Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Desert Snake]

PS - You must be a night-owl like I am.


*

Our favorite guy is off the air though.


Well, I need to double check. I wonder if there is reference to both hell and the lake of fire, or what. I find it a bit odd that most Christians DO believe in after judgement hell, and where there is belief, there is a reason for it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Our favorite guy is off the air though.


Well, I need to double check. I wonder if there is reference to both hell and the lake of fire, or what. I find it a bit odd that most Christians DO believe in after judgement hell, and where there is belief, there is a reason for it.

Well, we know that some of the Heathen groups believed something like this - and the church - came into contact with them. I think that is where the idea started to change. It makes sense for people to want the evil ones to be punished - rather then total annihilation. Years later - all it takes is a mistranslation of Hades - as Hell, and people believe it. Most people don't have access to the actual Hebrew or Greek to check it out.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, we know that some of the Heathen groups believed something like this - and the church - came into contact with them. I think that is where the idea started to change. It makes sense for people to want the evil ones to be punished - rather then total annihilation. Years later - all it takes is a mistranslation of Hades - as Hell, and people believe it. Most people don't have access to the actual Hebrew or Greek to check it out.


*

'Lake of fire' sounds pretty nasty to me. The thing is, 'Hades' is a bit odd term for holding place....that doesn't quite add up.

 

[Ingledsva]

'Lake of fire' sounds pretty nasty to me. The thing is, 'Hades' is a bit odd term for holding place....that doesn't quite add up.

But that is the word used.


They are telling us ALL the dead go into holding until the end - then ALL are judged - and those found evil - are annihilated with their holding place - which would be the "second death" for them. While those found good - rise to new life.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

But that is the word used.





*

But it's an odd word. And many Christians wouldn't recognize that concept, either. Hades is not a 'neutral' place, really, it has a negative connotation. Strange wording since it's before judgement.

Anyways..

 

[Ingledsva]

But it's an odd word. And many Christians wouldn't recognize that concept, either. Hades is not a 'neutral' place, really, it has a negative connotation. Strange wording since it's before judgement.

Anyways..

Yep it is an odd concept.

There is a very good article on it in - BIBLE REVIEW volume IV number 1, AFTERLIFE - Ancient Israel's Changing Vision of the World Beyond.

Their sister publication Biblical Archaeology Review probably has the article in their on-line archives.


*

 

[Katzpur]

The thing is, 'Hades' is a bit odd term for holding place....that doesn't quite add up.

That's probably only because of what the word has evolved to mean over time. Today, it's so commonly (among Christians) used as a synonym for Hell, but anciently, it was merely a "holding place," the realm of the dead, a place where departed spirits awaited judgment. There is quite a bit of first- and second-century literature describing it in this way.

 

[Clear]

Ingledsva :
“It is ridiculous to have to repeat common info over and over!” - Ingledsva
I agree, What you are doing is completely ridiculous. Please stop doing it!


Ingledsva said: "HELL is a later word meaning a place of eternal torture for sinners AFTER JUDGMENT!”

1)You are repeating yourself again. It is ridiculous, PLEASE, stop doing it.

2)It’s blatantly obvious to readers that you are trying to mistranslate Hades/Hell contextually, simply to appear as though you are correct. Too late, you’ve already told us that you’ve "proved" that Hades/hell is a place where spirits of the dead congregate.

Forum member have already read your repeated admissions and "proofs" that Hades/hell is a place where spirits of the dead congregate. To now try to backtrack and claim something different simply to win an argument, simply demonstrates to what lengths you will go to win an argument.

Please, please, please. Do not simply repeat yourself again. Your horse is dead. Stop beating it.

Clear

[FONT=&quot]FORUM MEMBERS[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1) Hades/Hell, is NOT in this context, a place of eternal torture for sinners. In this context, it is a place where spirits of the dead congregate.

When Jesus descends into Hell/hades in the gospel of nicodemus, he doesn’t say “liar, liar, pants on fire!” , he doesn't say “I wish I had brought a fire extinguisher!”, He doesn't say “whew, I thought Bermuda was hot…” , but instead he visits a place where the spirits of the dead have congregated. The Christian texts often use Hades/Hell to describe the place where spirits of the dead congregate. IN pseudo-philo, Christian “Hell” is a place where spirits of the dead congregate. In New Testament revelations, when death and hell/hades deliver up their dead, it is a place where the dead have congregated. In the apocalypse of Peter, when the apostle Peter tells us that Jesus “ will command Hell to open its bars of steel and to give up all that is in it” he is speaking of the place where the spirits of the dead congregate. In the Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs, when Reuben is speaking of hell, it is a place where the spirits of the dead congregate. In the Odes of Solomon, Hell is a place where the spirits of the dead congregate. In Bartholomew, hell is the place where the spirits of the dead congregate.



All of the silly bickering has been ridiculous and it is a complete waste of time since we remain at the very same place where we started.

1) Disciple is quite correct that Jesus taught concerning hades/hell as I have proven in multiple textual examples.

