wenglund

See? You are either pitifully dishonest with yourself, or you are incapable of correctly comprehend that you in no way directly answered my question, which makes it abundantly clear to those who are capable of comprehending, that it is not only pointless to try and assist you with a hand up in light and knowledge, but it is counterproductive, a waste of time. Bye wall. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is a reason you didn't directly answer, but verbosely and strenuously evaded my questions, and this is because were you to directly and simply answer yes or no, would be to evince that you are currently at odds, and the several ways you are at odds, with what Joseph Smith wrote. Either way, we both know where you are at odds- And, that will suffice. Now, back to the topic. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, I have directed you to three articles, two of which are from Church publications, each of which quote extensively from the scriptures and modern prophets/apostles, and you weren't capable of seeing it--or, as Joseph Smith less charitably phrased it, it is "beyond the narrow-minds of man." To use the words of Christ, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (Jn 3:10-12) You are free to consider it a "bluff" on my part, and that would be understandable given your current incapacity to understand higher things. And, you will continue to see it that way until you become capable. Until then... I have even been constructive enough to explain how you could exceed the self-imposed limitation of your current understanding, but to no avail. Oh well... Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Since you repeatedly asked about this after noting it is a tangent, let me respond Socraticaly by asking: Do you believe, as Joseph intimated, that the three degrees of glory mentioned in D&C 76 are "after the judgement" (i.e. post resurrection)? Do you believe, as Joseph intimated, that people are "saved" and are "heirs of salvation", and will bow their knees post-judgement (post resurrection) in the telestial, and terrestrial, and celestial kingdoms? In other words, do you understand that there are multiple conotations of the word "saved" and "salvation"? Do you believe, as Joseph intimated, that the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms are the "future life" (not to be confused with the symolism of this current life), and "destiny," and "completion" for some people, and that they will never see the celestial kingdom of God? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, that is a relatively elementary understanding of the law of sacrifice. I am speaking to a higher understanding of the law, which you continue to admit you can't see. And, that is okay. If, or whenever you are ready, you will see it. Until then,.... Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The one's I mentioned. (i.e those that are at "odds with your current point of view regarding salvation and the three kingdoms.") Obviously! Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That may be true of pure salt, It isn't true for corrupted salt--which is, I believe,e ,the point of the relevant passage in the Sermon on the Mount. It is not uncommon to find salt crystals (Hialite or Rock Salt), mixed with sulfur and other nasty tasting minerals or chemicals. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There are at least two key points that you seem to be overlooking, likely because they are clearly at odds with your current point of view regarding salvation and the three kingdoms. But, as you said, this may be straying a bit off topic, not that it would matter in helping you to see the greater light anyway. So, I will leave it at that. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your perception may be correct. I even agree. And, by way of explanation, and not that I am anywhere close to Joseph Smith, but the vast majority of my religious comments are Bible-based, not because I don't find considerable value in the Book of Mormon, but rather because I am often talking with people who are Bible believers either outside the Church, transitioning into the Church, or not long in the Church, and this because it is a common and familiar canon between us. From my extensive reading of Joseph Smith, this seems to be the case for him as well. Even when he is giving Conference talks or writing in Church publications, he is aware that his message will carry beyond the Church, and so it would make sense to tailor his message for that broader audience. Besides, even though Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, the content may not have been all that familiar to him for some time.thereafter. I know it has taken me a number of readings to get the names and stories to stick in my mind. Then, too, much of his time following the translation was engaged in receiving new revelation and translating the Bible. We all tend to quote more that upon which our thoughts are fixed at the time. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Again, that is okay. Not everyone is in a position to grasp the distinction that the Lord is making--not just in terms of phrasing, but also in terms of eternal outcome. Maybe someday?--though I doubt it given your seemingly intractable view. Until then, to each their own Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As best I could tell, It is difficult to determine if the "parenthetical references" are merely scriptural substantiations/annotations provided by Richard C. Galbraith, or an unattributed quote, or the subconscious source of specific notion Joseph is conveying. Think of it like were I to say that we all must be born again. Were someone to scripturally annotate this statement, they may cite John 3: However, I may also be quoting John 3 without attribution. whether I consciously realizing it--though it is likely the case, and thus not indicate that it is the source for my statement. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What I am suggesting is that "know not the" evidently means something different than "without" in the specified passages in question And, depending upon the different meanings, it may or may not allow for a number of possible permutations.However, we would have to be authoritatively informed what each means in order to make that determination. Until we are informed, the best we can logically say is that they mean different things. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I came across the following while researching a question on another thread. Below is a statements of Joseph Smith, taken from the Evening and Morning Star, as quoted in the Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It follows another statement (cited under the subsection, Comment on Revision of the Scriptures), that is also cited in the Heading of D&C 76, which has been discussed already on this board.. Under the subsection on, "The Prophet's View on the Vision" (i.e. the vision entailed in D&C 76), Joseph Smith states: "Nothing could be more pleasing to the Saints upon the order of the Kingdom of the Lord, than the light which burst upon the world through the foregoing vision. Every law, every commandment, every promise, every truth, and every point touching the destiny of man, from Genesis to Revelation, where the purity of the Scriptures remains unsullied by the folly of men, go to show the perfection of the theory (of different degrees of glory in the future life) and witness the fact that the document is a transcript from the records of the eternal world. The sublimity of the ideas; the purity of the language; the scope for action; the continued duration for completion, in order that the heirs of salvation may confess the Lord and bow the knee; the rewards for faithfulness, and the punishments for sins, are so much beyond the narrow-mindedness of men, that every man is constrained to exclaim: “It came from God.” (Feb., 1832.) DHC 1:252-253.