CrimsonKairos

I actually don't think the water in the sacrament is symbolic of Gethsemane at all. The wording of the blessing on the water uses the phrase, "...the blood of Thy Son, which was shed for them..." To me, shedding blood refers to murder or killing or attacking someone. Bloodshed, similarly, refers to killing or death. So I think Christ's "blood was shed," when he was nailed to the cross on Calvary and ultimately when he died there. I'm not talking about the blood that would have come from the nail wounds in his hands, wrists and feet. I believe the phrase, "blood, which was shed for them," is symbolic of Christ's murder and as I detailed in an earlier post, it was this undeserved and infinitely unjust murder that gives Christ's sacrifice power to arouse mercy on our behalf. It is the ultimate injustice that was done to Christ, which can overpower what justice would do to us. Similarly: Christ's atonement brings mercy to the repentant and justice to the unrepentant.

Why can't they get people like that working on the cure for cancer?

I get tired of all the illegals who basically stroll up behind the Statue of Liberty, slide a jar of vaseline forward between its legs and say, "Bend over." Ridiculous. I'm not above helping my fellow man, but governments aren't like individuals and governments shouldn't try to do the job of Christ-like citizens. The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things!!!

It's debatable. I personally believe Abraham and other worthies have passed on to their reward and exaltation (D&C 132:29).

Here you go, Dr. T: www.dreamscope.biz I'd add a page to the website specifically for the gospel DVD's. Probably just accept orders via PayPal and then ship 'em out once payment clears. B) Perhaps I'll get started on such a DVD and let a few of you here on the site try it out for free. Wouldn't wanna sell something that doesn't work, y'know?

