Mormons vs Mormonism

organgrinder said:
It is as written. Consult the entire counsel of God in the scriptures and use your mind.​
Click to expand...

day
noun

1.
a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.
"they only met a few days ago"​

2. a particular period of the past; an era.
"the laws were very strict in those days"
​
 
Mesenja said:

day
noun

1.
a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.
"they only met a few days ago"​

2. a particular period of the past; an era.
"the laws were very strict in those days"
​
Click to expand...
Read the posts.
 
Richard7 said:
Not true and the statement below does not say he rejected literalism... nice try! ​
Click to expand...

Once again, you have no idea of the meaning of the term biblical literalism.
​
Inerrancy is a term used to describe Scripture as error-free in the original writings. It implies that the Bible contains neither material errors nor internal contradictions in the original writings. January 9, 2020, Theology Thursday: What Is Inerrancy? | GCU Blog​
Click to expand...
 
Mesenja said:

Once again, you have no idea of the meaning of the term biblical literalism.
​
Click to expand...
Regardless, the statement being referred to is not JS rejecting literalism.

Some things are literal, like the term Son of God. That's literal though our critics would reject that idea. Did Eve literally eat fruit to become mortal? I'm not sure it's important whether she did or not, but I believe it is. Did the fruit cause her mortality? I don't think so. The fruit didn't cause it, IMO, but the act of eating it did.

I'm not sure why literalism is a hill to die on here. What's the beef?
 
brotherofJared said:
Regardless, the statement being referred to is not Joseph Smith rejecting literalism. Some things are literal, like the term Son of God. That's literal though our critics would reject that idea. Did Eve literally eat fruit to become mortal? I'm not sure it's important whether she did or not, but I believe it is. Did the fruit cause her mortality? I don't think so. The fruit didn't cause it, IMO, but the act of eating it did. I'm not sure why literalism is a hill to die on here. What's the beef?​
Click to expand...

I’ll just let it be. This topic has reached its expiration date.​
 
Mesenja said:
I take it that your questions are rhetorical.
Click to expand...
You would be wrong. There's nothing rhetorical about wanting to know what the problem is with literalism and the point you seem to be trying to make. Without the guidance of apostles and Prophets it is difficult to know the difference between what is literal and what isn't. We have our critics claiming that a story that Jesus told about to beggar in the rich man after they died as literal when it appears to have its roots in a story that was previously told by Egyptians and had our life after death. Jesus simply adapted it to a message and they seem to have missed the point. In fact, it seems that they have completely ignored any other evidence from the scriptures that judgment does not come immediately after death. And that becomes a Doctrine and not the scriptures as a whole. Literalism tends to allow our critics to ignore what they don't want and accept what they do from the scriptures.

That creates some serious problems around the creation epic where they believe that we were all created from dirt literally. That God came down and mixed a little water and dirt and created a man out of it. And that women were literally created from a bone. And from that point on everything is really confusing. But it opens the door for our critics to disbelieve anything that they want from the Bible. It's subjects the Bible to interpretation. I don't see how you're going to fix any of it by arguing about whether or not someone accepts the Bible literally or argues what literalism. It doesn't solve any problems or answer any questions. That argument is pure rhetoric. I don't think anyone here cares about literalism. The best we can do is explain what we accept is literal and how those things that aren't literal fit into our religion. What does it mean if it isn't literal? That would be the question that people want answers to not some argument about what literalism is and whether or not somebody believes in literalism.

So yes, I want to know what's the beef. Why is that the hill to die on here in this argument
 
I believe that Abraham actually was about to sacrifice Isaiah, that Noah built a ark, that Adam and Ever were real people and that before the fall the earth was in a Parasitical state. I believe in God, Christ, Holy Ghost and angels. I believe in the miracles of Christ, the crucifixion and atonement, and after 3 days he was a resurrected being, the Literal Son of God in the Flesh.
 
brotherofJared said:
That would have been hard to do. ???
Click to expand...
We are being tested likewise...

D&C 98:12-15

12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.
13 And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name's sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.

14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.

15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.


D&C 101:4-5

4 Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son.
5 For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top