Scriptural evidence for "pre-mortal existence". Is there any?

[soren1]

The Civil War prophecy was known to exist by many members after it was given in December 1832. I would say that the decision to place Section 87 into the Doctrine and Covenants was made with cognizance that it includes prophecies pertinent to the entire period leading up to the Second Coming of Christ, so although I personally disagree as to your second sentence, the importance of that Section has to do with present events on the earth and still-future events.

If they said the text originated when it was published or when it was placed into the Standard Works, then yes it would be a misrepresentation since it originated in December 1832.

My second sentence is not controversial: “That is part of the LDS canon, but was not entered into D&C until the Civil War itself broke out.” That is an historical fact, of no great significance in itself, except that it creates a question about the prophesy’s doctrinal status in the interim. I am not making any weird claims about when the prophecy originated. I am asking only about when it became doctrinal.

In pointing out that the prophecy has to do with future events, I think you are implying that in the interim time there couldn’t be a real argument against it, since no critic could reason from his own knowledge of the future. But that misses the point again. Could it in principle have been included in discussion of the truth or falsity of Mormonism? Let’s say somebody made an argument against it, any argument, in fact a bad argument. Pretend it is 1856. You are a pioneer in Utah and a very sentimental atheist comes up to you with a copy and says, “I don’t think it is just for God to send famine and plague on this great nation.” How do you answer? Do you say, “Well that isn’t really doctrine anyway – no unanimous voice for that one!” or do you defend God’s justice and point out that his “chastening hand” is one that corrects as well as reproves evildoers, and contempt for God’s judgment the attitude only of those who refuse to acknowledge the gravity of sin? On your account of LDS doctrine, the first answer would be the appropriate one, but isn’t it obvious that an answer like the second is the only right way to go? Is it not clear that maintaining the credibility of the text despite its lack of formal inclusion in the Standard Works is the only legitimate way to defend it? The mere fact that it comes from a prophet and claims to be revealed requires you to believe it or else reject the prophet.

 

[minder_bender]

1voice,

It is an act of intercession when a person obeys Jesus’ admonition to “pray for your enemies and those that despitefully use you”. The obvious purpose is so that God will cause them to wake up to the truth so that their soul will be saved.

I agree, Jesus did the heavy lifting / work of atonement all by himself. … and now He, according to the Bible, sits at God’s right hand and intercedes for us. His sacrifice, the purpose of his sacrifice, was to tear the veil that separated God and man… and keep it open (so that we can have permanent access to the throne of God the Father)… The veil in the Temple in Jerusalem actually tore from top to bottom the day that Jesus died… He did his job… So that he could restore our right and responsibility to go directly to God… “Our Father, who art in heaven” and “ask for anything in my (Jesus) name”. Anything … means ANYTHING… Including the salvation of loved ones as well as enemies. Christ’s purpose was and is to develop kings and priests (sons of God) not in some future … but here and now. with the same authority that Jesus possesses …which is to “come boldly before the throne of grace” and “make our requests (for anything) known to God.” because …“The word (of faith that moves mountains) is nigh thee and in thy mouth” … That is intercession.

I agree with all of the above …though I don’t necessarily see:- " The obvious purpose is so that God will cause them to wake up to the truth so that their soul will be saved." is the true interpretation of that statement.
I think that in praying for the other you are in fact praying for yourself.

I was given a example once by a priest who said if you accuse your brother or see fault of a brother and point your finger (so to speak) at a brother for ANY reason in accusation, that one finger is pointing to your brother but three are pointing BACK to yourself. So, we must be careful and mindful were we find fault (see those ‘living in sin’) because the very action of seeing fault means it is firstly in yourself.(mostly hidden)…and THAT is why your can actually see it in another. In interceeding for your brother, you are praying for yourself. That is why Jesus was so adamant that you love God first and your neighbour as yourself.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD,

I don’t perfectly remember the conversation we had about this text before, but you seem to remember none of it.

ParkerD seems to be a different person.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

I don’t perfectly remember the conversation we had about this text before, but you seem to remember none of it, since I responded to this way back when. I neither was nor am disputing that D&C 107 teaches a doctrine of unanimous voice. I am disputing whether unanimous voice is presented in the text as a standard for defining LDS doctrine. In particular, I say that all of the relevant passages deal only with decisions about the governance in the church rather than judgments about doctrine.