Good question LT04. The reason he gave his blood in addition to his life is that his blood is his life. Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." I personally don't view the atonement the way most members do. Most members believe Christ's atonement is a penal-substitution. In other words, Christ receives all of our whippings in our place and therefore justice can be done while granting us mercy. I think this view is flawed. Christ's atonement overpowers justice; it doesn't fulfill it (Alma 34:15). I believe the purest mercy is shown because we feel pity or sorrow for the suffering of another being. Furthermore, I believe the deepest, sharpest suffering is suffering which is not deserved...an injustice. Thus, the only way to arouse a fulness of mercy is by arousing a fulness of pity or sorrow, and the only way to do that is with the ultimate injustice. What would the ultimate injustice be? How about a perfectly righteous being (God no less) being killed for their righteousness and kindness? Christ was killed because of his righteousness...his power threatened the Jewish spiritual leaders, his doctrine confused the hard-hearted, and his cleansing of the temple infuriated the aristocratic Sadduccees. This is reflected perfectly in the Law of Moses, speaking of the sacrificial animals. What criteria did the priests and people use in selecting their sacrifices? Almost universally, it was required that the sacrifice be (physically) spotless. In other words, the animal was killed for being "perfect." So Christ suffered the ultimate injustice by being convicted of wickedness worthy of death when in fact he was the most perfectly righteous being ever to live on this earth, worthy of praise and gratitude, not the cross. For Christ to be able to invoke his suffering effectively, and thus arouse pity in the Father's heart on our behalf, Christ had to have done it by himself. To have sole claim on God's pity and mercy, Jesus had to be able to say, "I suffered this by myself. No one helped me, I bore the injustice alone." Christ was not alone in Gethsemane...an angel was sent to comfort him. However, on the cross Jesus uttered that heart-wrenching query: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" On the cross, Jesus was alone spiritually, cut off from God's presence as well as the Spirit's in a way he never had been. I believe the cross is far more significant than most LDS members do. For one, most members think that in Gethsemane Christ received the "spiritual whippings" for all our sins and that's what made him bleed. I don't believe that, though I used to. Why? Because in Gethsemane Christ had comfort and help from an angel...that removed Jesus's ability to say, "I have trodden the winepress alone," (D&C 76:107). The need for the High Priest to offer the sacrifice alone is emphasized by the fact that the High Priest--on the Day of Atonement--was the only one allowed into the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the sacrificial blood on the Mercy Seat (i.e. God's Throne). So what went on in Gethsemane? I believe it was there that Jesus "suffered our pains, afflictions, temptations, etc..." (Isaiah 53:4; Mosiah 3:7; Alma 7:11) in order to be able to say to us, "I know where it hurts, and I know how it hurts, I've been there and beyond what you can endure...blood came from every pore so great was my suffering." As Paul said, Christ is the perfect High Priest because he was touched with the feeling of our infirmities. I'm referring to any and every physical, spiritual, emotional and mental pain, disease or discomfort we experience in this life that is NOT the result of sin. In other words, Jesus can say to the schizophrenic, "I know what it's like," because I believe in Gethsemane Jesus willingly subjected himself to what the schizophrenic goes through, or what someone with crippling mulitple-sclerosis experiences, or what it's like to sprain your ankle, etc... I believe it was this overload of pain and sensation on Christ's body that caused his capillaries to burst and push blood out through the pores of his skin. I do not believe this was necessarily the "paying for our sins" that is talked about so much in the Church. Surely someone will point to D&C 19 which links Christ's suffering for our sins and his bleeding from every pore, but I think the verses following that are often ignored and instructive. So I believe Gethsemane was necessary for Christ to fully understand us and be able to perfectly minister to us; it was there that Christ "descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things..." (D&C 88:6). However, I believe the injustice which arouses mercy in God's heart for Christ's sake took place on the cross. Most members think Christ's atonement allows him to take our whipping in our place. I believe Christ's atonement removes the need for anyone to be whipped, whether Christ or us (if we're repentant). We aren't forgiven because Christ "did our time" for us in "spirit prison." Paul says that, "...God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you." (Eph. 4:32). Also, listen to what Christ himself says to the Father when interceding for us: "Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him— "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; "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) That sounds like Christ saying, "Consider the injustice I endured, the suffering and death of one who did no sin but was convicted for sinning and executed as a criminal and blasphemer...forgive so-and-so for my sake..." That does NOT sound like Christ saying, "Consider how I've taken all of so-and-so's whippings for him and served his sentence in spirit prison, and how justice has been fulfilled; now that there's no penalty to be paid, forgive so-and-so and everything will be equal..." So anyway, the point of this whole post is this: The life of every being is symbolized by and contained in their blood (Lev. 17:11), so Christ had to suffer unjustly and have his blood shed by wicked men in order to work out an atonement capable of arousing pity so powerful in God's heart that if we repent and Christ asks on our behalf, God will forgive any sin we may have committed (except the one for which there can be no forgiveness). One last note: If Christ's atonement really is a penal-substitution (look the term up on wiki for more info), it would have made more sense on the Day of Atonement for the High Priest to lay his hands on the sacrificial goat's head, confess Israel's sins on it, and then kill it and sprinkle it's blood on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies. That would symbolize our sins and their punishments being heaped upon Christ, who then died to "pay for them." But that's not what happens. The blood of the sacrificial goat is sprinkled on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies, and only then, once the High Priest has made intercession in God's presence for the covenant people, only then are the sins confessed on the head of another, living goat who is then released alive and well into the wilderness, specifically a place not inhabited. Here's the actual instructions: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: "And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." (Lev. 16:21-22). To me, that symbolizes that once Christ has interceded on our behalf, our sins are forgotten, the charges against us are dismissed, and our transgressions are sent away to a land without people and without memory...neither Christ nor us must suffer the specific punishment for those sins which we repent of...they are forgotten. To God alone the glory! As outlined above, I slightly disagree with this summary, but I don't discount the importance or gravity of Christ's suffering in Gethsemane, even taking into account the source of comfort and support the angel must have been in that dark place.

I've been toying with the idea of making a similar game on a DVD so all you need is a DVD player and a remote (no PC or Mac necessary!). It'd be of a higher caliber and involve difficult questions, including some where it's like a scripture chase in that you'd have 30 seconds or whatever to look up a scripture and enter the keyword the question is asking about, etc... I planned to sell it on my business's website for about $10 a piece, but haven't gotten around to it and don't know if anyone would be interested. It'd probably have around 40-50 questions and be multiplayer.

