Sojourn

Vort - I see what you are pointing out and I don't disagree. I did find two other similar quotations that may or may not be of interest: Alma 49:1616 And behold, Moroni had appointed Lehi to be chief captain over the men of that city; and it was that same Lehi who fought with the Lamanites in the valley on the east of the river Sidon. Helaman 5:2121 And it came to pass that they were taken by an army of the Lamanites and cast into prison; yea, even in that same prison in which Ammon and his brethren were cast by the servants of Limhi. We do see the same language and we know what is being referred to in the two above mentioned cases; not a slam dunk though. One other musing as you say. The fact that Aminidi interpreted the writing on the wall may indicate that Aminidi was the king because we most often find in the Book of Mormon that it is the king who has the Nephite interrupters, and curiously the interrupters just show up in early Nephite writings without explanation from whence they came; unless I missed it. I am guessing that it was explained in the 116 pages. And, yes, we find out later that they were originally Jaridite interrupters.

Vort – Your illumination of the book of Lehi reminded me of something I read somewhere. (Sorry if I am a little off topic as to ponderizing, but I would like to add to what Vort said, but then really only geeks like what I will attempt) If you look at Alma 10: 1 Now these are the words which Amulek preached unto the people who were in the land of Ammonihah, saying: 2 I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi; and it was that same Aminadi who interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God. 3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, Now if you look at the estimated date either at the top of the page in the new heading or at the bottom of the page if you have the old scriptures you will see 82 BC Now go back to Mosiah 1 and look at the dates (130 - 124 BC). Hang in there with me for a moment; it will be geeky if you like that kind of stuff. So any date before 130 BC will be back into the Book of Lehi. OK so we have to account for 48 years from 130 BC to 82 BC . Now if you will accept that there are approximately 25 years between generations then we can compute Amulek (82 BC) to his father Giddonah (82 + 25 = 107 BC) to his father Ishmael (107 BC + 25 = 132 BC) to Aminadi (132 + ???) Don’t know but it will be at least 25 so go 132 + 25 = 157 BC. That right there puts us back into the Book of Lehi (the lost 116 pages) Now when Mormon writes in verse 2 “it was that same Aminadi” He is assuming we know the story of the writing on the temple wall by the finger of God because he already included it in the Book of Lehi. And a quick search on Aminidai will reveal there is no such story in our current BoM. OK, now let’s take it out of the realm of geeky and push it to something more meaningful as to understanding Amulek. From verse 3 we learn that Amulek is a direct descendant of Nephi through his ancestor Aminadi. That smells like royal blood to me. It was the kings who, until the rein of judges, held the Melchizedek Priesthood and were the custodians’ of the relics and scriptures on plates. This could means that Amulek had access to the scriptures because of his lineage or some other means. This could also sheds light why Amulek, a citizen of Ammonihah, of all places, knew so much deep doctrine. This is a stretch, but the reason Amulek stressed that fact that he was royal may be because there were others in Ammonihah who were not Nephites by blood, but were pre-existing natives adopted in to the Nephite culture. So we went from geeky to unsupported interesting.

UT.starscoper thanks for posting Helaman 14:15-19. As soon as I read: "18 that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire;" I noticed repetition in reverse so Chiasmus popped into my mind so I started hunting. I had to cheat to get it to work, but this is what I came up with: A. 14 a sign of his death B. 15 brought into the presence of the Lord Nested Chiasmus a 16 this death bringeth to pass the resurrection b 16 Adam (mankind) being cut off from the presence of the Lord b' 17 bringeth them (mankind) back into the presence of the Lord a' 17 the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind Point: 18 that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; B' 18 there cometh upon them again a spiritual death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off (from the presence of the Lord).A' 19 brought down unto this second death I don't know if this is what Helaman or Mormon had in mind, but it was fun to play with.

I admire what you are doing both at work and at home. When I look at the situation you describe as violating ethics to help others, I see a fundamental weakness in either understanding or appreciating the basic law or ethic involved. It is like the person who keeps the commandments while it is convenient, but when it comes into conflict with ones desires then sometimes the commandment is overlooked to satisfy one’s own ends. We then sometimes learn the hard way the fundamental value of the law. Sometimes, in this life anyway, we break a law/ethic and when we don’t get caught, we think we have gotten away with it which tends to add to our believe that we can do it again. I like the movie “A Man for All Seasons” where Sir Thomas Moore (sp?) is talking to his prospective son-in-law who advocates breaking the law because it seem right to him (the son-in-law). Sir Thomas Moore’s response was so classic. I can only paraphrase a part of it where Sir Thomas Moore states that the law is our protection. Sir Thomas Moore understood the value of law/ethics, and lost his head over it. Ironic? Yes, that happens in the short term of things.

