Just_A_Guy

Pharoah wasn't dead yet. As an exercise in gloating? Au contraire. They had "Moses and the prophets".

I don't want to be Pollyannaish or downplay the obstacles you cite, Elphaba; nor do I ignore that KBR/Halliburton and other US contractors have often turned out inferior products. But it's just plain wrong to say that there's "no reconstruction" going on in Iraq, and similarly wrong to imply that every thing we build gets immediately blown up. It's also not fair to blame all of Iraq's woes on the 2003 invasion. UN sanctions had been taking their toll on Iraq's physical infrastructure for the previous decade, and Hussein had been engaged in a calculated effort to destroy Iraq's social infrastructure for the last thirty/forty years. Iraq was broken long before our tanks rolled into Baghdad.

Reading textually, He appears to be talking about the writings. Barring a description of the "Urim and Thummim" Cowdery used by the man himself: Yes. Joseph was under injunction not to show the actual U&T to anyone.

Hemi, than what's the deal with all those "crystal radio sets" my classmates used to build as science projects? Umm, it wasn't sitting on a shelf. If it was indeed taken away, it was taken because Joseph hadn't been giving proper heed to the revelations he had received thereby. I think you're also not taking into account (at least, where this argument is concerned) the schooling process Joseph was then undergoing. Perhaps the U&T served as a "training device" whereby Joseph learned to make more effective use of the seer stone. We just don't know. You have not yet demonstrated that it was really Joseph Smith's language (I've already explained my reservations about parts of the History of the Church). Concur. And I would submit that the same could have been the case with the Book of Mormon, had Joseph Smith been as spiritually attuned in the 1820s as he was in 1833. As it was, he needed the plates and some medium of translation at least some of the time. I don't pretend to know every detail. If it differed throughout the translation process, I think it comes back to the issue of Joseph Smith's "spiritual schooling", cited above. What is clear is that at least under some circumstances (contra Ostler and McConkie), a) the original record need not be present, and b) the Urim and Thummim proper are not necessary. I'm saying that a) many of his accounts may not even be "his" accounts; b) he may not have seen a need to be specific as to details; c) Whitmer's account doesn't conflict with what we "know" about the translation process, because we really don't know that much; d) when you speak of "changes", you assume that the original manuscript was identical to the printer's manuscript, which was in turn identical to the 1830 edition; and e) Whitmer never (to my knowledge) said it that the seer stone worked irrespective of the user's spiritual state (Indeed, wouldn't Oliver's use of the U&T violate Joseph's previous injunction to not show them to anyone?) Two reasons: a) We notice details about the things that are most important to us. The stone ultimately wasn't that important to Joseph--over time, he learned to receive revelation directly. By contrast, the stone was crucially important to Whitmer. When Joseph dispensed with the stone, Whitmer dispensed with Joseph. b) Because at least some of "Joseph Smith's remarks" may actually be second- or third-hand.

It was "Heber", not "Herbert". :) I'd have to see the quote before commenting more. Can you provide a cite? I think it's been said that during the Millennium, angels will assist in temple work. Presumably, they will be able to inform those then-living of who should be sealed to whom. On this earth? I dunno, unless it's possible post-Resurrection during the millennium (we know that exalted couples will be able to create life after the final judgment, anyways.) I don't see why not. Doesn't have to be "removed", if the ordinance was never sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise anyways. But all this assumes that women can't be sealed to two men at once. I'm going to catch heck for saying this, but in light of Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages I'm not 100% sure that that is the case. We'll find out eventually, won't we? Not in the CK; in the spirit world prior to the resurrection/final judgment. No specific doctrine on the topic of which I am aware.

The entire temple liturgy was received by the hand of Moses. The fact that a Urim and Thummim was part of the priestly regalia would seem to demonstrate that the chief priest was supposed to be a seer (which, in LDS parlance, is one function of a prophet). But a Urim and Thummim only function according to the righteousness of the user. Most (but, I'll grant you, probably not all) of the recorded prophets who ministered to the Kingdom of Judah ministered at periods when the leadership of the temple was, to a greater or lesser degree, in apostasy.

Noah was preaching to people who were alive and could still be saved. Not so, when Jesus preached to dead people whose damnation (per your comments as I understand them) was already sealed.