Jul 5, '10, 8:47 am
ParkerD
Regular Member

Join Date: March 17, 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 5,600
Religion: LDS Church
Re: Thus Saith the Lord and LDS “Prophets”
Quote:
Originally Posted by soren1
The text from D&C that you use to support “united counsel” has very little to do with this topic, and you must provide warrant for at least two crucial premises if you are going to make a case from it. The two main presuppositions you need to justify are as follows:

1. The decision-making of the quorums embraces the truth-contents of revealed doctrine. It is quite obvious that the text is referring to matters of counsel, which Mormons typically, and rightly, distinguish from doctrine. This is most evident in the text from the use of the word “decision.” A decision is a deliberative judgment regarding how to attain a certain end. In short, it is a determination of counsel. For instance, one decides where the best place to build a Temple is. One does not, however, “decide” whether God has commanded that Temples should be built! That is a matter of discernment, which is a different type of judgment. Because of the heavy influence of voluntarist philosophy on modern American society, especially in the last century, the proper meaning of “decision” is lost to the understanding of many people, as in Fox News’s misuse of the word in its phrase “We report, you decide.” Yet in 1835, which is what matters for us here, the precise meaning of “decide” had not become obscure, and can be found in its correct usage throughout the literature of the period. Jefferson, for example, is very consistent in the way he uses it. One can claim to “decide” which of God’s revealed doctrines to proclaim at a given time, but not which doctrines are true.
2. The united counsel doctrine is comprehensive of all authoritative decisions. The text only says that non-unanimous decisions have less validity and bring fewer blessing than unanimous ones. This says nothing about such decisions being necessary for all authority as such. For instance, if a Catholic says, “The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra,” it would be silly to conclude from this that only ex cathedra statements are binding upon Catholics, to the exclusion of other sources like ecumenical counsels. It is a limitation on the pope’s authority, not a limitation to the pope’s authority. Likewise, the preference in D&C 107 for united counsel defines when quorums are speaking with maximal authority, not when prophets are doing so. It is one thing to say that “every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same” and another to say that “every decision made must be by unanimous voice of the quorums.” The former does not entail the latter.

…

Soren1,

I remembered that I had brought it up before, but no I didn’t remember with whom and no I didn’t remember the rationale you used to put forward your point of view about D & C 107 to refute the points that I made at that time in July 2010 about “united counsel”. Above and here below are parts of that conversation, which I am posting here to show that I have looked this up and can follow what you were referring to, so that I have both of your replies in mind as I consider your point of view and clarify mine.

Soren1,
Anyone who has done as much research as you seem to have done about the LDS church, surely will have come across the situation of the change that occurred in June 1978 with respect to all worthy men being enabled to hold the priesthood (for which I shouted “hooray”), and will have come across the very principle of united counsel as being a very important part of the timing of that change. Until the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency were united about that change, it was not considered “ready” to be brought forward to the members of the LDS church, whether considered years earlier by those same quorums. So this is an established principle, and it is very familiar to the Twelve Apostles and is repeatedly and openly discussed by them in various settings which I have seen, read, and otherwise been party to. I assure you I have experience that backs up that principle of united counsel and consent, and it is very much practiced by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.

Was it practiced well by BY in his day? I would say it appears not. Is that a “mistake”? I would say it appears so. But that was then, and this is now, and I am very comfortable that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve of my day and time are practicing the principle and that is for the benefit and blessing of all the members of the LDS church. But it may be of no consequence to you.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

There is an important distinction to be made between “judgment” and “decision.” The difference is between the perception of truth and choices regarding the best means to attain an end. The first is an act of the intellect; the second is an act of the will guided by intellect. This distinction is largely lost on modern Americans, but it was well understood prior to the twentieth century. If you read old American writers like Irving, Hawthorn, Melville, Twain, you will see they never confuse their meanings. No one ever says, “I decided the water was too cold to swim, and judged not to dive in.” They say, “I judged the water was too cold to swim, and decided not to dive.”

