CrimsonKairos

In what way are you an "evangelical christian?"

Here's my take on things, PC. The Mercy Seat in the Old Testament featured two cherubs facing each other, hands out-stretched. We read something interesting about a cherub in Ezekiel 28:12-18. Two main interpretations exist for this passage. The first interpretation is that God is talking to the King of Tyre and using metaphor and symbolic comparisons to show how blessed the King has been, and what end his wickedness merits. The second interpretation is that God is both speaking to the King of Tyre and by extension, to Satan as well. The imagery and symbolism fit Satan surprisingly well (from an LDS perspective). As you read this passage (particularly if you're LDS), doesn't it seem God is describing Satan in strikingly accurate terms? The "fall" from authority seems to echo that described in Isaiah 14:12 and D&C 76:26-27. 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. If we believe the second interpretation, then the key is that God calls Satan a "cherub that covers." What image springs to mind when we think of a cherub covering something? Um, yes, the cherubim on the Mercy Seat of the Ark. Satan and Christ are direct opponents, combatants for the souls of mankind. Each would draw us to their side. At the judgment bar, either Jesus will mediate our case, or Satan will claim us if we be unrepentant sinners. So the opposition of Jesus and Satan is clear. So the theory goes thusly (and anyone can correct, clarify, expand, etc.): The two cherubs on the Mercy Seat actually represent Jesus and Satan, respectively. The two golden cherubs on the Mercy Seat were to face each other, wings touching, arms extended towards each other, as if both are reaching for something between them. Might that not be our souls? Also, the High Priest was to sprinkle the blood of the sacrificial goat on the Mercy Seat once a year on the Day of Atonement. It was that act that redeemed Israel from their sins. This sprinkling of sacrificial life blood is powerful imagery, invoking thoughts of Christ's plea on behalf of repentant sinners: 3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him— 4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified; 5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life. (D&C 45:3-5, emphasis mine) It's as if we each take our turn standing on the Mercy Seat between the cherubim, Satan reaching for us on the left hand, and Jesus reaching for us on the right hand. God stands to judge us and determine which being (Jesus or Satan) will be permitted to lay hold on us and claim us as theirs. The only way God judges us worthy of salvation is when Christ's redeeming blood is sprinkled on us and we take his name upon us and become as he is. Otherwise, Satan claims us and we become devils, angels to a devil forever. The imagery is actually quite striking (though I'm not certain it is an accurate interpretation of everything). These are things to ponder and consider, though I lack the spiritual assurance of their veracity in full, and hence would not teach them in Sunday School or Elders' Quorum, etc. Hope that clarifies PC. Traveler, add or amend anything you think I left out or whatnot.

I visited recently with my dad's cousin, who was a bishop for 7 years or so. I was talking to him about his experiences in general (this was before this thread even started, so I wasn't asking him about this particular issue). Anyway, his experiences were that too many people wanted him to tell them what to do in every situation, i.e. outside his mantle even. For example, a ward member would call him at 2 AM asking him what color the guy should paint his bedroom. Or what color car to buy. Or other members would ask him what his favorite brand of this or that was, as if his opinion was better because he was a bishop. He said he always disliked when people did that. So I think it's more often the case that members prompt their bishops to go "beyond the mantle" than the majority of bishops going beyond their mantle on their own, y'know? If my bishop ever told me what color car to buy, I'd probably laugh and thank him for the advice. B) If I ever asked my bishop what color car to buy, I'd probably punch myself in the eye and return to sanity.

Ultimately, as I said earlier, I've never had a leader ask me to do something out of harmony with the gospel or the Spirit. 90% of this discussion is purely hypothetical, thank goodness.

