CrimsonKairos

SORRY FOR HIJACKING THE THREAD AND MAKING IT ABOUT WRITING. Well, not too sorry. I love writing. Interesting premise and through line, xhenli. Sorry 'bout matriarchal being a hot button for you. I hope you figure out how to weave the symbolism into your story that you want to. Male sacrifice, huh? Ouch. I wish you well in your literary endeavors. :) As for what I write...mostly medieval fantasy stuff. I don't have time to think and write quality fiction right now. I'm working up a plot for a movie script I have on the back burner. Here's the first chapter from a story that's still in pre-planning. It might help you endure the writing style to know I was attempting to emulate the syntax, diction and level of detail that both Victor Hugo and Alexandre Dumas use in their excellent novels. Translation: it's a slower, more in-depth style than current novels typically employ. The themes I plan on using in the novel include suffering, strength and growth. some words are bleeped out by this site because they could be used improperly, i.e. s-u-c-k (without the hyphens). The Welcome "In three seconds I’m going to knock the breath out of you.” The monotone voice was empty of emotion. The declaration was stated matter-of-factly, wrapped in neither anger nor hate. The small room wasn’t lit, making it impossible to see who was speaking or how far away they were. All the man chained to the wall knew was that he had woken up here, helpless and unable to move or defend himself. He hadn’t any clothing aside from nondescript woolen trousers held loosely around his hips by a slack cord. Odd, he didn’t remember putting them on. His arms and legs were stretched away from his body by the chains, giving the impression that there was an “x” of flesh fastened to the cold wall. He couldn’t see the fist as it rushed towards his naked stomach; the darkness robbed him of vision. The body’s automatic response to a deficiency in one of the five senses is to compensate by heightening sensitivity in one or all of the others. The man could not see; very well, his brain effortlessly doubled the acuity of his sense of touch. When the blow slammed into his stomach, he felt twice as much pain. The shadow-shrouded voice had promised and delivered. Jagged knuckles crumpled the man’s diaphragm, expelling every last trace of breath from his quivering body. Instinct demanded that he double over in pain, shield himself from further assaults. The chains connecting his metal restraints to the wall demanded that he remain painfully upright and defenseless. The metal proved stronger than instinct; the chains’ demands prevailed; the man remained stretched straight while his muscles convulsed spasmodically. Moving the only part of his body that wasn’t held firmly in place, the man lowered his head as though looking at his stomach could coax it to s-u-c-k air back into his burning lungs. Voluntary will opposed his body’s involuntary response to being struck, but nature overruled the man’s desperate wish for his diaphragm to relax enough to draw in air. His abdominal muscles remained reflexively clenched for what seemed an eternity. The already dark room seemed to grow darker around the edges of the man’s vision. His brain was giving him signs that unconsciousness was near, if he had cared to notice. He did not. The only thought in his oxygen-starved brain—a tangential revelation—was that he now knew how a leather pouch must feel when its contents have been emptied. He was full of emptiness, but the paradox was lost on the barely conscious man. His muscles ignored his brain’s repeated commands to breathe for so long that eventually his mind ceased issuing the instinctual orders. It was at this moment of mental abdication that—for no reason other than that reflex had been satisfied—his diaphragm expanded with wonderful speed. A hoarse intake of breath rising in pitch heralded the return of sweet oxygen to lungs, blood and ultimately his brain. The man lifted his head as the darkness in the room lifted as well. A torch burning bright and dripping bits of flaming sap to the floor had appeared as if his sucking in air had mysteriously ignited the fuel-soaked stick. The sudden illumination stabbed radiant rays into his light-deprived eyes. Anyone who has passed time in a dark place only to be exposed unexpectedly to light knows how painful and annoying this can be, and so it was that his brain immediately forgot the pain in his belly and pushed the throbbing sensation of his eyes to the front of his attention. His pupils instantly contracted, overshot their mark, then dilated slightly to regulate the influx of light bombarding his retinas. “That will do for now,” this in a tone of authority and from an entirely different voice, a deeper voice. Perhaps it was the person holding the torch. The bright light and commanding voice dispelled not only the silent darkness but also the man’s feeling of helplessness to a degree. Details of the room came into focus. It was small, made