Seminarysnoozer

In those versus it explains that the spirit of Elijah relates to the baptism of the dead, so I still don't understand why you said the "agency" of Elijah. And how does this relate to circumcision?

I appreciate you sharing your extensive knowledge on these subjects, thanks. Could you explain what you mean by "agency of Elijah". Between what and what did he have agency over?

It has to do with the idea that what I said was offensive to currently living people, your friends. There is no current religion living the law of Moses as it was lived back then that I know about, which was a religion guided by a living Prophet back then. No, I am not kidding about that. The reason I said that is because I think (maybe I am wrong) that some people think that Judaism is like the law of Moses. In fact there was a reference to that in this thread by someone. Is that religion guided by a living prophet? So, all in all, we do not know what it was like to live under the law of Moses, we know very little about those circumstances and what was the "mindset" (probably a bad word, still can't think of another) or spiritual knowledge the average person under the law of Moses had. That is an important context to know when discussing the reasons for certain tokens and their symbolic significance. The value of a lesson depends on how much a person knows. And the lesson is different depending on how much a person knows. That is why the a person who has lived all their life in the church can still go back and read the scriptures and learn something new each time. What word would you use to describe the line upon line position a person is at in their learning, maybe spiritual knowledge is better but that leaves out their carnal state. I think their carnal state is also important in terms of what lessons are important in that token.

I don't know of anyone who is currently living under the law of Moses with a living prophet, guided by God, do you? I believe it to be a lesser law due to failure to abide by a higher law so it pertains to more primitive matters, mostly focused on the law of carnal nature. To me that is a primitive or first steps law. I don't see why that is so offensive or would in any way offend any current friends. The law of Moses doesn't relate to any current religion any more than the Church of Christ relates to Catholicism or branch of the original Church of Christ so that statement certainly wouldn't be offensive to any current living person or religion. The law of Moses guided by a living prophet does not exist today. We have moved to a higher law. "Higher" meaning the other was "lower" and therefore more primitive. When we become adults in that respect we put away things of our childhood.

Exodus 34:1–2 " 1And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them. 2But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount." When the carnal mind prevails because of failure to obey the higher law, I don't think it is in error to say that that is a primitive mindset. Maybe it is not the best word but how else would one describe the state of carnal focus? and carnal law? It is certainly a different set of circumstances than we are in now.

If you want to lie and twist what I said into calling people primitive and lower then I can see how you would be so defensive. I didn't though. I said it was a primitive "mindset". If you want to misinterpret that as something else I don't have any defense. "Mindset" refers to the physical situation not the spiritual. I would say the "mindset" is as different as the average deacon class compared to the average high priest class. If you want to say that the high priests have the same exact lessons as the deacons with the same words and examples then you must be going to a different church then the one I go to. Likewise, the tokens and teachings were tailored to that mindset and that situation, people (as a whole) who could not handle the higher law. "Primitive" is a relative view. Since we are all sitting behind the veil we could all be called "primitive". To me that is not offensive at all. Our spiritual selves would see our physical mind as very primitive. If I raised our current situation higher than it is, then that would be arrogant but I did not do that. Suggesting that I made an arrogant statement is wrong, unless you think there is no "lesser" or "greater" designation to be made.

Thanks, yes there is that side of it too that we haven't talked about. For me, though, I don't think I would have put that discussion in a gospel forum, would have put it in one of the more casual forums. I think anything that promotes a passion for getting something for free or very little is not a "strengthening" activity. I have friends who tell me they can only work so many hours a week otherwise their social security check will be taken away. And other friends who say that in order to keep getting their disability check they can't do any kind of work and are even afraid to participate in our ward service projects. I think our society is comfortable with that mindset because they think there is this "man" somewhere that they are sticking it to, and that is okay. The "man" turns out to be everyone who is living within their means, paying their taxes, paying full price for food etc. That, I think, is purposely ignored by that mindset making it dishonest, when it comes to extreme couponing. There is a nebulous nobody paying for the free groceries that conveniently is left for someone else to worry about, like the store owner or the manufacturer, "that is their problem" is a justified way to disown any responsibility for getting stuff for free. As a whole, I think our society is getting better and better at not taking responsibility for anything.