In modern times, the difference in meaning between these words is almost totally eroded, and there is quite a history as to why. It is mainly because of the influence of nihilist and existentialist philosophy. In classical terms, knowledge of the good was a matter of judgment. Value was known to have a certain objectivity, but Hume and Kant both denied that there is objective value, and concluded that goodness was defined subjectively. On that theory, if I state my judgment that “My daughter has value,” this is really a statement about myself rather than her: she has value because I value her. This subjectivization of judgment paved the way for Nietzsche, who went further to say that the will over and above the intellect was the source of human vitality. The goodness of a person’s desire was not measured by truth; rather desire had ultimately primacy, and the greatest experience in life was to bring truth into conformity with desire through power. By making the will the source of value, Nietzsche gave to decision a role that was previously reserved for judgment. Considerations of both fact and value became in his philosophy matters of decision, simply. As man-centered philosophies based on radical self-determination grew in the Western world, the distinction between judgment and decision fell into eclipse, and is now almost globally ignored. The words are used almost interchangeably as, for example, when Fox News says “We report; you decide,” when it ought to say “You judge.”

… Nietzsche was born in the same year Joseph Smith died, and before then, people know what the difference between judgment and decision was. It is, therefore, anachronistic to read the following passage as a text about judgment of truth:
And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men. (D&C 107 27-29)
Truth is not subject to decision. Rather, valid decisions presuppose some orientation to the truth, which is not determined by decision but by judgment. No one decides what God has revealed. We judge that he has revealed and then decide what we are going to do about it. When our decisions accord with good judgment, they bring the fruit of good works. Consequently, the teaching in this passage is about decisions to act based upon prior judgments of truth, which are presupposed in deliberation and decision and not determined by them. Hence, this is not a text about doctrine, though it presupposes it.

Soren1,

I disagree with your view of the intent of the meaning of the word “decision” in D&C 107:27-29. One needs to first add verses 30 and 31 to the context of the passage. Verse 30 talks about characteristics of the decision and the decision-making, and verse 31 says “Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.” So the words “the knowledge of the Lord” tie back to the word “decisions” and that means regardless of what someone else might think the use of a word “decision” meant in 1835, it meant in this revelation decisions leading to being “fruitful in the knowledge of the Lord”, which may not mean “doctrine” or “doctrinal truth” or “doctrinal validity” to you but it does to me.

One of the functions of the Apostles in the original church was that the Apostles counseled together, sometimes openly and sometimes with discord that was noted, such as the situation that Paul wrote about to the Galatians (see Galatians 2:11, 12). This shows an example of how counsel improved the way Gentile converts were treated in the original church, but also shows an example that the acknowledged leader (Peter) was the one who needed the advice and counsel of one (Paul) who had particular expertise from personal experience and from his study of the whole message of Isaiah and others about the gathering of the Gentiles.

An example of how “doctrine” became “voted upon” and accepted as “doctrinal scripture” is the case of the voting that was done concerning the “Book of Commandments” in 1831, and specifically the objection of William E McLellin and how his objection was handled. (See D&C 67 and its introductory heading). William E McLellin was given the opportunity to see if he could come up with better language to convey the revealed truths, and he tried but was unsuccessful. This is an example of how a counsel situation was handled and how the “united consent” principle was treated as important regarding the acceptance by the quorums of the church and the members of doctrinal scripture–that there was a vote, and it was treated as an important, even vital thing to be done.

 

[ParkerD]

Soren1,

I think from what I’ve observed, Latter-day Saints view the way God grants truths (of which He obviously knows all truth and is its Author) to humankind in a pattern that is viewed differently than by Catholics. We Latter-day Saints believe there are truths “yet to be revealed”, which should come as no surprise to most who have studied Latter-day Saint teachings, Article of Faith 9, or the Book of Mormon. This process is often presented as a situation that will be based on the faith and readiness of the people (which may include members or also be a larger group than just members).

My point is that because this expectation is prominent in how we view the unfolding of history, particularly as the world moves toward the Millennium, then the concept of the “united voice” of the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles, and the preparation the members at large have through their own spiritual growth and having studied the gospel and lived by its teachings, I think is viewed as being increasingly important.

God will be ready when it is the right time and when “we” are ready, for “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” and for such scriptures as those which will give an account of some of the other scattered tribes of the house of Israel. So the view that there will be things still to be learned that will be truths from God given to people on this earth is a basic part of our looking forward to the future, whether fifty years from now or whatever timetable it may be.