of chiseled stone pieces varying in size from pebble to boulder. He remembered now that he had been blindfolded as “they” had chained him in place. He also recalled being drowsy and weak. Had he been drunk, drugged or both? Had “they” done it? Who were “they” anyway? No answers were forthcoming, but a new command was. “Release Talmeed, Aln.” Talmeed—the chained man—wondered how they knew his name as he repeated the stranger’s name in his mind. Aln. So that was who had struck him. He would remember that name well. Talmeed’s eyesight had adjusted sufficiently to allow him to take in the details of the man before him. Aln was tall. His body was thick with muscles. Talmeed strained to see the other man, the one with the torch. Before he could get even a glimpse, Aln was standing in front of him, blocking his view as he obediently released the metal restraints. Aln stepped back as Talmeed slumped to the floor, covering his stomach with both hands and peering up warily at the man looming over him. The chains, which were no longer stretched tight restraining their prisoner, clanged noisily against the wall. Before the sound had faded the next command came from the figure standing behind Aln. “Leave him and come with me. We have others to welcome.” He spoke the word “welcome” flatly, without the tone of irony Talmeed expected of someone who saw beating chained victims as the act of a good host. Talmeed heard the man holding the torch—the leader—tread softly from the cramped room. Aln remained for a moment. The receding torch’s light illuminated him from behind, causing a flickering halo to appear around him. Ordinarily, Talmeed would have found the contrast of halo and darkness pleasantly striking. However, the past few minutes, complete with his beating, were anything but ordinary. One other feature remained visible in the dim light. Aln’s eyes glowed softly too. Talmeed searched those amber eyes looking for hate, anger, anything that would have prompted the savage attack moments ago. He saw empty eyes, which frightened him more than if he’d seen traces of a murderer. He could make sense of Aln’s brutal act if he knew Aln possessed equally brutal emotions. Emotions were reasons; emotions were motivations. A man capable of thrashing an innocent person without emotion presented the horrific picture of someone who didn’t need a reason to do dark deeds, someone who could act without motivation, someone whose behavior was not colored by feelings and hence not predictable but random; in short, someone who had released themselves from the prison of human nature by means unknown and who was capable of anything. It is the unknown which terrorizes the mind. If emotion hadn’t motivated Aln’s crushing attack, what had? The wavering orange glow surrounding Aln made it seem that he was consumed in flames, yet no fiery rage burned within him. He was an oil lamp empty of oil, yet somehow managing to stay aflame. This unexplainable phenomenon both puzzled and troubled Talmeed. As the human mind so often does when grappling with complex questions, Talmeed turned to analogies to help explain the glowing enigma standing before him. He had barely begun to employ his reasoning powers when Aln turned calmly and left the room. The light, his tormentors and hope had left the room. Talmeed scooted into a corner of the room and sat, back to the cold wall, alone with his thoughts, the darkness and the pain in his stomach. The sound of Aln closing and bolting the wooden door behind himself echoed in Talmeed’s ears. Sidestepping the question of why he had been beaten, Talmeed wondered why he was here. How had he gotten to such a horrible place? As if on cue, a blurry memory began floating up from the depths of his mind, its details fragmentary. Entering an inn…ale being poured into my mug…asking for work…me, be a soldier? Sorry, not interested…wait, a private guard…well treated, ridiculously well-paid…I’m not sure…never fought before…free training?...where do I go?...fort such-and-such in the next valley over…are they hiring?...not sure I’d be accepted…what’s that?...they’ll give me a welcome I’ll never forget?...I guess it’s worth a try…riding my horse to a tall fort…knocking on the door…asking for training…being let in…a sudden blow to the back of my head…burning pain…then darkness… Talmeed had received a welcome he’d never forget, that was certain. He wondered if the rest of what the stranger had told him last night in the inn was true as well? Was he to be paid large sums of money after his training here was complete? What sort of work did these private guards do, or more to the point, who or what did they guard? How did being beaten prepare one for life as a guard? If this was how these teachers trained new recruits, Talmeed resolved to escape as soon as possible. How many more tormentors were there like Aln in this dark, stone fort? What else did they plan on doing as part of his training? More importantly, what would they do if they caught him trying to escape?

