LDS: Is the name "Nephi" a derivative of "Nephilim"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
Have you ever studied the Catholic faith? Do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet? Just wondering why you lean toward the Mormon faith, even if it is RLDS? It all comes from the same source.
Click to expand...
Well, no not really. At least not in that extand I studied LDS and later on RLDS.
But I learned a lot of things about Catholicism here on CAF and I am very thankful for that! 🙂

I know it comes from the same source. No, I don’t believe that JS was a prophet.
But I like the Community of Christ (former RLDS). I like their belief.
What do you find attractive there that you would not find in the Catholic faith?
Click to expand...
I like their strong approach towards being a peace-religion.
I like the minister who has answered so kindly and patiently my questions.
I like to see their development from Mormonism towards Liberal Protestantism. (in the newer parts of the D&C).
I like them, as they are actually very similar to my Baptist Church.
And I like them because I feel sorry for them that they always have to defend themselves against being labeled as LDS.
 
SteveVH said:
Its fine for understanding why LDS believe that but it holds absoluely zero credibility for me.
Click to expand...
You asked a question, I answered as well as I can with my (still) limited knowledge of the BoM. 😉
That’s how it goes in a forum. 😃 😉
 
Esdra said:
This website speaks of 320 times (56 times in the NT and the rest in the OT).
Click to expand...
According to my LDS computerized scriptures, the word “yea” occurs 340 times in the KJV Bible, and in 320 verses in that Bible. So 320 is correct if you are looking at the number of verses in which it occurs (i.e. in some verses occurring more than once), but 340 is more correct if you are looking at the number of individual occurrences.
 
zerinus said:
According to my LDS computerized scriptures, the word “yea” occurs 340 times in the KJV Bible, and in 320 verses in that Bible. So 320 is correct if you are looking at the number of verses in which it occurs (i.e. in some verses occurring more than once), but 340 is more correct if you are looking at the number of individual occurrences.
Click to expand...
Aha. All right. 😃 Yes, 320 VERSES then.
Thanks.

There you see again that I am not at all familiar with the KJV. 😉 If the word yea makes me that trouble. 👍
 
SteveVH said:
Why are the scriptures (biblical) silent about the second one?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
We think there are biblical indications that satisfies us, but I don’t suppose you will not accept it. Here is one:

Genesis 49:

26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Here Jacob is claiming that the blessings that God had promised him were greater than the blessings that God had promised his progenitors (i.e. Abraham and Isaac). Well, what were the blessing that God promised Abraham and Isaac? It was the promise that God would give the land of Palestine to their descendents. But Jacob is saying that his promise was even greater! And then he describes what that greater promise is, and how it would be fulfilled. His greater promise was that the land he should inherit should extend much further than Palestine, to the “utmost bound of the everlasting hills;” and the fulfillment was through Joseph’s lineage. In other words, that greater inheritance should go to Joseph and his descendents. Well, that is what the Nephites (and Latter-day Saints) were and are. The Nephites were of the seed of Joseph through Manasseh; and LDS, believe it or not, are also mainly descendents of Joseph through Ephraim, who have obtained the American continent as their land of promise. But like everything else, I am sure you will be able to find an alternative interpretation of that verse that will satisfy you.
 
Esdra said:
I think it’s more difficult to explore LDS without actually being LDS because there are many aspects that are not contained in the Scriptures. - You could call it “tradition”.

Of course I am heavily influenced by RLDS.
In the beginning I studied the LDS Book of Mormon and the Triple Combination. I even was in contact with an LDS minister.

But later on I more and more went toward RLDS ministers and have been for quite a long time in contact with some. And also studied the RLDS D&C and the BoM (Which is except the verse and chapter numbering the same).

There are too many teachings in the LDS belief that are not Christian in my opinion. Starting from baptism to the dead to cealed marriages for eternaty to “secret services” in the Temples to reunion with the whole family in heaven (Although that’s a nice thought) to “polygamy in heaven” etc.
Click to expand...
Well they all came from the same Joseph Smith! RLDS are a bit hypocritical in accepting what they want of Joseph Smith, and rejecting what they don’t want. There is plenty of historical evidence that polygamy and temple ordinances came from Joseph Smith, not from someone else.
 
zerinus said:
Well they all came from the same Joseph Smith! RLDS are a bit hypocritical in accepting what they want of Joseph Smith, and rejecting what they don’t want. There is plenty of historical evidence that polygamy and temple ordinances came from Joseph Smith, not from someone else.
Click to expand...
I know. The RLDS teach that temple ordinances and polygamy are an invention of Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith jr.

