The Folk Prophet

Don't forget about (attempted) murder. I envision Jack Sparrow and Captain Barbossa...two immortals locked in an eternal round of stabbing each other uselessly.

No. Just that baptism isn't required. We still have "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess".

Excellent. Makes me wonder what D&C 138 actually means then.

Perhaps I'm not understanding you. I don't see anything there saying that the work for the just and the unjust alike cannot be accomplished during the millennium. Nor do I see anything that says there will be no living righteous men to do said work during that time. Here's Brigham Young on the matter: "And through the Millennium, the thousand years that the people will love and serve God, we will build temples and officiate therein for those who have slept for hundreds and thousands of years—those who would have received the truth if they had had the opportunity; and we will bring them up, and form the chain entire, back to Adam. As I have frequently told you, that is the work of the Millennium. It is the work that has to be performed by the seed of Abraham, the chosen seed, the royal seed, the blessed of the Lord, those the Lord made covenants with. They will step forth, and save every son and daughter of Adam who will receive salvation here on the earth; and all the spirits in the spirit world will be preached to, conversed with, and the principles of salvation carried to them, that they may have the privilege of receiving the Gospel; and they will have plenty of children here on the earth to officiate for them in those ordinances of the Gospel that pertain to the flesh."

See...here's another meaningless word. "Hidden". Hidden is a relative term and adding it into your argument is merely argumentative. Hidden is something that cannot be seen. You say in the same paragraph that feelings may be masked and we may recognize more fully in the spirit world...but they're not hidden...??? What?! It makes no sense. All things are known to God -- not all things are known to man (some things are, indeed "hidden"). So? What's your point? It really has no use or meaning. I reiterate. There is a price to sin that Christ paid so we will not have to if we repent. Hidden? Natural? Just garbage to confuse the issue. I have no impressions. Not do I find it relevant.

This cannot possibly be true. Source it please.

James12, you love setting up these false premises and declaring what you believe against the obvious meanings. This makes it pretty useless to discuss things. For example ... what value does it have to specify punishment as "natural" or not? All that is doing is confusing the issue and allowing you to twist meanings again. The description of the penalty being "natural"...who cares?! I don't know if it's natural. Nor does it make any difference. And what does it even mean? Such an ambiguous term that can mean any number of things. Like I said. Who cares? Natural? Whatever. The fact is that Christ paid for our sins, took the penalty (or suffering, or whatever you want to call it) of them upon Himself, so we would not have to if we repent. Beyond that, all your talking in circles around it amounts to so much jibber-jabber.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Baptisms for all of the dead will be performed during the Millennium.

Whoops. Page 3 now.

It's only on page 2. Compared to some threads, it still is it's inception.

Or, in other words the deduction is based on the deductions (or lack thereof) of the others in the room. Interesting.

I would like for you to show your work.

Oh...one other though on that though. I do believe that there are times where the scriptures, although speaking of the the Jews, is using the term generically to speak of Israelites, and it is not improper to liken those scriptures, accordingly, to the kingdom of God at large (meaning the LDS). It still remains incorrect to call the LDS people "Jews" in any regard though (except, of course, any who descend from Judah).

This will seem a bit nit-picky -- so forgive -- but Hebrew is technically a language, and comes from the person Eber, who was an ancestor of all Israelites. "Jews" descend from Judah. Of course, tradition has come to specify "Jews" as "Hebrews", though the term still correctly refers to all Israelite descendants, but outside of Mormondom, that means Jews. So you're not wrong, per se, except that it would technically be correct (debatable so) to call those of Ephraim ancestral Hebrews, but it would not be correct to call those of Ephraim "Jews".

Maybe calling attention to it by protestation would be a good thing then. :)

For the most part I agree with you on this, but there are a few things I think aren't quite accurate. First, there is a price to be paid for sin. Period. But that price, as you have described it previously, is not "pain points" or suffering, per se. I agree that suffering is a consequence, and not the payment itself. The payment, although, perhaps impossible to truly understand, likely differs -- but I would say that suffering is a response to the payment rather than the payment itself. Easy analogy -- you speed -- you get a speeding ticket -- you have to pay it. The price is the money. Now it may well hurt you to pay that money. But the hurt isn't the price. The money is. Secondly, as we learn the following from D&C 138 (currently discussed in another thread I started as well): 58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, 59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. Please re-read now carefully. Clear indication that some who repent must continue to pay the penalty anyway. This puts a serious kink in your, once-repentance-is-accomplished-the-punishment-ends, theory. Here's some other quotes for consideration: M. Russell Ballard: "...it required the vicarious sacrifice of one who was sinless and who could therefore take upon Himself the sins of all mankind. He knelt among the gnarled olive trees, and in some incredible way that none of us can fully comprehend, the Savior took upon Himself the sins of the world. Even though His life was pure and free of sin, He paid the ultimate penalty for sin—yours, mine, and everyone who has ever lived. His mental, emotional, and spiritual anguish were so great they caused Him to bleed from every pore." Here's more in relation to your calling me ignorant on the matter: Richard G Scott "I believe that no matter how diligently you try, you cannot with your human mind fully comprehend the eternal significance of the Atonement nor fully understand how it was accomplished." And here's Boyd K. Packer, "We do not know exactly how the Lord accomplished the Atonement." and David A Bednar, "Many things about the Atonement we simply cannot comprehend with our mortal minds." Clearly, a demand that someone be able to explain how Christ was able to to take upon Him our sins before we accept the reality of it is invalid. Here's more from Boyd K. Packer: "If Christ had not made His Atonement, the penalties for mistakes would be added one on the other. Life would be hopeless. But He willingly sacrificed in order that we may be redeemed. And He said, “Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.” and here's Dieter F. Uchtdorf: "It is not repentance per se that saves man. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that saves us. It is not by our sincere and honest change of behavior alone that we are saved, but “by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). True repentance, however, is the condition required so that God’s forgiveness can come into our lives. True repentance makes “a brilliant day [out] of the darkest night” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness [1969], 362)." and Dallin H. Oaks: "We can forget that keeping the commandments, which is necessary, is not sufficient...Man unquestionably has impressive powers and can bring to pass great things by tireless efforts and indomitable will. But after all our obedience and good works, we cannot be saved from the effect of our sins without the grace extended by the atonement of Jesus Christ." There is a penalty for sin, and it must be paid whether we repent or not. The only reason we can repent and thereby not pay the penalty is because Christ paid it for us.