Here are some word studies. Numbers/definitions come from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. References indicate which verse contains the word in quotation marks. Mark 16:16 "damned" comes from: 2632 kat-ak-ree-no to judge against, i.e. sentence:--condemn, damn 2 Thess. 2:19 "damned" comes from: 2919 kree-no prop. to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by impl. to try, condemn, punish:--avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think. Matthew 23:33; Luke 20:47; Romans 3:8; 13:2; 2 Peter 2:3 "damnation" comes from: 2920 kree-sis decision (subj. or obj., for or aginst); by extens. a tribunal; by impl. justice (spec. divine law):--accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment.

xhenli, your excerpt made me think that the society in your novel is matriarchal (the woman pronouncing the man's worthiness). Is that a premise of your fictional world? Also, as a writer myself, I'd be interested to know what your protagonist's goal is, and what main obstacle or foe stands in his/her way? And how does he/she plan to overcome it/them?

The word "flesh" in those verses refers to mankind. It's contextually clear from Gen. 6. In verse 3, God refers to man as "flesh." In verse 5, we see that man is wicked. In verse 6, God is grieved that He made man. Then in verse 12 God sees that flesh (which is man, remember v.3) is corrupt (remember v.5) and so He decides to destory them. In addition, the word "flesh" in those verses comes from the Hebrew word "basar," which Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines as: 1320 baw-sawr' flesh (from its freshness; by extens. body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of a man. All italics are in the original, no emphasis added. I've found no scriptures that suggest animals need repentance. Nate: The talk by Skousen is an interesting one indeed, and I believe many things he shares in it. I'm not too sure anymore about everything he says about intelligences. But it's interesting stuff nonetheless.

Seeker, I used to think the same way. I realized that I was unconsciously thinking of plural wives in terms of economic principles, and applying the law of marginal utility to them. In layman's terms, marginal utility states that the more of something you have, the less each one is worth (forgive the oversimplification). Consider a telestial example: Saddam's son Uday used to manipulate Iraq's economy for his enrichment. He would buy all the dollars he could from banks/businesses/exchanges, and keep them out of circulation. Since there were less dollars on the market, each one became worth 500 to 2,000 dinars a piece. At this, Iraqis would panic and exchange thousands or even millions of dollars with the banks so they wouldn't lose the value of their money. Then, Uday would dump all the dollars back into the economy, buy millions of dinars and pretty much bankrupt anyone with money at risk (see "Saddam's Secrets" by Gen. Sada, p.210). This illustrates marginal utility beautifully. The less dollars there were on the market, the more each dollar was worth; the more dollars there were, the less each one was worth. I don't think this is the case with polygamy. God has billions of spirit children, yet they are each of infinite worth. Having more children doesn't lessen the value of any of the rest of us. Same with mortal parents and their children too. Families aren't like economies, or financial wealth. A wealthy person usually has "more" money or property than someone else. Having "more" doesn't equate to being "better" in terms of familial relations. The husband having more than one wife doesn't make him better than if the wife were to have more than one husband. It's not quantity that matters, it's being sealed by the priesthood. I'm not stupid enough to think that my comments are going to eradicate your concerns about polygamy. I'm just sharing what thoughts led me to change my stance on polygamy. Who knows if that will make any sense to anyone other than me. In the end, I feel that in the next life our views on sex, marriage, multiple wives and etc... will be refined by a celestial gospel lens that would burn our eyes if we were to peer through it in our fallen state.

