Mormons: What does it mean that Michael holds the keys of Salvation?

[KathleenGee]

JeanMichael,

When I read other posts, for example now, how so many in Europe have lost their faith except Slovakia, Italy, Poland and little areas of Catholics and Protestants throughout that great land, even though we do have so many differences, it is good to communicate them to each other here…as atleast we are in dialogue…and we believe in God, the Lord.

 

[flyonthewall]

The Hebrew from that vers is וּבֶן-אָדָם…ben Adam. The English translation from Hebrew is “human being”. The literal meaning is “son of man”.

Humans were crowned by God’s glory and honor at creation.

This is what the Psalmist is singing about, praising God for what He has given us.

See Genesis and the account of creation…humans are given dominion.

Do a search on the internet on messianic psalms. You will see that the 8th psalm is one. Hebrews 2 should put this to rest.

You should not put words or ideas that are not there.

I was trying to understand the ideas you put forth.

I don’t believe you’ve read all the things that Satan is called. The father of lies. Ever hear that one?

You should realize that you are coming across as defending Satan.

Not Satan, but Adam, and the whole human race.

1John 3:4 Whosoever commits sin commits also iniquity. And sin is iniquity. 5 And you know that he appeared to take away our sins: and in him there is no sin. 6 Whosoever abides in him sins not: and whosoever sins has not seen him nor known him.

When a person sins are they serving God, or are they serving Satan?

Here you go again calling everying, including the prophets and apostles, servants of Satan.

If you know this, then why when discussing the sin of Adam or anyone else, you seem to forget it?

Do you beleive Adam was forgiven of his transgression? If so, then why does it seem he is still under condemnation by some?

Identified as what?

Michael was identified as Adam.

Which revelation is that? Smith, White, Koresh?

Joseph Smith.

No it doesn’t.
I’d say your base of understanding is wrong.

And I would say your base of understanding is wrong, but that is to be expected, otherwise we would be in the same church.
Was this thread started to promote understanding? or to simply give opportunity to the home team to state the obvious…there are differences in our faiths that you don’t agree with.

 

[cbelarski]

First of all I take issue with your accusation that the NAB version has many “deliberate
changes in meaning”. Why would the Church, who gave the Bible to you and the rest of the world, deliberately mistranslate its own document?

I am happy to use the KJV or the Douay Theims translation. It say the same thing I said and the same thing the NAB version says.

“I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren…” Translation - I am your servant and the servant of your brethren. Not “I am your servant and I am your brethren.” This is a clear mistranslation. He is the servant of John and of John’s brethren.

I find it interesting that there was no response to this. My personal experience is that when LDS mistranslation of scripture is pointed out…this lack of reply is typical.

 

[ParkerD]

I find it interesting that there was no response to this. My personal experience is that when LDS mistranslation of scripture is pointed out…this lack of reply is typical.

CBelarski,

The reason I didn’t respond to that comment is that it’s a case where there are two completely differing opinions about the NAB (not really a “new translation” as far as I can tell, but more a case of “we’re going to make the words say what will match our doctrine”). This particular case was a perfect example. But I didn’t see the need to belabor the point, since all it does is make people feel badly and become defensive. (Since you brought it up as something needing to be responded to, here we are.)

Of course if the Catholic church is going to come up with a new translation, the people assigned to do that are going to have it match their doctrine with the slight nuance changes that become substantive changes when compared with even the Douay Rheims.

The belief that the two translations held the same presentation in that verse, is to miss plain meaning in words.

So any time you want to discuss Biblical scripture, then if I happen to see your post and it is addressed to me and we can discuss respectfully, I would be OK with that if I have time at that point.

Peace to all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do a search on the internet on messianic psalms. You will see that the 8th psalm is one. Hebrews 2 should put this to rest.

I was trying to understand the ideas you put forth.

I don’t believe you’ve read all the things that Satan is called. The father of lies. Ever hear that one?

Not Satan, but Adam, and the whole human race.

Here you go again calling everying, including the prophets and apostles, servants of Satan.

Do you beleive Adam was forgiven of his transgression? If so, then why does it seem he is still under condemnation by some?

Michael was identified as Adam.

Joseph Smith.