There's not much to the bird/bat mistake on Moses' part. However, it's an example of the sort of flimsy argument an anti-mormon would level against our latter-day prophets. I've found that--just like the Medusa--if anti-mormons are forced to apply their reasoning to their own beliefs (i.e. the Bible), their own faith would be disproved and turned to stone. It's not because the Bible is false any more than LDS beliefs are false. It's because the reasoning is specious, the logic flawed, and the perspective prejudiced. One example: LDS have "new" ordinances like temple endowments that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible. This is unacceptable to anti's who claim that it's adding to or changing the Bible or gospel as Jesus taught it. If we strip this claim down to both its position and its underlying issue, we see how dangerous it is to the anti's themselves. The position = Temple endowments aren't mentioned in the Bible and thus are false ordinances and not of God. The issue = Current religious practice--including ordinances--won't be changed or altered by God. The problem with that thinking is that if these anti-mormons lived during Christ's day, going by that standard they would have rejected Christ and Christianity since it added to the Mosaic structure of Judaism by introducing new ordinances like the Lord's Supper, removing old ordinances like the Passover feast, etc... Of course, no anti-mormons I've met or heard of are so fair-minded as to be willing to apply the standards they thrust upon the LDS faith, onto their own beliefs as well. The reason, of course, is that if they did they'd disprove their own religion and version of Christ's gospel. But who's interested in truth, right? B)

Quite the story xhen. I was my mom's fourth son. She had phlebitis and almost died birthing me (C-section baby, yeah!). The doc said if she had more kids after me she'd die, literally. So...I kinda' feel bad about that. That's where the adoption and foster kids came in...my mom wanted a huge family so she went about it the only other way you can if natural birth isn't feasible. Anyway, God bless in your efforts xhen, and I'm very happy to hear of the blessings that our Father has bestowed upon you and your children. Sorry about your husband.

One word, a-train: Booyah!!! Couldn't have said it better (I tried, and then gave up, lol). B)

For a minute there I thought you were talking dirty or something Doc, lol.

So Dr. T, you would be of the belief that once God calls someone to be a prophet, every word they utter must be dictated by God? I refer to the example of Moses calling a bat a bird in Lev. 19:11. Did God tell him to say that? Did his little zoological gaffe invalidate his ministry or prophecies? Nope.

They'll use an absentee ballot, Dr. T. Just kidding. That's why there's 1,000 years during the Millenium to do proxy temple ordinances for the dead.

Fiannan, the book is called: "Psychology for Screenwriters." Check it out here. The author also discusses the theories of Freud, Erikson, Jung, Joseph Campbell and Rollo May.

Funny you should mention Adler. I'm reading a book about psychology for screenwriters, and the author adapts Adlerian theories to dramaturgy. Haven't read all of it yet but I find it interesting. I'm not saying you shouldn't have 12 kids because they will become neglected delinquents. If you can do 12 kids justice in terms of teaching and rearing, more power to you. There are people who can. Most can't. What's important is that the whole family...parents and children...are mentally and physically sound, and how many children each couple has is very much a factor in determining that. I had three older brothers, one adopted sister, two foster brothers and one foster sister (not all simultaneously). My parents were the kind of parents I don't see often in the Church and world for that matter...they had a gift for parenting. I wouldn't expect any other couple to care for the same number of children as my parents because no couple is exactly like my parents. It's totally individual, and Aphrodite, if you've received assurances through prayer, I really don't think anything anyone here says to you means a hill of beans compared to personal revelation. Good luck with your studies and future children.

I disagree with you Shade. Hahahaha, just kidding. B) I just worry that some people canonize every spoken or written word if it has a prophet as its source. A prophet is not always a prophet, only when acting as such. That's all I'm saying.