Y'all done hijacked my hypothetical situation and changed it around. What I said was if the person wanted no contact from the Church, and the Bishop didn't know that, and I told him that, and he verified that, and if he STILL told me to go to the person's house and if I knew that would alienate the person further...heck no, I wouldn't go. That's the situation. Don't go changing details around. We aren't to blindly follow leaders. We are to seek guidance from the Spirit and confirm their instructions. I go to Bishopric meeting every Sunday and there are times when the Bishop forgets something or didn't know the circumstances around a situation and if he hadn't known them and had acted as he had originally planned, it would have gone badly. Luckily, I've never had a Church leader ask me or tell me to do something I felt was wrong. I was just speaking to the general principle in the OP. Sheesh.

The question in the OP was, "Are we required to follow?" not, "Are we required to swallow our pride?" Of course we don't harbor petty grudges against anyone, including leaders. However, if a leader asks me to go deliver food to a member who has asked for no contact from the Church, I'll tell the Bishop that and if he insists I go, I wouldn't. Does that mean I'm going to Hell? I highly doubt it. The question isn't, "Are we supposed to overlook the faults of our leaders?" because of course we are. The question is, "Are we to follow a fallen leader to Hell?" and the answer for me is, "Heck no!"

Depends what the Bishop is wrong about. Obviously something like the Bishop approving a young man to serve a mission when you know the young man frequents whorehouses---for an extreme example---would not be a case to "support the Bishop" but to share your knowledge with him. In other areas, though...like if the Bishop misspoke in sacrament meeting, or if he mispronounces someone's name...sure. B)

Sounds about right. B)

That's a good way to say it...wonder where I've heard that before.

Yep, thanks to the Holy Ghost. Tell me about it. :)

We're specifically talking about the discernment of spirits, not just being able to discern in general. How does discerning spirits help in your business ventures? Or are you just being silly?

I wouldn't say I know all about the person when I have this "discerning" experience. I can't say whether they are "light" or "dark" beyond my personal knowledge of them from interacting with them. We've all seen "before and after" pictures, right? Well it's like I see the person as they are (from what I know of them), and then I see them as if they had reached their full potential. Then, I can identify some of the disparities between the two, and know one or two things to do or say to help that person in a specific way. That description is awkward, but its the best I can think of right now.

I would say try to remember as much as you can, but don't be frustrated if you can't remember it all. B)

I've had experience with the discernment of spirits. Growing up, I thought discernment of spirits meant something generic...like being able to ascertain the "spirit" of a setting or the intent of someone. As I grew older (I'm talking after high school), several times I've had the experience of looking into someone's eyes and receiving a rapid flash of images and a feel for who they are and what their potential is. Doesn't happen with everyone, nor do I try to make it happen with everyone. Sometimes I am able to discern somebody's spirit, who they are, and who they can be. It's been a helpful gift in many instances, as far as serving someone else according to their needs. I think of it like this: what I see is the equivalent of a sentence or short paragraph from a patriarchal blessing. I never have this experience without some opportunity to serve someone else with my new knowledge. I've never heard anyone else describe this, and though I've told other people about it, no one else has said they've experienced it. This leads me to believe that they either have but they just don't recognize it, or they haven't and I'm an odd guy. Either way, it's cool.

Those who try to keep one foot on the straight and narrow path, and one foot in the great and spacious building, will be torn in two, and Satan will get both pieces.

I totally agree with a-train's original point: the wicked wouldn't want to dwell with God even if He'd let them. Look around you on Sunday, and you'll see people in Church---perhaps friends---who are working through some sins or who just don't want to be at Church but go for some other reason. Do we really think that sort of person (I've been that person, by the way) would want to mingle with heavenly choirs singing praises to God? I don't think so. God's plan truly is the Plan of Happiness, for we all get what we want, and unfortunately, not all of us want to return to God's presence. As for the hell/outer darkness/brimstone thing...ahem...*CK summons a podium with the flick of his finger, and magically adopts the garb of a baptist minister* "You've got to pray-ah, and you've got to plead-ah, with God-ah, to save your souls-ah, cuz the wicked-ah are gonna' burn in hell-ah, forever-ah!" (Sorry, but I couldn't help that parody. I went to another church with a friend once and the minister added an "ah" to the end of like every third word...it was pretty amusing to me, but that's because of my LDS upbringing :))

Wise words. I phrase it like so: "Overlook the faults of others, and overcome your own."