If you don't like a forum type discussion, then why are you participating in it? I have had many things answered by discussing various topics with the good people of this forum. The spirit can confirm the truth, as well.

Why, when it is described as a lower law and a lower priesthood?

You're right, sorry. I was also trying to make the additional note of it being hard to know without the right context ... see above.

I am sorry if I came across to strong, that was not the intent. I think it is an interesting and thought provoking topic and anyone who has had interchanges with me on this forum know that I don't back away from interesting conversations. I am having a hard time explaining this thought, I guess. I think that symbolism always requires putting it into the right context. The context of living under the mosaic law and having that lower, primitive mind set is something that most of us can't do with a flip of the switch, I would imagine. The teaching of that symbolism is no longer relevant in that way. Putting into a "Jewish tradition" context and interpretation is also not the whole picture. Maybe I would liken it to trying to teach my kids how to do a literature search at the library without using computers. They would pay attention for 30 seconds and then ask, why don't you just search it on the internet? The full meaning of the symbolism of this practice is lost in the setting of the fullness of the gospel and doing away with the lower law. Of course there are some lower law things that continued because they still are relevant, like baptism. Obviously, circumcision was a stepping stone for advancement that is simply stepped right over with the fullness of the gospel. Anyone that has had more than one kid to raise understands this idea that sometimes things are taught one way to one kid and then another way to another child. But then the other child always wonders, 'well, why did you do that to my brother and not to me?' The symbolic benefit of circumcision is one that does not provide the same meaning to us in our day, so any discussion of it seems strange and not satisfactory. .... that is how I would explain it to this friend how originally asked the question without having to make some definitive statement about the Abrahamic mind at that time.

If both you and your wife are in the Celestial Kingdom together then you would only want to do God's will and she also, I doubt there will be any disagreement of this or any kind there. The path to Eternal Joy will be pretty well laid out by then for you and your wife, there won't be the veil covered, faith dependent version of the path we have now. I doubt the path will have forks in it where it is possible for one to go one way versus another.

I was agreeing with him. ... so yes I read it. I agree with him in that those additional symbolic reasons pertain to those people of that time and therefore it is simply an interesting topic that doesn't really apply to our day and the fullness of the gospel. It also makes it difficult to understand. Those that have studied the ancient religions may understand the mind of the Jew at that time and can add some hypothesis to the symbolic meaning. Those people needed additional motivations for obedience and therefore there is the assistance of symbolism to provide that motivation for obedience. What those people were motivated by might be difficult to comprehend at a level that God knows about, unless it is revealed by one that speaks with God. Today, for example people are motivated by health decisions and therefore things like the Word of Wisdom carry specific, lower than obedience, meaning. Likewise, the lower than pure obedience, reasons for participating the law of circumcision make it difficult to relate to in a modern day perspective. So, for us, it really doesn't matter. I don't think that is far off what the OP said. I do find this topic interesting, I am not trying to say it is of no interest by any means. I just think it is hard to relate to our current level of knowledge and motivations that some try to do, such as circumcision for health reasons etc. That, for sure, was not on the list of motivating reasons to practice it. Just agreeing with the idea that symbolism is to assist our lower than obedience motivations and learning and remind us of our obligations as it relates to that specific covenant.

Please, don't get so defensive. I am simply pointing out that the purposes of the token are a sign of personal sacrifice and obedience. That whether the additional symbolism sinks into the mind of the person undergoing the ordinance or not, the obedience to the act is more important. That is all that I was saying. There are, as with most ordinances and lessons, various levels of understanding and motivations to uphold the covenants associated with them. One of the purposes of covenants is to serve as a test for which we can reveal our true natures to God. The man undergoing the circumcision out of pure obedience to the law at that time is passing the test with flying colors as opposed to the one who does it to "separate themselves" from others. Often times the ulterior motives associated with commandments are good ones, they aren't bad, they are simply lesser reasons to obey the commandment. The primary reason for this ordinance was, as is with all ordinances, a test of obedience and faith to qualify to receive higher laws and privileges. The other stuff is secondary. I find the secondary symbolism interesting. But realize that secondary symbolism is only necessary when primary love, faith and obedience are hard to come by. God being a loving God allows more of His children to receive the blessings associated with commandments for lesser reasons by associating some other motivation to them. All of us, in our line upon line growth, need that assistance at some point.

