New subtle temple changes

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2276

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by spiritMan »

Trucker wrote: January 10th, 2023, 5:27 am
HereWeGo wrote: January 9th, 2023, 1:49 pm
LDS Physician wrote: January 9th, 2023, 11:49 am I can't wait for the next big rationalization for when it's "revealed" that gays can be sealed in the temple.
And it will happen.
Perhaps the church would bill it as some sort of lesser marriage, like not quite celestial, but still acceptable to the Lord. Or like not for the highest degree of the celestial kingom, but the second highest.
That is not good enough and everyone knows it

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by ransomme »

Pseudonym wrote: January 7th, 2023, 11:35 pm
silverado wrote: January 7th, 2023, 2:25 pm
Isaiah says we will always have the correct understanding of Gods law? Where?
Obviously you do not understand scripture - Isaiah. The point is (according to Isaiah) that we cannot understand G-d and trasgres his law, and break his everlasting covenant. You should also note that Jesus never gave book, chapter and verse. His only reference was that it was written in the law or the prophets. Isaiah was considered a prophet. It is also interesting that when Isaiah addressed King Ahaz (concerning understanding G-d's laws) makes a interesting play on words and in essence said to him that he does not understand because he was not loyal to G-d.
'im lo' ta'aminu ki lo' te' amenu
G-d, is that short for God damn?

Trucker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1783

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Trucker »

spiritMan wrote: January 10th, 2023, 5:34 am
Trucker wrote: January 10th, 2023, 5:27 am
HereWeGo wrote: January 9th, 2023, 1:49 pm
LDS Physician wrote: January 9th, 2023, 11:49 am I can't wait for the next big rationalization for when it's "revealed" that gays can be sealed in the temple.
And it will happen.
Perhaps the church would bill it as some sort of lesser marriage, like not quite celestial, but still acceptable to the Lord. Or like not for the highest degree of the celestial kingom, but the second highest.
That is not good enough and everyone knows it
but as the next step is what I mean

User avatar
HereWeGo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1220

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by HereWeGo »

Trucker wrote: January 10th, 2023, 5:27 am
HereWeGo wrote: January 9th, 2023, 1:49 pm
LDS Physician wrote: January 9th, 2023, 11:49 am I can't wait for the next big rationalization for when it's "revealed" that gays can be sealed in the temple.
And it will happen.
Perhaps the church would bill it as some sort of lesser marriage, like not quite celestial, but still acceptable to the Lord. Or like not for the highest degree of the celestial kingom, but the second highest.
The public would brand this as discrimination it might bring more heat on the church. They will go all the way and declare gay sealings equal to heterosexual sealings. Give it a year or so.

Pseudonym
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Pseudonym »

ransomme wrote: January 10th, 2023, 5:35 am
Pseudonym wrote: January 7th, 2023, 11:35 pm
silverado wrote: January 7th, 2023, 2:25 pm
Isaiah says we will always have the correct understanding of Gods law? Where?
Obviously you do not understand scripture - Isaiah. The point is (according to Isaiah) that we cannot understand G-d and trasgres his law, and break his everlasting covenant. You should also note that Jesus never gave book, chapter and verse. His only reference was that it was written in the law or the prophets. Isaiah was considered a prophet. It is also interesting that when Isaiah addressed King Ahaz (concerning understanding G-d's laws) makes a interesting play on words and in essence said to him that he does not understand because he was not loyal to G-d.
'im lo' ta'aminu ki lo' te' amenu
G-d, is that short for God damn?
You may interpret it as you wish. Anciently it was considered sacrilegious to reference G-d directly by name or title. In the ancient Middle Eastern Suzerain servant alliance, how a servant used the name and title of their Suzerain depended on their status and the status of those the suzerain servant addressed. In short removing the vowels of names and titles of a divine suzerain is a sign of respect – both to deity and their believers that read what is written.
Since the internet is global and often read by those that still hold to ancient ideas – I conform out of respect, even if I do not necessarily hold to the same beliefs.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by ransomme »

