mordorbund
-
Posts
6441 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by mordorbund
-
-
Searching xkcd for relevant comic
-
Um, guys? He's not faux-advocating a satanic death for people at FOX, he's faux-advocating someone building a satanic death cult center at FOX.
See, it's an attempt at a witty comeback based on the 9/11 mosque reaction. It's not a faux-death threat. And nobody ever believed it was an actual death threat.
It's hard to cram wit into the twitter 140 character maximum. So I don't even knock the guy for failing at it.
Sorry John, you didn't think that one through. You try to insult a group that thinks that the building of Muslim cultural center is the same as constructing a worshipful Mosque of Jihadist American-haters. And so you state that you'd like to build satanic center. Let's do SAT-style analogies -
Muslim cultural center near ground zero is to worshipful Mosque of Jihadist American-haters on top of the Holy Shrine of the Sacred Blood of the Blessed Americans
as
Satanic death cult center near Fox news is to ???
-
It's been several years since I've read it, but there are three things that stick in my mind from it.
1. Big Endian vs Little Endian. I work in computers and this is used to describe the debate about significant bit ordering. It also illustrates to me the real-life tactic of arguing over minutia to either distract from real issues (can we say "ground zero mosque"?) or simply to maintain a disagreement between parties (in the computer world, for instance, a standard really needs to be set, but which one isn't so important).
2. Progress just for the sake of progress. I'm certain there's a better way to phrase that, but the specific instance in the book is of the peoples who abhored right angles and would build the top of a building before the foundation. In an effort to keep with bleeding edge technology, we could scrap our current framework and adopt the brand new one that's getting dropped as a buzzword. But we need to recognize that there's a price for breaking in new technologies.
3. Man is not a rational animal. We like to pretend like we are. We like to justify our wars and laws with logic, but really when you break it down (as the Horse do for Gulliver) you see that it's a lot of silliness.
Dr T, what are your thoughts about the Horses' arguments that we are not truly rational? If we are not, then what is our true foundation? Ethics? Morals? Emotions? Instinct?
-
The member is right. Unless the ex-counselor is a counselor or a district leader, he shouldn't be interviewing and receiving reports. Those tasks should remain with the people who are called to do them.
Where does the idea of a district leader come from? I thought HT reporting was do be done to a Group or Quorum leader.
-
There's another thread in this same forum about Alma 42 and Alma's teaching that if God was not just (allowed mercy to rob justice), then he would cease to be God. There is a split consensus, with some claiming that this phrase is an argumentative construct whose only purpose is to illustrate a hypothetical absurdity as to why things must be the way they are. The same argument can be applied to Alma 12. Can God's plan really be frustrated? Of course not, he's God. He knows the end from the beginning and can plan accordingly.Why would Alma state an impossibility and then present the consequences of something that was impossible? 2 times, no less!
Just tossing this out there, but how long was Adam fallen in the Garden? It sounds like after he eats the fruit, he discovers his nakedness, and is then confronted by God. So a direct intervention via a stewardship meeting sounds like an effective way to prevent him from eating.How could God have prevented Adam from partaking of the tree of life if it wasn't guarded until after Adam left?
That is correct. Adam was not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life at that time. Continuing from where I left off above, the confrontation was a temporary measure, cherubim are a more permanent solution.And, regardless of what consequences brought about by eating the forbidden fruit (like not being able to eat of the tree of life) the fact remains that the claim has been made that God placed the guard to prevent Adam from eating it, so whether or not his first choice prevented it was not enough for God not to place the guard as claimed. According to some, God still placed the guard to "prevent" Adam from eating it.
When the Atonement cleansed Adam, he could then pass by the angels who stand as sentinels and live forever in his exaltation.
So it shouldn't be too suprising to you that people in this forum aren't jumping on board and praising this lesson as Paul's missing exegesis.I just don't see how that makes sense. However, I have blindly accepted that very thing most of my life. It wasn't until I began a serious study of the creation, fall, and atonement where I started to see where God would not remove a man's agency and force that man to follow Him. If He did that for Adam then He could and would do it for all men or He would not be fair.
I'll acknowledge that what you've written doesn't contradict the scriptures any more than the LDS teachings about Adam/Eve's state in the Garden contradict the Bible (the whole no children thing). But you should also acknowledge that this idea isn't really orthodoxy - that is, it's not in our manuals, it's not taught in Sunday School, it's not even hinted at in obscure references. It is there in the margins of your scriptures.
