Odd question for Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marie5890
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RebeccaJ said:
Gazelam, all the Bible testifies to our Redemption. When Jesus, on the Cross, said it is finished, He meant, it is finished.

HE is God’s Word REVEALED. He left nothing out. There is nothing left for God to say, because He has said it all, in the Person of Jesus Christ. Look to Jesus, not to another novelty. Jesus Christ is the fullness of God’s Word because He is God’s Word.

The chronology is laid out for you in the Bible, culminating in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Double exactly.
 
Thanks again RebeccaJ for the thought provoking stuff.
60 The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church. They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.
Click to expand...
So, just to make sure I understand, this was a period of time when God made a certain family (which became a people) trustee of an earlier promise. After a period of time, other people could be ‘grafted on’ to the line of Abraham, as they came to believe.

So, to phrase it differently, there was a period of time when God gave responsibilities/duties/blessings to certain people, and denied them to other people. Because according to your quote, God didn’t make everyone everywhere the trustee of the promise, He only made people descended from Abraham trustee of the promise. Which means, that the status of being trustee of the promise, was denied to people who were not descended from Abraham. (At least denied to them, until a later date when they became able to be grafted in to the family, so to speak, through belief in Christ.)

Do I understand this correctly?

I mean, one assumes that when God made "Israel the priestly people of God, “called by the name of the LORD”, and “the first to hear the word of God”, He also made everyone else not the priestly people of God, not called by the name of the LORD, and not the first to hear the word of God.

Am I missing something?
 
gazelam said:
All the New Testament was written after Christ’s cruxification. The New Testament would seem to fall in the “public revelation” category. One book, as I’m sure you’re aware is even called “Revelation” and it’s certainly public. That’s all. If you have a different definition of “public revelation” then you may see things differently. I lept from “public revelation” to canonized scripture.
Click to expand...
The books of the New Testament could not have been written until there was something to write about, now could they?

That doesn’t make it a new revelation, it is recording what has been revealed up to the point at which it was written.

Rebecca did an excellent job at explaining why Revelations was named the way it was.

All of this really is just a matter of simple logic.

So as you can see,there is no reason to re-do my previous post. Which I must say was a bizarre statement, to say the least.
 
NeuroTypical said:
Thanks again RebeccaJ for the thought provoking stuff.

So, just to make sure I understand, this was a period of time when God made a certain family (which became a people) trustee of an earlier promise. After a period of time, other people could be ‘grafted on’ to the line of Abraham, as they came to believe.

So, to phrase it differently, there was a period of time when God gave responsibilities/duties/blessings to certain people, and denied them to other people. Because according to your quote, God didn’t make everyone everywhere the trustee of the promise, He only made people descended from Abraham trustee of the promise. Which means, that the status of being trustee of the promise, was denied to people who were not descended from Abraham. (At least denied to them, until a later date when they became able to be grafted in to the family, so to speak, through belief in Christ.)

Do I understand this correctly?

I mean, one assumes that when God made "Israel the priestly people of God, “called by the name of the LORD”, and “the first to hear the word of God”, He also made everyone else not the priestly people of God, not called by the name of the LORD, and not the first to hear the word of God.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing “not having heard the word of God” with being “denied hearing the word of God”

There is/was a progression to the spreading of the knowledge, and word of God.

He could have made himself known to all of man kind in an instant, but he chose to plant a seed, and have it grow, and mulitiply on it’s own.
 
NeuroTypical said:
Thanks again RebeccaJ for the thought provoking stuff.

So, just to make sure I understand, this was a period of time when God made a certain family (which became a people) trustee of an earlier promise. After a period of time, other people could be ‘grafted on’ to the line of Abraham, as they came to believe.

So, to phrase it differently, there was a period of time when God gave responsibilities/duties/blessings to certain people, and denied them to other people. Because according to your quote, God didn’t make everyone everywhere the trustee of the promise, He only made people descended from Abraham trustee of the promise. Which means, that the status of being trustee of the promise, was denied to people who were not descended from Abraham. (At least denied to them, until a later date when they became able to be grafted in to the family, so to speak, through belief in Christ.)

Do I understand this correctly?

I mean, one assumes that when God made "Israel the priestly people of God, “called by the name of the LORD”, and “the first to hear the word of God”, He also made everyone else not the priestly people of God, not called by the name of the LORD, and not the first to hear the word of God.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
After Adam and Eve disobeyed God, He made a covenant with them, promising to restore what they had lost; their inheritance. God then renewed His covenant with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses and with David. With each covenant the number of people welcomed into the family of God increases; from a couple, to a household, to a tribe, to a nation, to a worldwide kingdom. That is why the Church Christ founded is known as the Catholic Church; it was to be a universal Church including all people of the world.