 

[ParkerD]

Are you saying that we shouldn’t do penance for our sins? Do you really think it’s unnecessary? I know for a fact that LDS fast, which is a form of penance. That’s why Catholics fast for 40 days during Lent, to do penance and prepare themselves for Easter, in remembrance of Jesus fasting in the desert for 40 days before His Passion.

In fact, a couple of years ago a bunch of online friends fasted for a particular family that was going through a rough time, and the one that came up with the idea to fast for them was LDS. She even PM’d me before she did it, to ask if I thought it would be acceptable for her to ask Christians and other people on the forum to join her in fasting for the family, who was also LDS. She was afraid some people might be offended because she and the target family were Mormon, or that they’d just think it was too weird for her to ask other people do it with her. Of course, I told her I thought it was a great idea. So, we all ended up fasting for a month, taking turns, and swapping days and times to fast. I think there were about 15-20 people that actually joined in to do it. It was a great experience for everyone that participated, as well as for that family, who also joined us in fasting.

Telstar (Lori),

If you have received the impression from Latter-day Saint friends that they fast to “do penance for our sins”, then either they don’t understand purposes for fasting or they have explained it in a way that left the wrong impression. See Isaiah 58:5-12 for why Latter-day Saints fast. It does have to do with “Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am”–and that would mean if a person is seeking to overcome a bad habit or is seeking to be a better parent, then they could fast with this in mind and asking for that help from the Lord in their prayers. But that is not “doing penance for our sins”. It may be for “help in overcoming our sins”, yes.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

The acceptance of “another gospel”, that was not preached by the Apostles but believed to have come from “an angel of light”, was vehemently warned against by Paul.

He said this: [Galatians 1:8] "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

and this: [2 Corinthians 11:] "[13] For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. [14] And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.".

Yet, LDS choose to follow “another gospel”, as well as many other strange doctrines that were never taught by Jesus Christ, but were given to them by Joseph Smith, a man who proclaimed himself to be a prophet that was visited by “an angel of light”, but showed no proof of it. …(see next post)

Who we choose to believe teaches us the real truth, will make the difference between our attaining salvation, or damnation. That’s why it’s so important for us to open our hearts and pray, then choose wisely.

In reference to “our daily bread”, it’s very clear what Jesus told us to pray for, and how we obtain everlasting life:
[John 6:] [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [54] Then Jesus said to them:** Amen, amen **I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

My intention is to pray for souls because God loves them, and so do I.

I agree that Jesus is the Mediator between man and God. That’s why Catholics pray to Him, directly. We know that He listens and will intercede for us to the Father. We believe all that He taught to His Apostles concerning prayer. There is nothing in the Bible that says we cannot intercede for others. In fact, it says the opposite:
[John 15:7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.

[John 14:] [13] Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. [14] If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do.

[Mark 11:] [22] And Jesus answering, saith to them: Have the faith of God. [23] Amen I say to you, that whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed and be cast into the sea, and shall not stagger in his heart, but believe, that whatsoever he saith shall be done; it shall be done unto him. [24] Therefore I say unto you, all things, whatsoever you ask when ye pray, believe that you shall receive; and they shall come unto you.

[1 Timothy 2:] [1] I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: [2] For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. [3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It seems that Jesus and the Apostles would disagree with your claim that we shouldn’t pray for the salvation of others, or that there’s any good intention that we shouldn’t pray for, at all. Jesus taught us to pray for whatever good things we desired, and if we had enough faith that we’d receive them, we would. The only things we should never pray for, is anything evil. Praying for the destruction of a soul, to curse others, or praying that anything evil would happen to anyone, is a sure sign of evil intent that comes from the devil. Doing that will call the wrath of God down upon us, instead of the person that we ask God to curse.

Telstar (Lori),

I have only a couple of minutes, so this is short. A Bible student of Galatians ought to read the entire epistle and not form conclusions from one verse without understanding the context. Paul was writing that there were already those “removed from him” going off on a tangent with “another gospel” (1:6, 7). Then in chapter 3 we find out more–it was that they were trying to keep in place some parts of the “law” (meaning the law of Moses)–just like your post about “doing penance” because of the law of Moses as the basis for doing that said in why it is valid. So, then, “another gospel”, a gospel that makes repentance more complicated instead of the “simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3), is not in keeping with what Paul taught.