First, I do not believe animals need to repent. Saying they need the atonement in my mind only refers to the resurrection. Animals don't "disobey" God or fail to pay tithing. The only "commandment" they are under is to multiply after their kind. As long as cows don't give birth to alligators, no repentance necessary. Second, the atonement applies not just to this earth but to all our Father's spirit children on whatever world they inhabit (and there are innumerable worlds like this one that fall under Jesus' grace). I believe the atonement follows the priesthood principle of stewardship and righteous dominion, i.e. Christ's atonement wouldn't apply to anyone else's spirit children other than our Father in Heaven's. Interesting to speculate about, but there's no sound doctrinal foundation for this teaching. At least, not if you're saying what I think you're saying.

I dunno. I just don't think it's true. 'S all I got.

See that's my problem...the theory is based on one statement by Jesus in the NT, and Jesus doesn't mention his atonement in connection with this statement. I guess we'll find out someday.

I agree with most of what you say Traveler. One difference between us is that you define the "fruit" of a tree as actions alone. I believe teachings are also a fruit, if you will, and in that respect false doctrines are bad fruit, and true doctrines are good fruit. It's not an either/or issue. A good tree (read: disciple) will both love as God loves, and teach what Jesus taught (true doctrine).

The quote doesn't say, "If your family and home are a failure, you didn't try." I think the Prophet of the Restoration--the Restoration being a one-time deal--can be expected to have more extreme demands on his time, substance and energy than we do or will. Of course, the point of the "failure in the home" quote is to motivate us to focus energy on our families instead of secular or selfish pursuits. It's not that Joseph Smith didn't focus on his family; he did. Just because his family didn't end up as the "ideal Mormon family" doesn't indicate that he didn't fight hard for that result. Now if Joseph Smith had spent all his time starting an international business, etc... that'd be a different story.

Nate: No, I haven't been to the Tacoma Melting Pot, I went to one in D.C. (when I was visiting a brother). As for everything else...I never rebelled growing up. I should say, I never rebelled against the Church or its teachings. My parents taught me the gospel well, I lived what they taught and thrived spiritually, found joy, and had no desire to try the forbidden or sinful practices offered by the world. I don't think it's so much the taboo that attracts people to sin, I think it's simple human nature. People can make sinning look fun, and to a teenager who's all about experiencing life and enjoying themselves, sinning can look pretty good. Alcohol? Perfect example. Dude, you should've been at that party last night! Ashley was there! She was so hot! We all got drunk and had a blast! In my case, I found fulfillment living the gospel. Many others don't find fulfillment in the gospel at an early age and search for fulfillment elsewhere. Only one of my three older brothers ever "went off the path" as far as all that goes. He turned out to be an Alma the Younger, and is now very devout, obedient and an admirable disciple. In my experience, however, there are far too few Alma the Younger conversions and far too many Alma the Youngers, if you get my drift.

You can't be sealed to your corporate office, acting career, or 401k. 'Nuff said. B)

Nate, yer goin' ta hell boy! Bwahahahaha, just kidding. My dad thinks as you do Nate, namely, that God our Father was once a Savior for His Father's spirit children, and that there is a line of saviors through eternity. I myself don't hold a definite position either way, but I'm leaning away from that line of thinking. And no, I don't think you're going to hell, hahaha. B)

Here's what Elder McConkie says about parables in his book, "The Mortal Messiah Vol. II" Strong and deep doctrine, spoken to rebellious people, drives them further away and widens the gulf between them and the saints of God. [...] Jesus told [the apostles] that the world could not receive that which they themselves were scarcely able to bear, and that if they gave gospel pearls to the wicked and ungodly, such unbelieving and rebellious people would first reject the message, and then use the very truths they had heard to rend and destory and wreak havoc among those whose faith was weak. I like the parable of the Sower (Mark 4). The applications of the truths in it range beyond missionary work and the gospel. When applied to romance, one's profession, et al, various wonderful things can be gleaned.

My question is, if #2 pencils are so good, how come they're still #2?

