mordorbund

Dear hello Madame, I am a wealthy Nigerian Prince who has recently been widdowed. I myself am quite old and will also soon die. Unfortunately, my pension and insurance can only go to my wife. I do not want my children to be poor. I have heard good things about you and would like for you to be my legal wife. Because of laws here, I only need your consent. You do not even have travel here. In return, you will be the benefficiary of my funds when I die. I only need your routing number to add to the inheritance documents. I only ask in return that you remember my 2 children and give a portion to them. I anxously wait your reply, Prince Mordorbund

Replace Oregonian with Texan and I don't think anyone would bat an eye. :shrug:

I'm a bit suprised this thread has gone on for 5 pages answering only vague questions/concerns. Would you care to be more specific as to what exactly doesn't reflect his status as prophet? What prophecies have you found that weren't fulfilled? What are these conflicts? Finally, a specific question. I think you've gotten some good answers to this (and I think the answers are good because the question is specific). If you would clarify your uneasiness with your concerns, they can be addressed a lot more easily. And sometimes it's the case that once you've identified what exactly about it makes you uneasy, you see for yourself that it really shouldn't be a big deal.

She will never live to see this promise unfulfilled. I'm guessing you're mom sees this blessing as a reference to Millenial prophecies in the D&C. In that day an infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; And when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and shall be caught up, and his rest shall be glorious.

I recently watched "My Name is Khan". I thought it was really good. I came to work and told my Indian coworkers about it and they just rolled their eyes. Apparently the lead actor does a million of these and has a really annoying articulation. But I still like it. And if you want campy action movies, you have to find Rajnikanth. He's the Indian Chuck Norris (the world will end in 2012 when Rajnikanth get sick of humanity). My boss told me that his movies are really cheesy ("I better not say that because he might come over and beat me up"). Sample Rajnikanth: The ladies love him Horses will do anything for him

I was referring to this story as told by Josephus (Antiquities 11.8.4-5), where Jerusalem was spared by a dream to Alexander, and obedience to a dream by the High Priest: Now Alexander, when he had taken Gaza, made haste to go up to Jerusalem; and Jaddua the high priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror, as not knowing how he should meet the Macedonians, since the king was displeased at his foregoing disobedience. He therefore ordained that the people should make supplications, and should join with him in offering sacrifice to God, whom he besought to protect that nation, and to deliver them from the perils that were coming upon them; whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king. 5. And when he understood that he was not far from the city, he went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens. The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations. It reached to a place called Sapha, which name, translated into Greek, signifies a prospect, for you have thence a prospect both of Jerusalem and of the temple. And when the Phoenicians and the Chaldeans that followed him thought they should have liberty to plunder the city, and torment the high priest to death, which the king's displeasure fairly promised them, the very reverse of it happened; for Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he approached by himself, and adored that name, and first saluted the high priest. The Jews also did all together, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; whereupon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind. However, Parmenio alone went up to him, and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, "I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind."

Mordorbund, I am responding to your post because it is a clear example of a trend I see here attempting to equate the deuterocanonical books, which were included in the original canon of Sacred Scripture, with the heretical and uncanonized writings such as the "Gospel of Thomas". The so called "apocrypha" was included in the Old Testament scriptures read by Jesus and the Apostles and remained as canonized scripture for 1500 years, before being tossed out by Luther. The "NT stuff" you referred to, was never canonized and is spurious. They should not be talked about as if they are of equivalent theological or moral value or in any way held in the same esteem. Apologies for not being clearer. I'm aware that "apocrypha" is a specialized term for books found in the Catholic Bible that were removed in the Protestant Bible. I wanted to broaden the discussion past those books as it appeared that most on this forum haven't read them. I tried to make a distinction by admitting that "I haven't read any of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible, but I have read some late NT stuff [that isn't the same as the apocrypha but are still extra-[Protestant-]Biblical texts worthy of study in light of the JS quote shared]." Sorry that I wasn't clearer. I can see how visually grouping apocrypha with pseudopigrapha could lead to that confusion. And just to nitpick right back at you, the Gospel of Thomas is different from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The first contains the sayings of Jesus (think of a red-letter Bible with the black text removed), while the second tells of Jesus' childhood (and I agree that this particular work is of dubious origins). Back to the Apocrypha, would you mind sharing some of the stories and doctrines found in the Apocrypha that greatly stick out to you? I read a story in some of Josephus' writings about Alexander the Great coming down to fight Jerusalem, but changing his mind due to some miraculous circumstances. I've wondered if that is found in the Apocrypha, but haven't taken the time to read it yet.