Which as we all know is the true measure of something's worth.

By the way...condescending garbage this ^. What makes you assume that because I disagree with you that I have not considered these matters just as thoroughly?

I cannot answer questions based on false premises. For example, you said -- "Based on this scripture and your previous comments I believe you would say that this scripture means our suffering will equal Christ's if we don't repent." I'm not sure how you're drawing either of these conclusions. How is "our suffering will equal His" based on this scripture? Wherein did I make previous comments that said our suffering will equal His? In the post just prior to that I said, "...he suffered for ALL our sins, whereas we will only suffer for our own". So why is your immediate response trying to shove this "our suffering will be equal to His" idea down my throat? So how can I answer a question based on false premises? I find this sort of thing typical of your responses and I, frankly, got tired of the useless back and forth. You need to address what I'm actually saying. We're talking past each other. It's no fun. Am I misunderstanding you somehow? Are you being unclear? Am I? I really don't know. Either way, I can't answer your questions because I don't understand what you're getting at.

Add to that question...how come single senior brethren can't serve missions?

Sorry for the misunderstanding on the emphasis quotes. (Although it may have been less of a misunderstanding and more of a way to make my point cleverly...) But really I wasn't meaning to accuse you of misquoting as much as to point out that I did not say that anyone "must" believe anything, but simply expressed my incredulity that anyone who was gospel taught, faithful, etc., would or could find cause to disbelieve such. Are you really on the "if it's not canonized it doesn't count" bandwagon? There are many commonly understood and taught "doctrines" that aren't "canon". (I hesitate to use the word "doctrine" even, as some like to argue that only the "canon" counts as the "doctrine", but of course that is argumentative because who cares whether we call it "doctrine" or "teaching" or "revealed truth" or "what we believe" -- it amounts to the same thing. Truth is truth. And there are many truths and teaching and counsels that are not "canon". Yes, some of them have been corrected. This one has not. Nor is there any reason to suspect, assume, or debate that it is likely to be. In my opinion, for what it's worth, this core understanding is the core understanding of what the plan of salvation is all about, and rejecting it (I understand you are not rejecting it -- but, perhaps, excusing those who do) is to deny the reality of who we, ourselves are. The whole idea is that we are, very literally, the exact same species as God the Father is. We are literally his children, literally able to become like Him -- literally able to achieve what He achieved. To deny that He was once like us is to deny that we are the same as Him, that we are begotten in His exact image, and to deny the whole point of what's going on here in life. It very much answers the core questions of who we are, why we are here, and where we are going. To not understand and accept this very plain truth is to reject the answers to these rather important questions. So I'm not much interested in the "is it Doctrine with a capital D" question, whether it's "canon" or not, and that whole, frankly silly, debate that so often occurs. I'm interested in discussing truth as taught by the church, and if someone rejects said truth, I plan on addressing that, whether it's officially "doctrinal canon" or not.

I'm not going to banter word meanings with you. As I've said, this is plain, common LDS doctrine. Wrest with it as you will.

From a certain point of view, mentally ill is any mentality that is corrupt at any level - veering from wisdom, truth, and light. From this perspective, we all have some level of mental illness, because we are all askew in some ways, which makes it a sliding scale. The further we go from truth and light, the more mentally ill we are. That is, of course, if you judge the relativity of it to truth and light with God as our exemplar, rather than basing it on the ever changing what-is-normal mark. Of course then we'd have to get into the discussion of exactly at what point of distance from truth and light do we draw the line in the sand and name it "mentally ill". That's a semantic debate that's hardly worth having. And any professional in the mental health field should well know that it's a semantic debate, no matter what mark is being set as the defining criteria against which to judge. In other words, potato, po-tah-to. Who cares? What is clear is that Bruce Jenner is very, very askew from wisdom, truth and light.

I believe Vort or JaG or someone once proposed the idea that baptism might be required for even the Telestial kingdom. I remember responding that it didn't seem right to me. However, recently in my scripture study I read the verses 58 and 59 of Section 138 in the D&C, which reads: 58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, 59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. Note the following points. They repent after death.They are redeemed through obedience to ordinances.They pay the penalty anyhow, even though having repented.Their reward is according to their works.The implication here seems to me that this is not necessarily referring to those who never had the chance at the gospel and good works and are thereby not accountable. For why would the unaccountable who accept the gospel after this life pay a penalty? I imagine, instead, that this is referring to everyone who was accountable but did not live up to that accountability in this life, but thereafter are heirs of salvation to some kingdom, but not the Celestial Kingdom and Eternal Life. The meaning I read into this is, perhaps, two-fold. 1) Those who achieve any level of salvation will have to do it through the redemption of Christ by obedience to the ordinance work done for them via work for the dead. 2) Those who refuse this and do not repent will not be redeemed to any level of salvation (cast out to outer darkness). I have, heretofore, always viewed it slightly differently. But this scripture has, perhaps, altered my thinking on the matter. Not that I'm set on this view. Just thinking differently, perhaps.

Well now, wouldn't that obviously be because he suffered for ALL our sins, whereas we will only suffer for our own?