brlenox

No harm no foul, all is well.

If I am nitpicking (and I'm not - I'm explaining the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences, which is a big deal when your only means of communication is text), then your post above is an excellent example of "ad hominem". You take an explanation of the meaning of words - and an impersonal1 one at that - and use it to: Assume my motives Assume my intention Assume the degree of effort I'm making Call my English explanation "despicable behavior" Gloat over your own perceived "right"ness Accuse me of complaining Assert that I know things (as if you could read my mind) Assert knowledge of my theoretical behavior Blow one single explanation of English into a mountain of stalking effort past, present, and future Accuse me of being perverse All of your assumptions and assertions were incorrect. For you to be able to accurately do the majority of the above would require you to have direct access to my brain. That is not possible in the current reality. And all of that is rather hypocritical in light of this post you made in another thread: You took my simple commentary on the meaning of English sentences and used it to "magnify [y]our own innate sense of negative interpretation" and failed to "realize higher standards". 1I made one comment about you: "You are assuming the above based on the below...." - which is deductive and more than rational for any human to make based on your own words -- in other words, you were flat out saying that your sentence was how you interpreted Elder Christofferson's quoted words. All the remainder of my words were about the meaning of your words verses the meaning of Elder Christofferson's words. I commented on the words. You commented on the writer. Edited Friday at 08:07 AM by zil @zil I apologize profusely but I cannot find this statement attributed to me on this thread or that I have even participated on this thread. I seem to recall saying something like this on the resurrection thread and presume that that is what you are referencing but if you will help me understand your observations and how they relate to me then I will be glad to respond. You may have mixed me up with some other poor fellow who could only most likely be greatly offended and perhaps feel due an apology. But if truly me, then help me connect the dots.

Thank you for sharing. Perhaps if enough were to be so open we could soften the rejection factor around here and make this a forum of greater tolerance and acceptance.

Would that it was so simple. Hitting with sticks portends to an act of decisive intent. What I lament was that while I was responding without any intent to offend one of the hypersensitive regulars labeled me as pretentious or condescending or some such and it went straight downhill from there. Typically my posts are presented without any degree of doubt. I know my subjects, I am well studied and always back up my material with copious quotes from general authorities. I do not, when addressing gospel subjects, present anything in the form of opinion as I find opinions to be useless when it comes to true understandings. Nor do I place any stock in my own theological observations unless I can illustrate that an apostle or prophet shares my perceptions and thus I draw upon those whom we should all respect for their spiritual maturity. Ignore me, but if I align with a proper witness we should be moved to consider upon their words. As you can probably discern from just the manner in which I couched this previous paragraph I tend towards being very assertive and feel very comfortable with anything I respond to in a theological discussion as I draw much confidence from only finding my strength of understanding in spiritual sources of merit. Most are not so restrained and feel their opinions are the equivalent of our greatest spiritual leaders. There are no sticks in this process for me. It is simply a process of deep commitment to understanding being responded to by some on here as if they are threatened by someone who knows he knows a thing or two about deep gospel matters. @wenglundwas the only who was able to suppress any negative response and we carried on a valuable exchange of ideas that I afterwards deleted from the forum. The point though, to Wades credit, was that he indicated that he could have taken offense at my tone and directness but that he chose not to for the value of the exchange and therein is the appropriate measure of what each should do. Your suggestion is comprised of the highest expectations of the best behaviors that we can muster but it is already evident that you are characterizing some aspect of the communications hithertofore provided as weaponized dialogue when of mine it was only intended as forthrightness and genuine clarity in communication. I never find any offense when folks are direct with me but feel blessed for the clarity of communication. It is my hope that others would feel so inclined.

I agree but it is a tough call at times. This one dimensional forum environment should always be suspect for it's intrinsic inability to convey true communications and perhaps even worse a unique capacity to magnify our own innate sense of negative interpretation. I tend towards being very candid and direct in my communication. It is how I wish everyone to communicate with me and I find that I often cannot even discern when someone takes offense why it is that they were offended. I think I am just communicating. For me though I think the point is it is one thing to discuss LDS theology but an entirely different thing to embrace and exemplar it's tenets in our interactions one with another. The former ie. acts of discussion may be enlightening, however, to live it testifies of it's veracity and helps us all to realize higher standards..

Knowing that my observations most likely will be rejected and harshly rebutted, I as a former participant on this forum, find Ian's experience and his observations and his need to distance himself from such rancor well within my own experience unique to this forum. I long ago made an observation that it is impossible to do the Lords work using Satan's tools. Name calling (troll) excessive judgmentalness (accused lack of sincerity without adequate cause) censure and condescension should never be so readily associated with an LDS forum as has been the case here for Ian. It is unfortunate but illustrates that things are not changed from when I participated here. My foibles, imperfections, perceived arrogance and whatever other labels were foisted upon me during my time here are all aspects of the human condition each of us possessing our own weaknesses and limitations. An uncharitable spirit reigns here, accept amongst the clan of regulars, that ostracizes and alienates new voices. Of course, this may only be relative to my experience and perhaps Ian's but I do lament and am still disturbed by the manifest intolerance for individuals of imperfection no less perfect than these who continue to weigh in the balance and measure out judgment to those of us found wanting in the skewed scales of tolerance applied here. My first post in this thread a picture worth a thousand words, this one but 245 words that I wish I did not feel were merited.