And I would say your base of understanding is wrong, but that is to be expected, otherwise we would be in the same church.
Was this thread started to promote understanding? or to simply give opportunity to the home team to state the obvious…there are differences in our faiths that you don’t agree with.

FOTW, Jesus is prefigured in many and various ways in the OT, but this does not mean a prefiguration is HIM. He is the fulfillment, not the reincarnation.

Hebrews is written to the Hebrews, and ties in the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, very beautifully and very deeply. I haven’t seen where LDS are able to understand it, at all.

 

[KathleenGee]

Referring back to an earlier statement from the universal catechism, each creature is an entity in itself.

St. Michael is an angel and does not have corpus and his nature is not for begetting offspring.

Adam has corpus and was given dominion over the earth. That is also why satan went to Eve to tempt instead of Adam. Eve was subordinate to Adam, a relationship cannot have two heads going different ways.

Adam and Eve were already blessed with wisdom because they were given intellect, saw God, and in God received wisdom. Instead, Satan offered Eve the forbidden fruit …a wisdom that was promised to make her like a god. That is pride.

Adam already knew not to eat the fruit. And he did through his wife, who was being insubordinate, heading him the wrong way, he also abandoning his calling as head. They both sinned against God and against themselves.

The angels instantly either desired God or did not. They were never given bodies or ‘time’ to have offspring.

It is better to remain with the 5,600 year old understanding of Genesis.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is better to remain with the 5,600 year old understanding of Genesis.

No doubt, this is where LDS go wrong. Reinterpreting the Old Testament, as though they would understand better the OT better than a people who have been using it for a very long time.

Even an audacious claim that the Catholic Church is unable to explain her own writings. I understand this was inherited from the Protestant roots of Mormonism, but still… It is sola scriptura run amok.

 

[ParkerD]

Adam and Eve were already blessed with wisdom because they were given intellect, saw God, and in God received wisdom.
It is better to remain with the 5,600 year old understanding of Genesis.

Kathleen Gee,
No, they were not “already blessed with wisdom because they were given intellect” and “saw God and in God received wisdom.”

The Bible says none of those things about Adam and Eve. It does not say they already had wisdom. But they certainly were given intellect. They could think, feel, reflect on what to do, and had freedom of choice (free will).

However old your understanding of Genesis is, does not make it correct. The words say what the words say.

As to the understanding the Jews had as they studied the writings that became the Bible (the Jews having written the writings–not the early Catholics nor the Gentiles)–Christ’s teachings were consistently about reminding the Jews that they did not have understanding in that they read the words but didn’t understand the meaning.

Similar case.

Wishing you peace and a wonderful day and weekend.

 

[KathleenGee]

No offense to Mormon people, but it is creating myths from ancient faith traditions.

So, in the greatest sense of simplicity, for the sake of greater common unity – we need it badly, I wish people would tow the line that is already there.

The history of Catholic thought has its deviations, but time essentially works as a sieve to hold on to thought that is universal and epic lasting.

It is also one reason why the Code of Hammurabi faded out a long, long time ago but the 10 commandments continue on. There were other monotheistic people like the Jews, but God chose the Jews, and why He did, continues to remain a mystery.

So in regard to faith, we will always have mystery. Christ Himself is mystery. And when He referred to Himself as Son of Man…just as in the ancient meaning of son of man…it implies the connection of the Divine coming down to humanity…our deepest and greatest value is that we are sons and daughters of the Lord, the very core of us human beings is divine…and our divinity is reflected in our souls…which is already here today…

Our divinity is already here. It is comprised in the spirit of our souls, and it is also a calling…to receive God, especially in Christ, atonement and the only justification for fallen humanity.

In ancient times, the early Christians believed that heaven was here. Then the Church called that at one point a heresy. Now the Church does accept that.

Heaven is already here…and how it comes about it is in each human heart, one person at a time, allowing themselves to die to self and allow the new life of Jesus Christ to enter and take root…to alight so to speak the divine nature in us.

Our divinity is already here. Our kingdom of heaven is already here. God does not intend to keep divinity for Himself but to extend it to us through His Son…and true divinity in a human being is not about self service, dictatorship, control freak, greed.

True divinity is found in love and forgiveness, and recognizing that every moment we live can be lived in God or not. The smallest actions can have the greatest power… I think of Sr Faustina who put her hand on the shoulder of a poor child to affirm his dignity…just that simple act…can do such powerful good.

