Vort

Interesting interpretation, one that has never occurred to me. I'll have to ruminate on that a bit. The legalistic term "bar" originally meaning a rail of wood that created a physical barrier between the public area of an "inn of Court" (a late medieval lawyer's guild, both the association and the building) and the area where legal scholars and personnel worked. At least, that's what I gleaned from the sources. On examination, I'm starting to think that applying this meaning of "bar" to the verse penned (inscribed) by Moroni is anachronistic. Maybe "bar" as "scepter" makes more sense.

McConkie was a lawyer. You'd be lucky to get him as defense counsel. As for Packard, he made some good cars back in the day. Later on, I think he and Hewlitt teamed up for some nonsense or other.

If the enemy attacks on the Sabbath, you defend yourselves on the Sabbath. Israel should not be waiting until May to respond to such aggressions.

By definition, I venture the answer is "no".

Indeed. In reviewing your answer, I didn't see any response to the question of what it is we're supposed to do, which is why I asked again.

Fair enough, and I apologize that I sounded accusatory. I've been too meek for too long, and stand in danger of losing my hard-earned reputation on this list as an intolerant hard-nose. But the response above more or less begs the question. You are arguing that the Lord is/might be taking away light and knowledge from the general membership because they reject it. Again, you may be correct; I have often posed similar questions to myself. But to what end are you asking such questions? If I accept your suggestion as truth, then what do I do to make things better? Should I be writing letters to Salt Lake? Should I be excoriating my fellow Saints in fast and testimony meetings for their faithlessness? Should I go around warning those in my ward and stake that we have already had much taken from us, and we are in imminent danger of losing more if we don't repent? Or is this merely idle speculation, something to chat about on an internet discussion list, not something to particularly worry about? Because it somehow feels urgent, yet I don't understand what that urgency is supposed to compel us (me) to do.

This is really a variation of option A, since the Adam-God doctrine would have stopped being taught because of the inability of the members to understand it. No. Rather, it suggests a teaching given for those who have ears to hear. Today's prophets have declared the Adam-God teaching to be false. That could be because it's false in its very nature, or it could be that we today do not have the keys of understanding needed for it, and therefore we interpret it falsely. So to us, i tmay be false, but to someone with the correct key to knowledge, it might well be true and enlightening. Clearly you consider yourself one with understanding. That may be the case. But if it is, how is it that you seek to parade your superior status and shame those who do not have that key? Why would you come out in apparent open defiance of the teachings of recent prophets? Just to show your superiority, how much smarter and more spiritually mature you are than the rest of us? Or do you seek to undermine confidence in the words of our leaders, so that we doubt and wonder whom to follow and when? I'm struggling to see how your actions lead anyone to a good end, even if we assume you are actually correct in what you say.

C. We do not have the correct context to understand the so-called Adam God doctrine.

A for effort! A as is beetles, that is.

On another forum, I encountered for the very first time (that I know of) someone who preached this strange, twisted gospel that, as long as they are legally "married", homosexual couples should be sanctioned in intimate sexual relations and still be able to hold callings (though not temple recommends) and otherwise serve in the Church. I may not have believed it if I had not read it myself.

He was very clearly and explicitly referring to any teaching that would preclude the restoration of the Priesthood to all worthy men and the extension of the blessings of the temple to all worthy people. Are you referring to something else?

For the sake of argument, let us pretend for a moment that you are right. The Church membership is less spiritually robust than in past generations, have turned their back on certain elements of their covenants, and therefore have had some of the light and truth in their doctrines, practices, and temple covenants taken away by divine decree. What would you have us do? I mean, repent, of course—but that would be true in any case. What would you, Maverick, have us TH participants do? Should we contact the First Presidency and express our displeasure? Should we chain ourselves to the gates of the Seattle temple to show our unhappiness with the direction things are going? Should we, I don't know, get on public message boards and broadcast to all who will hear how the Church is drifting into apostasy and forgetting its covenant roots? Should we go all Jana Riess and start publishing as publicly as possible our displeasure, unrest, and rebellion against such things? Or should we perhaps sustain our leaders in their challenges during these difficult times? Should we rather bear fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the reality of the restoration of Priesthood keys, and of the existence of the kingdom of heaven right here on Earth, with Christ Himself at the head and His chosen apostles leading and administering? I'm trying to figure out what it is you (Maverick) hope to accomplish in spreading your warning of wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. As a result of the dire warnings given us by you, we should immediately do—what?