But if I had the choice, I would rather be RLDS than LDS. (But since I don’t want to be LDS which’d be in my country, I will stay a Baptist. Because there is no RLDS Church in Austria. The next Community of Christ’d be in Augsburg, Bavaria, Germany. And the pastor there is also the minister I have been writing most often with. He even made contact with French RLDS ministers, I could speak in more detail about the RLDS faith. ;))
 
zerinus said:
Yea is used 235 times in the KJV Bible according to this online search result; or 340 times according to my computerized scriptures installed on my computer; not sure which is more accurate. And yes, it is an archaic version of “yes,” according to this info site.
Click to expand...
It is also used as “more than this” or “not only so but…” which is used to introduce a more explicit or emphatic phrase.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yea
 
zerinus said:
We think there are biblical indications that satisfies us, but I don’t suppose you will not accept it. Here is one:

Genesis 49:

26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Here Jacob is claiming that the blessings that God had promised him were greater than the blessings that God had promised his progenitors (i.e. Abraham and Isaac). Well, what were the blessing that God promised Abraham and Isaac? It was the promise that God would give the land of Palestine to their descendents. But Jacob is saying that his promise was even greater! And then he describes what that greater promise is, and how it would be fulfilled. His greater promise was that the land he should inherit should extend much further than Palestine, to the “utmost bound of the everlasting hills;” and the fulfillment was through Joseph’s lineage. In other words, that greater inheritance should go to Joseph and his descendents. Well, that is what the Nephites (and Latter-day Saints) were and are. The Nephites were of the seed of Joseph through Manasseh; and LDS, believe it or not, are also mainly descendents of Joseph through Ephraim, who have obtained the American continent as their land of promise. But like everything else, I am sure you will be able to find an alternative interpretation of that verse that will satisfy you.
Click to expand...
Thanks zerinus. I really have nothing to say except that what I get out of this passage, when placed in the context of Chapter 49, is a list of blessings passed down from Jacob to his sons which will become the twelve tribes of Israel. I don’t have my KJV available as I write this and the verse you site does not line up with the NAB at all so I’ll have to look a little further into it. The NIV is a little closer, but I still don’t interpret this as a separate promised land, though I will admit I have no reason to be looking for this as I don’t’ believe it happened. Interestingly enough, there are scant notes as to the meaning of this particular verse in either the NIV or the NAB. I was a little disappointed actually.
 
Esdra said:
You asked a question, I answered as well as I can with my (still) limited knowledge of the BoM. 😉
That’s how it goes in a forum. 😃 😉
Click to expand...
I appreciate your answer, Esdra. I was just making a comment.
 
Esdra said:
Well, no not really. At least not in that extand I studied LDS and later on RLDS.
But I learned a lot of things about Catholicism here on CAF and I am very thankful for that! 🙂

I know it comes from the same source. No, I don’t believe that JS was a prophet.
But I like the Community of Christ (former RLDS). I like their belief.

I like their strong approach towards being a peace-religion.
I like the minister who has answered so kindly and patiently my questions.
I like to see their development from Mormonism towards Liberal Protestantism. (in the newer parts of the D&C).
I like them, as they are actually very similar to my Baptist Church.
And I like them because I feel sorry for them that they always have to defend themselves against being labeled as LDS.
Click to expand...
I would suggest picking up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in your mother tongue if you want to know what the Church teaches and believes. With the claims made by the CC I would think it would behoove you to satisfy yourself as to the truth of those claims, one way or another. There are a lot of friendly people out there and I would place Mormons at the top of that list. But religion is not about the goodness of people, it is about the goodness of God and the truth of His revelation of Himself to us. Plus, there are some very nice Catholics as well. 🙂

God bless.
 
KathleenGee said:
Whatis essentially deceiving is the adversarial spirit against the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
This is up to #110 and so far I have seen no adverserial spirit against the Catholic Church but I have seen plenty of adverserial spirit against the LDS church and all their fundamental beliefs when there is no need for it. I don’t believe Christ would argue like that.

I sometimes think Catholics are their own worst enemies when they debate with people of other faiths, on most forums on CAF anyway. It seems there is a belief that because we hold our Catholic Church to be the one true faith, that then gives us licence to trash all other religions in any possible way, whether the facts used are correct or not, and speculation is made out to be fact, and then often it becomes personal.
 