Love. Kindness. Affirmation. Sharing…Acknowledging…Creating …Serving…this is divinity in the human being.

 

[SteveVH]

CBelarski,

The reason I didn’t respond to that comment is that it’s a case where there are two completely differing opinions about the NAB (not really a “new translation” as far as I can tell, but more a case of “we’re going to make the words say what will match our doctrine”). This particular case was a perfect example. But I didn’t see the need to belabor the point, since all it does is make people feel badly and become defensive. (Since you brought it up as something needing to be responded to, here we are.)

Of course if the Catholic church is going to come up with a new translation, the people assigned to do that are going to have it match their doctrine with the slight nuance changes that become substantive changes when compared with even the Douay Rheims.

The belief that the two translations held the same presentation in that verse, is to miss plain meaning in words.

So any time you want to discuss Biblical scripture, then if I happen to see your post and it is addressed to me and we can discuss respectfully, I would be OK with that if I have time at that point.

Peace to all.

Parker, just a couple of things I believe are worth considering here. I think you will acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the body that canonized the books of the Bible. It was the Catholic Church that gave the first translations, as a matter of fact, all of Christianity depended upon the Catholic translations for at least the first 1500 years of Christian history. Would it not be extremely foolish for the Church, while knowing that earlier translations from its own hand were spread througout the world, to say "Lets make a new translation that conflicts with our earlier translations, because our doctrines don’t line up with what the earlier translations say, and we’ll hope nobody notices? Not only would it be decietful, but absolutely laughable. Even more so realizing that there are over 5,000 ancient manuscripts, some fragments, some entire texts, from which linguistic experts could take us to task.

 

[SteveVH]

O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem–St. Augustine.

Diana, sorry, I must have missed this post. Nice try, but the fact that God, being almighty, can bring good out of evil does not justify sinning. If that were the case we should all be sinning as much as possible so that even more good can come from it.

 

[KathleenGee]

And to clarify what I meant about wisdom…Adam and Eve were in relationship with God – Who is Wisdom Himself.

Sin broke that relationship, and sin distorted their understanding of things after the fall. Both were disobedient and sought a kind of wisdom that would make them akin to God their creator…it is not wisdom but pride.

 

[SteveVH]

CBelarski,

The reason I didn’t respond to that comment is that it’s a case where there are two completely differing opinions about the NAB (not really a “new translation” as far as I can tell, but more a case of “we’re going to make the words say what will match our doctrine”). This particular case was a perfect example. But I didn’t see the need to belabor the point, since all it does is make people feel badly and become defensive. (Since you brought it up as something needing to be responded to, here we are.)

Of course if the Catholic church is going to come up with a new translation, the people assigned to do that are going to have it match their doctrine with the slight nuance changes that become substantive changes when compared with even the Douay Rheims.

The belief that the two translations held the same presentation in that verse, is to miss plain meaning in words.

So any time you want to discuss Biblical scripture, then if I happen to see your post and it is addressed to me and we can discuss respectfully, I would be OK with that if I have time at that point.

Peace to all.

 

[SteveVH]

CBelarski,

The reason I didn’t respond to that comment is that it’s a case where there are two completely differing opinions about the NAB (not really a “new translation” as far as I can tell, but more a case of “we’re going to make the words say what will match our doctrine”). This particular case was a perfect example. But I didn’t see the need to belabor the point, since all it does is make people feel badly and become defensive. (Since you brought it up as something needing to be responded to, here we are.)

Of course if the Catholic church is going to come up with a new translation, the people assigned to do that are going to have it match their doctrine with the slight nuance changes that become substantive changes when compared with even the Douay Rheims.

The belief that the two translations held the same presentation in that verse, is to miss plain meaning in words.

So any time you want to discuss Biblical scripture, then if I happen to see your post and it is addressed to me and we can discuss respectfully, I would be OK with that if I have time at that point.

Peace to all.

DOUAY-REIMS
“And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus.”

KING JAMES VERSION
“And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:”

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
“But he said to me ‘Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus.’”

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
“But he said to me ‘Don’t! I am a fellow servant of you and with your brothers who bear witness to Jesus.’”