-
I've noticed whenever we have a lesson on Agency in church, comments are usually shared about Soviet Russia and how agency was limited by enforcing atheism. What are your thoughts on law and Agency?
Can political laws restrict Agency? If so, in what way?
(I know there's another thread on agency going on right now, but it has another focus and I didn't want to detract from it.)
-
What is the purpose for anointing a person with consecrated oil for a priesthood blessing?
Which part is in question - Why is there a blessing for the sick? Why is there a physical requirement beyond the laying on of hands (to include the anointing)? Why oil specifically? or Why must the oil be consecrated?
-
This thread inspired me to dig up my old mission letters. Some background: my initials are TSJ (I work that to my convenience). Also before leaving, I had trained my brother's cat to come over and sit when I called for it (it liked homemade bread, so I would use that for leverage). And my dad had just written me telling me that his friend was a little sad because his cat died recently. My dad told him (I assure you my dad did NOT tell him this, but told the story this way) that if it had been a dog, it would have gone to heaven. But because it was a cat, well, tough luck.
This was my reply (and because it was written by a missionary, it's practically scripture):
"There are bodies canine, and bodies feline; but the glory of the feline is one, and the glory of the canine another. There is one glory of the dog, another of the cat, and another of the fish; for one fish differs from another fish in glory. So also is the resurrection of pets - they are domesticated in corruption, but raised in incorruption." (The TSJ notes "bodies canine, and bodies feline, and bodies icthus, but the glory of the icthus is one, and the glory of ...)
Thus we see that while every animal is resurrected, those that are less valiant will receive a lesser glory than those that are diligent. This does not mean a cat cannot receive the highest glory; but in order to do so, it must abide the law of the canine kingdom, i.e. it must become trainable, willing to sleep outside, obedient, etc. That it can be done, we have so seen, but we have also learned through sad experience that if the creature is not carefully watched over, it will lose its higher habits and return to its base nature.
To which my dad replied in his focus-inspiring letter:Quit dorking around.
Yeah, that's two letters that'll never get read in General Conference.
- Just_A_Guy and Vort
-
2
-
Moving away from the garden, can political laws restrict Agency? If so, in what way?
-
I've never heard the phrase either. Maybe it's that OTHER English.
Oddly enough, until I read the article, I couldn't remember ever having heard the phrase.
At the End of the Day excerpt from Les Miserables
[THE POOR]
At the end of the day you're another day older
And that's all you can say for the life of the poor
It's a struggle, it's a war
And there's nothing that anyone's giving
One more day standing about, what is it for?
One day less to be living.
At the end of the day you're another day colder
And the shirt on your back doesn't keep out the chill
And the righteous hurry past
They don't hear the little ones crying
And the winter is coming on fast, ready to kill
One day nearer to dying!
...
[The foreman and workers, including Fantine, emerge from the factory]
[FOREMAN]
At the end of the day you get nothing for nothing
Sitting flat on your butt doesn't buy any bread
[WORKER ONE]
There are children back at home
[WORKERS ONE AND TWO]
And the children have got to be fed
[WORKER TWO]
And you're lucky to be in a job
[WOMAN]
And in a bed!
[WORKERS]
And we're counting our blessings!
...
It's touring around the US if you need an excuse to hear the phrase several times.
-
Music technology played a role in the choir’s — and thus the church’s — march toward the mainstream. The first recordings, using giant sound-collecting horns suspended from the ceiling of the tabernacle, were released in 1910. A Sunday radio broadcast began in 1929, mixing choral swell with what church authorities call “the spoken word” of scriptural message.
I knew it! Mormons have horns!!
-
Good point. It is obvious that huge savings would accrue if the war was ended, but that graph does not depict it as such. Its almost an enticement to continue with a small money pit.
Small or large, the government should not even have a money pit. What makes America great is that each individual can make his or her own money pit of any size. My pit would be much larger if the government stopped taking my money and throwing it in their pit.
-
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
I think others have addressed Acts 2 for you with the difference between the Holy Ghost (not tarrying) and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10 is more difficult. Joseph Smith taught (it's quoted earlier by hemidakota) that Cornelius had not received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but was experiencing a manifestation of the Spirit. And yet, right there in the text they were astonished "that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." I have not found an answer that fully satisfies me in this respect. It is one of those things for which I await further light and knowledge. In the meantime, I consider that maybe the emphasis is that they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost - that is, of all the spiritual gifts that the Holy Ghost poured out in the early period of the church, speaking in tongues was the quickest way to recognize that the Holy Ghost was present.