D&C 132: 8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. 9 Will I accept an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name? 10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed? 11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was? This scripture lays down that the “offering” that God would accept were “ordained” before the world was. To allow your mind to expand your view of what “before the world was” means, please forgive a little knowledge from science here. Some 4.6 billion years ago, about three quarters of the way out on the Orion arm of the Milky Way galaxy there was a nebula of gas, dust and rock in a state of chaos. The scientists say that some perturbation rippled through this nebula that started things clinging together and soon proto-planets began to be formed. The foundation of this earth was laid. Before this perturbation took place however, all the laws, rites, and ordinance of the gospel of Jesus Christ were laid down and agreed upon in a heavenly council; a grand council that included all the sons and daughters of the glorious God; our Father. The following are from the prophet Joseph Smith: “It was by faith that the worlds were framed. God spake, chaos heard, and worlds came into order by reason of the faith that was in Him.” (Lectures on Faith pg 9) “…in the winding up scene of the last dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.” “Therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.” (TPJS pg 168) “It was the design of the councils of heaven before the world was, that the principles and laws of the priesthood should be predicated upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world.” “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men [and women], are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” (TPJS pg 308) A journal entry recorded by William Clayton in 1845 provides evidence for the Prophet's teachings regarding this doctrine: It has been a doctrine taught by this church that we were in the Grand Council amongst the Gods when the organization of this world was contemplated and that the laws of government were all made and sanctioned by all present and all the ordinances and ceremonies decreed upon. (Words of Joseph Smith, 84 n. 10.) Here we are some 4.6 billion years later and we see the power of God and his Christ in being faithful in maintaining what was agreed upon in council and decreed by God so long ago. This bares solemn testimony of Their (God and Jesus Christ’s) great power and determination to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. The Lord asked Job in Job 38: 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? My personal view point is the answer to the Lord’s question to Job (although Job couldn’t remember) is that he (Job) was there when the foundation of earth was laid, not as a spectator, but as a participant. It seems to me that God the Father is not about raising spectators to His grand work but more about raising participants to gain the requisite knowledge of how to build earths and more. Job was one of the morning stars that sang and shouting for joy when he helped lay the foundation along with many others. God is about raising (lower case g) gods to become like Himself with the necessary knowledge to create worlds and the necessary saving ordinances that will lead them along the path of redemption to exaltation. Joseph Smith said “ A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge” (History of the Church, 4:588; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Apr. 10, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff. Also go to LDS.org and search for Chapter 22: Gaining Knowledge of Eternal Truths).

I decided a long time ago that I don’t like the words endure to the end. It struck me as if to say I hope I die before I screw up. I like the words be joyfully engaged in a good cause and stretch your character a bit every week until at length you look back and see a mighty change has taken place in your heart over time.

char713 - Here are my thoughts on your thought about being completely different. Sorry, I have to take an extreme example to allow for easier delineation. If Lucifer were allowed to be born, but got aborted, but then finely got his body, how would he be different than the aborted body? He might have had brown eyes instead of blue. He might have had wavy hair instead of straight, but basically he would still be Lucifer the deceiver. Could he be nurtured such that he would be more Christ like? I wonder. I believe that from the preexistence we had intellect, we had personality, we had the propensity to obey or disobey and that our intelligence had the capacity to grow and that these things were not created or made neither indeed could be. I believe that if we were put into any number of bodies, we would still be very similar to that basic “me” in many respects. You have a good husband. Rest assured that he has been that way for a very long time and is yet improving on the whole prospect. Thanks for your response. It causes me to ponder.