Coming in late on this: I'm going to suggest that while a priesthood holder generally has no right to refuse a request for a blessing in accordance with church law, a priesthood holder is under no obligation to take any action that he feels would exceed his authority. Priesthood holders exceeding their authority gave Israel a golden calf. Priesthood holders exceeding their authority brought Asherah worship into the temple at Jerusalem. Priesthood holders exceeding their authority led holders of purely local callings (i.e. bishop of Rome; patriarch of Constantinople) to assert authority over a global Church. In our own time, priesthood holders exceeding their authority gave us the FLDS. The simple truth is, there's no authoritative church precedent (of which I am aware) for the blessing of animals, automobiles, appliances, etc. If a priesthood leader is moved by the Spirit to perform such an ordinance and has no doubt that he is legally authorized to do it, more power to him. But if not, I say don't judge him for holding his priesthood in such esteem that he refuses to take an action he fears will desecrate it.

But Peter is very clear that Christ preached to the "disobedient". Why?

I would suggest apple beer instead. Instead of mere abject horror, you get to see horror mixed with confusion and finally relief as they find out that it's non-alcoholic.

Just to clarify, I was replying to Nick. As for the McConkie quote that Hemi provided . . . I'm bewildered by it, frankly. I've never heard anything like it before. Sure, it's marriage . . . sealing . . . whatever you want to call it. But the crux of the matter is (as I understand it) it takes place before the resurrection.

I'm going to presume that you're asking about faithful latter-day saints who die without the opportunity to marry but nevertheless have the promise of exaltation with an eternal companion (as opposed to making an impertinent accusation about Mormons harboring secret hopes of polygamous afterlives). There are two possibilities. First is the idea, apparently posited by McConkie, that the righteous really can marry in heaven. If you don't buy that (and I don't), you can still go back to the text of Talmage's statement, which is merely that such questions are resolved before the resurrection. As long as the sealing ordinance for two individuals has been done prior to the resurrection (e.g. in a temple, by proxy), they are still technically in compliance with the LDS interpretation of Matthew 22/Mark 12 as well as Talmage's summary thereof.

I like that interpretation, MOE; and I think it makes a lot of sense. But does the text of the CHI include this limitation? The language cited by LoudmouthMormon seems pretty absolute--you don't perform the ceremony, period. That seems to have been the position adopted by several commenters here. Good heavens--where to start with this one?

You might want to take a look at the CES Doctrine and Covenants Study Manual, pages 409-411.

There's the crux of our disagreement. You seem to believe that people who die in their sins have lost all chance for salvation. I wonder why, if that is so, Jesus bothered after His death to preach to the onetime-disobedient spirits who had lived in the days of Noah and were then in "prison". (1 Peter 3:18-20). But I suppose this discussion has been had repeatedly, elsewhere on this board. :)

Hi Tubaloth. This won't be a comprehensive reply--my time is limited--but it will have to suffice for the present, I'm afraid. Let me start with this: With all due respect, that is not what I am debating. I freely concede that the U&T were more powerful than the seer stone. Joseph Smith himself said so, if Lucy Smith's account is to be believed. What I'm interested in is which instrument was actually used during the translation of the Book of Mormon in the wake of the loss of the 116 pages. How do you figure? Smith doesn't mention the seer stone at all in the quote you cite. Sounds like I'll have to find the book, then. :) Ostler and McConkie seem to be locked into the mindset that the translation process was 1) look at the original material; 2) look into the translating medium; and 3) a translation of the content of the original material somehow appeared. What I'm getting at is, that paradigm is not the absolute and universal method of inspired translation. For example, the Book of Abraham is not a literal translation of what was actually on the Joseph Smith Papyri. (The remnants of those Papyri still exist and have been examined by Egyptologists; they are a near-perfect match for a copy of the Egyptian Book of Breathings.) The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible was done without either the source documents (except for a standard King James Bible) or, as far as I know, a U&T/seer stone of any type. Please note that I'm not saying the Book of Abraham or the JST are false; I'm merely saying that there's more to the translation process than meets the eye and Ostler/McConkie are on shaky ground if they're trying to discredit Whitmer based on their flawed understanding of the process. What Ostler and McConkie state is Whitmer never made such a claim. It strikes me as highly disingenuous to imply that he did. As Ostler and McConkie themselves state, Smith pointedly refused to go on-record as to the mechanics of the translation. All we really have from him (AFAIK) are some references (possibly firsthand, and possibly not) to his possessing the "Urim and Thummim" (possibly THE Urim and Thummim, and possibly not) at various times. So really it boils down to Whitmer and Emma Smith vs Cowdery. That's why I'm so interested in Cowdery's statements, and when they were made.

California Family Code, Section 401(b): Most California counties have a "Deputy for a Day" program, which in effect allows couples to choose their own wedding officiator regardless of the officiator's prior qualifications. Is this practice kosher for Mormons? The Church Handbook of Instructions would seem to say "no".

