The Folk Prophet

This is known doctrine. Otherwise, how could the dead be preached to?

This is a very valid point and indicative of the whole hair-splitting thing. All statements by the Savior telling us to be perfect are, clearly, not meant physically. Good thought.

I am, absolutely, splitting hairs. I'm not entirely convinced of the p.o.v., but do find it interesting to think about. The blindfold analogy was imperfect, certainly. But I still wonder about the validity of calling the Savior imperfect, even in mortality. Could He not have, theoretically, in His power, without translating Himself, maintained an eternal state of mortality with no pain or hunger or aging or death? Did He not have the power to command the elements of even His body to not succumb to such things? It is His eternal omnipotence that allows this thought, in my opinion. I don't see any reason to not refer to the Savior as perfect in mortality, in spite of the 'corruptible' nature of the body He had. Splitting hairs, yes. But is that not the nature of the entire discussion? :) Examining the difference between the Savior's statements about being perfect in the two hemispheres is splitting hairs.

In theory, I have a problem with "cannot" and omnipotence. Jesus as I see it, was omnipotent, even in mortality. His death was something that He allowed. His body is something He lay down and then took up, by His own will. That his body was capable of death is clear, but that death was mandatory by other than His choice is not. The fact that He put Himself into a mortal body that is capable of death in the first place was by His will. All things of heaven and earth were and are subject unto Him. He, in turn, subjects Himself to the will of the Father, which may also be viewed as a composite will and how we may understand that He and the Father are one. I contend that Jesus was, in fact, perfect, even in mortality. That the allowed state of hunger, pain, and death were not indicative of imperfection, but an allowed state that did not define his true nature. If I put on a blindfold, it does not make me blind.

I think topics that haven't been discussed at some level or another are probably difficult to come by. :) But it there can be 40 different threads all running on homosexuality... Well, I'd rather talk about this sort of thing anyhow.

Right. I hoped I made that clear in my preamble, and why I opened a new topic instead. My seeing it as an apology is not related to Vort's statement directly, but it reminded me of much I have read, both in the past in this forum and on other sites, that does come across that way. Interesting. Hadn't thought of that. But, possibly, as the Savior was a God, the Great Jehovah even before coming to earth and taking upon Himself mortality, it's reasonable to presume that, just the same as the Father, He saw all--past, present and future--and therefore could say such and mean it literally. Very interesting.

So I was reading in the Christian General Beliefs Board and came across this from Vort: I thought I’d open up a new topic in the LDS Gospel Discussion board to respond to it, as it really is a discussion of LDS beliefs, and also that thread was too long anyhow. Finally, the debate I intend may not have been appropriate there. I’d like to also add that I’m not necessarily arguing with Vort here. What he says is true. The implications are, perhaps, as he says, and he’s clear in the first paragraph that we don’t know (which is my entire contention). That being said: Concerning the doctrine, I find the self-effacing, “we’re sorry for our doctrine even among ourselves”, argument decidedly bothersome. That is to say, I do not find statements supporting this thinking very convincing, and logically, it makes little sense. Here’s the argument from the King Follet Discourse: The argument stems from this: “...what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.” And “What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before. It is plain beyond disputation.” This implies that the Father did just the same as Jesus, and therefore must have been a Savior himself, sinless, perfect, etc... But also in the discourse we read: “Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” We also have plenty of scriptural and other sources that talk about us following the Savior and doing as He did, etc… So here’s where the logic doesn’t work for me. If we must become gods, the same as all gods have done, the same as Jesus has done, the same as God the Father has done, then we would, according to the above, all have to be Saviors, perfect, sinless, etc... We know this is not true. We are to do to be the same as the Savior, and the Atonement allows for this to happen. If it works in that direction, then could it not reasonably work up the chain too? In other words, could not the idea of, “doing the things my father did” be as symbolic as our following of the Savior. Literally we cannot be like the Savior, but we can be “like” the Savior. We also know that with the atonement our sins are washed clean. How does this apply to us but would somehow be inappropriate for God the Father? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing that God was a sinner, or that he wasn’t a Savior. What I’m arguing is that IF He was a sinner, and IF he wasn’t a Savior, wherein does the doctrine of exaltation cause a problem for us in that regard? How does that diminish his perfection now? I can see that being a problem with other Christian theologies, but they think the whole idea of man becoming a god is blasphemy. If we can progress from principle to principle until we become perfect, wherein do our previous sins play a role? Will we somehow be less perfect, less glorious, less honored? Will our eternal posterity, our worlds without number, have less respect for us because at one time, in our blip of mortality, we made mistakes? The logic just doesn’t work out for me. I do not deny, in any regard, that God may have lived a sinless life like the Savior. But the whole point of making that kind of an argument is to somehow apologize for our belief that we can become like God. As I understand it, and as the King Follett Disc. speaks to, the order of exaltation will always give glory upward. God will have all the glory from all of His works, and all of the works that all of his exalted children work, and so forth. The same for anyone who becomes exalted. We will have glory from our works, and from the works of our posterity, onward forever. Am I wrong? God having been through the mortal experience and having repented of imperfections and having been atoned through the same process as us would not, logically, diminish his glory. And he would give all his glory to His Father, who gives all His glory to His Father, and onward. In short, I would contend that, doctrinally speaking, the appropriate argument would be that we just don’t know. I could go on, but...well, there’s a start. Have at it.