As Rebecca said, God chose to plant a seed and allow it to grow. Christ even uses the example of a mustard seed to describe the nature of the kingdom of heaven.
 
NeuroTypical said:
Thanks again RebeccaJ for the thought provoking stuff.
So, just to make sure I understand, this was a period of time when God made a certain family (which became a people) trustee of an earlier promise. After a period of time, other people could be ‘grafted on’ to the line of Abraham, as they came to believe.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
**So my question…if JS is so tasked with such an important task to restore the true church…why is his name not changed?
**

He did. Josephs Myth to Joseph Smith. or was it the other way around? 😃
 
gazelam said:
If I went to your side, who would I tangle with on CAF? 😛
Click to expand...
Don’t be afraid!

and there are no “sides” there is truth and God’s Church…and there is Joseph Smith…

I chose truth and God’s Church.
 
pablope said:
God made a series of covenants…with a certain chosen people…Noah…Abraham…He also changed the name of Abram to Abraham…and told him to be a father of nations.

At the Last Supper…Jesus did say…there is a new covenant…an everlasting covenant…with the Apostles. This is the Biblical model.

So the question is…is there a new covenant with Joseph Smith? Where is this covenant to replace the covenant established at the Last Supper? Jesus said it is to be an everlasting covenant…so did He change His mind?
Click to expand...
This is an excellent question. LDS believe in full blown convenants along the lines that you refer to and we refer to them as “Abrahamic covenants”. This topic is too deep to discuss before dashing of to work. Here’s an article on the topic from an LDS scholar. lds.org/ensign/1990/02/the-abrahamic-covenant-a-blessing-for-all-people?lang=eng

We do believe that the convenant with Abraham is for all righteous people and not just a few very righteous ancient prophets. And that’s one reason we have tens of thousands of missionaries around to globe, We want all people possible to make convenants like Abraham did and receive the blessings of those covenants. And the only place that can be done is in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 
gazelam said:
This is an excellent question. LDS believe in full blown convenants along the lines that you refer to and we refer to them as “Abrahamic covenants”. This topic is too deep to discuss before dashing of to work. Here’s an article on the topic from an LDS scholar. lds.org/ensign/1990/02/the-abrahamic-covenant-a-blessing-for-all-people?lang=eng

We do believe that the convenant with Abraham is for all righteous people and not just a few very righteous ancient prophets. And that’s one reason we have tens of thousands of missionaries around to globe, We want all people possible to make convenants like Abraham did and receive the blessings of those covenants. And the only place that can be done is in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Click to expand...
Really?

I have made more covenants as a Catholic than I ever did as a Mormon…and I did it with the TRUE God, not the god-once-a-sinful-man.

And we renew those when we do as JESUS COMMANDED with the unleavened bread and wine…that BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ…we do not use bread and water (a meal famous for being given to prisoners…coincidence?).

Come to the truth!
 
gazelam said:
This is an excellent question. LDS believe in full blown convenants along the lines that you refer to and we refer to them as “Abrahamic covenants”. This topic is too deep to discuss before dashing of to work. Here’s an article on the topic from an LDS scholar. lds.org/ensign/1990/02/the-abrahamic-covenant-a-blessing-for-all-people?lang=eng

We do believe that the convenant with Abraham is for all righteous people and not just a few very righteous ancient prophets. And that’s one reason we have tens of thousands of missionaries around to globe, We want all people possible to make convenants like Abraham did and receive the blessings of those covenants. And the only place that can be done is in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…but the Abrahamic covenant was replaced by a new and everlasting covenant at the Last Supper…so why rehash the abrahamic covenant? Where did the LDS get the authority to rehash/reinstate the abrahamic covenant?

And in the same post of mine…you forgot to reply to this question…So my question…if JS is so tasked with such an important task to restore the true church…why is his name not changed?

Following the Biblical examples…first, there must be a change of name, and with the name change, there is a command that follows…for one to get the authority from God…so where are all these elements with Joseph Smith and the LDS?
 
Pablope: You say when God gives a command to someone he changes their names when there is a significant task. You mention Abram, Jacob, and Simon. What about Adam, Noah, Jonah, and Moses (off the top of my head). You ask why Joseph Smith’s name wasn’t changed. I’d be interested in hearing your answer.

Twopekingguys: I think you are confusing “not having heard the word of God” with being “denied hearing the word of God”

I suppose I am - I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Folks on this thread are criticizing mormon history for not giving blacks the priesthood. When I point out, using RebeccaJ’s quote, Catholic commentary on why God didn’t give non-Abrahamic folks the same thing, I get these answers:

Twopekinguys: “There is/was a progression to the spreading of the knowledge, and word of God.”
SteveVH: “God chose to plant a seed and allow it to grow.”
Pablope: “God made a series of covenants…with a certain chosen people…Noah…Abraham…He also changed the name of Abram to Abraham…and told him to be a father of nations.”