Latter-day Saints don’t pray “curses” on people. The situation that Joseph Smith had the revelation about that you cited, was fulfilled in that the Lord sent a severe thunderstorm just at the time when a mob group had gathered to fight the “Zions camp” group that was coming into Missouri to help their fellow members. The mob group went to their own homes because of the severity of the storm, and thus a “curse” was fulfilled through bad weather, in a specific instance and that specific time and place.

 

[ParkerD]

(Note that this was part of Telstar’s post) There were no miracles wrought by him to support any of his claims. But, there were a great many miracles performed by all of the true Apostles of Jesus, when they preached the only true Gospel. If what Joseph Smith claimed was true, he should have performed hundreds of undeniable miracles in his lifetime, as a sure sign of his calling from God. God always put His stamp of truth on the prophets of old, by giving them the power to perform great miracles in His Name, so people would know that he was truly from God.

Telstar,

Your point above that was in the post I just cited (but the 6000 word limit was reached so I had to edit out something) shows that you think Joseph Smith should have performed “hundreds of miracles”. He did heal some people which were indeed miracles, but the idea that miracles “prove” a prophet’s calling is non-Biblical.

What “proves” a prophet’s calling is the same element of the gospel that “proves” that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God”. It is the witness of the Holy Ghost, given through a person’s sincere prayers after they also are in the process of “if any man shall do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God”.

 

[TexanKnight]

Telstar,

Your point above that was in the post I just cited (but the 6000 word limit was reached so I had to edit out something) shows that you think Joseph Smith should have performed “hundreds of miracles”. He did heal some people which were indeed miracles, but the idea that miracles “prove” a prophet’s calling is non-Biblical.

What “proves” a prophet’s calling is the same element of the gospel that “proves” that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God”. It is the witness of the Holy Ghost, given through a person’s sincere prayers after they also are in the process of “if any man shall do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God”.

There is no medical evidence from non-LDS doctors that Joseph healed anyone. We know he got a lot of people killed and beaten, though.

 

[SteveVH]

Telstar (Lori),

I have only a couple of minutes, so this is short. A Bible student of Galatians ought to read the entire epistle and not form conclusions from one verse without understanding the context. Paul was writing that there were already those “removed from him” going off on a tangent with “another gospel” (1:6, 7). Then in chapter 3 we find out more–it was that they were trying to keep in place some parts of the “law” (meaning the law of Moses)–just like your post about “doing penance” because of the law of Moses as the basis for doing that said in why it is valid. So, then, “another gospel”, a gospel that makes repentance more complicated instead of the “simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3), is not in keeping with what Paul taught.

Latter-day Saints don’t pray “curses” on people. The situation that Joseph Smith had the revelation about that you cited, was fulfilled in that the Lord sent a severe thunderstorm just at the time when a mob group had gathered to fight the “Zions camp” group that was coming into Missouri to help their fellow members. The mob group went to their own homes because of the severity of the storm, and thus a “curse” was fulfilled through bad weather, in a specific instance and that specific time and place.

Hi Parker. You are correct in saying that “there were already those ‘removed from him’ going off on a tangent with ‘another gospel’” (1:6, 7). This has occurred throughout the centuries since the time of the Apostles. The many heresies condemned by the Church are ample evidence of this. But you are wrong in assuming that Paul’s statement was meant only for a particular instance and only in the case of making repentance more complicated. The words of Scripture speak to all of us, throughout time. The Book of Mormon (aside from parts lifted from the Bible), D&C and the Pearl of Great Price are indeed “another gospel”. If they were not, there would have been no need to write them in the first place; the Bible would have been sufficient.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker. You are correct in saying that “there were already those ‘removed from him’ going off on a tangent with ‘another gospel’” (1:6, 7). This has occurred throughout the centuries since the time of the Apostles. The many heresies condemned by the Church are ample evidence of this. But you are wrong in assuming that Paul’s statement was meant only for a particular instance and only in the case of making repentance more complicated. The words of Scripture speak to all of us, throughout time. The Book of Mormon (aside from parts lifted from the Bible), D&C and the Pearl of Great Price are indeed “another gospel”. If they were not, there would have been no need to write them in the first place; the Bible would have been sufficient.