Polyspecies? I want a polygamous marriage with two wives, a dog, and three cats....but only if the dog consents to it.

Right on. Moreover: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. = the first and great commandment. If ye love me, keep my commandments. = all the rest of the doctrine. In short, if you don't follow doctrine, or concern yourself with the commandments, you don't really love God.

Just my opinion as a guy. Every interaction he has with members of the opposite sex should be absolutely and fully with your knowledge, approval, and if possible, presence. The calendar is inappropriate and he shouldn't have it whether you approve or not. You cannot compromise your feelings and your standards. But you can be patient, long-suffering, kind, etc.. You should ALWAYS tell him how you feel. But you should do your best to do so without jealousy, anger, frustration, etc... It is not your job to change him, per se. But it is your right to tell him how you feel in all things. But you need to tell him. Don't expect him to just know. I know it's a catch 22. But as you should know, if you don't, guys are stupid. You need to be consistent and persevere with as much fairness and understanding as you can, but without compromising right and wrong. Shooting a "boudoir" of a woman who is not your wife = wrong Having a calendar of cheerleaders = wrong Meeting/communicating with other women - depends on the context and honesty to you about it But you can't necessarily take a hard line, burn the calendar, spying, angry approach. That is never a solution for anything. Patience, love, meekness, prayer, faith, hope, long-suffering, etc... But always resolute!! That's my take, for what it's worth.

I buy the theory in part, and think I understand what you're saying. But as I see it the logic isn't complete. Firstly B is part of A. Loving one another is true doctrine, and the key doctrine to knowing His disciples. But it is not the complete doctrine. The implication that it is the only doctrine that really ultimately matters is where it falls apart. If I understand what you're saying, loving God and your neighbor matters more than paying tithing and obeying the Word of Wisdom. Well...true. But that does not mean that not paying tithing or breaking the WOW is acceptable as long as you love others. True doctrine can be for a specific time or people (as the examples above) and may not be eternal. But that does not downplay the importance of primary law of the gospel, which is obedience. Charity is the why. Obedience is the how.

No worries. I agree in general terms with you. I do not know if that would be appropriate though (more research would be required for me to say), and feel confident that it would not be necessary.

There's a distinct difference between "can" and "should". This is one of those line upon line things that was clarified over time. There are a lot of records of people doing things that were later shown to be inaccurate in overall propriety. In some cases that did not necessarily mean the previous practice was invalid for the understanding at hand. But as enlightenment was given, that appropriateness changed. In some cases the validity was never in place in spite of the practice (as in the case of baptisms for the dead being performed without record keeping or sealings done outside the temple) wherein those things had to be re-administered correctly at a later time. Whether a woman can lay her hands on a head to give a blessing or not (currently) may be somewhat in question (though I would dare say that extensive research into church policy and statements over the years would show it as inappropriate). Whether she should or not is quite a bit more clear. And ultimately, even if she could or should, it would never be appropriate to say, "by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood which I hold" because she does not hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Ultimately, there is no need for her to do this though. The laying on of hands, as I've said several times now, is irrelevant. Faith is requisite to miracles. The holding of priesthood authority is not. Therefore, regardless of whether a woman could or could not ever heal by the laying on of hands (and there is evidence that at one time this was acceptable), it does not indicate that women once held the priesthood, and certainly doesn't indicate that women do now. Women do not hold the priesthood. To hold the priesthood requires the laying on of hands by one in authority to transfer that authority. Women are not so ordained. They do not hold it, nor have they ever. The administering of the ordinances in the temple is done under the authority and priesthood of the temple presidency. This is not indicative of holding the priesthood. It does, actually, help to explain your first point and how the laying on of hands by women worked.

Well that depends on what your definition of "is" is...er...I mean what your definition of "it" is. "It" may not have been line upon line...depending on what "it" is. Some things are not line upon line...(except, they kind of are anyhow. A big bulk revelation still fits into the overall idea of line upon line). But even if you view it differently, I think components of the RS were unquestionably line upon line even if there was an all at once difference when it was reestablished post Nauvoo.

This is an awesome and appropriate reply and I add my support of the ideas expressed. Thanks Martain.

Diverging a bit off topic here, but I often use modern English versions of the scriptures as a companion to the King James version. No reason why they church needs to officially adopt one in my opinion. That the KJV is official (and wherein, accordingly, our primary study should start) does not preclude utilization of other versions. Interesting though.

Interesting theory. But I think you're misinterpreting "doctrine" a bit. You talk about the "true way" and doctrine like they're different. But they are not. Doctrine = the true way. I think I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's slanting some things a bit to suit a theory.