Pseudonym wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:21 am
ransomme wrote: January 10th, 2023, 5:35 am
Pseudonym wrote: January 7th, 2023, 11:35 pm
silverado wrote: January 7th, 2023, 2:25 pm
Isaiah says we will always have the correct understanding of Gods law? Where?
Obviously you do not understand scripture - Isaiah. The point is (according to Isaiah) that we cannot understand G-d and trasgres his law, and break his everlasting covenant. You should also note that Jesus never gave book, chapter and verse. His only reference was that it was written in the law or the prophets. Isaiah was considered a prophet. It is also interesting that when Isaiah addressed King Ahaz (concerning understanding G-d's laws) makes a interesting play on words and in essence said to him that he does not understand because he was not loyal to G-d.
'im lo' ta'aminu ki lo' te' amenu
G-d, is that short for God damn?
You may interpret it as you wish. Anciently it was considered sacrilegious to reference G-d directly by name or title. In the ancient Middle Eastern Suzerain servant alliance, how a servant used the name and title of their Suzerain depended on their status and the status of those the suzerain servant addressed. In short removing the vowels of names and titles of a divine suzerain is a sign of respect – both to deity and their believers that read what is written.
Since the internet is global and often read by those that still hold to ancient ideas – I conform out of respect, even if I do not necessarily hold to the same beliefs.
Is it not just another name or title? There is no functional difference between G-d and God, between Yahweh and Adonai. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

That tradition in Israel came from misinterpreting things like, thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.

If we want to show respect, we should keep His commandments.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Sarah »

Severus wrote: January 8th, 2023, 7:13 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 8th, 2023, 6:45 pm
Severus wrote: January 8th, 2023, 6:39 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 8th, 2023, 6:04 pm

Uh… I’m not sure I agree with this.

Adam and Eve were real people. A transgression did occur in a garden-like state. Man became fallen. And atonement was made to allow them to progress. Covenants, if made correctly, are honored by God and do become an “endowment” unto mankind. I do not believe these things are taught correctly or in any depth in the LDS version.
I might not be sure what you are saying here, so correct me if my response is not answering you very well. Here goes:

As far as everything you just said, I agree.
Yes, Adam and Eve were real people. That's my point. In the presentation of the Endowment they seem to be puppets for whatever agenda whoever writes that thing up sees fit. And that agenda I can never figure out. While the three scriptural accounts agree with each other, the temple presentation does not and as far as I know, never has. Even the BOM discussion of the fall agrees with the three genesis stories but does not jive with the temple presentation. I am just saying I find it a dismaying situation when church members think the presentation is actual historical fact over and above the scriptures.

Yes a transgression did occur. Adam was told not to partake of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But through the persuasion of Eve, he did. Therefore they were both going to die and got thrown out ( driven out !) of the garden. It has been several years since I have attended a temple session, but the last film I saw showed Adam and eve near ecstatic they were leaving the garden, so happy to do the "right thing" and go off on their mortal probation. But as an example of what I am saying, the scriptures state they both were "driven out" or "cast out" ( Gen 4:24, Moses 4:21 2 Nephi 2:19 ). Nowhere in the quad does it even hint that Adam and Eve were chomping at the bit and happy as larks to get out of the Garden.

That is just a little thing, I know, but it demonstrates what I am talking about and I would go to the temple and feel kind of manipulated with the presentation. I don't know why I got a made up story, albeit with the right characters in the right place. Why didn't I get the straight story from the scriptures?

And BTW, what you said is the straight story. I have no idea why Christ isn't the center of the presentation as the one who makes the atonement. I could have asked anybody back in the day what the presentation was about. They would not have answered what you said up there. They would have said " it's about how Eve was the smart one in the Garden" and how "men need to listen to women". Seriously.
I think we’re on the same page for most of this. I think the story of Adam and Eve is grossly misrepresented. I also think Eve was far more aware of her actions and what would happen when she transgressed. She had to have some awareness that by “partaking” that she would be removed from the garden. I feel in the real narrative, Eve and Adam are perfect equals. You cannot have one without the other and achieve their potential. 1+1 is far more than 2.