2) I remain correct in my claim, that, In this context, Hades/Hell is a place where the spirits of the dead congregate as the early texts prove.

After all the petty bickering, has been worthless. Lets go on to something else, for heavens sake.


Clear
φυδρδρδρφυω[/FONT]

Katzpur :

You are certainly correct that Hell, in this historical context refers to a world of spirits of he dead; where they have congregated. It refers to this “spirit world” whether it is an early Christian principle or in a restoration of this principle.

If a poster simply quotes a specific modern misuse of “Hades/Hell”, this does not not magically change the historical meaning of Hell/Hades, nor does it change the historical context of Hell/Hades. (Nor will any attempt to deceive forum readers, win either their trust or a petty argument)

The NT was not written in an unchanging “language of the holy Ghost” as Roth suggested, but it was, in the main, the ordinary vernacular of the period. The statement “of the period” in important, since language is not static, but changes. The great historian Lightfoot suggested that “if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the NT generally.”

Once the great papyri of Christian enclaves such as onychyrynchus, Cairo, Elephantine, the Fayum , towns, Alexandria, Media and perhaps a hundred or more other groups of early papyri gradually came to light, Lightfoots claim became prophetic, since, this was exactly what happened. Such discoveries led to a habitual re-writing of Greek Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament. While historians live and breathe in the world of such principles, awareness of such principles trickles down only slowly into the awareness of most “Sunday School” believers. Morphology of words changed. For the first 1-2 centuries, “εαν” predominates, but it almost dies out before the great uncial NTs were written when “αν” inherits the prior uses of “εαν”. Vocabulary changes over time and especially, our understanding of it.


Examples of words having more than one distinct, unchanging meaning

For example, the title “presbyter” / (gk) πρεσβυτερος or “elder” is often used to denote an “older person” in the church. However, as multiple examples of legal papyri were discovered, it became obvious that this word in civil life denoted a local or village officer of any age. Thus in P Tebt 1.40 (of 117 b.c.) a tax-farmer petitions the “elders of the cultivators” for official protection. He is not asking for protection from “old men”, but from village officials. Similarly, in P BGU I.22 (of 114 a.d.), a woman lodging a complaint against a woman who husband as an “elder” in the community was responsible for the peace and order of the villages. Similarly, in BGU I.16 (of 59-60 a.d.), the Socnopaeus temple tribes are under the rule of five “elder-priests”.

In such contexts the papyri of the period point out that “presbyter / πρεσβυτερος is a title, not of age, but of dignity and rank. An “elder” can refer to one who is older. Still, in it’s legal context and usage, it has nothing to do with age, but is a title of legal position, even if the “elder” is a young man.

“Hades” and it’s Anglicized translation of “Hell” falls into a similar category. It has different meanings in different contexts. In the ordinary context of the New Testament text, it is most often referring to the place where spirits congregate after their bodies die as I have proved.



Another example. Parousia / (gk παρουσια).

It is, in modern times, often applied to the second coming as a return of the lord. However, in late Greek it was used in a technical sense of a “visit” of a great person, such as a king. For example, in P. Petr 2:39 (of iii b.c.), it refers to the visit of a Ptolemaic king. Apenneus tells us he has made preparations for chrysippus, the magistrate (επι την παρουσιαν του χρυσιππου), i.e. “[for] the visit of Chrysippus”. This usage demonstrates the difference between using Parousia / παρουσια as an official visit, and other words such as the “manifestation” / επιφανεια of Jesus, or the “revelation” / αποκαλυψις of Jesus. Using Παρουσια / Parousia in one context may simply mean Jesus first coming as an infant or, in another context it may mean Jesus Final coming as Judge of all the world. It depends upon the context.

Hades / Hell, also has different meanings, depending upon it's context and usage, as I have proved. In this context in which we are speaking, it refers to the spirit world where spirits of the dead congregate.

As another example, though Hades is not, technically the same as “death”, still, because Hades is only experience for those who are dead, it then becomes a metaphor for death as well as a metaphor for things one experiences in Hades. For example, P.Oxy I33:14 (of late ii a.d.) uses Hades/Hell in speaking of a person who is “facing death/hades for the second time..” (τις ηδη τον δευτερον μου αδην προσκυνουντα...). When Leid V:vii.30 Papyrus speaks of hades, it is the “unwanted distress” of hades that is the context.

Thus, Hell/Hades can be used for the spirit world of those who have died. It can be used as a metaphor for dying. It can be used as a metaphor for unpleasant suffering. etc, etc.

For example, if I say to you : “When a poster in the R.E. Forum simply repeats their claim, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, it is pure Hell”.

None of us are actually IN hell, but it is simply a metaphorical description of the suffering we all feel when a poster repeats their claim over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over without actually adding any data, no new insights, nothing new.

I am sure the forum readers understand this sort of hypothetical usage of the term “hell” or “hades”.

Good journey Katzpur




Disciple : After all of the endless repetition and repeats, we remain in the very same place where we started.