Parker, just a couple of things to consider here when looking for a body of evidence supporting your assertion that the motivation of the Catholic Church in giving us the NAB translation was that “we’re going to make the words say what will match our doctrine.”

If anyone has the authority to properly translate something, it is the one who canonized it to begin with. I am trying to imagine the scenario where the Church leaders are sitting around twisting their moustaches saying, “Hey, you know that book that we canonized way back when? Well, it turns out that it conflicts with our doctrines so we need to tweak it a little. Yeah, I know that our earlier versions are spread around the world for everyone to see, but maybe they won’t notice.”

Looking at the NIV translation of the same verse, it appears that the Protestants cooperated with us in this deceitful endeavor.

As you very well know, we are squabbling over differences in King James English and modern English. Not only is sentence structure different, even the meaning of words are different. Take the phrase “The exception proves the rule.” In modern English this sentence doesn’t make sense. The actual meaning of the phrase is "The exception tests the rule.

In looking for a body of evidence supporting your position, I can find no one other than you and other LDS members who interpret this passage the way you do. Not a single one. Now, looking at it from a purely linguistic viewpoint, doctrine aside, you would think that there would be someone that would agree with your assessment of the sentence structure and wording, especially if it is so clear, as you contend.

 

[flyonthewall]

And to clarify what I meant about wisdom…Adam and Eve were in relationship with God – Who is Wisdom Himself.

Sin broke that relationship, and sin distorted their understanding of things after the fall. Both were disobedient and sought a kind of wisdom that would make them akin to God their creator…it is not wisdom but pride.

Kathleen, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. If I might ask a question…
When Adam & Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it states their eyes were open.
What were their eyes open to?

 

[SteveVH]

Kathleen, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. If I might ask a question…
When Adam & Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it states their eyes were open.
What were their eyes open to?

I’ve always thought this an interesting question. I believe their eyes were opened to evil. They were already in the presence of God so we know their eyes were already opened to good, however not in the context of its comparison to evil. Prior to the original sin, they existed in original innocence. If I commit murder, my eyes will be opened to that experience, something of which I previously had no knowledge. Not all knowledge is good.

 

[SteveVH]

Kathleen, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. If I might ask a question…
When Adam & Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it states their eyes were open.
What were their eyes open to?

I have always thought this was an interesting question. My take on it is that their eyes were opened to evil. They were created in a state of original innocence and walked in the presence of God who is Goodness itself, so they certainly new “good”, though not in the context of a comparison to evil. They had not, yet, experienced evil. If I commit murder, my eyes will “be opened” to that evil, which I previously had not experienced. Not all knowledge is good.

 

[KathleenGee]

What Adam and Eve’s eyes opened to was looking at themselves, their own hands, and their own nakedness…the hopelessness…and how the fruit knowing good and evil leads to death…

This type of knowledge has nothing to do with wisdom.

What kind of knowledge then do they have? We can see here it at work today …

Who lives? Who dies? We see this all the time humans deciding who should live and who should die…abortion, euthanasia, genocide.

 

[flyonthewall]

I have always thought this was an interesting question. My take on it is that their eyes were opened to evil. They were created in a state of original innocence and walked in the presence of God who is Goodness itself, so they certainly new “good”, though not in the context of a comparison to evil. They had not, yet, experienced evil. If I commit murder, my eyes will “be opened” to that evil, which I previously had not experienced. Not all knowledge is good.

That is an interesting take on it…Later on in that chapter there is this:

22 ¶ And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

It is only AFTER they partook of the fruit that their eyes were open, and they became as “one of us”, to know good and evil.
How could they not be like God before if they only knew good and not evil?
I agree that they were made in innocence, but that they did not know either good or evil. How can one exist without the other?

 

[KathleenGee]

The sin of pride…who is like unto God as Michael said…and the temptation was to be like gods…

God ‘decides’ who lives and who dies…we have no right to take the life of an innocent human being.

Later we see the beginning of fratricide between Abel who gave the Lord the choice of his first fruits and Cain who did not, and how this relationship ended up with Cain murdering his brother through pathological envy.

We as humans can continue the life of the divine to those around us…love and the fruits of the Holy Spirit, forgiveness, living out the corporal and spiritual works of mercy…

I think this is a much more secure route in seeking deification than seeking deification by ruling and having control over others, continuing to incarnate one’s self in the next life.