How about John the Revelator? D&C 77:2-3

Sounds about right to me. You'll find quotes from prophets past to the effect that birth control is bad (and some hardline Mormons who still adhere to those quotes), but the Church has officially backed off from that stance.

Without wishing to get overly judgmental: kids get a hold of guns because they were not stored properly. Some people just aren't usually careful/conscientious/obsessive-compulsive enough to put the gun back in the safe after every time they have it out. I think a potential gun-owner should honestly ask him/herself if he/she is willing to put the time, effort, and money into storing a gun properly after each and every use; if not, and there are kids in the house, maybe a non-lethal weapon like a Taser or pepper spray would be a better option.

Nipper, I don't have the time or inclination right now to write a lengthy reconciliation of Mormon beliefs to the Bible right now. Erik asked what the Mormon position was, and I gave it to him as best I could. I'll just submit the following thoughts: 1) If you object to my idea of hell not being a literal place of burning, I would suggest that much of the Book of Revelation is symbolic and not literal. John had grown up hearing about hell as a place of burning, and I think that in this vision the Lord simply chose to use symbols he knew John (and, to some degree, the primitive Church at large) would understand. 2) If you object to the idea that a coward, unbeliever, vile person, adulterer, magician, etc. can be saved from Hell, I would suggest that this clause is subordinate to verse 6--in other words, the cowards, unbelievers, vile, adulterers, magicians, etc. who do not repent and seek Jesus (or "thirst"--unless you also believe that the people in this verse are literally suffering from a craving for Dihydrogen Monoxide). If you adhere to a strict reading that all cowards, unbelievers, vile persons, adulterers, magicians, etc. will be forever cast down to hell (regardless of whether they ultimately repent and seek Jesus) then I don't see the point in bothering to preach to such persons in this life. PrisonChaplain's entire ministry would seem to be for naught.

One more thought: Oh, it's definitely applicable. It's just that Jesus' Atonement is so powerful (we're actually pretty Universalist in that regard) that sometimes we kind of take it for granted that very few will actually wind up there permanently.

Hi Erik-- I don't think that's correct. Without an Atonement, we would be permanently thrust out of God's presence--in other words, we would be forever in the state of "perdition" or "outer darkness" that Connie mentions. That (along with physical death, which is overcome through Christ's resurrection) is what almost all mankind has been or at some point will be saved from. I do think that the Biblical description of hell/perdition as a place of burning is primarily symbolic/allegorical (and perhaps built primarily on Jewish history/tradition--I understand that Jews used the Valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, as a metaphor for Hell; it was in Biblical times a perpetually-burning trash dump and earlier in history had been the site of human sacrifices to the god Moloch), but there's no doubt that Hell is not a happy place. Those who emerge from the "temporary" state of Hell (as understood by the LDS) to receive a telestial glory, do so by virtue of Jesus' Atonement. I give it as my opinion that they receive this glory because they have (finally) accepted Jesus Christ, acknowledged His doctrines, and committed to be bound by His laws. Their "salvation" is not as great as those who made those same commitments during their mortal lives--but they are most definitely "saved".

PC, I've always wondered what the origin of those collars was. Can you give a short history of the tradition/meaning behind it?

Hi Ceeboo-- I can agree to disagree here. :) It strikes me that the "lesson for the day" (such as it was) comes up in Matt 22:31-32/Mark 12:26-27 (and this is when Matthew tells us that the crowd was astonished and the Sadducees were silenced), where Christ emphasizes that the God of Moses is a God of the living. The remarks on marriage are, IMO, building towards this point--and they provide only a minimal answer to the actual question the Sadducees asked. Note that in Mark 12:28-34, Jesus does the same thing: in verse 32 the scribe takes a dig at Jesus' divinity ("And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he"--i.e., "there's only one God, and it ain't you"). Jesus, noticing that the scribe has answered "discreetly" or "prudently" or "intelligently" (depending on your translation; but the implication that this is a battle of wits and not a master/student interchange), chooses not to press the point; rather he simply says "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." Note that Jesus didn't say the scribe was in the Kingdom of God; just said "thou art not far"--i.e., "close enough, and I'm not going to argue with you over this right now". And, Mark tells us, "no man after that durst ask him any question." Throughout these chapters, Jesus' interlocutors aren't interested in learning; and Jesus isn't that interested in teaching profound doctrine. The chapters describe a series of debates, primarily showcasing Jesus' rhetorical abilities and his superiority over the supposed masters of God's law (in turn the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Scribes [probably the Essenes]).