You are still quite correct that Jesus taught about Hell/Hades.

I am still quite correct that Hades, in this context, is the spirit world where spirits of the dead have congregated.

Good journey disciple


Clear
φυδφιφυτζω

 

[Desert Snake]

Start a fresh new thread, without all this back and forth, so we can carry on a respectful conversation, and people might actually read it. LOL!



*

No thanks, I'm done with making threads. Nothing is stopping you though, go for it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Katzpur :

You are certainly correct that Hell, in this historical context refers to a world of spirits of he dead; where they have congregated. It refers to this “spirit world” whether it is an early Christian principle or in a restoration of this principle.

If a poster simply quotes a specific modern misuse of “Hades/Hell”, this does not not magically change the historical meaning of Hell/Hades, nor does it change the historical context of Hell/Hades. (Nor will any attempt to deceive forum readers, win either their trust or a petty argument)

The NT was not written in an unchanging “language of the holy Ghost” as Roth suggested, but it was, in the main, the ordinary vernacular of the period. The statement “of the period” in important, since language is not static, but changes. The great historian Lightfoot suggested that “if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the NT generally.”

Once the great papyri of Christian enclaves such as onychyrynchus, Cairo, Elephantine, the Fayum , towns, Alexandria, Media and perhaps a hundred or more other groups of early papyri gradually came to light, Lightfoots claim became prophetic, since, this was exactly what happened. Such discoveries led to a habitual re-writing of Greek Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament. While historians live and breathe in the world of such principles, awareness of such principles trickles down only slowly into the awareness of most “Sunday School” believers. Morphology of words changed. For the first 1-2 centuries, “εαν” predominates, but it almost dies out before the great uncial NTs were written when “αν” inherits the prior uses of “εαν”. Vocabulary changes over time and especially, our understanding of it.


Examples of words having more than one distinct, unchanging meaning

For example, the title “presbyter” / (gk) πρεσβυτερος or “elder” is often used to denote an “older person” in the church. However, as multiple examples of legal papyri were discovered, it became obvious that this word in civil life denoted a local or village officer of any age. Thus in P Tebt 1.40 (of 117 b.c.) a tax-farmer petitions the “elders of the cultivators” for official protection. He is not asking for protection from “old men”, but from village officials. Similarly, in P BGU I.22 (of 114 a.d.), a woman lodging a complaint against a woman who husband as an “elder” in the community was responsible for the peace and order of the villages. Similarly, in BGU I.16 (of 59-60 a.d.), the Socnopaeus temple tribes are under the rule of five “elder-priests”.

In such contexts the papyri of the period point out that “presbyter / πρεσβυτερος is a title, not of age, but of dignity and rank. An “elder” can refer to one who is older. Still, in it’s legal context and usage, it has nothing to do with age, but is a title of legal position, even if the “elder” is a young man.

“Hades” and it’s Anglicized translation of “Hell” falls into a similar category. It has different meanings in different contexts. In the ordinary context of the New Testament text, it is most often referring to the place where spirits congregate after their bodies die as I have proved.



Another example. Parousia / (gk παρουσια).

It is, in modern times, often applied to the second coming as a return of the lord. However, in late Greek it was used in a technical sense of a “visit” of a great person, such as a king. For example, in P. Petr 2:39 (of iii b.c.), it refers to the visit of a Ptolemaic king. Apenneus tells us he has made preparations for chrysippus, the magistrate (επι την παρουσιαν του χρυσιππου), i.e. “[for] the visit of Chrysippus”. This usage demonstrates the difference between using Parousia / παρουσια as an official visit, and other words such as the “manifestation” / επιφανεια of Jesus, or the “revelation” / αποκαλυψις of Jesus. Using Παρουσια / Parousia in one context may simply mean Jesus first coming as an infant or, in another context it may mean Jesus Final coming as Judge of all the world. It depends upon the context.

Hades / Hell, also has different meanings, depending upon it's context and usage, as I have proved. In this context in which we are speaking, it refers to the spirit world where spirits of the dead congregate.

As another example, though Hades is not, technically the same as “death”, still, because Hades is only experience for those who are dead, it then becomes a metaphor for death as well as a metaphor for things one experiences in Hades. For example, P.Oxy I33:14 (of late ii a.d.) uses Hades/Hell in speaking of a person who is “facing death/hades for the second time..” (τις ηδη τον δευτερον μου αδην προσκυνουντα...). When Leid V:vii.30 Papyrus speaks of hades, it is the “unwanted distress” of hades that is the context.

Thus, Hell/Hades can be used for the spirit world of those who have died. It can be used as a metaphor for dying. It can be used as a metaphor for unpleasant suffering. etc, etc.

For example, if I say to you : “When a poster in the R.E. Forum simply repeats their claim, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, it is pure Hell”.

None of us are actually IN hell, but it is simply a metaphorical description of the suffering we all feel when a poster repeats their claim over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over without actually adding any data, no new insights, nothing new.

I am sure the forum readers understand this sort of hypothetical usage of the term “hell” or “hades”.