I also believe that the real purpose of the temple is to entertain angels and receive a personal commission from Christ, even the Second Comforter.
Yeah I thought I was with you on a lot of that. For myself, I have no reason to not take the literal story from the scriptures as fact, so I stick with it. Like I said, I wish I knew why we get some other story in the temple, one that seems to change with the seasons. The scriptures state that yes indeed Eve knew the fruit was forbidden, but believed Satan when he told her she wouldn't die when she ate it. For that, and sensual and personally aggrandizing reasons, she "partook". No way is it made out like Eve was wise or especially far seeing, looking at some bigger picture, or inspired by some higher cause in doing this disobedient act.

I don't believe Eve partook of the fruit for "sensual or personally aggrandizing reasons" as you say. I think she realized that she needed more wisdom and knowledge of good and evil, and she decided this was how she was going to get it. It was ordained of God that it should happen this way.

Moses 4
6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

7 And he said unto the woman: Yea, hath God said—Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (And he spake by the mouth of the serpent.)

8 And the woman said unto the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;

9 But of the fruit of the tree which thou beholdest in the midst of the garden, God hath said—Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die;

11 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

12 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

Moses 5
10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

User avatar
abijah
pleb in zion
Posts: 2577

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by abijah »

It's not *impossible* God's will is behind these changes (which are definitely not subtle). That could technically be true, there is ample scriptural precedent to suggest that certain marital dynamics in the new covenant will be leveled-up somehow.

But if they came up with these changes on their own, then that's pretty serious, seeing how they actually change literally everything. These and other similar changes (if indeed not inspired by God) having to do with re-writing Adam and Eve's respective roles/identities in our own modern-day image is more akin to something like Solomon bringing idols of foreign gods into the Temple imo.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Sarah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:54 am I don't believe Eve partook of the fruit...
Do you think it was actually a tree w/ fruit?

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Sarah »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:56 am
Sarah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:54 am I don't believe Eve partook of the fruit...
Do you think it was actually a tree w/ fruit?
I am inclined to believe it was, as a BYU professor told me perhaps jokingly thirty years ago, the Fall was a "word-of-wisdom" issue.

We are what we eat, and I think there is a quote by Brigham saying how the Father and Mother (who he taught as Adam and Eve) partook of courser elements until their bodies were charged with it. Something like that. Also considering the tree-of-life fruit we see referenced so often points us to the opposite - eternal life. Yes, the fruit all comes from Christ. But we know too that Jesus ate after he was resurrected, and that everything physical is also spiritual. Food is what gives us life and determines our quality of life....

User avatar
abijah
pleb in zion
Posts: 2577

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by abijah »


User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Sarah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 12:57 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:56 am
Sarah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:54 am I don't believe Eve partook of the fruit...
Do you think it was actually a tree w/ fruit?
I am inclined to believe it was, as a BYU professor told me perhaps jokingly thirty years ago, the Fall was a "word-of-wisdom" issue.

We are what we eat, and I think there is a quote by Brigham saying how the Father and Mother (who he taught as Adam and Eve) partook of courser elements until their bodies were charged with it. Something like that. Also considering the tree-of-life fruit we see referenced so often points us to the opposite - eternal life. Yes, the fruit all comes from Christ. But we know too that Jesus ate after he was resurrected, and that everything physical is also spiritual. Food is what gives us life and determines our quality of life....
Maybe... maybe not.

You may consider pondering a bit more on fruit, trees, and lineage.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Sarah »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 10th, 2023, 1:06 pm
Sarah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 12:57 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:56 am
Sarah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:54 am I don't believe Eve partook of the fruit...
Do you think it was actually a tree w/ fruit?
I am inclined to believe it was, as a BYU professor told me perhaps jokingly thirty years ago, the Fall was a "word-of-wisdom" issue.