I just read a translation of the Gospel of Judas. It is gnostic, and was identified as heretical by Iranaeus (i, 31, 1): Chapter XXXI.-Doctrines of the Cainites. 1. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas. I'm thinking this is the same gospel Iranaeus was writing about as Judas is highlighted as the only disciple among the twelve to receive the hidden knowledge. They all said, “We have the strength.” But their spirits did not dare to stand before [him], except for Judas Iscariot. He was able to stand before him, but he could not look him in the eyes, and he turned his face away. Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.” Knowing that Judas was reflecting upon something that was exalted, Jesus said to him, “Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal. [36] For someone else will replace you, in order that the twelve [disciples] may again come to completion with their god.” After a fragmentary portion where the disciples have visions of priests offering sacrifices at the altar (starting with the mosaic and moving along to the barbaric), Judas asks, "what will those who have been baptized in your name do?" Jesus answers in another fragmentary portion (which I suppose parallels the disciples' visions), and then states to Judas, "But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." Without more context, I can't tell if Judas is being glorified for his role in the betrayal, or if he is being shown as the greatest of all the disciples falling. But as Iranaeus points out, it also teaches some gnostic doctrines.

Have you read anything of interest in it?

<Trying to salvage this thread> What apocrypha/psuedopigrapha/whatever have you read that you've found of worth? I thought some parts of Jasher are interesting, as well as Enoch. They both have a sort of history with our Church. I haven't read any of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible, but I have read some late NT stuff. Infant Gospel of Thomas, anyone? You wanna talk about a different Jesus?! Oh boy!!

I think we can be perfect in the same sense within a single lifetime, just as they were. So back to the OP, yes/no. Give me your definition of perfect and I'll tell you if a person can achieve it before death.

So far as I'm concerned, Satan can go to hell.

So far, everyone here has taken the Jesus reference of perfect, which includes a glorified body. What about in the sense of some Old Testament prophets, like Noah and Job?

Ah yes, the Clean Flicks version of Blazing Saddles.

My brother's Priest Quorum Advisor once gave the following counsel: If you ever get in an argument with someone, just let him say everything he has to say. Then say, "are you done?". If he says no, let him keep going until he gets done. And then say, "are you done?". Keep doing this until he's finally done. Then say "Your mother" and just walk away. He won't have anything to say back because he already said everything. Your mileage may vary.

D&C 13 and JSH talk about the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood. There's a note there that includes Oliver Cowdery's account that's also worth reading (he was present when it was restored). D&C 20 is the articles of the church drafted at the time of its formation and includes a section on the duties and offices of the Priesthood. It also contains some instruction on how to perform some of the ordinances. D&C 107 establishes the organization of the Priesthood body into quorums with a president at the head of each. For what it's worth a quorum, as used in the Church, is a group of people selected from the same larger pool. Apparently it's an older political term, although I haven't heard it used in this sense much outside of church. There is another definition that you may be familiar with, which is the number of member who must be present for a body to function. This is the more common way the term is used outside church. Verse 28 actually uses it in this way, but otherwise it means select body :). D&C 84 gives a history of the two priesthoods and contains the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. Besides the highlighted verses, you should read the entire section. It contains more about the Aaronic Priesthood than what I've mentioned, and will also give you some ideas of what you are preparing for with the Melchizedek Priesthood.

As my wife likes to tell me [VOICE=PRESIDENT PACKER]"You knew what I was when you picked me up."[/VOICE]

Poor Pam. You were already old by the time you reached High School.

You've probably already considered this, but I'll share it anyway. We were having a lesson on the Word of Wisdom at Church and the instructor asked what can we do to help ourselves live the Word of Wisdom. My uncle (who's something of a Southern good ol' boy) says, "well first off, don't marry yourself a woman who'll drive you to drink!" I'm not saying anything about you or your intended..... but if the shoe fits......

In my copy of Lectures on Faith, there's some supplementary material (stuff like Shem being Melchizedek and such). There's also a sermon one of the Apostles gave on Creedal Christianity worshipping the wrong God. There's some sarcastic quips in there about their prayers not getting answered because they're praying to the wrong God. I guess it's our turn now.

Isaac did none other thing than that which he was commanded. We only have record of one wife. So either one wife is sufficient for all the blessings listed in section 132 (provided none others are commanded), or the additional wives he was commanded are not recorded. I lean toward the former. (or there's some record I don't know about, which is why I asked for documentation).

The Temple has always been a house of prayer. Besides the prayers on set holy days, there was an altar of incense before the vail that led to the most holy place (holy of holies - where God would visit "between the cherubim"). John the Divine (what a great title) taught that the altar's smoke symbolized the prayer of the saints. In today's temple, in a similar place, the saints actually offer up a prayer. The location of Temple prayer is interesting to me - that we are closest to the other side of the veil when we pray.

<minor, nitpicking point> Isaac huh? Could you provide some documentation?

See, that's exactly the kind of mistake to be made on a starter baby and not your own.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Would you mind repeating it?