Good journey Katzpur




Disciple : After all of the endless repetition and repeats, we remain in the very same place where we started.

You are still quite correct that Jesus taught about Hell/Hades.

I am still quite correct that Hades, in this context, is the spirit world where spirits of the dead have congregated.

Good journey disciple


Clear
φυδφιφυτζω

More crap in your attempt to twist what I said.


But we understand.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

That's probably only because of what the word has evolved to mean over time. Today, it's so commonly (among Christians) used as a synonym for Hell, but anciently, it was merely a "holding place," the realm of the dead, a place where departed spirits awaited judgment. There is quite a bit of first- and second-century literature describing it in this way.

Exactly.


Even Josephus tells us it is a holding place, before judgment.


Edit - forgot to add - I noticed Clear attempted to twist what you said about Hades in you post, too.

Clear - "You are certainly correct that Hell, in this historical context refers to a world of spirits of he dead; where they have congregated. It refers to this “spirit world” whether it is an early Christian principle or in a restoration of this principle... "


*

 

[Katzpur]

Edit - forgot to add - I noticed Clear attempted to twist what you said about Hades in you post, too.

Clear - "You are certainly correct that Hell, in this historical context refers to a world of spirits of he dead; where they have congregated. It refers to this “spirit world” whether it is an early Christian principle or in a restoration of this principle... "

Sorry, but I don't get where he tried to twist what I said. That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, since we share the same beliefs. Possibly, you just misunderstood one or the other of us.

 

[Clear]

Katzpur :

You are certainly correct that Hell, in this historical context refers to a world of spirits of he dead; where they have congregated. It refers to this “spirit world” whether it is an early Christian principle or in a restoration of this principle.

If a poster simply quotes a specific modern misuse of “Hades/Hell”, this does not not magically change the historical meaning of Hell/Hades, nor does it change the historical context of Hell/Hades. (Nor will any attempt to deceive forum readers, win either their trust or a petty argument)

The NT was not written in an unchanging “language of the holy Ghost” as Roth suggested, but it was, in the main, the ordinary vernacular of the period. The statement “of the period” in important, since language is not static, but changes. The great historian Lightfoot suggested that “if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the NT generally.”

Once the great papyri of Christian enclaves such as onychyrynchus, Cairo, Elephantine, the Fayum , towns, Alexandria, Media and perhaps a hundred or more other groups of early papyri gradually came to light, Lightfoots claim became prophetic, since, this was exactly what happened. Such discoveries led to a habitual re-writing of Greek Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament. While historians live and breathe in the world of such principles, awareness of such principles trickles down only slowly into the awareness of most “Sunday School” believers. Morphology of words changed. For the first 1-2 centuries, “εαν” predominates, but it almost dies out before the great uncial NTs were written when “αν” inherits the prior uses of “εαν”. Vocabulary changes over time and especially, our understanding of it.


Examples of words having more than one distinct, unchanging meaning

For example, the title “presbyter” / (gk) πρεσβυτερος or “elder” is often used to denote an “older person” in the church. However, as multiple examples of legal papyri were discovered, it became obvious that this word in civil life denoted a local or village officer of any age. Thus in P Tebt 1.40 (of 117 b.c.) a tax-farmer petitions the “elders of the cultivators” for official protection. He is not asking for protection from “old men”, but from village officials. Similarly, in P BGU I.22 (of 114 a.d.), a woman lodging a complaint against a woman who husband as an “elder” in the community was responsible for the peace and order of the villages. Similarly, in BGU I.16 (of 59-60 a.d.), the Socnopaeus temple tribes are under the rule of five “elder-priests”.

In such contexts the papyri of the period point out that “presbyter / πρεσβυτερος is a title, not of age, but of dignity and rank. An “elder” can refer to one who is older. Still, in it’s legal context and usage, it has nothing to do with age, but is a title of legal position, even if the “elder” is a young man.

“Hades” and it’s Anglicized translation of “Hell” falls into a similar category. It has different meanings in different contexts. In the ordinary context of the New Testament text, it is most often referring to the place where spirits congregate after their bodies die as I have proved.



Another example. Parousia / (gk παρουσια).

It is, in modern times, often applied to the second coming as a return of the lord. However, in late Greek it was used in a technical sense of a “visit” of a great person, such as a king. For example, in P. Petr 2:39 (of iii b.c.), it refers to the visit of a Ptolemaic king. Apenneus tells us he has made preparations for chrysippus, the magistrate (επι την παρουσιαν του χρυσιππου), i.e. “[for] the visit of Chrysippus”. This usage demonstrates the difference between using Parousia / παρουσια as an official visit, and other words such as the “manifestation” / επιφανεια of Jesus, or the “revelation” / αποκαλυψις of Jesus. Using Παρουσια / Parousia in one context may simply mean Jesus first coming as an infant or, in another context it may mean Jesus Final coming as Judge of all the world. It depends upon the context.