History is interesting to me. I'm not in favor of sealing the past. Then again, I pity those who go through life with a rear-view mirror surgically attached to their foreheads, never able to appreciate the view ahead because of their preoccupation with what happened on the road behind them. So how can you tell the difference between a student of history, and someone with a mirror obscuring their vision? Don't know. What I do know is that the presidents of the LDS Church, from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley, were and are good men trying to serve God despite their weaknesses, errors and flaws. I'm not saying the original poster was doing this, but I for one am not going to gag on a prophet's ministry because they occasionally demonstrated that they're human just like you and I.

Gotcha.

Only problem with that theory is that the scriptures say the opposite. 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. 24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. (2 Ne. 2:22-25)

I know, but that seems a bit too convenient. The best evidence for the premortal existence of mankinds' spirits is the only part of the creation story that's a "flashback" and chronologically out of place? Not saying you can't believe that, just saying that I don't see the text as supporting the idea that it's a "flashback." In my view, this would be along the lines of God teaching us all the Plan of Salvation before we were born. After He had created our spirits, He taught us His plan to bring us all the happiness He has. Procreation was to be part of that plan. In other words, I don't see it as a, "You must procreate now," command, but more of a, "If you accept this plan, and go to the earth I will create for you, you must procreate to bring spirits into the world." No doubt. You can look at it that way, sure. I read it as God saying, "Your life as a mortal will be painful and hard. And I'm going to increase/multiply that painful existence by the process of childbirth." Blood and spirit are both important, it is true. Look at it this way: Someone in a deep coma can have healthy organs, a beating heart, and blood circulating oxygen and nutrients throughout their body, but without their spirit inside their body to animate it, is such a physical "shell" really "alive?" Conversely, you can have a spirit inside a physical body, but without blood to oxygenate the muscles and brain, the body cannot function or operate, even if the spirit inside wants it to. What leads you to believe resurrected bodies will have blood in them? Or is it just a personal feeling you have?

Gen. 1:28 took place before Adam and Eve were placed in Eden. Notice how Gen. 2:5, 7 both show that God hadn't created man's physical body until after the seventh day of creation. Genesis 1 is descriptive of both our premortal existence with God as spirits before mortality, and the creation of a sanctified earth. Your question doesn't make sense to me. If mankind couldn't procreate before the Fall, then it makes sense that a consequence of the Fall would be the ability to procreate after the Fall. What are you asking here? God sanctified the earth on the seventh day, just as He will sanctify the earth after His Son's Second Coming. We know that during the millenial reign of Christ on the earth, there will be no death or sin. Hence, all life on the earth after God sanctified it on the seventh day, was immortal or amortal or not mortal or however you want to describe not being subject to death. Blood and mortality came not just to Adam but to all life on earth after the Fall.

Isaiah might be a prooftext for monotheism if the reader holds to the Nicene Trinity concept. Otherwise, if there is a God the Father and a separate God the Son (leaving the Spirit out of the equation), then that's two Gods. However, Isaiah is a prooftext for monosoteriologism, i.e. "one Savior" doctrine.

What I got out of it was that using tense descriptors like "before" or "after" can be misleading when describing eternity, which we mortals certainly can't comprehend right now. Apart from that, I think Isaiah's point was not to document the genealogy of the gods, but to tell Israel in no uncertain terms: "Jehovah is your Savior, and no other person or god can redeem you, be they imaginary or real. Come to Jehovah and obey His voice!"

They were spices commonly used in Jaredite and later Nephite cooking to season elephant meat. They were too delicious for mortals to handle, however, and were so rare that they caused the Jaredite wars of destruction as both sides struggled to dominate the natural habitat of the ecstasy-inducing spices. So God refrained from revealing their English names so that none of us would annihilate whole civilizations in a massive war of attrition in the pursuit of said scrumptuous spices. (Hey, I'm a screenwriter...finding drama in details is what I do)