Thanks for posting your thoughts. I have gone down that line of reasoning myself and I ways run into conundrums. As an example I think about a child born out of wedlock. Does that mean the Heavenly Father planned for that couple to transgress his laws? Conundrum. But let’s just take your statement “But I believe family existed well before entering mortality.” In support of you belief we have a quote from President Jeddah M. Grant, Councilor to Brigham Young, also marveled at this extensive order and organization in the spirit world. He said after being taken in vision to the spirit world just before his own death in 1856, “But Oh, the order and government that were there. When in the spirit world I saw the order of righteous men and women and beheld them in there several grades, and there appeared to be no obstruction of my vision. I could see every man and women in their grade and order. I looked to see if there was any disorder there but there was none.” He said that, “The people that he saw there were organized in family capacities, and when he looked at them he saw grade after grade and all were organized and in perfect harmony.” Considering the statement “organized in family capacities” could be interpreted as broad as – people were organized in nations. And indeed there is scriptural support for that notion. Also in support of your belief, when I watch TV programs that show how lost family members ( like adopted out) find each other I see this unbelievable bond that is there and can’t help to think that that bond was formed long ago, but it is just my feeling. As to my own children I can’t but help to think that at some point I held my arm to the square and accepted the responsibility to be their parent, but again just a feeling. So many unanswered questions here that I have to keep my mind opened to further understanding. I would love to know this too.

If God isn't concerned with time, what if he decided to put us all here on earth one at a time? Or a hermit, what commandments can they keep or break? Other than the first few commandments the rest are all sociological in nature. If salvation is our goal it would seem to me that our fist duty is to ensure we are on the road to salvation, then it is our duty to see (enfluence) our family is keeping on the road, then it is our duty to see (enfluence) that other are being helped along the road. This salvation thing appears to be a group effort.

Yeah, St. Anthony to the north just before you go up the big hill or Swan Valley on the Snake to the south. But, when you are in Idaho just about any place with moving water will be pretty good.

I stumbled across an interesting coincidence while reading the Book of Mormon with my wife and something I subsequently saw while watching a YouTube video. I don’t plan to make more of it than a coincidence. It went like this. Warning: This might be gruesome for some We read in the book of Mosiah about Abinadi’s death as follows Mosiah 17:13 13 And it came to pass that they took him [Abinadi] and bound him, and scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death. And three chapters later King Noah gets it too. Mosiah 19:20 and caused that he [King Noah] should suffer, even unto death by fire. I decided to refresh my memory of the use of the word faggot and the one I liked came from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot faggot or fagot, branch or twig, or bundle of these So, I surmised from this that Abinadi was burned to death using a bundle of burning sticks. Then,that same day, I was watching this YouTube video: Cracking the Mayan Code PBS Nova https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ppfC6y-5s At minute 49 I saw these two pictures (See below) The narrator said that this sculpture was of a man who had been scalped, disemboweled, had wood tied to his back, and set him on fire. All very gruesome, I am sorry for that. I am not suggesting that this is a sculpture of Abinadi or King Noah. The Maya flourished some 500 years after the Abinadi story so the time and place could be very far apart, but it does suggest that Joseph Smith got one form of corporal punishment that was consistent with or in use with an ancient American culture, where in his [Joseph smith’s] world it would have been hanging, and to get it right in a little over 2 months of translating is impressive.

It struck me one day that games like WoW were based on the Cain syndrome (Moses 5:32); kill your brother to get gain. Seems ironic we have gone that far back, but on the other hand, it has always been with us, we have just developed more ways to do it.

Thanks for that. The words Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial never appears in the BoM. Makes me wonder if the BoM prophets knew of those distinctions. It seems that the BoM teaches black & white / heaven & hell; the extremes. It seems that only Joseph Smith had or was permitted to teach the fullness of that understanding of the degrees of glory. Paul mentions them briefly but leaves a lot to be desired. The word Millennium never shows up in the BoM either but in my mind from the time the Lord appeared at the temple in the new world and for a good long time afterwords seems to be an example of a millennial era.

Average Joe - could you direct me to the 3 degrees of glory pattern in the Book of Mormon? Thanks

mordorbund - Thank you so much. I am re-reading Isaiah and I keep thinking of what you just posted, but couldn't remember the details. Thanks for reminding me.

Thanks Traveler, I didn't think of that.