Hades / Hell, also has different meanings, depending upon it's context and usage, as I have proved. In this context in which we are speaking, it refers to the spirit world where spirits of the dead congregate.

As another example, though Hades is not, technically the same as “death”, still, because Hades is only experience for those who are dead, it then becomes a metaphor for death as well as a metaphor for things one experiences in Hades. For example, P.Oxy I33:14 (of late ii a.d.) uses Hades/Hell in speaking of a person who is “facing death/hades for the second time..” (τις ηδη τον δευτερον μου αδην προσκυνουντα...). When Leid V:vii.30 Papyrus speaks of hades, it is the “unwanted distress” of hades that is the context.

Thus, Hell/Hades can be used for the spirit world of those who have died. It can be used as a metaphor for dying. It can be used as a metaphor for unpleasant suffering. etc, etc.

For example, if I say to you : “When a poster in the R.E. Forum simply repeats their claim, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, it is pure Hell”.

None of us are actually IN hell, but it is simply a metaphorical description of the suffering we all feel when a poster repeats their claim over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over without actually adding any data, no new insights, nothing new.

I am sure the forum readers understand this sort of hypothetical usage of the term “hell” or “hades”.

Good journey Katzpur




Disciple : After all of the endless repetition and repeats, we remain in the very same place where we started.

You are still quite correct that Jesus taught about Hell/Hades.

I am still quite correct that Hades, in this context, is the spirit world where spirits of the dead have congregated.

Good journey disciple


Clear
φυδφιφυτζω

Ingledsva said # 1531 : "forgot to add - I noticed Clear attempted to twist what you said about Hades in you post, too"
Katzpur responded #1532 : "Sorry, but I don't get where he tried to twist what I said. That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, since we share the same beliefs. Possibly, you just misunderstood one or the other of us."



Hi Katzpur –

I think that often, the claim "Someone was "twisting" something!!!..." may simply be a “learned reflex” and since I inadvertently used “Hell” instead of “Hell/Hades” (when I was in fact, referring to Hell/Hades) may have set off this sort of reflex.

I think that you have been following this new nuance of “Hell/Hades” and see important parallel to a restoration of early Christian principles inside of LDS theology. What I have found is that, If any accurate discussion of early Christian base doctrine occurs (and can stay on a specific subject), the LDS continue to recognize deep and profound parallels. This was the initial point of my first point in this thread. And it was my point in describing the early doctrine of Hades/Hell/Sheol/Paradise/the Pit in the LDS thread 5 years previous.


Good Journey, Katzpur


Clear

 

[misanthropic_clown]

... Did DeepShadow ever respond to my request for archaeological/genetic evidence for the book of mormon narrative, or was that line of inquiry entirely overshadowed by this discussion of hell?

 

[Ingledsva]

Sorry, but I don't get where he tried to twist what I said. That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, since we share the same beliefs. Possibly, you just misunderstood one or the other of us.

--

The thing is, 'Hades' is a bit odd term for holding place....that doesn't quite add up.

That's probably only because of what the word has evolved to mean over time. Today, it's so commonly (among Christians) used as a synonym for Hell, but anciently, it was merely a "holding place," the realm of the dead, a place where departed spirits awaited judgment. There is quite a bit of first- and second-century literature describing it in this way.

... You are certainly correct that Hell, in this historical context refers to a world of spirits of he dead; where they have congregated. It refers to this “spirit world” whether it is an early Christian principle or in a restoration of this principle... "

He jumps on the word HELL - as a world of spirits of the dead; where they have congregated.

That is not what you said.


You gave the correct history - that HADES is the holding place of the dead - and LATER Christians - started using hell for Hades.

Not a synonym however - as they have different meanings.

Hell is not Hades.

One is a place of holding for ALL - Before Judgment.

One is a place only for sinners - After Judgment.


*

 

[Katzpur]

... Did DeepShadow ever respond to my request for archaeological/genetic evidence for the book of mormon narrative, or was that line of inquiry entirely overshadowed by this discussion of hell?

DeepShadow hardly ever posts, but if you send him a PM, he may see in his e-mail that someone has a question for him. I'm sure he isn't just ignoring you.

 

[Ingledsva]

For Katzpur.


I was just thinking - the original Hades idea - with ALL Souls - held until the end/final judgment, - makes the LDS ideas about helping the dead - more interesting. Perhaps you could tell us a little more about the idea behind that?


It is especially interesting as we know (see the Biblical Archaeology article I referenced a few posts back, for instance) -

That the Hebrew originally Prayed for their relatives in Hades - so they must have thought they could help them - even in Hades the Holding place, - as they were not yet JUDGED/destroyed.

They also asked their relatives in Hades for help - Apparently they thought these dead in Hades could pass things up the line to God. - Gives the Catholic idea of asking Mary or Saints to intercede for them, new impetus.


Comments?


*

 

[Katzpur]

For Katzpur.


I was just thinking - the original Hades idea - with ALL Souls - held until the end/final judgment, - makes the LDS ideas about helping the dead - more interesting. Perhaps you could tell us a little more about the idea behind that?

