What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor

[Grailhunter]

Yes. Manna was indeed kept in the Ark of the Covenant at one time.

And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the LORD, to be kept for your generations. As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony*, to be kept. (Exodus 16:33,34)

"The Testimony" is another name for the Ark of the Covenant, in which the two tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments were "the Testimony". Therefore the Holy Spirit gave these words to Paul:

HEBREWS 9
3 And after the second veil, the Tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4 Which had the golden censer, and the Ark of the Covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the Covenant [the Testimony]; 5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the Mercy Seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Now that you have the Scriptures, are you going to retract your false ideas? (not likely, but we shall wait and see).

Got a question....all things in perspective and put in motion. Was the Ark a storage place for manna?...or... something about the golden pot and the manna that was symbolic of something?

 

[Mjh29]

So does it matter *how* a person believes God is one?

I said that it does. But again; this is more of a compound question.
You may be wondering, what does that mean? Here, I'll show you;

using only yes or no, answer the question "How is God 3 in 1".
Impossible, right?

Now, using only yes or no, answer if you believe that God is 3-in-1.
Possible.

So, I am not asking you how God used to be a man, only if it is true that He was. yes or no question.

And even if you don't know that He was a man, do you believe it to be possible.

Again, let's return to our illustration.

If you asked me "Is it possible that God is 3-in-1?", I don't need to know how it works, or what the mechanisms are; I can simply answer yes or no if I believe it is possible. Why can't you do the same thing?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I said that it does. But again; this is more of a compound question.
You may be wondering, what does that mean? Here, I'll show you;

using only yes or no, answer the question "How is God 3 in 1".
Impossible, right?

Now, using only yes or no, answer if you believe that God is 3-in-1.
Possible.

So, I am not asking you how God used to be a man, only if it is true that He was. yes or no question.

And even if you don't know that He was a man, do you believe it to be possible.

Again, let's return to our illustration.

If you asked me "Is it possible that God is 3-in-1?", I don't need to know how it works, or what the mechanisms are; I can simply answer yes or no if I believe it is possible. Why can't you do the same thing?

Mjh29, maybe I'm misunderstanding you here (that's vey possible).

On one hand it seems that you say "it doesn't matter how 3 are 1, you just need to believe that they are one".
But then on the other hand you seem to say "well, if you don't believe the wrong answer in how 3 are 1, then you're damned".
It's seems very self-contradictory and is making the conversation frustration for me.


And then, to further the frustration I'm feeling, you seem completely fixated on this one non-necessary-for-salvation topic, but aren't willing examine the basic theology (and maybe necessary for salvation?) question needed to adequately address and communicate things.

My beliefs are much more involved and nuanced than a few yes-no questions.

 

[Enoch111]

Got a question....all things in perspective and put in motion. Was the Ark a storage place for manna?...or... something about the golden pot and the manna that was symbolic of something?

Manna (which came down from Heaven) was a type of Christ (the Living Bread who came down from Heaven to give eternal life). Gold would indicate how precious was Christ. As you would have noted in Hebrew 9, there were three items stored in the Ark of a Covenant, and all of them had a miraculous origin.

The Ark is described in Exodus 16:10-22, and Aaron's rod which budded is described in Numbers 17:1-17, and created as a testimony against the rebels (the whole congregation of the Israelites rebelling against Moses and Aaron). God was prepared to wipe out the Israelites at this time.

 

[Grailhunter]

Manna (which came down from Heaven) was a type of Christ (the Living Bread who came down from Heaven to give eternal life). Gold would indicate how precious was Christ. As you would have noted in Hebrew 9, there were three items stored in the Ark of a Covenant, and all of them had a miraculous origin.

The Ark is described in Exodus 16:10-22, and Aaron's rod which budded is described in Numbers 17:1-17, and created as a testimony against the rebels (the whole congregation of the Israelites rebelling against Moses and Aaron). God was prepared to wipe out the Israelites at this time.

I understand Hebrews thoroughly. Still the question is, is the Ark a storage area for manna or is it symbolic?

 

[Giuliano]

Yes. Manna was indeed kept in the Ark of the Covenant at one time.

And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the LORD, to be kept for your generations. As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony*, to be kept. (Exodus 16:33,34)

"The Testimony" is another name for the Ark of the Covenant, in which the two tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments were "the Testimony". Therefore the Holy Spirit gave these words to Paul:

HEBREWS 9
3 And after the second veil, the Tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4 Which had the golden censer, and the Ark of the Covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the Covenant [the Testimony]; 5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the Mercy Seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Now that you have the Scriptures, are you going to retract your false ideas? (not likely, but we shall wait and see).