We are what we eat, and I think there is a quote by Brigham saying how the Father and Mother (who he taught as Adam and Eve) partook of courser elements until their bodies were charged with it. Something like that. Also considering the tree-of-life fruit we see referenced so often points us to the opposite - eternal life. Yes, the fruit all comes from Christ. But we know too that Jesus ate after he was resurrected, and that everything physical is also spiritual. Food is what gives us life and determines our quality of life....
Maybe... maybe not.

You may consider pondering a bit more on fruit, trees, and lineage.
I assume you are referring to a sexual act?

What act would represent eating the tree of life while they were in the garden?
Last edited by Sarah on January 10th, 2023, 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Sarah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 1:32 pm I assume you are referring to a sexual act?

What act would representing eating the tree of life while they were in the garden?
The only thing I know is the events surrounding the garden are most likely far more symbolic than we've been led to believe.

And yes, there are some lines of reasoning that Cain was the offspring of Lucifer and Abel was the offspring of Adam.

User avatar
gradles21
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1325
Location: Weimar

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by gradles21 »

Sarah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:54 am
Severus wrote: January 8th, 2023, 7:13 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 8th, 2023, 6:45 pm
Severus wrote: January 8th, 2023, 6:39 pm

I might not be sure what you are saying here, so correct me if my response is not answering you very well. Here goes:

As far as everything you just said, I agree.
Yes, Adam and Eve were real people. That's my point. In the presentation of the Endowment they seem to be puppets for whatever agenda whoever writes that thing up sees fit. And that agenda I can never figure out. While the three scriptural accounts agree with each other, the temple presentation does not and as far as I know, never has. Even the BOM discussion of the fall agrees with the three genesis stories but does not jive with the temple presentation. I am just saying I find it a dismaying situation when church members think the presentation is actual historical fact over and above the scriptures.

Yes a transgression did occur. Adam was told not to partake of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But through the persuasion of Eve, he did. Therefore they were both going to die and got thrown out ( driven out !) of the garden. It has been several years since I have attended a temple session, but the last film I saw showed Adam and eve near ecstatic they were leaving the garden, so happy to do the "right thing" and go off on their mortal probation. But as an example of what I am saying, the scriptures state they both were "driven out" or "cast out" ( Gen 4:24, Moses 4:21 2 Nephi 2:19 ). Nowhere in the quad does it even hint that Adam and Eve were chomping at the bit and happy as larks to get out of the Garden.

That is just a little thing, I know, but it demonstrates what I am talking about and I would go to the temple and feel kind of manipulated with the presentation. I don't know why I got a made up story, albeit with the right characters in the right place. Why didn't I get the straight story from the scriptures?

And BTW, what you said is the straight story. I have no idea why Christ isn't the center of the presentation as the one who makes the atonement. I could have asked anybody back in the day what the presentation was about. They would not have answered what you said up there. They would have said " it's about how Eve was the smart one in the Garden" and how "men need to listen to women". Seriously.
I think we’re on the same page for most of this. I think the story of Adam and Eve is grossly misrepresented. I also think Eve was far more aware of her actions and what would happen when she transgressed. She had to have some awareness that by “partaking” that she would be removed from the garden. I feel in the real narrative, Eve and Adam are perfect equals. You cannot have one without the other and achieve their potential. 1+1 is far more than 2.

I also believe that the real purpose of the temple is to entertain angels and receive a personal commission from Christ, even the Second Comforter.
Yeah I thought I was with you on a lot of that. For myself, I have no reason to not take the literal story from the scriptures as fact, so I stick with it. Like I said, I wish I knew why we get some other story in the temple, one that seems to change with the seasons. The scriptures state that yes indeed Eve knew the fruit was forbidden, but believed Satan when he told her she wouldn't die when she ate it. For that, and sensual and personally aggrandizing reasons, she "partook". No way is it made out like Eve was wise or especially far seeing, looking at some bigger picture, or inspired by some higher cause in doing this disobedient act.