Companies don't overall lose money on the process because there is advertising value to the coupon. This is how people who do this justify their actions, someone else flips the bill. That whole "If the company was losing money they would stop" is the concept that allows a person doing this to forget how they are ignoring the purpose of coupons and suggest in their mind that it is just a handout. Being honest in all our dealings is something we have been asked to do, this is not a trivial thing. It is spoken by a modern prophet, I have given it in quotes in this thread. Why are you assuming anyone is worried about another person's path? Why are you exaggerating my comments to "evil"? This whole forum is about questions pertaining to one's own personal path to salvation. If you are saying we are not allowed to talk about personal path questions that affect us in the setting of LDS gospel then 90% of the threads in this forum have to be deleted. That is a ridiculous statement. That is the purpose of this forum is to discuss how the LDS gospel is applied to our modern lives and to help us make those personal decisions. You are making up this idea that I am worried that other people are abusing the system. As it has come up amongst my friends and even a family member suggest I do this, I have thought about it more and posed some of the reasons why I think someone with LDS values should not participate in such activities. If you don't agree, fine, that is what this forum is for. The focus has been on the practice of "extreme couponing" not on the people who practice it. If I start a thread on "murder" that does not automatically mean that I am judging all those who "murder". We would just be talking about the act of murder. Likewise, I am not "worrying" about those that practice extreme couponing rather talking about the moral relevance to honesty that is oftentimes, I agree as you suggested even, missed by those that practice it. Why can't I think 'out loud' about the associated higher laws to any act, greater than "well, it isn't breaking any laws" Terrestrial-type view?

But also realize that what you are asking that would be "neat to know" is why some under the Abrahamic covenant at that time would follow this commandment for reasons less than faith and obedience. In other words, it is like asking what are some of the other reasons besides faith and obedience people would obey the Word of Wisdom? ...like health reasons, to not kill animals etc. You are suggesting it would be "neat to know" why some Jews, if they were not 100% doing it out of faith and obedience, might go along with it for ulterior motives. What are some of those lesser, ulterior motives? Yes, that may be interesting discussion .. I find it "interesting" but may not really have to do with God's purposes. Just so everyone reading this realizes, the question does not pertain to God's purposes for the token and the ordinances since you are suggesting things like identification, separation etc.. Right? That is why, in part, it ultimately falls into the "I don't care" category.

I, in my limited knowledge about this subject, didn't think this was done as something to set them apart from others as I am not sure that would be something checked. (maybe it was, I don't know) I think it was more of a "token" to the covenant as it states in the Bible dictionary. A token is something of value. I think that was the purpose from the givers standpoint.

I assume this applies to Adam and Eve and all their posterity. So, who is left out of this saving? Nobody. I am not seeing what is unique about this other than saying that those that obey the commandments and accept the ordinances whether in this or the next can be saved from outer darkness.

I still think this is vague and needs to be separated into 'desires of the heart' and 'carnal desires' or some other terminology. Otherwise, you would be saying that souls that die at childbirth have no desires? Or those that live with a body that doesn't allow them to be themselves like trisomy 18 etc. I think they still have desires, in fact, pure desires not corrupted by carnal desires. The carnal desires are developed and have to be overcome by many to let our 'true nature' be revealed. It is those that let the carnal desires or nature obscure their spiritual self that get lost in the mist. I think true nature desires can be sewn but they get chocked out by the carnal desires and therefore can't be reaped. One's true nature is already sewn.

