The Folk Prophet

Or... ...the requirement is not a requirement at all, the spilling of someone's blood has no bearing on their accountability as a murderer, and the comments on it by past leaders was opinion based and never canonized for a reason.

Hmm. Kind of a blood atonement thought, huh? Never made any sense to me. Kind of contrasting thoughts though aren't they? Kill him so the murdered blood doesn't come up against us for vengeance -and- ...intended to benefit the murderer himself.

Heya angel333, I was thinking and decided I owed you an apology for my response to your question. I'm posting other "who knows" type thoughts all the time, and then unfairly inferred that you doing the same was a waste of time. This was not fair of me in any regards. Moreover, due to some other's insightful posts concerning rest, I was clearly wrong. There was something to be learned from the question and ensuing discussion. Regardless, my response was uncalled for. I think I was in a mood when I responded that way or something. I figured a public apology was in order.

I would think (admitting I could be mistaken), that it is actually by the power of the priesthood AND even the authority of the priesthood, as the RS was organized under the priesthood, and the authority was given to them by JS. What it does NOT mean, however, is that they HAD the priesthood.

Continuing on with vs. 35 in Moses 1, I think it clarifies things a bit specificaly in: ...there are many worlds that have passed away...there are many that now stand... I also originally read the start of vs. 35, "But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you." as a separate thought from vs. 34. Reading it again, I can see how it might not be seperate, but actually a continuation. Read one way: Adam is the first of all...but we'll only talk about this earth or this section of that "all" Read another way: Adam is the first of all...but we're only talking about this earth, so by that I mean that Adam is the first of this earth...

All of us having vicariously partaken of the tree of knowledge of good and evil through Adam...I suspect that nothing would happen.

It is interesting. There is definite implication there. Could our earth, indeed, be the first of our Father's earths? Of the worlds without number, could ours actually be the very first one? Or could it be that the worlds without number referred to in Moses are only the worlds within our known universe, possibly un-populated and created for this earth to reside in? Could Moses only be reference to the creations that are directly related to our world...to this batch of children, so to speak.

Just some thoughts. My wife had a primary calling that she struggled with in the same way. To the point where we went to the bishop and shared her frustration with him (in no way asking to be released, but perhaps secretly hoping that would be the result). The bishop told us he would release her but wanted her to spend time first thinking about what it was the Lord had for her to learn, and if confident she had learned it, he had another calling in mind for her. End result, she kept the calling and never said another word until the bishop released her and gave her another calling, quite some time later (I don't remember how long exactly). I think the thing she had to learn was long-suffering, personally. :) However, in that time before she was released, she just happened to have a conversation with the primary president, who was a friend. Turns out the primary president had determined to ask the bishop to release her, but my wife's story of sticking it out inspired her and she opted to stick it out as well. I don't know for sure, of course, but perhaps the situation was as it was so my wife could set an example for another. The point being, we can't always see the blessings.

Yes, and the doctrine is quite clear that this will not happen any more after the resurrection. The question (meaningless as it is) is simply whether it COULD happen. :) I would propose that, no, absolutely not. There are eternal laws that even God must follow or He would cease to be God. I suspect keeping ahold of his body is one of those laws.

The inference here to me is clearly of this earth. Adam is the first man of this earth. He is not the father of other earths. This doesn't preclude earths previous to this one.

I laughed out loud at this. The imagery. A body coat rack, perhaps?

Hmm. Except this doesn't seem to allow for concepts like-- Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? And Ezek 44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And D&C 101:95 That I may proceed to bring to pass my act, my strange act, and perform my work, my strange work, that men may discern between the righteous and the wicked, saith your God. What I mean to say is, to see wickedness as wickedness does not take a spiritual prompting. I am not discounting the importance of the spirit, of course. And we should always be in tune and listen to the spirit. But we don't need a spiritual witness every time we think someone is doing something wrong.

Which leads to another question...silly to even ask, but...... If a god has perfect command over all elements, would he (or she) not have power over his (or her) celestial body too? In other words, if he (or she) so desired, could he (or she) reshape its image or size? This is a different question than WOULD he (or she) ever do such a thing. And, being omnipotent, could a god not lay down a celestial body and take it up again at will? Doctrinally we can say with clarity that we will not ever be separated from our resurrected bodies. But does this mean we could not (if omnipotent) or simply that we will not?

To answer this, we would need to know how many children God has, which we don't. This is a super deep concept and something I struggle with myself a bit. Even assuming that the answer is yes, there's plenty of comments that discuss Jesus being the Savior of more worlds than ours. Scriptural we know He created worlds without number. But He came to our earth and no one else's, to live in mortality? How did we get so lucky? So somewhere, in a galaxy far, far away, they preach, "On a planet in another galaxy on the other side of the universe, the Savior was born to a virgin named Mary...." Seems odd to me. Not that it seeming odd to me means anything as to the truth, but there it is. I always understood yes. But I'd have to dig to see if there was supporting material behind it.

Source?

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.