Nemo – This is a good question and as you can see there are a lot of good answers here because it is not as straight forward as “Judaism (Israel), Zoroastrianism (Iran), Christianity (Israel), Buddhism (India), and Islam (Arabia) are correct and their founders are true prophets.” Our Book of Mormon teaches us: 2 Nephi 29: 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 2 Nephi 29:12 12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. These scriptures seem to support your allegation that: “Judaism (Israel), Zoroastrianism (Iran), Christianity (Israel), Buddhism (India), and Islam (Arabia) are correct and their founders are true prophets”except that the Lord said, “, I speak the same words” This is the key to how you can tell if they are true prophets. You being from Tennessee I would guess are quite familiar with the Bible and that should be your standard; that which you can measure other religious books by. Read the Book of Mormon and test it against what you know in the Bible. Our founder, Joseph Smith, taught that he and we will accept truth no matter where it comes from. So, the LDS do not have a corner on that market. By-in-large Mormons believe that the Constitution of the United States is an inspired document; however we do not talk of Thomas Jefferson as a prophet. To me the Constitution reads like scripture and I think that I could consider Thomas Jefferson a prophet as far as the constitution goes, but I just don’t give him that title although I have great respect and admiration for the man. I should stop here, but if you can forgive me I would like to make one more point about prophets. When Mohammed received his inspiration over time (610 – 632 AD) he could neither read nor write so the Muslims tell us. The Kor’an was the first book ever written in Arabic script. Before the Arabic script was finalized some 100 years after Mohammed’s death the common script in use was an Aramaic script; which Mohammed did know that either. My guess is that Mohammed could have been a prophet to the Arabians (I don’t know) but his sayings may have been changed in places where the Kor’an does not coincide with the teachings of the Bible. Anciently all Holy books were subject to the whims of those who controlled them, even the Bible. That is why I believe the Book of Mormon is so important. It is another witness of Christ. It says the same thing as the Bible does doctrinally. You can use the Bible and the Book of Mormon to judge other books.

Back in 2010 or so thekabalist posted several Book of Mormon commentaries from a Jewish perspective. I have been trying to find where he described the rules that Jewish scholars use to pierce the depths of deeper meanings hidden in the scriptures that Jews are accustomed to doing. It seems to me that there could be as many as 4 levels, each one with its own characteristic. All I can remember is that none of the lower levels of meaning could violate the surface meaning. If anyone has copied that down or has the reverence to that, I would sure like to review it. Thanks.

When I was growing up and fell in love with surfing at the age of ten that love carried through my hormone years. I learned and believed as gospel that God NEVER made a girl as exciting as a 6 foot wave. When you get married and put that same kind of devotion into your wife as a surfer does into surfing and a pretty girl catches your eye you will find yourself saying, “She’s pretty, but she’s not as exciting as a 6 foot wave.” Problem solved. Oh. You live in the desert? Good luck.

I love the remarks that I am reading here and I would like to contribute even in a small way if possible. It seems to me that scripturally we seem to be in an area that is at best sketchy; that is we don’t know a lot of details about the pre-mortal spirit life and the pre-spirit life as intelligences that we can point to in scripture. Much of what we hear comes from non-canonical sources and some would even question if there was an evolution from intelligence to spirit; I like to think there was. There is a very good read by B.H. Roberts called “The Immortality of Man” written in the Improvement Era of 1907. I will give you the link at the end. If you look at the notes at the bottom of Roberts' paper you will see that not all of the general authorities at the time agreed with Roberts, and then some changed their minds to the positive later. After reading Robert’s paper I decided to write down what I thought might be some attributes of the so-called intelligence state for my own personal study. I put down 15 items not intended to be all inclusive but just as a basis to study. A couple of the 15 were that an intelligence was capable of judging, was capable of making choices, had moral agency. I found that D&C 93 had a lot to say about these things and I tend to agree that if you had choice, you could obey or disobey then you could sin and that the infinite Atonement could reach back (See Rev 12:7-11) and take care of these things. Not to long ago I read somewhere (this is lame) that God observed Christ in the intelligent state for eons of time before he was chosen to be the Christ/Messiah. I so wish I had the reference to that paraphrase now, because to use that without a reference is lame. I am sorry. If anyone else has seen that I would love to know where it came from because I tend to believe it. B.H. Roberts“The Immortality of Man” (enjoy) http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/Immortality-of-Man.html

