mordorbund

Of all the responses, I think the Priesthood-as-a-government-body may be the best. My problem with it is that I don't know what business is officially supposed to happen there that isn't already done elsewhere. Keeping track of ordinations and baptisms (as outlined in D&C 20) are now handled via MLS. The solemn assembly where we sustain a new Prophet on a per quorum basis is done in a general session. Any idea what business should be transacted in the Priesthood meeting?

Motives aside, Satan and his host provide us with an example of intelligences not giving honor to God. Did that make God less-powerful? Does that honor then go to whoever the intelligence offers it? or is it lost forever? How many intelligences must give God honor in order for Him to maintain His glory? If only 1 intelligence gives him honor, is He still God? Does He remain God even over those intelligences that reject Him and give Him no honor? I do agree with some aspects of Skousen's ideas - primarily that there is some (finer) matter that acts and some matter that is acted upon. This idea though, that God is God only so long as He is being honored rubs me the wrong way.

I was reading the Church Handbook of Instruction today and came across this: I'm really curious now and want to ask my Bishop if I can receive the translating ordinances, but I'm concerned about what rules may be in handbook 1 to prevent me. Like, maybe the 3 Nephite disciples received it because they didn't come right out and ask for it, in which case I would clearly not get it. But John made a point-blank request and was granted it. I'm not sure what to do. I just want to be translated correctly.

These comments remind me of a non-statistically significant xkcd comic:

I can imagine Sister Monson selecting a tie for President Monson and telling him to have a good time with all the other men. As he leaves, the driveway fills with cars that spill out into the street. 20, maybe 50 women get out and bring enough twister mats and prunes to have a really good time.

The church of the Lamb is more general than the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nephi uses the phrase "church of the devil" as a synonym for "great and abominable church". When taken in connection with the Book of Mormon, modern revelation suggests that early missionaries were to proselytize to churches within the Church of the Lamb.

When I dance, that's what I imagine everyone is seeing. I'm told the reality is closer to the truffle shuffle.

This doesn't frighten anyone else? When the robot revolution starts, it will be fought by an army of COWS!!!!

I wonder what it was about this problem that called for an army of modeler gamers instead of just using their idle processing time.

Of all the sessions of General Conference (and you can even include the Relief Society meeting in this if you want), only the Priesthood session requires me to physically be in a church building. Any ideas why? My thoughts considered the Elders' Conference mentioned in D&C 20, but the matters of business listed there are all handled in other ways or in local conferences now. Even the solemn assembly where we sustain the new Prophet is not conducted in this meeting, but in one of the general meetings broadcasted over the radio and Internet. So, why must the body be present for the Priesthood Session?

My apologies. I concluded from your silence that you were just a flash-in-the-pan poster and took the opportunity for some levity. It looks like you're more of a weekend poster. I look forward to reading your questions and some of the answers from the helpful forum members.

Don't you mean undeadly.

Aren't you thinking about Bunnicula?

So I chatted with Investigator01 and got his list of questions. Feel free to attempt answers after wiping my gauntlet from your face. Joseph claims God the Father spoke to him in the First Vision. Joesph is now dead, so who can I ask to independently verify the event? Whoa! Really? (not a question, but) cool. Why is everyone in my wife's church so awesome? If I join, will I automatically be awesome too? Or is awesomeness a requirement for joining? I read about your degrees of glory. How great is that? There are others, but I'll wait for you to cut your teeth into these.

I've had the reverse experience. Yours may have been poor because it was with a larger group, or it could be because the counselor just reacted poorly. When I went to the LA Temple with some fellow missionaries, an Elder confided in me that he wished he could talk more openly about the ordinances so he could get some questions answered. We agreed to talk to the temple president together. We asked a whole slew of questions, from the Book of Abraham facsimiles to the significance of signs and tokens. He answered what he knew, and admitted what he didn't. I have since made it a practice that when I have a question that calls for someone who either experienced a different version of the ordinances, or has access to the text of the ordinances (or a separate Handbook of Instruction), to ponder it, take it to a member of the temple presidency, and ponder some more.