By adversarial, I mean those religions founded as a reaction against the great abomination, the Catholic Church.

If you take the Catholic Church out of the way, then what will fill the gap?
 
The LDS church would have no reason for existence if it weren’t for the rabid anti-Catholicism of the 1800’s. Its very existence depends on its anti-Catholic origins.

That said, this thread has been remarkably civil. Perhaps because Esdra stands somewhere between “us” and “them.” And, because we have been primarily discussing the text of the BoM, rather than Mormonism itself. Of course, that gets into the sources for the text, which people like Parker and FotW might not like.
 
What I am remarking to is the origins of anti-Catholicism as Mormonism’s basic construct.

You have to look at the original texts. I came in to an LDS store with the intent to learn more about their faith and see where we have things in common, as I greatly liked the Mormons I met in that time period. And so what I read was very wrong about my Catholic faith and I don’t see such language in our church towards non-catholics…and we don’t need to.
 
KathleenGee said:
What I am remarking to is the origins of anti-Catholicism as Mormonism’s basic construct.

You have to look at the original texts. I came in to an LDS store with the intent to learn more about their faith and see where we have things in common, as I greatly liked the Mormons I met in that time period. And so what I read was very wrong about my Catholic faith and I don’t see such language in our church towards non-catholics…and we don’t need to.
Click to expand...
You keep referring to this story, but can never verify it. The fact is, there is no “anti-catholic” origins of our church.
I don’t really see the Catholic church being a major player in the founding of our church, if anything it was Protestantism that played the big part of Joseph asking God which church he should join. It is as simple as we state…Joseph asked, and got an answer.

Believe it or not, disagreeing with Catholicism is not being anti-Catholic.
 
Yes I bring it up…because essentially Joseph Smith said Christianity is an abomination, and that is why he was commissioned to start a new one.

So such an judgment is very sweeping.
 
I am coming to the conclusion that what I picked up was indeed the Pearl of Great Price because I was drawn to its title from a Catholic understanding—the kingdom of Christ…within and wanted to know the Mormon perspective…I had mentioned this phrase to my Mormon friend, but he seemed to have a different concept and reaction to it…and we had job changes…so I was never able to get back to him to ask him how he understood the ‘Pearl of Great Price’…

What I picked up was an older type book…and I believe it was through Orson Pratt, Editor of the First American edition. One source considered splendid…and I believe it is Pratt who used such kind of language…
 
KathleenGee said:
I am coming to the conclusion that what I picked up was indeed the Pearl of Great Price because I was drawn to its title from a Catholic understanding—the kingdom of Christ…within and wanted to know the Mormon perspective…I had mentioned this phrase to my Mormon friend, but he seemed to have a different concept and reaction to it…and we had job changes…so I was never able to get back to him to ask him how he understood the ‘Pearl of Great Price’…

What I picked up was an older type book…and I believe it was through Orson Pratt, Editor of the First American edition. One source considered splendid…and I believe it is Pratt who used such kind of language…
Click to expand...
The PoGP consists of “The Book of Moses” which are the first 8 chapters of Joseph Smith’s Inspired Translation of the Bible (which was published by the RLDS Church - thus this part is accepted by the RLDS Church.)
“The Book of Abraham” which is very unchristian in my believe and is a translation of papyri the LDS Church bought in the 19th century. Nowaday, many scholars refer to these papyri as part of the Egyptian “Book of the Dead”. It is not recognised as scripture by the RLDS Church.
Joseph Smith Translation (JST) - Matthew is from the Inspired Bibel Version of Joseph Smith (Matthew 23:39 and Chapter 24). - It is included in the Inspired Bibel published by the RLDS Church.
**Joseph Smith - History **is a cutting of the LDS Version of the “History of the Church” which was published in 7 volumes. - It’s not considered as scripture by the RLDS Church, but I guess it is to be found in their (RLDS) “History of the Church”.

"Finally the Articles of Faith" which was published for a Newspaper by Joseph Smith jr to explain the people the Church.
It is also a cutting of the LDS Version of the “History of the Church”.

In general: The Pearl of Great Price is for the LDS Church just as a part of the Holy Scriptures than the Holy Bible, the BoM and the D&C.

Hope that answers your question 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top