I agree that this is something that won't keep someone out of the Terrestrial Kingdom. In the gospel we can focus on things that are not bad or focus on things that are celestial. My questions pertain to a higher than just "not being bad" view. Others on this thread have interpreted it as a 'being bad' question, that was not the intent. The intent of my question pertains to a higher level of morality, I stated that on several posts in the form of "LDS standards". I think treating people as one would treat themselves and showing them love requires being aware of what other people's intentions are, especially in business transactions. This was never a discussion of, is it 'legal under the law, or are they using it against the fine print'. I guess I assumed it was common knowledge that the purpose of coupons is to promote sales, awareness and even profit. For those that are not convinced of that fact, let me share with you various descriptions found off the internet in various locations (can't believe I am having to prove this...): "Purpose of coupons Coupons are often used to encourage new buyers to purchase an existing item. This helps increase sales of that item. The similar effect applies to the purchase of new items. For example, new items introduced to the market sometimes sell for a certain percentage off (i.e. 50% off) of the regular price in order to encourage awareness of a product and to spark interest in that product. This is true for a new service or business introduced in an area as well." "Reasons to Use Coupons As coupons continue to be an inexpensive form of marketing, nearly half of all retailers reported offering consumers some form of bonus coupon program. This means your competitors are probably utilizing coupons in their marketing plan and maybe should you too. Other reasons to use coupons include: • To Increase Number of New Customers • To Increase Sales of a Specific Product • To Increase Branding & Awareness • To Reward Current Customers • To Entice Return of Former Customers • To Create An Opportunity to Up-sell a More Profitable Product • Highly Measurable Form of Marketing Coupons should motivate the consumer to not only purchase the product but to take notice of the brand. A well-designed coupon offer focusing on one particular product or service can generate a short-term boost in traffic to most retailers. While only a small portion of coupons may actually be redeemed, establishing brand awareness is one of the long-lasting effects of a coupon promotion." "The 2005 Supermarket News survey indicates that there are three main reasons why marketers have a taste for couponing. Among those who feel couponing is effective: • 41% say they feel this way because couponing increases brand awareness • 56% report that couponing boosts retailer support • 85% say couponing encourages product trial To get the maximum effect, some marketers are using a recipe for coupon promotions with ingredients that help them achieve all three objectives in a single event: increased brand awareness, retailer tie-in merchandising, and motivation of consumer purchases." "COUPON OBJECTIVES. Coupons may be issued to serve a variety of different strategic marketing objectives. One use is to encourage consumers to try new products; coupons have historically been fairly efficient at getting consumers to try new products by reducing the risk of trying something new. Coupons are also issued to convert trial users into regular customers, such as when a product sample includes a cents-off coupon. In addition, coupons can be used to convince consumers to make purchases of new sizes, flavors, or forms of an established product. Other objectives served by issuing coupons include building retail distribution and support, moving out-of-balance inventories, targeting different markets, cushioning price increases, and enhancing other promotional efforts with coupon add-ons. Coupons are frequently used by manufacturers because of competitive pressure. When used offensively against the competition, coupons are issued to get users of a competitive product to try a new brand. When used defensively, manufacturers provide coupons to current users to keep them from purchasing a competing brand." I don't see saving 50 to 60% as 'extreme couponing' by the way. "Extreme couponing" is when a person is getting essentially all of their grocery store products for less than what it takes to make it (maybe closer to 95% savings or more) and therefore there is a monetary loss associated to it without any hope for the store or the manufacturer to regain that loss from that person. I am not taking about the occasional couponer who by future purchases or other purchases or even by a few pennies from that purchase adds to the profitability of the company. Knowing that the above purposes are the reasons companies make coupons, the person that says I am going to take but not participate in the real reason the company is making the coupon in the first place is not loving their neighbor as themselves. They are saying, I am going to get mine but stick it to someone else. They are just thinking about what is in it for me. "Honesty" may not be the best word to use, maybe "Celestial" or "Christlike" works better for you, just thought it was a word that would be more encompassing. This is very much an intent thing. If the person goes in saying to themselves I have no intention to give this company anything from me but I will take something of value, I think that is "dishonest" or at least not Christlike.