As I understand it, there were distinct descriptive wording changes that took place, line upon line, over time, concerning our understanding and usage of words like "ordination", "keys", "quorum", etc... The fact that these terms were used doesn't really mean much as to evidence of power or authority. We don't use "ordain" now in ways they did in the early church. Over time this has been clarified and standardized. Ordaining is different than setting apart. In the early church...the words weren't always used the same. "Keys", same thing. Now we talk about keys in very distinctive terms. Only a few specific callings have keys (bishop, EQ pres, etc.) But the idea of what a key is has taken on specific meaning over time. In general terms, giving keys is simply assigning authority or rights, and in general terms that could be applied to any calling or organization (you now have the keys to run the sunbeam class or whatever) but we do not use it this way. That does not mean it was never used that generally, even by Joseph Smith who was also learning line-upon-line, and moreover, may have had no real need to have that level of clarity in his wording. Ordaining and the giving of keys and the usage of the term quorum are contemporary descriptions of specific things, and we carefully use them to help clarify understanding organization and authority. But the usage of those words in the early church in a meeting does not imply the women had more authority or power than they do now. Women have every bit as much authority and power now as they did then, with the obvious potential and highly contested (even in the early church) ability to lay hand on the sick -- this was contested and unclear for many, many years in the church. Over time, as the way the church works (line upon line) the proper understanding developed. To discount the current church's policy in favor of Joseph Smith's original ideas is to discount continuing revelation. It is quite clear that women were never authorized to baptize or seal, etc... And as I have pointed out, the ability to heal the sick by faith has never gone from women. Laying hands on or not is irrelevant.

I would read it as living intentionally and deliberately to be as the Savior in all things.

The fact that you think you're incapable of it does not mean you are incapable of it. With God, all things are possible. Part of the atonement of Christ is in it's power that weaknesses may be overcome. And all of us are perfectly capable of becoming like the Savior--that is to say--perfect. Perfectly humble, perfectly obedient, perfectly understanding, perfectly knowledgeable. We can't expect to be there tomorrow. We can't expect to be there even in this life. But you can absolutely completely do away with everything you've come to believe if those beliefs are, actually, incorrect. Compromise is a start. But if you keep at it with faith, humility, trust, and obedience, you will get there. This is a big part of grace. There have been many times in the history of the Lord's interaction with mankind wherein mankind has had to totally swallow their pride and understanding and completely rely upon the Lord and his word or will. I'm convinced that the challenge you are facing is the core of the test of mortality. Can we put off our own views and feelings in favor of the word of the Lord? This struggle is not unique to you. We all must face it somewhere, somehow. And it is a lifelong process, for sure. A lifelong learning to acknowledge our nothingness, weakness, unprofitably, etc.

Talking about the power of the priesthood in terms of the ability to perform healings is like talking about the power of a computer in terms of being able to tell what time it is. The ability to heal is nice. It is a gift. It is part of how God shows love for us. It is a means to bring people closer to God. But it's a drop in a bucket compared to the true value and meaning of the priesthood. Whether a woman heals someone through a faith of prayer or through the laying on of hands has no bearing on that blessing. Either way, the person is just as healed. Either way, it really comes down to faith. The point being, you don't need the priesthood in order to exercise faith to miracles.

I think that one of the most important thing to know in the gospel is that we cannot trust our own feelings and thoughts on anything beyond a witness that things are true. Beyond that, we have to accept that we are mortal, imperfect, susceptible to misunderstanding, deception, etc. Our mortal perspective is, ultimately, meaningless compared to the wisdom of God. The sooner we can let go of our own selves and look to God for understanding the better. With some subjects that is easy, and with some subjects that can be very, very hard. Either way, every premise, every bit of research, every moment of study -- all this should begin with the hypothesis that God's word (and by extension His prophet's and apostle's words) is right. What we naturally feel on any subject is irrelevant. Feelings have no bearing on truth. We can come to understand and feel the same as God on all things. But part of that is accepting His perfection and our weakness (His brilliance and our idiocy is another way we could put it). Trusting that God loves better than we ever can, and that His understanding of mercy and justice is absolutely fair and equitable. If we have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and the reality that this is God's church and doctrine, then we can eventually reconcile our contrasting personal feelings. If, on the other hand, we hold to any sort of delusion that we know better... Well, like I said, as mortals, we are incapable of really understanding anything (meaning that we're stupid, every one (relatively speaking)).

God resting is in the scriptures. But WHY He rested is not. However, to your point, there is plenty of scriptural evidence to support the idea that we will not have any physical ailments, including fatigue, post resurrection. We will have sorrow and pain, but not physically. We will sorrow for lost souls, sorrow for others, etc... Like I said. Interesting. But ultimately, we can't know why God "rested".

I usually fast forward... which leads to a follow-up question, should I fold my arms and close my eyes anyway?

Apostles always seem to say things so much better.