Dude, I think it'd be pretty cool to be married forever. Only gonna' happen in the highest degree of the highest kingdom. B)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. The savior had to be a perfect sacrifice, live a perfect life, etc... and from the beginning, there was only one of God's children who was perfect: Jesus. I don't think there was ever a multiplicity of suitable "candidates." :) As a sidenote, I pointed out earlier that the word "Christ" is the Anglicized version of the Latin word "Christi" and the Greek word "Christos" which come from the Hebrew word "Mashiakh." What other word comes from "Mashiakh" you may wonder? The English word "Messiah" does. So really we could just as accurately call the savior Jesus Messiah as we can Jesus Christ (etymologically speaking). B)

What scriptures lead you to conclude that? On the contrary, the title "Christ" is an anglicized version of the Greek word "Christos" or the Latin "Christi" which derives from the Hebrew word "mashiakh" which means, as do all the preceding words, "Anointed." Christ is the one anointed to act as our savior from death and hell. He didn't have to be the creator of the heavens and earth (under direction of our Father) to be our savior. However, he was the creator of heaven and earth. What scriptures teach this? I have not read that anywhere, and it's actually contrary to the scriptures. John chapter one teaches that Jesus was the creator of heavens and earth, and he certainly hadn't been born before the existence of the earth (it's understandable, Mary wasn't on the scene yet). I'm not sure where you're getting your information. I'd be interested to know. Whaaaaaa? Jesus was God the Father's Firstborn spirit child. After Jesus was born as a spirit, what's wrong with the Father turning to him and saying, "Let us make man in our image?" I personally believe this reference to creating man in their image deals mainly with how our mortal bodies would be organized anatomically, biologically, chemically, etc... Remember too the principle of divine investiture. In Ether 3:15, Jesus could be speaking for the Father, as if he were the Father, in speaking of the creation of man, spiritually or physically. No LDS believes that line of thinking though. Who are you arguing with? No one said Jesus was God the Father. We said Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, the mediator between fallen mankind and God the Father. As such, Jehovah/Jesus often spoke for the Father, in the first-person, much how prophets can speak as if they are the Lord when they say, "Thus saith the Lord: I have seen your wickedness..."

This is a trifling point, but you really think the Jews saw the Samaritans as more corrupt than the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Canaanites, Amorites, Philistines, et al? At least the Samaritans claimed to worship the same God as Israel, albeit with an unauthorized temple and false high priest. I do agree though that culturally and socially at the time the Samaritans were probably considered worse than any other people around the Jews. Sorry, had to argue meaninglessly there. B)

I made the same point once, Adomini. I was corrected by Maureen who explained that what you and I described (the baptism of Jesus problem, for example) was what modalists believe...namely, modalists view God as one Being with three expressions (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). Trinitarians, they contend, view three beings united as God so there's no contradiction. I don't pretend to understand the Trinity. In fact I think that's the point. No one understands (supposedly). Once people start throwing words like ontology, essence, subordinationism, et al, into the mix it gets really hairy. All I know is that I believe the Bible contains significant internal evidence to support the belief that Jesus is Jehovah, and vice versa. I hope you find some interesting things in your studies Dr. T. :)