Sorry, but "before" does not mean "in." You can say my ideas are false; but for yours to be true, "before" has to equal "in."

I can't say I know myself what "the Testimony" is; but I find it hard to believe it was the Ark since it hadn't been made yet!

"In" means "in" as it does here:

Deuteronomy 10:2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.

 

[Giuliano]

Got a question....all things in perspective and put in motion. Was the Ark a storage place for manna?...or... something about the golden pot and the manna that was symbolic of something?

We already mentioned how the Tabernacle corresponds to the human body. The Ark itself corresponds to the head. The Jews bound a shorter phrase to be "bound" on their foreheads. The Decalogue was what was to be in the Ark in the Holy of Holies, representing the Eternal Law of Love. . . albeit written in the language of men in their cultural context. This same Law is to be written in our hearts too. The Ark itself can be compared to the "single eye" Jesus spoke of. It would not be concerned with manna; nor would it be concerned with the Aaronic Priesthood or any other priesthood, for the single eye be in Light, there is no need for a priest.

 

[Grailhunter]

We already mentioned how the Tabernacle corresponds to the human body. The Ark itself corresponds to the head. The Jews bound a shorter phrase to be "bound" on their foreheads. The Decalogue was what was to be in the Ark in the Holy of Holies, representing the Eternal Law of Love. . . albeit written in the language of men in their cultural context. This same Law is to be written in our hearts too. The Ark itself can be compared to the "single eye" Jesus spoke of. It would not be concerned with manna; nor would it be concerned with the Aaronic Priesthood or any other priesthood, for the single eye be in Light, there is no need for a priest.

You just wake up? The only point I was making about the Ark is that if there was manna in it, it was symbolic. The Ark was not a storage bin for food.

 

[Giuliano]

You just wake up? The only point I was making about the Ark is that if there was manna in it, it was symbolic. The Ark was not a storage bin for food.

Real or symbolic? Either way I don't think the Ark was used as a storage bin; and the Torah doesn't say it was.

 

[Mjh29]

On one hand it seems that you say "it doesn't matter how 3 are 1, you just need to believe that they are one".
But then on the other hand you seem to say "well, if you don't believe the wrong answer in how 3 are 1, then you're damned".
It's seems very self-contradictory and is making the conversation frustration for me.

Here's what I am saying; You don't need to have information correct to know if you believe it. Is there a set truth about how the 3-are-1; yes. But some people still believe falsely about the "how". But they still believe.

It's not believing correctly that I'm concerned with; it is having belief and knowing if you believe something, regardless of if it is right or wrong

And then, to further the frustration I'm feeling, you seem completely fixated on this one non-necessary-for-salvation topic, but aren't willing examine the basic theology (and maybe necessary for salvation?) question needed to adequately address and communicate things.

Oh, this is just one of many questions. We can't even get past the first one without dodging left and right! There's nine more I had, but instead of tackling them head on, we've decided to say that we don't know what we believe is possible and what isn't. I'm really trying here, but when you don't know if you believe something is possible it kind of makes it hard to take you seriously.

My beliefs are much more involved and nuanced than a few yes-no questions.

And that's perfectly fine; but at the same time, shouldn't you at least be able to tell me if you personally believe something. That's like asking someone "Did you just crash your car?" and the person saying "I can't say yes or no until I fully explain to you how the car operated and all of its mechanisms."

 

[Enoch111]

Sorry, but "before" does not mean "in." You can say my ideas are false; but for yours to be true, "before" has to equal "in." I can't say I know myself what "the Testimony" is; but I find it hard to believe it was the Ark since it hadn't been made yet!

I really hate it when people argue ignorantly to contradict Scripture. Hebrews 9 removes any ambiguity about the matter, but as usual you neither have the integrity nor the humility to admit you are mistaken. And since the Ark is clearly called the "Ark of the Testimony" in Scripture, you don't believe the Word of God.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

And that's perfectly fine; but at the same time, shouldn't you at least be able to tell me if you personally believe something. That's like asking someone "Did you just crash your car?" and the person saying "I can't say yes or no until I fully explain to you how the car operated and all of its mechanisms."

And what if you're talking to a (hypothetical) person whom doesn't even know what a car is, let alone a car crash?

Ditching the analogy: say you're hypothetically coming in here believing that God is ultimately defined as a person consisting a special substance, and man is ultimately defined as a person not consisting of that special substance. How am I do answer your question when, when I don't believe that God or man is defined by the special substance because I don't find such explanations in scripture?

It's an imitate in-pass, and I can't truthfully answer it without delving into theology. I'm sorry if that frustrates you.