I see no reason why Jesus wouldn't visit any/all kingdoms/planets (D&C 88) with God's children living on them. Perhaps he visited them after his resurrection on this planet. I would fully expect him to visit and establish his church among all people, lands and yes, even planets other than our own. I don't get caught up in the, "Am I more valiant or more disobedient to have been born on this earth where Jesus lived? Do I need more proof and that's why I'm here as opposed to some far-flung planet in another galaxy?" I think it's irrelevant. Christ sends eyewitnesses of his reality and divinity (apostles/prophets), and just as I believe that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ (even though I haven't seen them in a waking vision) peoples on other planets would surely be able to exercise as much faith in their prophets/apostles who would undoubtedly have seen Christ. On another matter: What I meant by there being no question premortally about who the Savior would be, I meant in the mind of God there was no question. Satan couldn't possibly offer a perfect sacrifice since Jesus was the only perfect Son of God. Sure 1/3 of heaven believed false doctrine (all can be saved, none lost!) but Jesus ever was and ever will be the only Savior from death and hell that we need.

Amen.

Like we used to say on our mission in Kentucky: "Burn the south and do baptisms for the dead." I guess we should've included Missouri in that group, eh a-train? Hahaha, j/k.

All men and women are created equal in terms of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men and women are not created equal in terms of emotional endurance, mental acuity, physical fortitude or spiritual stamina. As for how many children a couple should or shouldn't have, I think the old saying, "Don't bite off more than you can chew," applies. Only a couple and God can decide what they can handle financially, emotionally, physically, etc... Kids don't need their own Xbox 360's and their own cars and their own rooms, etc... They probably do need access to medical care and healthy food. Each woman is different in her ability to handle giving birth, physically and hormonally. My Stake Pres. and his wife decided to stop after three kids because the wife had such horrible depression after each birth, and was not well at all. I hardly think Father in Heaven looked down on them or any other similar couple and said, "You slackers, s-u-c-k it up and pump out more children regardless of what it does to your physical and mental health!" Here's the rule I've settled on: Have as many or as few children as you can support, teach, and raise while still being physically and mentally stable yourself. The number varies according to the couple. I'd rather see two healthy and well-adjusted children being raised by a sane mom and dad, than see twelve neglected and attention-starved future social-deviants being raised by the same couple due to some erroneous understanding of what God expects them to make of their fertility.

I think our Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, created more than just our planet to be inhabited by God's spirit children. In that respect I think there are countless planets with inhabitants that worship God the Father in the name of the Son. The difference is we are living on the planet where Christ performed his mortal ministry and atonement. There was never a question as to who would be the Savior of the world(s). Why? A perfect atonement requires a perfect sacrifice, and Jesus was the only spirit child of God who was perfect from "day one," as it were. I don't think before the war in heaven that Jesus and Satan were equals. True, Satan was an angel in authority, but Jesus was the Firstborn (primogeniture) and the only perfect son of God...obedience accelerates spirituality and purity fuels power so...Jesus was simply the most glorious, powerful child of God in heaven then and now. B)

Good, so you agree that Adam/Michael is not the God we pray to? And this whole time I thought you were defending Pres. Young's theory in that regard. B)