Allow me to reproduce a previous post of mine from another thread (when I went by ApostleKnight): Saying Jesus is/was Jehovah is not just an LDS belief. Paul himself taught it plainly in Corinthians 10, particularly verses 4 and 9 which I reproduce here: "And [israel] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (v.4) "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." (v.9) Paul is saying that Jesus was the God who followed Israel in the wilderness, who led them through the Red Sea, and who destroyed them with serpents after they "tempted" God. One of the Jews' name for the God of the Old Testament was Jehovah. So if the Old Testament God was called Jehovah, and if Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, Jesus was Jehovah. There is a principle which explains why Jehovah often referred to himself as the Father, when in fact Jehovah was Jesus the Son. It is called "divine investiture," and explains how Jesus--who was indeed Jehovah, God of the Old Testament--could speak as the Father though he were but the Son. Let me break it down in small chunks so it's easy to follow. 1) Before the Fall of Adam and Eve, they lived in God the Father's presence. 2) After the Fall, they were spiritually unclean and were cast out of God's presence (spiritual death). 3) There had to be some way for unclean children to approach and deal with their perfect Father. 4) Jesus was chosen to be this Mediator, Savior, the "go-between" for man and God the Father. 5) God the Father would deliver messages to Jesus and command him to speak to Israel in His stead. 6) Jesus, thus invested with divine authority to speak for God the Father, spoke as if he were the Father when addressing Israel through prophets. 7) Hence the Son spoke as if he were the Father, fulfilling his role as Mediator between God and man. This principle is really rather easy to understand. The prophets are able to speak in the first person as if they were the Lord...you know, the familiar, "Thus saith the Lord: I have seen your abominations..." etc... Sure the prophets are not the Lord, but when speaking for him, they speak as if they were him to convey the intimacy and immediateness of our relationship to the Lord. Jesus was Jehovah; Jehovah was the mediator between Heavenly Father and fallen man; Heavenly Father invested Jehovah with authority to speak on His behalf; Jehovah spoke in the first person as if he were Heavenly Father; Jehovah was the God of the Old Testament; Jehovah and Heavenly Father are separate beings/Gods whose single goal is to help us return to Him/Them. Jesus was Jehovah. Here are other scriptures related to this concept. Jesus/Jehovah was the creator of the world. (Isaiah 45:11-12; John 1:1,3,14) Jesus/Jehovah is the Savior. (Hosea 13:4; Luke 2:11) Jesus/Jehovah is the Redeemer. (Isaiah 43:14; Galatians 3:13) Jesus/Jehovah will deliver men from death. (Hosea 13:14; 1 Cor. 15:20-22) The Jews will look upon Jesus/Jehovah who was pierced. (Zech. 12:10; John 19:34,36-37) Jesus/Jehovah followed Israel in the wilderness during the Exodus. (Ex. 13:21-22; 1 Cor. 10:1-4) Jesus/Jehovah is the Husband or Bridegroom. (Isaiah 54:5; Rev. 19:7-8) Jesus/Jehovah is the first and the last, Alpha and Omega. (Isaiah 44:6; Rev. 1:8)

I don't think so. The same spirit who received a physical body from the virgin Mary and became Jesus, was the being speaking in pre-meridian times. Unless I misunderstand your question, it seems you're intimating that it wasn't Jesus who was Jehovah or the one speaking in Ether?

church_girl: Good thoughts. Overall I disagree on the definition of godhood. To me it implies priesthood authority of a given level and degree, independent of the state of the possessor (i.e. spirit, mortal, resurrected mortal, etc...). After all, the Holy Ghost is a God and he has no tangible mortal body. xhenli: See above. I mean priesthood authority when I use the word God. I disagree in that I believe Jesus had reached perfection of character and priesthood authority before his mortal life. The only thing he "lacked" was a perfected mortal body. Adomini: Interesting thoughts. Not sure about the accuracy, but I don't see any reason to reject them outright.

No one has yet refuted my previous post, which I reproduce here: If we're going on first principles, and what we know from the gospel, consider this: The only souls who will be exalted and become gods (notice the little "g") are those who are sealed together in marriage by the authority of the priesthood. That's what D&C 132 says. Of course, they must be obedient and all the other good stuff. But they have to be married to become gods. Well wait a second. Jesus was a God in the premortal life. If he has to be subject to the same commandments we do (and I agree he does), then he would have to have been married in the premortal life in order to have been a God. If he didn't have to be married to be a God, then there is a different set of rules for him than for us, and if that's the case, then he didn't have to get married during his mortal life as we do. If there are no different rules for him than us, then he must have been married in the premortal life, and hence there's no need for him to get married during his mortal life.

I don't have access to the court proceedings and testimony, but if you do, that's cool.