I think that Alma 42:22 lays out the mechanics 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God (and that "ain't" guna happen). And all this happened before the foundation of the world was laid down maybe 5 billion years ago give or take. My most fundamental questions started about 60 years ago after joining the church at the age of 12. I had sold new papers on the street for a couple of years by then. I had been a heathen but new some things about several non-Christian religions. I was the only son of a divorcee and the only one in my family to join the church. After I joined the Church one of the first things that caught my attention was I heard people say that Christ paid for my sins. Having been a newspaper boy I knew that if someone paid for my sins, there had to be a transaction involved which raised many questions in my mind. Since Christ lived some 1955 years before how did he know me, a no account son of a divorcee when there were bigger problems in the world? How did he get a hold of my sins which I hadn’t committed yet? How is a man (I didn’t know He was a God at that time) nailed to a cross equivalent to my sins? How does that work? Within a year or so I figured since I was now a Christian that I had better read the Bible. And believe it or not at the age of 13 or so I made it all the way from Genesis to Leviticus. And in Leviticus I read: 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord. 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. My mind caught on the word “accepted”. I knew as a paper boy that I would not accept any less than 10 cents for the Honolulu Star Bulletin because I had to account for the number of paper given to me and I got a penny for each paper I sold, and had to pay 9 cents for those not accounted for. But I would accept more than 10 cents. On occasion I would hear my favorite words, ”Keep the change.” Anyway as I pondered the word “accepted” I thought that maybe it only had to be a token sacrifice. I held that belief for some years until I read D&C 19 and it shook me. That experience cured me of thinking it was a token sacrifice. Reading on now I read Leviticus 16 where it says: 6:21 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 For the first time I thought I could see that sins are transferable. This is probably not coacher doctrine but I was still in my paper-boy mind. I thought to myself that there must be a law somewhere that says you can transfer sin because God has told them to do it and it is acceptable. For me I was satisfied that Christ could in effect get a hold of my sins and pay for them. Further reading and life’s experiences have enabled me to come to a clearer understanding of the unfathomable infinite Atonement. In the ocean I have explored and have a fair knowledge of the first 30 – 40 feet of the unfathomable depths. Rare occasions have allowed me to go some deeper. It is the same with understanding the Atonement. Difficult experiences in life will enable a person to go a little deeper. In my opinion reason alone won’t get you there. I love the Atonement and would love to hear other people's learning and experiences.

In view of the recent controversies concerning the blacks and the priesthood our racial sensitivities have been heightened, I believe. Much has come to light in the past few weeks because of this issue concerning the views of early church members and leaders. With this in mind we may want to consider the usage of the label Lamanite as pointed at Native Americans (north and south). The word has varying meanings over the course of the Book of Mormon. The last meaning was derived thus: 4 Nephi 1:17 17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. 4 Nephi 1:20 20 And he kept it eighty and four years, and there was still peace in the land, save it were a small part of the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites; therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land. In my view the current usage of the label Lamanite is a derogatory term; its last meaning was used to define dissenters in the Book of Mormon. In the Doctrine and Covenants the term is used in 11 versus to define a group of people living apart from the people of the church; Native Americans. I have Native Americans in my ancestry by marriage. Suppose for a moment you did too. Would you rather hear your ancestors or those living referred to as Lehites or Lamanites? If you choose Lehite then you sense that Lamanite is less respectful. Clearly in 4Ne1:20 some of the so called Lamanites could have been descendants of Nephi. We do not uplift anyone now living by labeling them as a Lamanite, in my opinion. We have come by the usage of the term by culture just like the early saints did when they used terms different than we use today for people of color. From what I have seen, I believe that most Native Americans, even in the church, would rather be referred to as Native Americans if any label is used at all. Regardless of what title, name, or reference Native Americans prefer it should be one that implies respect. Lamanite, for the current generation, doesn't do it for me.

It may be remembered that Eliza Roxy Snow laid her hands on and gave a blessing to two tired oxen on her journey over the western plains of the United States in 1847 - 1850?? and the oxen got up and walked on. That Incident is recognized as a miracle by many who reported it. I see no reason why a priest in the Aaronic priesthood couldn't do the same thing. Do people imagine that the when the prayer came before the Lord that He look it up in a book and then would say, "Nop! It's not allowed!" That's not the Lord we know is it? A Buddhist Monk could give a blessing and it could be recognized.

Thrushcross – Suppose your parents who are good and righteous people died as Muslims. Then you took their names to the temple and were baptized for them and eventually had your parents sealed together for eternity. Then they would be eligible for the highest gifts (Celestial kingdom) if they would accept it and if the Lord found them worthy of it. Doctrine and Covenants 132:7 says this 7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. As has been mentioned marriage must take place before the resurrection. After the resurrection everything is fixed; that is no more marriages is what I understand.