Sure. We believe that the spirits of everyone who ever lived (regardlesss how good or how wicked the individual may have been) initially go to what we refer to as the "Spirit World." I would describe the Spirit World as more of a state of mind or a condition than as a specific location, since a spirit cannot be confined the way a physical person could. For the righteous, that condition could be described as a Paradise (the place Jesus told the repentant thief who hung next to Him on the cross they would see one another that day). Paradise is believed to be a place of peace and rest. For the unrepentant wicked, the condition would be described as a Prison -- again, however, not a physical place but a state of mind, a condition characterized by emotional torment over how one lived his life. (There would obviously have to be some kind of a judgment immediately after a person died, but it wouldn't be a "Final Judgment" as that comes later.)

We believe that Christ not only saw the repentant thief in the Spirit World (loosely the same place as Hades), but that He also visited the spirits of those who were in a state of torment. During the three days during which His body lay in the tomb, He taught His gospel to those who had died without having had the opportunity to hear His gospel and accept His atoning sacrifice on their behalf. Those who accepted His message, found that they were no longer in Prison but in Paradise. (Remember, we're talking about a spiritual condition, not a place of physical confinement.) They would continue to await their own resurrection and "Final Judgment" there, but no longer tormented by their past deeds and dreading their ultimate fate. We believe that Jesus Christ bridged the gulf that previously divided the wicked from the righteous, but that the work He started during His visit there continues today.

Sorry for all that preliminary stuff, but it was kind of necessary. Now, as for baptisms for the dead... We believe that baptism is a necessary ordinance/sacrament. It is required for salvation -- or maybe I should clarify that: It's required for the highest heavenly reward God has in store for human beings -- Life Eternal in His presence and in the presence of our loved ones. Since a spirit obviously cannot be immersed in water, this is an ordinance that requires a physical body. We therefore stand as proxies for our deceased relatives, performing a baptism on their behalf. In the baptismal prayer that is offered for a proxy baptism, the wording goes something like this: "Katzpur, I baptize you for and in behalf of Alice Jones, who is dead -- in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Here's what most people misunderstand... We do not believe this magically turns the person into a Mormon. What we believe is that if the spirit awaiting the resurrection in the Spirit World/Hades has accepted/or at any time prior to the Final Judgment accepts the gospel of Jesus Christ, then the required ordinance has been performed and is just as valid as if the person had had it performed while he was alive. If he doesn't accept the gospel and wants nothing to do with the baptism performed on his behalf, then it's as if it hadn't ever happened. In that case, we simply got wet for nothing. We don't have any way of knowing whether the individual accepted the gospel and the baptism, of course, but we don't need to know. It's all between the person and God.

There are two passages from the Bible that we believe support this practice:

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which arebaptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

(We believe that the early Christians living in Corinth were known to be performing proxy baptisms. So not only did they pray for their relatives in Hades, they also performed this ordinance for them.)

Hebrews 11:39-40 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

(This, to us, implies that without the living, even the repentant dead who gained a faith in Christ would not have the promise of salvation. Since we have a knowledge of the gospel and are able to physically be immersed in water on their behalf, they can look forward to the same blessings as we will have.)

They also asked their relatives in Hades for help - Apparently they thought these dead in Hades could pass things up the line to God. - Gives the Catholic idea of asking Mary or Saints to intercede for them, new impetus.

Comments?

Yes, that's interesting, and I personally suspect that the Catholic belief in Purgatory probably evolved from the idea of a Spirit World where a person's spirit went immediately after death. Mormonism, of course, believes that many of the earliest Christian doctrines became corrupt over time -- resulting in doctrines such as Purgatory, that had some basis in truth, but were changed sufficiently to make them incorrect. Mormons, of course, don't ask our dead relatives to commune with God our on behalf, but we do believe they are conscious and aware of us. So it would sort of make sense to think that they could pray to God on our behalf.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sure. We believe that the spirits of everyone who ever lived (regardlesss how good or how wicked the individual may have been) initially go to what we refer to as the "Spirit World." I would describe the Spirit World as more of a state of mind or a condition than as a specific location, since a spirit cannot be confined the way a physical person could. For the righteous, that condition could be described as a Paradise (the place Jesus told the repentant thief who hung next to Him on the cross they would see one another that day). Paradise is believed to be a place of peace and rest. For the unrepentant wicked, the condition would be described as a Prison -- again, however, not a physical place but a state of mind, a condition characterized by emotional torment over how one lived his life. (There would obviously have to be some kind of a judgment immediately after a person died, but it wouldn't be a "Final Judgment" as that comes later.)

We believe that Christ not only saw the repentant thief in the Spirit World (loosely the same place as Hades), but that He also visited the spirits of those who were in a state of torment. During the three days during which His body lay in the tomb, He taught His gospel to those who had died without having had the opportunity to hear His gospel and accept His atoning sacrifice on their behalf. Those who accepted His message, found that they were no longer in Prison but in Paradise. (Remember, we're talking about a spiritual condition, not a place of physical confinement.) They would continue to await their own resurrection and "Final Judgment" there, but no longer tormented by their past deeds and dreading their ultimate fate. We believe that Jesus Christ bridged the gulf that previously divided the wicked from the righteous, but that the work He started during His visit there continues today.