Werewolves? Vampires? Fiction? There's unicorns in the Bible. And Cumoms in the Book of Mormon. And don't forget Cureloms (a mix between Cumoms and Curelasses). In the Bible there's a red-hairy man and in LDS tradition there's a black-hairy man. Talking donkeys (no ogres), four-faced beasts, sea serpents, dragons, giants; water to wine, never-ending oil, endless bread basket; wheel-within-wheel transport, double-needle compass (who knows what that second needle is for), see-all glasses, healing hems, healing snake-sticks; I'll stop now. Are you concerned that it'll be boring? or blasphemous because the events and beings aren't attributed to God?

Those lazy Nephites also prefer to watch conference from the comfort of their own homes. For shame.

It's like the old adage, "You can leave the Church, but the Church won't leave you alone." Or something like that.

I think Paul's perspective is borne out from his life experience. How necessary are works and good deeds when you've been performing them all your life, but the real turning point is when you are called in the midst of all this zeal to worship Jesus Christ? Contrast that with the other authors who underwent traditional discipleship training.

I think we've reached an understanding. Please explain to me why a literal angel was required. Is this a logic thing or a biblical thing? If biblical, then I need to see more than Revelation because (as I've said before) so much of it is symbollic. I held this back in my comments, but angels are heavily tied to the Gospel of Repentance. Some fun scriptures to tie together: D&C 13 Hebrews 1 (keep in mind that while Paul talks about the Son being superior to Angels, he will soon segue into the Melchizedek Priesthood being greater than the Aaronic) D&C 84 (contrast this with D&C 13 - the Aaronic granting us communion with angels, the Melchizedek granting us communion with God) 2 Nephi 32 (just as John came under the direction of Peter, James, and John; angels are under the direction of the Godhead; just as the Aaronic Priesthood falls under the direction of the Melchizedek in the Church today)

When someone confides in me, I relate the following:

Not quite the same, but related:

I can concede on this (that the gospel itself is everlasting, so it's the same gospel in every dispensation). I think what I have the most problem with is actually something you stated much earlier (bolding added). I don't think that's the only meaning of this passage. Joseph revealed that Moroni's visit was only a partial fulfilment of this passage; the gospel-bearing angel was indeed an angel, but the gospel-preaching angel (the angels are the same in Revelation) is no angel at all but servants. So the onus is on God's servants to see that the rest of this passage is fulfilled. A quick search for "everlasting gospel" in the D&C shows us that this charge has been placed on the Church's missionaries from early on. I would suggest that it is still in process of being fulfilled today as missionaries testify of the gospel and invites others to turn to God. Now let's play degrees of separation. Young missionary where did you get that gospel from? <parents or missionary>. And where did <parents or missionary> get that gospel from? <parents or missionary>. ... And where did Joseph Smith get that gospel from? An angel, which in our case, is literally an angel sent from the courts of God; his charge has been passed on today to me to share this with you. The young missionary becomes a standin for an angel. Now, let's remove the doctrines of Apostasy and Restoration for a minute. Good brother, where did you get this gospel that Jesus saves and I should follow him? <parents or missionary>. And where did <parents or missionary> get that gospel from? <parents or missionary>. ... And where did Paul/Peter get that gospel from? Jesus, who (like an angel) was sent from heaven to turn us to God. His charge has been passed on today to me to share with you. The young missionary becomes a standin for an angel. The stories are very similar, but differs at whether the initial angel carrying the gospel was symbollic or literal. I see Moroni as a partial fulfillment, with more to come (I do not doubt more angels as well). I don't think the gospel has to be globally absent for this verse to be fulfilled, as we are seeing it fulfilled today with regular people standing in for the angel.

And so we come back to where I initially entered. Revelation is a highly symbollic book. To fully apply the logic that An angel carried the gospel to earth ergo I must find an angel-based religion to be saved then we will find ourselves in a world of trouble. For not only does an angel bring the gospel, but another angel holds the key to the bottomless pit and other angels carry plagues. Perhaps the lesson here is to be cautious about which angels you befriend (maybe that's what Paul was trying to get across ) So to answer your question, I think the message here is before Babylon falls there will be a strong push to turn everyone to God.

Not necessarily. The gospel is to be given specifically to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people". All that's being implied with this is that the Apostles' mission (to teach all nations) has not been completed. That could be because the gospel was removed, but it could also be because the gospel had not made it to every nation. Further, the context places this angel between the Jesus appearing on Mt Zion and the destruction of Bablyon. Even for the LDS, the gospel should be on the earth before this angel appears.