Hi, SteveVH,

I have to assume that the words “no need to write them” are speaking of either the “needs” of humankind to have additional words from God, or the “need” of God to give humankind additional words that might help them by providing additional wisdom from Him.

So if a person is thinking that they would like all the help that God will give them as they ask His help (such as Lori–Testar–said God is willing to do if a person asks sincerely, emphasizing as she did “anything”), then for such a person to think, “I could gain strength from additional scriptures, and then be grateful for the help He gives through those additional scriptures”–then it sounds like you don’t think that’s a good thing.

On the contrary, it sounds like a person who limits what God can do or will do is thinking “that’s a bad thing, an impossibility to think He is willing to give more wisdom than He already has given”.

So this is placing a limit on what God will do or is willing to do. It is limiting God in how He might be willing to give blessings and wisdom and strength to someone who asks His help.

If the person is praying for help, but says in their prayer, “but there is no possibility of additional scriptures to help me, so don’t give me anything that would necessitate my reading something more than the Bible and having to go to some additional effort myself of reading and pondering–the source of knowledge coming from God is closed”, that person is saying in essence.

Latter-day Saints have the kind of working faith in God, and enough insights gleaned from the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, to know that the sources of knowledge coming from God are not closed, and that indeed as Lori (Telstar) pointed out that there are no limits, God is willing to give wisdom if someone has the faith and is willing to ask–but not until.

The Bible does not teach that there would be no more wisdom given from God than the books of scripture that were compiled to make the Bible, and it certainly doesn’t teach that God withholds wisdom just because humankind thinks He has given “enough” and there is “no more that can be known” or that He can give “no more help than He has already given”, thus that His hands are tied. (Tied by what?–by the people who say “this is all we get, folks, that’s it, no more, don’t ask, don’t even think about it”).

The Bible does teach that gaining wisdom from Him presupposes faith and effort and seeking righteousness. It does presuppose that a person should be willing to pray for the gaining of wisdom, and then be willing to let God open the heavens to give that wisdom.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, SteveVH,

I have to assume that the words “no need to write them” are speaking of either the “needs” of humankind to have additional words from God, or the “need” of God to give humankind additional words that might help them by providing additional wisdom from Him.

Your words presuppose that the wisdom we received from Christ and the Apostles is lacking. This is a major difference in our beliefs. We believe that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s revealtion to man; that in Christ all truth and wisdom have been given to the world. The “Good News” is a person. We will spend the rest of time, until Jesus returns, uncovering and amplifying the truth and wisdom revealed in Christ, but there is no truth or wisdom that can be given in addition to Christ.

So if a person is thinking that they would like all the help that God will give them as they ask His help (such as Lori–Testar–said God is willing to do if a person asks sincerely, emphasizing as she did “anything”), then for such a person to think, “I could gain strength from additional scriptures, and then be grateful for the help He gives through those additional scriptures”–then it sounds like you don’t think that’s a good thing.

Christ founded his Church for this very purpose, which is why he promised to never leave it and to send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. It is the Church that gives its members help in understanding and interpreting the final revelation given to mankind in Jesus Christ. It needs no further revelation than the revelation of God himself. The Church is the authoritative interpreter of the Apostolic Tradition, the deposit of faith given by Christ, including that part of this Tradition that was committed to writing in the Sacred Scriptures.

On the contrary, it sounds like a person who limits what God can do or will do is thinking “that’s a bad thing, an impossibility to think He is willing to give more wisdom than He already has given”.

So this is placing a limit on what God will do or is willing to do. It is limiting God in how He might be willing to give blessings and wisdom and strength to someone who asks His help.

The only limitations being placed on God in this conversation are those that assume that the revelation of Christ, God himself, is not sufficient.

If the person is praying for help, but says in their prayer, “but there is no possibility of additional scriptures to help me, so don’t give me anything that would necessitate my reading something more than the Bible and having to go to some additional effort myself of reading and pondering–the source of knowledge coming from God is closed”, that person is saying in essence.