I've always interpreted and tried to make sense of that issue by separating things that come from the spirit versus things that come from the body. We are dual beings, meaning body and spirit together. The desires of the heart are things that come from the spirit being, thoughts are mostly from the body and brain wiring. If there is a breakdown of the veil then I suppose that some thoughts can be from the spirit. What you do with those carnal mind thoughts, though, is what expresses one's desire. That is one of the purposes of this life, to show our true natures. Our choices and how we are valiant or not on those choices expresses our true desires. The thoughts from the mind can be how the choice is presented, and it might be presented over and over again as a test of endurance. Living a chaste life is what helps keep those thoughts manageable but if left alone the thoughts become more and more carnal and then an enemy to God. So, more specifically, in my opinion thoughts can only be managed to a certain point, our job is to keep evil thoughts from having much of a presence on the stage of our mind. And desires, one's true nature, is mostly unchangeable, but it may be obscured under carnal thoughts (the body) until there is a change of heart or a focus on spiritual influences over carnal. The more spiritual control, the more one's true nature comes out.

You are wrong here. This may be what you are not seeing. The difference is that the extreme couponer has no intention of buying anything but free or nearly free items from the store whereas the occasional coupon user still buys profitable items from that store. The extreme couponer thumbs their nose at the idea of giving any profit to the store. Like most moral or immoral things, it is the intent that is important.

I didn't make up any obligations. The question was posed to see if people felt like they had any obligations, obviously, you don't feel that way but many do. If you don't feel like you have the obligation then you can easily justify taking something for "pieces of paper". If you want to justify that in your mind go ahead, I can't stop you and I don't have the power to turn anything immoral or not. It either is immoral or it isn't. The only thing I was trying to do is question it's morality. Justification based in someone else paying the price and not seeing the other side is a common way to ignore the morality of an act. Of course, this is not like murder etc. I am just shocked at how blind people are to what they are doing. People that are blind to this will probably stay blind to it, I can't even begin to change that. I have used coupon advertisements in business in local flyers. My purpose for using them was to increase awareness of our business and to bring more people into our business. It was not for the purpose of giving away services for nothing. I think that is a silly and naive view of what coupons are for to say that they are not for the purpose of generating more income but just to give away a product, end of story. That is exactly the source of the problem, the person is just looking at their side of the transaction and not the 'real' intent of the production of coupon advertisements. ... They put coupons in the ads, you know. "Ads" meaning advertisements. If you owned a business and put out coupons, you would tell me that the only reason you would ever put out a coupon is to give product away without any interest in advertisement? Not to increase awareness or profitability? Boloney. .... then don't waste the printing of the coupons, just give it to a charity. I can't believe that the business would waste money like that, they could just have the charity come and pick it up with one phone call ... would cost nothing. That, to me, is a blind, not-the-whole-truth argument.

Thanks, good article. Shows that they really didn't intend for the coupons to be used that way. Of course, they let is slide when it is only a select few doing it but when it reaches a certain amount then they can't support it. Awesome! thanks.

Seriously? come on. An extreme couponer only buys the products that are obtained for next to nothing and definitely less than the production value of the product. There is a loss by their "purchase" without any hope for recovering that loss directly from that person because they only obtain (I wouldn't even call it a purchase) the products that are for next to nothing. Their intent, shown by getting 150 bottles of BBQ sauce, etc. is to never purchase that product. You are wrong in thinking it generated interest in (purchasing) the product from that person. I was talking about generating interest in purchasing the product at a profitable amount. You know that, you are trying to make it sound silly by saying it is interest in the product alone. Please, I have said it that way many times, it is to generate interest in profitable purchases of that product. The coupons have not successfully done their job in that respect. It did not entice the "buyer" (should be called the 'collector of free goods' - not buyer) to purchase anything, there is no purchase, it is obtained for free. If you think the main reason for coupons is to move the product off the shelf, then the manufacturers and stores are just dumb, they just give the stuff to the food pantry and cut out the middle man. Obviously, there is more to it than that and you are ignoring the advertising and future purchase purpose for coupons. That is the main reason for the coupons, not to push the product off the shelves, give me a break. Don't try to throw in regular use of coupons into the discussion, of course I am only talking about "extreme couponing". If there was an actual purchase involved then fine, but we were never talking about that.