 

[Mjh29]

And what if you're talking to a (hypothetical) person whom doesn't even know what a car is, let alone a car crash?

Ditching the analogy: say you're hypothetically coming in here believing that God is ultimately defined as a person consisting a special substance, and man is ultimately defined as a person not consisting of that special substance. How am I do answer your question when, when I don't believe that God or man is defined by the special substance because I don't find such explanations in scripture?

It's an imitate in-pass, and I can't truthfully answer it without delving into theology. I'm sorry if that frustrates you.

So... you still don't know if God was a man?
Or if you believe it?

Right then; and then we wonder why people believe that Mormonism is a cult.
Outsiders like us just can't understand it if the Mormons themselves don't know

 

[Jane_Doe22]

So... you still don't know if God was a man?
Or if you believe it?

Right then; and then we wonder why people believe that Mormonism is a cult.
Outsiders like us just can't understand it if the Mormons themselves don't know

Mjh29, are you willing to actually talk theology here?

If you don't, that's fine. But that's not on me.

 

[Grailhunter]

What was the fruit of the tree that Adam and Eve ate of?
What did the tree of Knowledge and the tree of Life look like.
Fruitful and multiply...when did they start having sex?
How old was Eve?
When Adam and Eve were talking to God, what did they see?

Creation stories have a tendency to be vague and full of allegory.
I think Jane should admit that the Mormons lost the video tape....just like the Christians did.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

What was the fruit of the tree that Adam and Eve ate of?
What did the tree of Knowledge and the tree of Life look like.
Fruitful and multiply...when did they start having sex?
How old was Eve?
When Adam and Eve were talking to God, what did they see?

Creation stories have a tendency to be vague and full of allegory.
I think Jane should admit that the Mormons lost the video tape....just like the Christians did.

“Creation storieS?” What creation stories are you talking about? Only the biblical account of creation is completely true.

And what “allegory” are you talking about? Just because God doesn’t include details that we would like to know, that doesn’t mean that the Genesis account contains allegory, with the possible exception of the serpent representing the devil.

 

[Mjh29]

Mjh29, are you willing to actually talk theology here?

If you don't, that's fine. But that's not on me.

Ok. Theology. The study of God.

Was He a man at one point.

[I've been trying to talk theology, all I get is avoided and told you don't even know if you believe something.]

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Ok. Theology. The study of God.

Was He a man at one point.

[I've been trying to talk theology, all I get is avoided and told you don't even know if you believe something.]

Are you defining "God" ultimately as a person consisting a special substance, as stated in the Athanasian Creed?
Are you defining "man" as a person not consisting of that special substance?
Are you defining "man" as a person sentence for Hell because of semen?
Are you defining "God" using the Calvinistic definition of one whom forces all choices and "man" as one who's choices are forced?

Because I don't. And I cannot answer you question and discuss my beliefs on this speculative subject without first dissecting these underlying notions. So if you really want to continue to pursue this, please address my above questions. If you're not interested in doing so, then let's stop a conversation you're not interested in pursuing.

 

[Grailhunter]

“Creation storieS?” What creation stories are you talking about? Only the biblical account of creation is completely true.

And what “allegory” are you talking about? Just because God doesn’t include details that we would like to know, that doesn’t mean that the Genesis account contains allegory, with the possible exception of the serpent representing the devil.

Yes allegory. Good question though...does the serpent represent the devil? Two creation stories in Genesis....the Jews started the debates on that. Maybe we should feed the kids fruit instead of sending them to school? The story of the rivers are very interesting.
One story they are to dominate the earth and one they are contained in Eden....And then there is the mis-translation of the phrase Garden of Eden.

You guys...lady....ask Jane to testify to the Mormon creation story. No video.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Yes allegory. Good question though...does the serpent represent the devil? Two creation stories in Genesis....the Jews started the debates on that. Maybe we should feed the kids fruit instead of sending them to school? The story of the rivers are very interesting.
One story they are to dominate the earth and one they are contained in Eden....And then there is the mis-translation of the phrase Garden of Eden.

You guys...lady....ask Jane to testify to the Mormon creation story. No video.

GH, I wish you made more sense to me.

I would guess that 99.9% of Christians would say that it was the devil who tempted Eve in the Garden. You and Giuliano are the only exceptions I know of, lol.

The Bible contains one creation account. What debate did the Jews start about the creation account??

Jane is welcome to share the Mormon creation story. Lynn Wilder testified to the Mormon creation story. I quoted her at the beginning of this thread for anyone who's interested in knowing what Mormon's believe about the creation.
.