Sorry for all that preliminary stuff, but it was kind of necessary. Now, as for baptisms for the dead... We believe that baptism is a necessary ordinance/sacrament. It is required for salvation -- or maybe I should clarify that: It's required for the highest heavenly reward God has in store for human beings -- Life Eternal in His presence and in the presence of our loved ones. Since a spirit obviously cannot be immersed in water, this is an ordinance that requires a physical body. We therefore stand as proxies for our deceased relatives, performing a baptism on their behalf. In the baptismal prayer that is offered for a proxy baptism, the wording goes something like this: "Katzpur, I baptize you for and in behalf of Alice Jones, who is dead -- in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Here's what most people misunderstand... We do not believe this magically turns the person into a Mormon. What we believe is that if the spirit awaiting the resurrection in the Spirit World/Hades has accepted/or at any time prior to the Final Judgment accepts the gospel of Jesus Christ, then the required ordinance has been performed and is just as valid as if the person had had it performed while he was alive. If he doesn't accept the gospel and wants nothing to do with the baptism performed on his behalf, then it's as if it hadn't ever happened. In that case, we simply got wet for nothing. We don't have any way of knowing whether the individual accepted the gospel and the baptism, of course, but we don't need to know. It's all between the person and God.

There are two passages from the Bible that we believe support this practice:

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which arebaptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

(We believe that the early Christians living in Corinth were known to be performing proxy baptisms. So not only did they pray for their relatives in Hades, they also performed this ordinance for them.)

Hebrews 11:39-40 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

(This, to us, implies that without the living, even the repentant dead who gained a faith in Christ would not have the promise of salvation. Since we have a knowledge of the gospel and are able to physically be immersed in water on their behalf, they can look forward to the same blessings as we will have.)

Yes, that's interesting, and I personally suspect that the Catholic belief in Purgatory probably evolved from the idea of a Spirit World where a person's spirit went immediately after death. Mormonism, of course, believes that many of the earliest Christian doctrines became corrupt over time -- resulting in doctrines such as Purgatory, that had some basis in truth, but were changed sufficiently to make them incorrect. Mormons, of course, don't ask our dead relatives to commune with God our on behalf, but we do believe they are conscious and aware of us. So it would sort of make sense to think that they could pray to God on our behalf.

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.



*

 

[DeepShadow]

I really thought I'd be able to get on this board once a week. Really I did. :sorry1:

Let me draw it in the form of two narratives. The first narrative is that Smith used fake seer stones in a fraudulent manner throughout his youth, and continued this practice when he used “seer stones” to translate the BoM. The second narrative is that Smith used fake seer stones in his past, but the method god wanted him to use was also, by coincidence, the exact same methodology as his previous scams. I’m sure you can see where one might get suspicious.

We don't actually know how the translations occurred. The only accounts that mention seer stones are secondhand accounts from people who already knew about his prior activities. That such people would conflate or confound these practices is perfectly believable, is it not?

If you know of firsthand accounts of the translation process, please present them.

I’ve never met that interpretation before, so thanks for the information. I do, however, maintain that seeking to destroy material critical to oneself is a narcissistic tendency. Also, I would not consider the contents to be libellous – the only real accusation made in it is that Smith was practicing polygamy on a wide scale, which is widely accepted now, though the full extent is a matter of debate, leading us neatly to…

The Expositor accused him of sleeping with other men's wives, did it not?Adultery was a crime then, if not now. Even if it's not technically a crime, you go on Wikipedia and edit a living person's account to say they cheated on their spouse with someone else's spouse. You'll get charged with defamation, if not libel.

I don’t know how much you have read concerning Smith’s polygamy, but to briefly spell out the code of conduct for anyone unfamiliar, it essentially boils down to the fact that everything must be done with the approval of the primary wife (Emma Smith) and subsequent wives must be virgins and not be vowed to another man. There are instances where Smith took on wives who were already married, and there is also evidence that Emma did not know the full extent of Smith’s polygamy. I recommend No Man Knows My History and In Sacred Lonliness on these counts.

No Man Knows My History claims that the Urim and Thumim were hollow crystals with spindles in them--a description that deviates from every previous account, and that I find little explanation for other than fabrication. Fawn Brodie regurgitates the Ethan Smith explanation for the Book of Mormon despite the superficial nature of any resemblance between their texts. Yet you say you recommend Brodie's account of Joseph's polygamy? Why should that be better than her other fabrications or confabulations? Are you aware that her predictions about children Joseph sired through polygamy have been tested using DNA evidence, and none of them have turned out to be true?

As for archaeological evidence, I’d like you to present anything from a non-LDS scholar that supports the BoM narrative.

