious than the current state of mortality. However much we may glory in our current state, the following state is greater.

I see little point to it right now since all you need do to dispute it, as you consider disputing it, is to claim it has some secret meaning I cannot understand without being baptized and confirmed a Mormon, and what it seems to mean is not the real meaning, even if that secret meaning is not suggested by the text at all.

HOWEVER since you’ve asked:
JOB 29:20 My GLORY was fresh in me, and my bow – Job laments the glory he lost when the curses came upon him

glory of young men is their strength, Prov. 20:29 – one example of a mortal tyoe of glory.

ZECHARIAH 11
3 There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their GLORY is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled. – This efers to a mortal state of glory, the glory that shepherds lost.

MATTHEW 6
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have GLORY of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. –refers to one type of mortal glory

LUKE 4
6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the GLORY of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. – the adversary claims (not necessarily accurately) power over earthly glory

LUKE 12
27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his GLORY was not arrayed like one of these. – The lord presents Solomon’s glory in the poast tense, therefore not in heaven.

2 CORINTHIANS 5
12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to GLORY on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which GLORY in appearance, and not in heart. – More references to relative applications of Glory not in heaven.

long hair, it is a glory to her, 1 Cor. 11:15 - clearly speaks of a mortal state.It does not refer to the resurrection, but to Paul’s opinion of grooming standards in this life.

BOOK OF MORMON
I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, 2 Ne. 33:6 He talks about the present time, not some undefined future.

That should be enough for now. If you dismiss these, you will dismiss anything else too.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi, Peter John,

I realized that you seemed to want an answer along the lines you had presented, but I had not the time or the interest. If you have a case of the use of the word “glory” by Paul that you think is a direct equal comparison to his use of that word in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 and that applies to a mortal person on this earth rather than to a heavenly person or to a resurrected person, then if you present a simple explanation of that verse, I’ll take a look.

Peter John,

“Direct equal comparison” those verses you cited are not, in any sense at all, particularly not the ones you cited from Paul’s writings.

(But you expected my response to be as much, so we do indeed strongly disagree and it is based on the use of the word “glory” and its particular meaning as the connotation of 1 Corinthians 15 presents the concept of the “resurrection.”)

 

[SteveVH]

It does seem a fruitless conversation. You seem to be saying that Jesus not only changed the subject from the subject the Sadducees had presented, but yet was talking to them and all the general audience of believers by discussing the resurrection of everyone using the verb conjugation that meant He was talking about someone else besides anyone there in the audience–“they”. If this Greatest Master of all Teachers and Greatest User of language ever to walk the earth, was so imprecise and impersonal when He could have been precise and personal when according to you He was now presenting a general teaching for all humankind including everyone there present, then it was a grammar mistake which the disciples would have immediately asked that He clarify, just as other times they asked for clarification.

How often, a student of the Bible would logically ask, did Jesus say “ye” (in the verb conjugation) when He was addressing the people and directing their attention to a general teaching for their personal application? Or, how often, on the contrary, did He say “they” when He really meant “ye” (in the verb conjugation since the verb carries the pronoun)?

Yet Paul answered that verse of Isaiah which he quoted, with the answer “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” In other words, those deep things had been revealed “by his Spirit”, and Paul was aware of those deep things, but was reminding the Corinthians that those deep things can only be known by the Spirit, not by the intellect alone and not by the wisdom of men. (1 Corinthians 2–for the benefit of a general reader).

What I am saying is really not all that difficult, Parker. As we all agree, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They attempted to trap Jesus with a clever question in order to disprove the resurrection. You wish to interpret this outside of this context, as if He was not addressing the resurrection of mankind but only of the Sadducees. You are approaching this with the preconceived notion that eternal marriage is a given, therefore you must believe that Christ could not have been applying His words to all of us, but only to those who do not believe in the resurrection, i.e the Sadducees. If this is so, then why would these words of Jesus have been included in the Scripture? They certainly do not affirm eternal marriage.

But Jesus does not stop with only addressing the specific question of the seven brothers. He continues by stating "And concerning the resurrection of the dead (not only the seven brothers) have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching." (Mt 22:31, 32)

So Jesus clearly understood that the real question in which they were attempting to trap Him concerned the resurrection in general, otherwise He would have had no reason to address it in this manner. There was clearly a “crowd” that was listening, and they were astonished at his teaching. If this had only applied to the Sadducees would He not have had a duty to explain this to them?

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

“Direct equal comparison” those verses you cited are not, in any sense at all, particularly not the ones you cited from Paul’s writings.

(But you expected my response to be as much, so we do indeed strongly disagree and it is based on the use of the word “glory” and its particular meaning as the connotation of 1 Corinthians 15 presents the concept of the “resurrection.”)

Reading comprehension is not a matter of interpretation. If you seek secret messages between the lines to make what something actually says mean more than is in the page, than you might as well make up anything you want.

I even showed you the equivalent verese from the Book of Mormon, and you still insist Corintians 15 says things that are not there. There is no way reading the text of 1Corinthians 15 one can come up with the conclusions you have from the text alone. As i went to LDS highs school seminary classes (early morning) I know this is a passage used to justify the LDS belief of three degrees of glory. If you did as well you have been taught this from then, or earlier as I was.

I cannot criticize much, therefore, as my dedication to believing the Church would not lie to me meant that I suffered fromthe same rectocranial inversion which seems to so afflict you at present. If the Church said a verse meant something, I accepted that, regardless of content, because (as i had been taught) it had been intentionally corrupted to obfuscate the truth anyway, so what it actually says does not really matter.

What your resistance to accept what this passage clearly states shows is that, as I have maintained from our first communication, you do not believe what the Bible says at all. You only believe what you think it should say.

---

Not soap. Radio.

 

[Peter_John]

SteveVH,

Yes, they denied the resurrection, but their example was specific. They spoke of seven brothers and a woman, who it appears by their use of the words “with us” to have been Sadducees also. Jesus stayed with their subject, and didn’t change the subject.

It absolutely does answer their denial of the resurrection. It answers specifically about the condition of those seven Sadducees brothers and of the woman. It tells plainly that they will indeed be resurrected, and be as the angels in their resurrection.

Jesus had a very adequate answer about unbelieving Sadducees–that they will be resurrected, and will not have marriage. They asked a specific question, and received a specific answer. That is how good language use works.

Jesus was not “a fool” to answer their specific question with the correct doctrine about the condition of unbelievers in their resurrection. He should have answered with the correct doctrine, and did, of course.

Jesus not only specifies that he refers to the state of BELIEVERS in the resurrection, but rephrases it to clarify it completely.

Luke 20
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

He specifies that they will be “equal to the angels” (not angels) and the “children of God” (which I believe was used to describe those in the LDS Celestial Kingdom elsewhere in these pages). You have already opined that it means quite the opposite.

Not soap. Radio.

 

[ParkerD]

Reading comprehension is not a matter of interpretation…

Peter John,

Correctly stated sentence. That’s why I asked specifically about the word “glory”, yet your post in reply used passages wherein the word “glory” had nothing to do with the resurrection from the dead, yet you were using those to prove you had reading comprehension and I didn’t. I suggest the reverse is true.

Wishing peace to all readers.