God denies people in the Old Testament, not only priesthood, but also knowledge of Himself - and y’all are fine with that. Ok, I’m fine with it too. So why harp on mormons? Do you hold God to a double-standard? He used to do it and it was fine, mormons tell you He did it again, and you use it as a critism of my faith? Why was it ok then, and not ok now?
 
NeuroTypical said:
Pablope: You say when God gives a command to someone he changes their names when there is a significant task. You mention Abram, Jacob, and Simon. What about Adam, Noah, Jonah, and Moses (off the top of my head). You ask why Joseph Smith’s name wasn’t changed. I’d be interested in hearing your answer.

Twopekingguys: I think you are confusing “not having heard the word of God” with being “denied hearing the word of God”

I suppose I am - I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Folks on this thread are criticizing mormon history for not giving blacks the priesthood. When I point out, using RebeccaJ’s quote, Catholic commentary on why God didn’t give non-Abrahamic folks the same thing, I get these answers:

Twopekinguys: “There is/was a progression to the spreading of the knowledge, and word of God.”
SteveVH: “God chose to plant a seed and allow it to grow.”
Pablope: “God made a series of covenants…with a certain chosen people…Noah…Abraham…He also changed the name of Abram to Abraham…and told him to be a father of nations.”

God denies people in the Old Testament, not only priesthood, but also knowledge of Himself - and y’all are fine with that. Ok, I’m fine with it too. So why harp on mormons? Do you hold God to a double-standard? He used to do it and it was fine, mormons tell you He did it again, and you use it as a critism of my faith? Why was it ok then, and not ok now?
Click to expand...
Choosing one out of all is not equivalent to excluding one out of all. Even children can understand the difference.
 
NeuroTypical said:
Pablope: You say when God gives a command to someone he changes their names when there is a significant task. You mention Abram, Jacob, and Simon. What about Adam, Noah, Jonah, and Moses (off the top of my head).

Abraham, Israel and Peter were to build something…the nations, the nation of Israel, the Church Christ founded.

Noah, Jonah and Moses were not tasked the same.
You ask why Joseph Smith’s name wasn’t changed. I’d be interested in hearing your answer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
NeuroTypical said:
Pablope: You say when God gives a command to someone he changes their names when there is a significant task. You mention Abram, Jacob, and Simon. What about Adam, Noah, Jonah, and Moses (off the top of my head). You ask why Joseph Smith’s name wasn’t changed. I’d be interested in hearing your answer.

Twopekingguys: I think you are confusing “not having heard the word of God” with being “denied hearing the word of God”

I suppose I am - I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Folks on this thread are criticizing mormon history for not giving blacks the priesthood. When I point out, using RebeccaJ’s quote, Catholic commentary on why God didn’t give non-Abrahamic folks the same thing, I get these answers:

Twopekinguys: “There is/was a progression to the spreading of the knowledge, and word of God.”
SteveVH: “God chose to plant a seed and allow it to grow.”
Pablope: “God made a series of covenants…with a certain chosen people…Noah…Abraham…He also changed the name of Abram to Abraham…and told him to be a father of nations.”

God denies people in the Old Testament, not only priesthood, but also knowledge of Himself - and y’all are fine with that. Ok, I’m fine with it too. So why harp on mormons? Do you hold God to a double-standard? He used to do it and it was fine, mormons tell you He did it again, and you use it as a critism of my faith? Why was it ok then, and not ok now?
Click to expand...
seriously? Are you STILL dodging the point?

First point you keep dodging: you can;t compare 6000 years ago in a different country and culture with 1830s America

Second point you keep dodging: The OT did not deny based on color as Mormons did

Third point you keep dodging: Mormon “prophets” did not just ban…they spewed HORRIBLE things about blacks. They were supreme racists. Big difference
 
pablope said:
Hmmm…but the Abrahamic covenant was replaced by a new and everlasting covenant at the Last Supper…so why rehash the abrahamic covenant? Where did the LDS get the authority to rehash/reinstate the abrahamic covenant?

And in the same post of mine…you forgot to reply to this question…So my question…if JS is so tasked with such an important task to restore the true church…why is his name not changed?

Following the Biblical examples…first, there must be a change of name, and with the name change, there is a command that follows…for one to get the authority from God…so where are all these elements with Joseph Smith and the LDS?
Click to expand...
perhaps God did not change Joseph’s name because, as Joseph claimed, Joseph was better than even Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top