Based on the URL, I thought that Riess was the antecedent to "who". I generally do not click on links to the SL tribune, any more than I would click on links to Pornhub, but in a moment of weakness I did, and read enough to confirm that Sister Riess is not in fact the antecedent to "who". Not yet, at least.

A distinction without a difference.

Yes, indeed! It's wet and cloudy in Seattle.

Indeed, including statements from our leaders during the last fifty or so years that unanimously affirm that this life is the time to prepare to meet God, We have been warned against the philosophy of "eat, drink, and be merry...and it shall be well with us; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." Jacob goes on to call these "false and vain and foolish doctrines". Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance. Don't say, "Oh, celestial is too hard. I'll just live a telestial/terrestrial life. That's good enough, because eventually I'll get there." The truth of the matter is that celestial living is not merely far more rewarding than terrestrial/telestial living; it is EASIER. Show some faith. Believe the prophets and the scriptures. Think celestial.

I very explicitly disbelieve this. We have been told almost nothing about the lower kingdoms or what covenants are required to enter therein. This is because God wants us to be celestial. Our current prophet and senior apostle has clearly stated that we are to "think celestial". We are not to resign ourselves to a lesser kingdom or start planning for our more modest mansion in the terrestrial regions. The Lord Himself, both during mortality and in His eternal nature, has told us that eternal life—which is to say, exaltation—is the greatest of God's gifts, and that He wants to bestow that gift upon each of His children, and will do so to all who will receive that greatest of gifts. No, we do not need a better understanding of a lesser place. We need a better understanding of the celestial realms and, more importantly, a better understanding of what we must know, do, and be in order to gain that exaltation.

Someone has more than a little left to learn about human nature.

Ah, yes. I know her husband, Ben.

What do you call a guy with no arms and no legs who just lies on the grass in the front yard? Lon

Things would be better if they would just stay off the lawn.

Funny you should say that. This is my own opinion, also. Joseph didn't tinker with the content of his revelations; those are pretty static (though e.g. his various First Vision recountings do emphasize and bring to the fore different aspects of that encounter). But he seemed to have no problem rewriting parts of his Book of Mormon "translation"* when he thought the original wording didn't quite get the point right. He reworded, and I think it would be fair to say revised, revelations included in the Book of Commandments/Doctrine and Covenants as they came up for republishing. Joseph seemed to approach the role of prophet as a very dynamic one. And while he took his responsibilities very seriously indeed, I get the impression that he did not really take himself too seriously. He certainly had no problem admitting error in his work or revising how or what he said if it didn't feel right to him. *I put the word "translation" in quotes, not because I don't think it was a translation—it clearly was—but because we have a rather straightforward view of what a translation is and is not. I don't think Joseph's Book of Mormon translation fits the way we use the word today.

With great power comes great responsibility.

In a more civilized era, this was an uncommon though not unknown phenomenon. The neighborhood men (either those local, or those who took part in the families' social group, or those related, or some combination of all three) saw to it that the abandoned wife was treated as a widow and helped out with things so that she could continue her important mission of mothering her children while the men collectively and individually picked up the responsibility of surrogate father to the children. Wasn't a perfect system, for sure, but I think it beats our modern system of the government sending a check and everyone else just keeping their distance every which way.

Ah, yes. The trad wife, hearkening back to those halcyon days of yore when women just stayed home all day watching TV, doing Pilates, and going shopping, while the man took care of annoying things like paying the bills and keeping the cars running. You know, like our grandparents and great-grandparents used to live.