selek

I want to explore this just a bit, especially in light of the marginally subtle crack about Latter-day Saints who would "disregard Joseph's last conference talk". As stated, we do not disregard the talk, we simply acknowledge the limitations and questions surrounding the surviving record. Yet here you are explicitly questioning, if not flatly rejecting, the acknowledged and accurately recorded words of a Prophet of God. Other than that you don't agree with them as they apply to the KFD, upon what basis do you find President Hinckley's statement "questionable"? Are they inaccurately recorded? Were they altered or redacted to give a false impression or an erroneous conclusion? Was President Hinckley drunk at the time he spoke them? It is- and has been- the position of the Church that the KFD contains a number of truths, but is also of questionable provenance. As such it is neither taught within the Church, nor considered doctrine. President Hinckley's answer and his extended commentary (both of which you cited) are perfectly in keeping with that position. So upon what basis then, do you presume to reject his words as "of questionable value"?

To be blunt, I was a little skeptical of that statement until I recalled that PeggyFletcherStack's column- the Molotov cocktail that started this little tempest in a teapot- reported exactly that. The original article was a minor and bitter triumphal announcing that the decision had already been made, even before the coyote chorus got their throats up to full hue and cry.

I was talking about this with my once-and-future bride on Saturday, and she pointed out something which I feel has been overlooked in this discussion. Namely, the blatant sexism and historical revisionism of those who think a woman offering the prayer is a big deal. To whit: while the prayers are the ceremonial opening and endcaps to each Conference session, "prayer" is open to every Latter-day Saint (and every non-LDS with any sense) every moment of every day. The real privilege and "power", so to speak, is to address the Saints, to teach, to exhort, and to guide. That- not in the brief opening and closing prayers- is where the opportunity for leadership and influence within the Church are to be found. It is in the talks, not the prayer, where a tiny minority are given the chance to shape the hearts, minds, hopes, and aspirations of the Saints. And women have been addressing the Church at General Conference since the very beginning. Rather than acknowledging that opportunity and influence, the agitators have chosen to paint women as helpless victims of the patriarchy, wilting violets kept down by (almost literally) "the Man", and who can accomplish nothing without the help of their "mightier" sisters to show them the shining path. The notion is in itself sexist, as it demeans the women of Zion simply for their gender. Latter-day Saint men are painted as heartless oppressors, Latter-day Saint women as helpless damsels in need of rescue. In this instance, it is not the patriarchy- nor even the Latter-day Saints themselves who are trading in bigoted stereotypes, but the would-be rescuers. Hypocrites! The women of the LDS Church were among the first in the country to be granted the right to vote (until the government of Babylon took it away "for their own good"). The voices of the women in Zion have always been heard in our counsels, and they have always made their will manifest. As daughters in Zion, LDS women are proud, capable, vocal, and respected. They have no need of outside "protectors" to "champion" their cause or hold their hands, or to make sure they look both ways before crossing the street. The women of Zion are not children to be led, coddled, or exploited. They are daughters of the Most High God, heirs to his kingdom- not sheep to be led by the siren song of Babylon. So, while all of the agitators and arksteadiers are bleating gleefully and high-fiving one another over having snatched a cracker from the table, they are missing out on the great banquet spread before them on that very same table. Seeing their antics, one must either laugh or weep at their short-sightedness.

The Church website specifies five sources, none of which were concise stenographic records.https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng The key words, of course, are "from what I have studied." None of which is currently in doubt or question.The problem is that the records of the KFD are (at best) second-hand and imperfect. Because they were not vetted, reviewed, or ratified by the Prophet, we are left with an collection of best-guess accounts which may or may not accurately reflect the thoughts and ideas Joseph was trying to express. As is the extent to which the KFD is an accurate record of Joseph's talk.We believe that the Bible is the Word of God insofar as it is translated and recorded correctly. We apply the same standard to the King Follett Discourse; it is the Word of God (through Joseph) only insofar as it is recorded correctly. To quote President Gordon B. Hinckley: " I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it." Why any LDS would dismiss a direct answer to a direct question offered to a Prophet of God is beyond my understanding. Why any LDS would dismiss what we do know in favor of speculating about that which we do not is equally a mystery. In any case, your assertion is a red-herring. We, as Latter-day Saints do not reject the King Follet Discourse- we simply acknowledge that the record is too problematic to be adopted without reservation and considerable forethought. The same holds true for the Journal of Discourses and many other records from that period. Where we find truth in them (as corroborated by the acknowledged and official statements of the prophets and leaders of the Church) we embrace that truth.