It seems that you have an unfinished sentence so I’m not sure what you are trying to say. However, as far as “pondering the source of knowledge coming from God”, the Church has been doing this for 2,000 years. The source of knowledge that has been given to us in Christ is inexhaustible.

The Bible does not teach that there would be no more wisdom given from God than the books of scripture that were compiled to make the Bible…

Agreed. That is why Sacred Tradition is equally as important. But it all remains centered on the fulfillment of revelation in Jesus Christ.

and it certainly doesn’t teach that God withholds wisdom just because humankind thinks He has given “enough” and there is “no more that can be known” or that He can give “no more help than He has already given”, thus that His hands are tied. (Tied by what?–by the people who say “this is all we get, folks, that’s it, no more, don’t ask, don’t even think about it”).

Again, you are presuming that the revelation of Christ is not sufficient. You are certainly free to hold this position, but Scripture itself disagrees with you:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Heb 1:1-2)

The Bible does teach that gaining wisdom from Him presupposes faith and effort and seeking righteousness. It does presuppose that a person should be willing to pray for the gaining of wisdom, and then be willing to let God open the heavens to give that wisdom.

Yes, but what does this have to do with additional revelation. Wisdom himself has come to earth and revealed himself to us. What more could we possibly need or want?

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

Not to start out with a negative comment, but it has been an interesting process for me to see the different translation and slight meaning changes such as in this verse. The word “admonish” (which is used in the KJV) could have been more closely translated from the Greek into the words “to appeal to the mind”, which has a different meaning entirely, especially when the words “so that you are able” are rendered into what the Greek words more closely mean, “being able also”:

Thus: “being able also to appeal to the mind” ties back to verse 13 and back to verses 2 and 5. So Paul encouraged them to abound in hope and to be full of goodness and be “like-minded” with each other, despite minor differences such as he noted as explained in Romans 14:1-5 and 14:10. There, he reminded “but why dost thou judge thy brother?”

I will add other comments as I get time, but this is a start. Peace and good day.

Paul is saying that we should not judge one another as being ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ because of what we see them doing that’s wrong, but at the same time, we should try to correct their thinking, so they will better understand those things. So, even with your proposed translation, it’s still done by the same process of correcting others errors in thinking. We should always appeal to their minds, so they can better understand it objectively, as we understand it. Correcting each other is an act of love and mercy to one another, the same way that correcting a child’s thinking is done out of love for them. We correct them to help them to learn the correct ways to live their lives in God’s love. It should always be done out of our love for God, as well as others.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar (Lori),

If you have received the impression from Latter-day Saint friends that they fast to “do penance for our sins”, then either they don’t understand purposes for fasting or they have explained it in a way that left the wrong impression. See Isaiah 58:5-12 for why Latter-day Saints fast. It does have to do with “Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am”–and that would mean if a person is seeking to overcome a bad habit or is seeking to be a better parent, then they could fast with this in mind and asking for that help from the Lord in their prayers. But that is not “doing penance for our sins”. It may be for “help in overcoming our sins”, yes.

Actually, our intention at that time was to fast and pray for the family, so there was no confusion over the subject of that particular fast. My point was that I know LDS accept the concept of fasting as a means of prayer. I agree that fasting can be done for many reasons. It’s initial purpose is to prepare and strengthen us, spiritually, for difficult tasks, or to pray for specific intentions, but it’s also done as a form of penance for our sins.

Saying that we don’t need to do penance for our sins is contrary to the teachings of Jesus, from the very beginning of His public ministry. John the Baptist taught that we should all do penance, also.

“[Matthew 4:17] From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

"[Matthew 11:] [20] Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein were done the most of his miracles, for that they had not done penance.

[21] Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. [22] But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. [23] And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day.**"

“[Matthew 12:41] The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here.” Do you think Jesus was only telling the people of that time to do penance, and didn’t expect the same thing from us? I don’t think so. He was telling all of us to do penance for our sins, because we owe it to God, to satisfy His Divine Justice. None of us are worthy of the gifts of God, especially if we’re not willing to do some kind of penance, to express our deep sorrow for offending Him, whenever we fall back into sin after we’re Baptized. We owe that debt to God, because we offend Him even more by sinning after He already washed us clean in Baptism. It’s a very important part of our sanctification process. The more we do penance for our sins, the faster we grow in perfection, and the less we tend to fall back into sin. It’s just one way for us to get closer to being as perfect as we’re meant to be, if we ever want to be with God, forever, in Heaven.