A thousand words...

That is a good point for consideration.

Moses 7:32 32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

This seems ill thought. At what point do we become a natural man - after a fall. Thus waiting to become a natural man so we can be tempted by the flesh bodes an awful long wait.

The implication is that this will begin before the millennium, as he is referencing the wickedness of the world and such...

I know of one and have heard of another. The first felt they had reached the end of the expectations of their first blessing and sought a second. The second was like your case. They were uncomfortable with the first and sought another. They are discouraged for the most part and might be difficult depending on who is approving.

Of all the laws or commandments given in the Garden only one came with the declaration of punishment should it be breached. Since we see that punishment was enacted then at the very least it was surely breached and in that day they died.

Because the children were asleep...

Naked is an interesting state when we consider that in the temple they are affirmed naked and then they have a garment made for them which we refer to as the garment of the Holy Priesthood. Somehow this garment of the priesthood is considered sufficient to negate their nakedness.

Forever spinning in circles....

I'm not so sure we are looking at the right end of the process. Repentance allows, you and I, as wicked people an opportunity for celestial glory.

I think it does. Let's take these quotes out for a spin:

Yes, that is correct , only terrestrial glory. However, If you think back to who is included in this group, ie. the antediluvians who were a wicked people then you realize that it was a merciful thing to bring them forth to the earth during a time when their ignorance was a shield to their potential for a much harsher judgment.

This one is one from above which may not be as specific as you like. If it is then we can let it go. If not I do have about 30 other baptism and ordinance quotes that I can go through to look for something more definitive. Now following is an excerpt from Bruce R. McConkies well known talk the Seven Deadly Heresy's, it does not speak exactly to your question however, it captures the principle which does wholly play to the issue.

1.) is baptism required for the celestial kingdom, or celestial and terrestrial, or all three? Due to length I will only address in this post your first question. I have provided a preponderance of witnesses who affirm that baptism is required only for entrance into the celestial kingdom.

This is not your real position on the matter as best as I can tell from past interaction. This may be your justification to yourself but the real approach that you take is that if they do not agree with your perceptions of truth then they do not understand the truth as you do. You are the top of the food chain for knowing truth in your paradigm and you do not even care if the prophets have spoken under the direction of the spirit or not.

I will agree that it is outside of current assumptions. Lemaitre called his original theory "the hypothesis of the primeval atom." Thank you for your input.

What an excellent effort. As one area of the atonement I have yet to flush out, I have wanted to explore the nature of the commands given to Adam and Eve to see if there could be gleaned greater understanding concerning how they interact one with another. Your list will become a starting place for me and has saved me some effort...thanks.

The challenge as I see it is that I am kind of running a one legged race here. I have no idea yet what you, the proclaimed expert, find compelling. Nor have you actually made any observations of merit of what I have sent out so far. Although, I will pay you a profound compliment. Few are so capable of insinuative insult and suggestive deprecations with the superior crafting of verbal convolutions as you have manifest. I have quite delighted in it and have only restrained my superior talent for the cause that I did not want to initiate a witty repartee prior to determining if you were going to actually engage in sharing your superior knowledge in this particular venue. I genuinely invite you to do so and am sincerely seeking to grasp something of merit from your communications. Equally revealing is the hypocrisy. Had I have written any one of the posts with the obvious tone and condemnations that you have sent my way I should have expected @zil to rain down corrections and accusations on me for my poor interaction skills. All you got was a spelling correction, which I choose to overlook, as I usually do, finding it a bit petty running around and correcting everyone's spelling issues - unless there is some fun to be had... However, that just makes this all the more fun. I love to see true colors. Anyway, were this reversed, as it was in the atonement OP, I would be attempting to guide you with well reasoned support commentary and copious examples to illustrate my perspective. Thus moving you along through the subject matter in discussion. I can't help but feel that perhaps the tone you are using is in fact some form of illustrative mimicry but I profess I am genuinely flattered if that is the case and except for the lofty attitude of presenting your material with the appropriate air of superiority in the actual crafting of the insightful dissemination of information, you have done a fair job. We will see if you can excel in this venue as soon as you present some actual material. Anyway, back to the message at hand, if you do possess superior understanding in this matter, I am as good a student as I am a teacher and I do truly wish to glean from your insight if you have compelling material to discuss. To that ends I leave you with another observation from a third party source as to another of the issues with jumping behind a big bang model of the universe. In it's way I am only reinforcing the principle that you extolled earlier when you stated: "You can't just freeze scientific progress and knowledge in the 19th century - you must come at it with fisticuffs of Reason, wrestling, grappling, and pummeling your way to a true understanding of what is being said with these sophisticated models." Have you done the same? or is this simply accusatory hyperbole for my sake? As I favor Halton Arp's plasma model as far superior to big bang, (yes I have put far more than ten minutes into this research, in fact several months, however according to singularity compression models perhaps it was only the equivalent of 10 minutes under intense pressure. Although can time have a singularity? ) I do so precisely because it embraces realities beyond 19th century big bang models and in my grappling and wrestling I find it a much more appealing solution. However, compare notes, show me your compelling wisdom, for now I am all ears.