How about this: "In an eternal sense, we are all 'lame'- hobbled and unable to fulfill our eternal potential except through the Atonement offered by our Savior Jesus Christ. Through obedience and fidelity to Christ and his commandments, we can be made whole in the eternities."Better?

Quite obviously, from the previous statement that Heavenly Father and Jesus are not subject to the Plan of Salvation, as they having no need of it to achieve perfection. "Lame" is defined as follows: lame 1(lm) adj. lam·er, lam·est 1. Disabled so that movement, especially walking, is difficult or impossible: Lame from the accident, he walked with a cane. A lame wing kept the bird from flying. 2. Marked by pain or rigidness: a lame back. 3. Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory: a lame attempt to apologize; lame excuses for not arriving on time. By both the first and third definitions, we- having fallen short of the law- are unable to move forward spiritually except through the intercession of Christ and our Heavenly Father. Except through the Plan of Salvation, it would be impossible for us to attain the level of spiritual perfection for which we were intended. Our own efforts to achieve perfection are irredeemably week, ineffectual, and unsatisfactory. By any reasonable standard and definition, we are therefore spiritually lame- movement (and progress) are difficult if not impossible except by means of the "crutch" given us to overcome our handicap. However much the analogy offends hubris and pride, it nonetheless stands up to close examination.

I consider this characterization to be somewhat (and unnecessarily) harsh for a number of reasons. If the goal is on a table and I am on the farside of the room unable to walk, it is every bit as much out of my reach as if it were on a shelf fifteen feet above my head. Both the ladder and the crutch are tools by which I may reach my goal despite my handicaps (whether that handicap is being lame or merely short). Moreover, there is none among us who is "healthy". We are all unclean to one degree or another. In the eternal sense, we are all hobbled, crippled, lame, or infirm- having fallen short of the potential which we are given. I agree- but without the crutch/ladder/prosthesis/aid/tool of the Plan of Salvation, it would be eternally beyond my grasp. In point of fact, and in an eternal sense, we ARE lame. It is only by the aid of "the crutch" of the Plan of Salvation that we may attempt to walk in God's footsteps.

One metaphor is as good as another.At its root, the Plan of Salvation is a means by which we may reach things that would normally be beyond our grasp.

Welcome. I too am the only member in my family. While you are quite correct about the joys of worshipping alongside your wife, I would also point out the incalculable joys of worshipping with your daughters- and of laying your hands on their heads and calling forth the powers of Heaven to bless and strengthen them. I suggest to you the manifest joy of one day ordaining your sons as servants of the Most High God. It is no mistake that the greatest blessing offered to Abraham and Sarah was their posterity. For he (and she) who is faithful and steadfast in magnifying his calling, joy builds upon joy, blessing upon blessing.

In point of fact, I agree with this interpretation. But Joseph speaking "as though he were Christ" is a far different thing than "thus saith the Lord." Since we are both in possession of physical bodies and both members of the Church, the evidence we both did- at the beginning of the world.