I will do that, BUT...first I want to explain why that is an unfair expectation.

If an honest scientist discovered evidence of a thing he did not believe, honestly demands that his belief must change to follow the evidence. Bill Nye, in his recent debate with YEC proponent Ken Ham, admitted that a single piece of evidence against evolution might be enough to change his belief. That's as it should be.

But when it comes to LDS studies, belief in the BOM narrative would almost certainly lead to conversion to the LDS church. Therefore, asking for a non-LDS scholar's support for the BoM narrative is essentially asking for support from someone who doesn't believe what they are saying...which would make them dishonest. Do we insist that all evidence of evolution come from creationists? Do we insist that all evidence that the earth revolves around the sun come from geocentrists? Of course not, because we would never expect an honest person to present evidence for something they don't believe--and we'd not judge them honest if they did.

And yet there are two ways your unfair burden of proof can be met. For starters, there are those who convert, after the manner of any honest scholar. Off the top of my head, I'd point to Avraham Gileadi, an Orthodox Jew who studied ancient languages and culture before converting to Mormonism after reading the Book of Mormon. Would you accept any of his writings on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?

The second way is when scholars don't know that they are writing in support of the Book of Mormon. This often happens because they are only familiar with a vague outline of the book and very few of the details. So when a book on Ancient Americans states that the pre-Columbian people in South America lived in a city-state arrangement, the author has no idea that he is actually confirming something from the Book of Mormon.

I can present several examples of this, but here's a good one to start on: a study of King Benjamin's farewell address in the light of a study by William Kurtz. Kurtz, a non-Mormon scholar, identified twenty points that were present in most Hebrew farewell speeches.

1. The summons. The speaker calls people together to here his last instructions.
2. The speaker's own mission or example. The speaker reviews his life and what he has done, and urges his listeners to follow his example.
3. Innocence and discharge of duty.
4. Impending death. The speaker states that death is near, but shows courage rather than fear, sometimes commending his soul to God.
5. Exhortation. Listeners are urged to follow commandments they have been given by the speaker, to be courageous, etc.
6. Warnings and injunctions. Consequences of sin are discussed to help the people.
7. Blessings. In conjunction with the warnings, blessings are also offered (e.g., for obedience).
8. Farewell gestures. Though more common in Greco-Roman literature, acts such as kneeling can be farewell gestures.
9. Tasks for successors. Final orders given to the listeners, often conferring specific responsibilities.
10. Theological review of history. Reviewing the past to show the works of God (e.g., the Creation, delivery from captivity, etc.).
11. Revelation of the future.
12. Promises. Biblical farewell speeches commonly include reference to eternal glory (e.g., Christ in Luke 22 and Mattathias in 1 Maccabees 2).
13. Appointment or reference to a successor.
14. Bewailing the loss. Friends and followers may mourn the speaker.
15. Future degeneration. Warnings about the disobedience of future generations are made. The speaker is not responsible for this, however.
16. Covenant renewal and sacrifices.
17. Providing for those who will survive. Instructions are given to maintain guidance and comfort for people after the death of the aging leader.
18. Consolation to the inner circle. The speaker comforts his closest associates.
19. Didactic speech. Review of principles to teach listeners what to do.
20. Ars moriendi or the approach to death. Dealing with the approach of the leader to death itself, this element is less common and is found only in a writing of Plato and perhaps implicitly in Josephus.

The full text of the speech is at King Benjamin's Farewell Address, 124 B.C.. How does it measure up? Note that Kurtz never found one that had all twenty, and the order isn't always exact in the New Testament and other documents he reviewed.

For details, see William S. Kurz, "Luke 22:14-38 and Greco-Roman Biblical Farewell Traditions," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 104: 251-268 (1985); also see William S. Kurz, Farewell Addresses in the New Testament (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1990), both as cited by Welch and Ricks, p. 115).

As for “translation issues”, I’m not sure why they would be present in a Book allegedly communicated word for word via an infallible deity, but I can accept some things might go slightly awry if that’s what you want to claim.

Again, no first-hand account of the translation process exists, so we don't know it was word-for-word from an infallible deity. That's a common straw-man for critics of the Book of Mormon, but LDS scholars long ago realized that Joseph Smith was limited by his own vocabulary when translating the book. That's why he went back and re-translated it after getting a better education, so he could replace words like "a-going" (a common colloqualism in his part of New England).

But what of steel technology? One would imagine with all the wars and battles, involving great multitudes of people, we might have stumbled upon at least a handful of examples of the swords and chariots and armour.

First, while steel was mentioned, we have no clue how common it was, especially as time moved on. It is likely that the knowledge of how to make it died out, possibly very early on in the thousand year period we're talking about.

Second, steel rusts away very quickly in archaeological terms. We have only a single patch of ruddy earth to confirm its use in some civilizations, and those were arid or temperate environments, not moist jungle like much of the area in question for BoM studies. After 3000 years, what would be left of a steel sword left to rust in such an environment, where whole cars are reduced to dust in a single human lifetime?