I don't believe Eve partook of the fruit for "sensual or personally aggrandizing reasons" as you say. I think she realized that she needed more wisdom and knowledge of good and evil, and she decided this was how she was going to get it. It was ordained of God that it should happen this way.
She partook of the fruit because women are easier to manipulate than men. She wasn't playing 4D chess.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

gradles21 wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:01 pm She partook of the fruit because women are easier to manipulate than men. She wasn't playing 4D chess.
And men are often far more prideful. Just sayin' :)

User avatar
gradles21
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1325
Location: Weimar

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by gradles21 »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:04 pm
gradles21 wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:01 pm She partook of the fruit because women are easier to manipulate than men. She wasn't playing 4D chess.
And men are often far more prideful. Just sayin' :)
100%

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

She may have had far more insight into what she was doing than most of us give her credit. Women, by the very nature of their creation, are endowed with gifts not given to men. The gift of giving birth/life to mankind is tremendous, and most likely played a role in her decision to "multiply and replenish the earth." I doubt she made that decision lightly.

User avatar
gradles21
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1325
Location: Weimar

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by gradles21 »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:08 pm She may have had far more insight into what she was doing than most of us give her credit. Women, by the very nature of their creation, are endowed with gifts not given to men. The gift of giving birth/life to mankind is tremendous, and most likely played a role in her decision to "multiply and replenish the earth." I doubt she made that decision lightly.
And because of their nature they are much more trusting and easy to manipulate. "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Sarah »

gradles21 wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:15 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:08 pm She may have had far more insight into what she was doing than most of us give her credit. Women, by the very nature of their creation, are endowed with gifts not given to men. The gift of giving birth/life to mankind is tremendous, and most likely played a role in her decision to "multiply and replenish the earth." I doubt she made that decision lightly.
And because of their nature they are much more trusting and easy to manipulate. "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."
As are children. Nothing wrong with that, for of such are the Kingdom of God.
It's wonderful that before Eve and Adam's choice, Jesus had already promised to redeem us all from the Fall.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

gradles21 wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:15 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:08 pm She may have had far more insight into what she was doing than most of us give her credit. Women, by the very nature of their creation, are endowed with gifts not given to men. The gift of giving birth/life to mankind is tremendous, and most likely played a role in her decision to "multiply and replenish the earth." I doubt she made that decision lightly.
And because of their nature they are much more trusting and easy to manipulate. "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."
I wouldn't go so far as to say they are more trusting. The narrative, to me, suggests no such thing. Sure, I can see how a person would think that's the case because Lucifer approached her first, but I can't help but think there's far more to the story.

User avatar
Dusty Wanderer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1411

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Dusty Wanderer »

abijah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:56 am It's not *impossible* God's will is behind these changes (which are definitely not subtle). That could technically be true, there is ample scriptural precedent to suggest that certain marital dynamics in the new covenant will be leveled-up somehow.

But if they came up with these changes on their own, then that's pretty serious, seeing how they actually change literally everything. These and other similar changes (if indeed not inspired by God) having to do with re-writing Adam and Eve's respective roles/identities in our own modern-day image is more akin to something like Solomon bringing idols of foreign gods into the Temple imo.
I was looking at how some of the other translations handled “A woman shall compass a man”:
A woman will shelter a man (NASB)
A woman will go seeking a man (NCV)
The woman will return to the man (NIV)
A woman encompasses[a] a man (NRSVA — [a] HEB meaning uncertain)
Israel will embrace her God (NLT)

I wonder what it actually means. Do you think it lines up with ISA 4:1 at all?

User avatar
abijah
pleb in zion
Posts: 2577

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by abijah »

Dusty Wanderer wrote: January 10th, 2023, 2:43 pm
abijah wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:56 am It's not *impossible* God's will is behind these changes (which are definitely not subtle). That could technically be true, there is ample scriptural precedent to suggest that certain marital dynamics in the new covenant will be leveled-up somehow.