-
They do not choose between good and evil. There is no reason for them not to go to heaven. They only obey instinct.
Are they created for automatic celestial glory? How does this compare with the earth (D&C 88:25-26)?
And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law— Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.
And look at Abraham's account of the creation where "the Gods saw that they were obeyed" by elements of the earth.
I think there's room in these verses to believe that the earth acted in accordance to celestial law and is not acted upon (there are clearly some laws that act upon the earth, but that does not exclude the other). And if the earth can be judged for obedience, there's no reason why a dog can't either.
-
Moroni 10:33
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.
Maybe not dogs, but there are definitely insects (Rev 14:6):
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
-
I was using it in sense that it is a "veil of forgetfulness", meaning we don't have a direct recollection of all the things we learned in the pre-mortal existence, in order to protect us from sinning against the greater light - forcing us to rely on faith to gain a sure knowledge of eternal truths.
In a way it goes hand in hand with the use of "veil" to symbolically represent the separation of man from God.
See Guide to the Scriptures: Veil
Regards,
Vanhin
I was using it in a similar manner. The two estates act as filters with different granularity. It takes a certain level of rebellion and defiance to stare God in the face and say you want to dethrone him. Once that group was sifted out, another sifting was to take place (we know who comes in last, so let's have another tourney for 1st, 2nd, 3rd). For me, the principle of the veil has to do with being separated from God and not remembering the pre-earth life. If we never became mortal, but continued to exist as spirits, the veil would still serve the same purpose. And we would see who would still continue to follow God even though they no were no longer in his house.
Of course, as a practical matter this may all be gibberish. The Holy Ghost speaks spirit to spirit, so it may be that it was impossible to place a veil over us without giving us some way to cover our spirit selves. Or, on the other hand, maybe God just wanted to kill two birds with one stone.
-
Adam already had his agency in the pre-mortal existence. How do you explain that God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden?
I think Vanhin already addressed this.
I think the answer lies in D&C 93.
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. (D&C 93:29-32)
Agency is derived from being enlightened by the light of Christ and by being placed into spheres (environments) where we can independently make choices.
I would only add that we have been given a different sphere of agency. In this new world of Adam's, we walk by faith and not by sight. So this is a new form of agency. The parameters around the choices are different, so (God being just) the consequences are different. A person in this sphere who outright rejects God and wholly turns away from him does not automatically receive the same reward as Satan who did the same thing. Why not? Because the presence of the veil makes it a different choice.
-
If options are removed, or not available for a choice, then you cannot exercise your agency to make those choices. That limits or removes your agency in that thing, and that's how Satan planned to "destroy the agency of man." It's not that he could have taken our moral agency away, or prevented us from making choices, he had to remove options from the choice set, thus destroying our agency to choose those things... namely Christ in that case. Remove the ability for Christ to be born to a mortal mother and you remove the blood atonement, thereby eliminating our ability to choose to follow Christ back to the Father... or "destroying the agency of man."
There are a number of ways that a system could be created without agency (I have to talk in the hypothetical here because I'm not sure if our agency could actually be removed so long as there's an Atonement).
Everything that's created could have a physical/biological law that dictates how it acts. If you smell food, you drool. If it's daytime, you work in the garden until evening and eat your food at the end of the day. You can't choose to be lazy because you're hardwired to do this every day.
Everyone gets the same reward. Iroically, this is the state we would all in without an Atonement. Except, where the scriptures teach that this would leave us damned, Lucifer seemed to persuade that he would save (I guess you get a new regime, you get new laws
).Now that I'm looking at these, I see they remove 2 of the 3 items I listed earlier. So I guess you could also create the system so that while the agents could choose to do wrong, the opportunity never presents itself. Think of The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg by Mark Twain.