(bold mine) In the next issue of the Evening and Morning Star, we find this statement from Joseph Smith, under the heading, Every Man an Agent for Himself: "...But except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. This eternal truth settles the question of all men’s religion. A man may be saved, after the judgment, in the terrestrial kingdom, or in the telestial kingdom, but he can never see the celestial kingdom of God, without being born of the water and the Spirit. He may receive a glory like unto the moon, [i.e., of which the light of the moon is typical], or a star, [i.e., of which the light of the stars is typical], but he can never come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels; to the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, unless he becomes as a little child, and is taught by the Spirit of God." (bold mine) Several things are made clear by the Prophet Joseph, himself.. People are saved in all three kingdoms of heaven While there may be telestial and terrestrial and celestial kingdoms on earth, they are but symbolic of, or a type and shadow of, the real telestial and terrestrial and celestial kingdoms in heaven. the real three kingdoms of heaven are the ones that exist "after the judgement", and are the "destiny of man," the "future life," the "completion." All this, of course, will come as no surprise, and will rightly be believed, along with a number of Church leaders, by those who correctly understand that D&C 76, and the tree kingdoms mentioned therein, is in reference to the resurrection. I say this with full anticipation that I am wasting my breath on certain parties, but there it is. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This isn't necessarily logical. It is may be a fallacy (circular reasoning) because it presupposes the very thing it wishes to prove--i.e. that the phrase "knew not" also means "without." To analogously demonstrate how this is not necessarily the case, the phrase "knew not women" does not mean the same thing as "without women." The former is in reference to the absence of sexual relations with women, whereas the other is the absence of women altogether. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Also, "The Scriptural Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith" may be of help. It not only gives scriptural substantiation (including from the Book of Mormon) for the things he said, but also quotations from the scriptures. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just off the top of my head, I believe that Joseph Smith indicated that the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood came in response to prayers prompted by translating certain passages of the Book of Mormon. By way of confirming my recollection, I found this: “We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates." (citred HERE) Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is okay. Not everyone is in a position as yet to grasp the distinction that Christ made--not just in phrasing, but also in terms of the rendering of differing resurrected bodies and glories. Thus is a baseless conclusion you have jumped to. And, given what I suggest above, it appears to be an errant conclusion. Is it any wonder you don't see the distinction? It may help your capacity for understanding to humbly let God' and His Word mold your view, rather than pridefully the other way around. In other words, "lean not unto thine own understanding..." Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is okay. Not everyone is at a point where they can understand the difference between arrested and unarrested sacrifice, and how the latter made the former possible, thus eliminating the requirement of our shedding our blood, though we be willing. I mean, if,, in connection with a spirit-filled temple endowment experience, you carefully and thoughtfully read the three relevant articles I referenced, and still don't see it. Then you evidently aren't in a rightful position to do so. Maybe some day. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Upon that we can agree, particularly given the incorrect assumption you jumped to here: No, I didn't reference how you "feel." I didn't mention the word, nor did I speak of your emotions, particularly given that I don't recall you saying anything to me about your emotions. I used the word "problematic," and dealt solely with your opinion in each of my responses. I believe you may have me confused with MOE or another participant on this thread. So, yet again, it isn't me who isn't getting it. It isn't me or the Brethren who isn't making sense. It is you. As for the rest of your post, it is treading too far into the realm of silly quibbles for my taste, if not to the point that it would take a university lecture to unravel the Gordian knot of your many misunderstandings. So, I will leave each to their own, and wish you only the best Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As made evident in bold above, there appears to be a distinction drawn between know not the, and without law. Those that know not the laws will have part in the first resurrection, and those without law will have part in the terrestrial resurrection. What all, exactly, this distinction entails, is unclear.to me. I speculate that the difference is the incapacity or capacity to sin. It may also be a function of which "law" the Lord has in mind in each case. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps the next time you attend an endowment session at the temple, you could pay close attention to which covenants YOU make in relation to which laws. It might change how you see it. In preparation thereof, in addition to the article I linked to above, please check out this BYU Devotional talk by Monte J. Brough, on "Between Two Gardens: the Law of Sacrifice," as well as this Ensign article by Stephen Ricks: "The Law of Sacrifice." Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Lovely, lovely anatess2, it was already evident to me that this is a discussion board. Nevertheless, in our DISCUSSION on this BOARD, YOU incorrectly asserted that my gracious advice to YOU regarding YOUR nonsensical OPINION about the elimination of opening exercises wasn't about YOU. Unfortunately, it seems that YOU still are having trouble recognizing that YOU were not only incorrect about the Brethren not making sense, but YOU were also incorrect that it wasn't about YOU. I seriously hope that it won't take a UNIVERSITY LECTURE for YOU to finally get it. As for me explaining to YOU how it makes sense, it may not be a matter of YOU being UNENLIGHTENED, but rather YOU lacking in either reading comprehension or recall, since I EXPLAINED the sense of it earlier in the thread, and also told YOU that I had EXPLAINED it it earlier in the thread. Please understand that the all capped words aren't me shouting, but as a way of providing emphases to facilitate YOUR comprehension. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see the law of sacrifice as applying not just to Christ, but also to those desiring to become like Christ--i.e. those who are born from above. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I predict that what will be new this conference is that there won't be anything new, giving the church time to settle in and adjust to all the new things of 2018--a breather, so to speak, before buckling our seat belts for the next wild ride in 2020. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would be interested to read the six principles if appropriate (I mention this because I understand that some things may be too sacred to share in a public forum). Thanks, -Wade Englund-