But if they came up with these changes on their own, then that's pretty serious, seeing how they actually change literally everything. These and other similar changes (if indeed not inspired by God) having to do with re-writing Adam and Eve's respective roles/identities in our own modern-day image is more akin to something like Solomon bringing idols of foreign gods into the Temple imo.
I was looking at how some of the other translations handled “A woman shall compass a man”:
A woman will shelter a man (NASB)
A woman will go seeking a man (NCV)
The woman will return to the man (NIV)
A woman encompasses[a] a man (NRSVA — [a] HEB meaning uncertain)
Israel will embrace her God (NLT)

I wonder what it actually means. Do you think it lines up with ISA 4:1 at all?
yeah probably.

I've written so much about this verse on this forum lol and this specific thing but it's all spread out across different posts and threads, its a proper mess.

Pseudonym
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Pseudonym »

ransomme wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:41 am
Pseudonym wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:21 am
ransomme wrote: January 10th, 2023, 5:35 am
Pseudonym wrote: January 7th, 2023, 11:35 pm

Obviously you do not understand scripture - Isaiah. The point is (according to Isaiah) that we cannot understand G-d and trasgres his law, and break his everlasting covenant. You should also note that Jesus never gave book, chapter and verse. His only reference was that it was written in the law or the prophets. Isaiah was considered a prophet. It is also interesting that when Isaiah addressed King Ahaz (concerning understanding G-d's laws) makes a interesting play on words and in essence said to him that he does not understand because he was not loyal to G-d.
G-d, is that short for God damn?
You may interpret it as you wish. Anciently it was considered sacrilegious to reference G-d directly by name or title. In the ancient Middle Eastern Suzerain servant alliance, how a servant used the name and title of their Suzerain depended on their status and the status of those the suzerain servant addressed. In short removing the vowels of names and titles of a divine suzerain is a sign of respect – both to deity and their believers that read what is written.
Since the internet is global and often read by those that still hold to ancient ideas – I conform out of respect, even if I do not necessarily hold to the same beliefs.
Is it not just another name or title? There is no functional difference between G-d and God, between Yahweh and Adonai. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

That tradition in Israel came from misinterpreting things like, thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.

If we want to show respect, we should keep His commandments.
Respect takes many forms. There are many religions even today that are forbidden to copy text that spell out the name or title of deity. For example – Some sects of Jews, many sects within Islam, some in Hinduism and even among Christians (for example Nestorian Christians).

If it bothers or offends you – you do not have to read my posts.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by ransomme »

Pseudonym wrote: January 10th, 2023, 8:11 pm
ransomme wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:41 am
Pseudonym wrote: January 10th, 2023, 11:21 am
ransomme wrote: January 10th, 2023, 5:35 am

G-d, is that short for God damn?
You may interpret it as you wish. Anciently it was considered sacrilegious to reference G-d directly by name or title. In the ancient Middle Eastern Suzerain servant alliance, how a servant used the name and title of their Suzerain depended on their status and the status of those the suzerain servant addressed. In short removing the vowels of names and titles of a divine suzerain is a sign of respect – both to deity and their believers that read what is written.
Since the internet is global and often read by those that still hold to ancient ideas – I conform out of respect, even if I do not necessarily hold to the same beliefs.
Is it not just another name or title? There is no functional difference between G-d and God, between Yahweh and Adonai. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

That tradition in Israel came from misinterpreting things like, thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.

If we want to show respect, we should keep His commandments.
Respect takes many forms. There are many religions even today that are forbidden to copy text that spell out the name or title of deity. For example – Some sects of Jews, many sects within Islam, some in Hinduism and even among Christians (for example Nestorian Christians).

If it bothers or offends you – you do not have to read my posts.
All true, but we don't need to invent things to announce our piety. God never asked us to not use His name. After all, doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of names and titles, to not use them?

I mean we have a hard enough time doing what He actually does ask us to do.

I suppose that this subject in particular is on my mind, as this past Sunday I led our elders quorum in a discussion about bearing the name God which is what we covenant to do. It's kind of hard to bear the name if you can't say or use the name or title.

Post Reply