One last thought is what John Taylor seemed to think was Satan's plan. From Mediation and Atonement, chapter 11:
There are other questions mixed up with this rebellion besides those above referred to, and those questions are directly connected with the atonement. In the event of man having his free will and being subject to the power of temptation, the weakness of the flesh, the allurements of the world, and the powers of darkness, it was known that he must necessarily fall, and being fallen, it would be impossible for him to redeem himself, and that, according to an eternal law of justice, it would require an infinite, expiatory atonement to redeem man, to save him from the effects and ruin of the Fall, and to place him in a condition where he could again reinstated in the favor of God, according to the eternal laws of justice and mercy; and find his way back to the presence of the Father. Satan (it is possible) being opposed to the will of his Father, wished to avoid the responsibilities of this position, and rather than assume the consequences of the acceptance of the plan of the Father, he would deprive man of his free agency, and render it impossible for him to obtain that exaltation which God designed. It would further seem probable that he refused to take the position of redeemer, and assume all the consequences associated therewith, but he did propose, as stated before, to take another plan and deprive man of his agency, and he probably intended to make men atone for their own acts by an act of coercion, and the shedding of their own blood as an atonement for their sins; therefore, he says, “I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost; and surely I will do it; wherefore, give me thine honor.”
-
What is agency, exactly?
When do you have it?
Agency is the ability to act and not to be acted upon. I think that definition falls in well with what others were saying earlier with the legal definition and being agents for ourselves.
From 2 Nephi 2 that you referenced earlier, it looks like there are three things that are required for us to have agency:
- The agent must be created.
For there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
- The agent must be given a choice.
Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
- The choices must involve different consequences
And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
Elsewhere Jacob says that were it not for the Atonement, we would all be automatically damned, which dovetails neatly into this point here.
One thing that I'd like to point out is that agency is not the same for all. For instance, someone in prison does not have the same agency as someone who is not.
I take a small disagreement with this. I'll explain by clearing up the second point more. Lehi gives a great illustration of choice by depicting the two trees in the garden. But to have a choice, there really only needs to be one tree. Adam can either eat the fruit of that tree, or not eat the fruit of the tree (the null choice is also a choice). Because of point 3, that tree has to be the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (otherwise there's no difference in consequence of the two choices, and hence, no real choice).
In order for you to not have agency over something, there has to be a physical restriction. No matter how much I want to, how much I try, I will never accelerate faster or slower than 9.81 meters per second square in a vacuum. I have absolutely no agency there. I do not have the agency to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day because my system isn't acclimated at all to smoking. In that respect, a chain smoker has more agency there than I do. But we both have the same agency to smoke this cigarette that's before us right now. The person in prison does not have agency to punch me out, because there is a physical restriction there.
- The agent must be created.
-
Sorry to be picky, but entomology is the study of words, while etymology is the study of the history of words.
Don't know why I wrote entomology, unless he's tithing his butterfly collection.
-
Luke 3:
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, who was formed of God, and the first man upon the earth.
Joseph Smith fixed that for you.
Moses 6:
22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed.
Reading the genealogy, this looks like it may be related to priesthood descent or the covenant relationship of the sons of God. I couldn't help but notice that Cain is absent in this line, which suggests to me that it is other than a physical line.
-
Did this help you?
Not quite. The earliest reference we found is 1833. It would be nice to see some earlier manuscripts and cross the timeline with church history.
I think the key of David would have more bearing on the origin than the keys of the kingdom. But it would have come through pondering. I'm wondering who the original ponderer(s) was(were) and when that question/answer took place.
For instance, we know that when the Saints moved to Kirtland that there was already a group practicing something similar to the United Order. Exposure to that caused the Prophet to pray and receive a revelation on what the proper order is.
I suspect the term "keys" came about similarly, with someone coining the term and Smith adopting it. I don't know of any other churches that talk about keys, except with respect to Peter having them.
So what would bridge the gap between what I've already learned here and what I want to know? I'd like to see an earlier transcript of section 6 (or some equally dated document) with mention of keys.
-
It looks like the term "keys" was added to section 7 sometime between 1833 and 1835. The bolded portions appear in the 1835, but not the 1833 version:
1. And the Lord said unto me, John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.
2. And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.
3. And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shall prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
4. And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter; if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom.
5. I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done.
6. Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore, I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.
7. And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.
8. Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired.
The term does appear in the 1833 Book of Commandments for section 6. Does anyone have a pre-1833 transcript of D&C 6?
-
How's about this - Hemidakota, I seem to recall you mentioning that you have versions of the JS revelations that show versioning. Why don't you check sections 6 and 7 and see if the term keys was in the original, or if they got retro-fitted in like the office of High Priests in section 20.
Books about the Book of Mormon
in General Discussion
Posted
+1 on this