Luke, you keep twisting the issue. I never said Pres. Young was an apostate. Seriously dude, grow up. Saying one man's opinion is wrong is not the same as calling him a rebel against God. Gimme a break. You keep whining about, "You don't have to have scriptural support for every LDS doctrine because many are new and were never taught before so there won't be support in the old revelations." True enough. But that's not what I'm saying is wrong with the Adam/God theory. Consider these two scenarios: 1. A prophet receives a revelation concerning doctrine the Church has never before received and which adds to the knowledge found in the standard works. 2. A prophet voices an opinion concerning doctrine that contradicts knowledge found in the standard works. Pres. Young did the second, not the first. Luke, you can't say, "I'm not advocating the Adam/God theory," and then turn around and say, "But everything the prophets ever said is true." In essence, that is advocating the Adam/God theory. Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Let me translate that for you: If Pres. Hinckley says in conference, as part of a talk, that chicken tastes better than steak, that does not mean it's an eternal truth that chicken tastes better than steak and if we like steak better than chicken we are going to hell. Not everything Pres. Young said was revealed by God. In other words, Young wasn't speaking as a prophet 24/7 from his ordination until his death. He was entitled to his opinions, interpretations, likes, dislikes, "superstitions" as you say, etc... Just because Pres. Young interpreted some scriptures incorrectly does not rob him of his status as God's prophet or erase what he did in bringing the saints to Utah and the other great things he did as the Lord's mouthpiece. He was God's prophet. I never said otherwise. A prophet does not have a brain-transplant when they are called and ordained to be God's prophet...they retain their ignorance, knowledge, temperament, personality, upbringing, etc... You doggedly maintain that everything Pres. Young said was true. Fine. Then will you please explain the contradictions to our standard works that my original post in this thread enumerates? Remember, it's one thing to reveal knowledge not found in our standard works, but it's entirely different to teach opinions that contradict knowledge found in our standard works. By the way, to interpret the "God won't let the prophet lead the Church astray" comment to mean that a prophet will never be wrong about anything is ridiculous. That transforms them into a "Mormon Pope," i.e. infallible. Prophets are still mortal. I give them permission to make mistakes. Pres. Young didn't lead the Church astray with his Adam/God theory (except for those who made it the core doctrine of their testimony and were excommunicated as a result). If Pres. Young had taught the Church to pray to Adam, that would have been leading it astray. The issue is more refined and subtler than you'd like to think, and frankly your approach is overly simplistic. Here's what I get from your posts: "If a prophet says one wrong thing, it invalidates his entire ministry and calling." I simply cannot grasp such elementary thinking. I could give other examples of past prophets and apostles being very wrong in their opinions about doctrine, but that's not my point in posting all of this. I happen to esteem the prophets and apostles of the latter-days far greater than you probably think I do based on this thread. I'll defend their authority and ministry with my last breath. What I will not do is swallow every opinion they ever espoused whether in public, private, orally or written, pertaining to eternity. Two last questions: 1. Did Brigham Young teach that Adam is Heavenly Father and the God we pray to? 2. Did Brigham Young teach that Adam was our spiritual brother, a son of the God we pray to? I'll give you a hint: The answer to both questions is "yes." Hmmm. A prophet voicing two different opinions. Which to believe is accurate? Hmmm. The one that contradicts the latter-day revelations of God in the D&C? Or the one which is in harmony with revelations received by Joseph Smith and contained in the D&C? The answer is simple, and the issue is too. Prophets (as people) may have opinions and prophets may be wrong...but prophets may not be wrong or speak for themselves when directing the Lord's Church. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I know Brigham Young was a prophet of God. I know all the men from then until and including Gordon Hinckley were/are prophets of God too. I know that Adam is my spiritual brother, a son of God like me, and one of God's noblest spirit children--even the prince and arch-angel Michael. I know Heavenly Father is the literal Father of my spirit, and that His glorious, perfected spirit is inseparably joined with His glorious, exalted body of flesh and bone, and that He never "died" on our planet as Adam did. To God alone the glory.

It strikes me that there being twelve servants sent out to dig might correspond to there being roughly twelve hours of light during the day, before night time. The lord visited his servants presumably during the day, while they had light enough to work. When night falls, no work can be done (without electricity or a ton of lamps, anyway). This might relate to the days of our mortal probation, with night fall being Judgment Day, the point at which no more labors can be performed. D&C 64:23-25 reads: "Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming." "For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon." "Wherefore, if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today." Just my two cents.

The parable itself doesn't elaborate on the significance (or insignificance) of the number twelve in this instance. I personally don't believe it has anything to do with the twelve tribes, or that anyone who has lived on this earth has "migrated" to other planets. But I don't have proof to back up this specific opinion, and I may very well be wrong. I just don't think the lost tribes of Israel are anywhere but on this planet, mixed among the nations.