 

[Jerusha]

If we refuse to do penance for our sins, if we refuse to offer up our own suffering as a penance, then we add to Jesus’ suffering. This is true love for Jesus, and understanding that His suffering is our suffering. The atonement means nothing without this understanding.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar (Lori),

I have only a couple of minutes, so this is short. A Bible student of Galatians ought to read the entire epistle and not form conclusions from one verse without understanding the context. Paul was writing that there were already those “removed from him” going off on a tangent with “another gospel” (1:6, 7). Then in chapter 3 we find out more–it was that they were trying to keep in place some parts of the “law” (meaning the law of Moses)–just like your post about “doing penance” because of the law of Moses as the basis for doing that said in why it is valid. So, then, “another gospel”, a gospel that makes repentance more complicated instead of the “simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3), is not in keeping with what Paul taught.

I know exactly what Paul was writing to them about. But, as with all scripture written in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, it’s all meant to be important lessons to those of us who follow Jesus, in all time periods. Paul was teaching us that we should all be careful not to listen to anyone who preaches a Gospel that neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, preached. Not even if an “angel from heaven” gives it to us. It’s quite obvious that he was referring to*** anyone*** that would ever try to do it.

“[Galatians 1:] [6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.”

Latter-day Saints don’t pray “curses” on people. The situation that Joseph Smith had the revelation about that you cited, was fulfilled in that the Lord sent a severe thunderstorm just at the time when a mob group had gathered to fight the “Zions camp” group that was coming into Missouri to help their fellow members. The mob group went to their own homes because of the severity of the storm, and thus a “curse” was fulfilled through bad weather, in a specific instance and that specific time and place.

Please, don’t make dig up all of the examples that I already decided not to post. I didn’t save the file that I had in notepad on that subject, because I didn’t want to have to post it. But, if you insist that LDS don’t pray for God to curse their enemies, I will have to find them all, again. They weren’t pretty. Especially, the whole episode that’s described as an incident that occurred at a temple gathering, where men took turns standing at the pulpit in front of the other members, all calling down curses on their purported ‘enemies’ in despicable terms. Even a member that was present at the meeting was appalled, and said that it was more like something coming “from the pit”. It was truly ugly.

 

[ParkerD]

If we refuse to do penance for our sins, if we refuse to offer up our own suffering as a penance, then we add to Jesus’ suffering. This is true love for Jesus, and understanding that His suffering is our suffering. The atonement means nothing without this understanding.

Jerusha and Telstar,

Please understand that what seems to be a misunderstanding going on here is about word use originating from the teachings of the Bible, with the word “repent” or the word “repentance” as compared with the words “do penance”.

The New Jerusalem Bible has only one instance of the words “do penance”, and it is in the book of Daniel.

The Douay Rheims Bible has only a few instances of the word “repent”, and many instances of the words “do penance” where in the same passage in the New Jerusalem Bible, the word translation is “repent”.

The King James Bible has no instances of the words “do penance”, but many instances of the words “repent” and “repentance”.

How do those who use the New Jerusalem Bible discuss their Bible passages with those who use the Douay Rheims Bible translation, and not confuse each other about meanings?

 

[Jerusha]

Parker, you have no idea of the irony of the statement that you just made. I’m busy with other things, so I will just let it slide.

 

[Telstar]

If we refuse to do penance for our sins, if we refuse to offer up our own suffering as a penance, then we add to Jesus’ suffering. This is true love for Jesus, and understanding that His suffering is our suffering. The atonement means nothing without this understanding.

Absolutely correct. We should always do all we can to try to alleviate the sufferings that Jesus had to bear for all of us, by bearing as much of our own burden of sin as we can. We can also relieve His suffering even more, by doing more than might be necessary for our own sins, to try and help Him carry the burden of others, who refuse to carry their own. That way, we can show our true love and appreciation for all that Jesus was willing to suffer for us. He will never fail to bless us for making that merciful effort, even if it isn’t really ‘necessary’. What parent isn’t moved when their child gives them a gift, just to show their love and appreciation for what they do for them? How much more will God be moved by our little gifts of love that we offer to Him?