I would agree- except that as I understand the context, it is not Jehovah speaking, but Joseph.Additionally, the King Follet Discourse- whatever wisdom it may contain- is NOT doctrine, but a second-or-third hand recitation of one man's recollection (recorded long after the fact IIRC) of what Joseph said. If memory serves (and it may not) there are only three extant copies of the KFD- and they do not agree. None of which speaks to Jesus' "path" to Godhood. I would suspect that rather than different levels of godhood, there's the matter of individual progression towards complete godhood.In any case, such speculation is irrelevant as we are explicitly assured in both Scripture and the teachings of the Church that the Savior was fully God, rather than some sort of journeyman, acolyte, or apprentice. I do.I do not, however, interpret it to mean that God was once a sinner who then progressed towards Godhood. It is my understanding that he, like the Savior, were both perfect and without sin- "God" from eternity to eternity. I do not believe that there is a single moment in all of eternity when they were NOT "God". The Plan of Salvation is (to be perfectly blunt) an artificial construct- a curtch, if you will- created by God to help those of us who could not measure up to the fullness of the Law without his assistance. It was given to us because we need it. Heavenly Father and the Savior are not subject to the Plan because they do not need it. They are already "God". We, being lesser beings, do.

Excellent citations.I always read them more as speaking for our benefit- explaining Christ's compassion in terms we can understand- rather than implying that Christ actually "needed" the lessons. That, of course, is a matter of how one interprets the Scriptures in question, and how one fits them into the larger mosaic of faith.

I do not ask you to recant your position. (On those occasions when I wish to beat someone into submission, generally bring a two-by-four ).Thank you for actually attempting to explain and defend your position rationally. Although we disagree, I believe we were both edified by the discussion and an examination of the evidence offered.

Just not "well documented" enough to provide an actual citation about the author or his/her affiliation with/towards the Church.Given the number of citations which you've offered which do not say what you claim they do, you will understand if I do not take your word for it. It is indeed.Yet once again, you dodge the point: the site itself contradicts your assertion and does not make the arguments you claim. Every bit of evidence you've offered thus far either does not state what you wish, or requires that we make a suppositional leap well beyond faith and into speculation. What I think about the Holy Ghost is totally irrelevant to what the Church has stated plainly about the nature of God (and which I've already quoted).You, not I made the assertion that Christ was changed by his mortal ministry, and that his harsh pre-mortal judgements were tempered by his experiences in mortality. The burden of proof is yours- and thus far, you've offered nothing to fulfill that burden.

None of which supports your assertion that Jesus left this mortality wiser or more compassionate than when he entered it. Nothing you have cited so far suggests that mortality was a "learning period" for Christ. There are two problems with this citation:First, the King Follet discourse is yet another second-hand retelling, recorded well after the fact. The extant copies of which are mutually contradictory. Second, this citation speaks to OUR progression to Godhood. It says nothing about Christ progressing to Godhood in mortality. On the contrary, the Scriptures and teachings of the Church are quite explicit: Jesus was god BEFORE mortality.

No. That would contradict the Godly characteristic of "infinite love".

I would be very cautious in taking this site at face value as I can find no statement identifying the actual author nor his or her affiliation with the Church.That having been said, the following come from the very source you cite: In other words, "probationary" does not refer to perfect knowledge, wisdom, or mercy, but only to whether or not one has yet taken a physical form. You are using a third hand reference: a website citing a journal which claims to quote the Prophet Joseph- with know independent corroboration. Even conceding your point (which I do not), this statement does not advance your cause. I refer you to the following: Ask the Apologist: What About the Holy Ghost? « FAIR What we do not know about the Holy Ghost does not contradict what we DO know about Christ.

Let's address each of these in turn: Here is D&C 122:7-8 It does not say anything about Christ "learning" compassion or having his judgements softened.It does not say anything which supports the notion that Christ left mortality knowing more than when he entered it. Here is the actual couplet: Again, there is nothing here which suggests that Christ spent his mortal ministry learning to become God. Again- there is nothing here to support your supposition about Christ's knowledge changing or "evolving" (to use a currently popular meme) because of his mortal experience.Unfortunately, none of your citations thus far provide evidence for your claims. WHICH sermons? WHICH statements within those sermons? You have offered not a citation, but an assertion. I cannot address evidence you refuse to present. As we are forbidden both by site rules and by sacred covenant from discussing specifics about the Temple narrative, this too fails to qualify as a citation.I am quite familiar with the Temple narrative, and can state confidently that it does not say what you wish it to. There is in fact, no notion in the Temple narrative that Christ is less than fully God: infinite in knowledge, wisdom, mercy, and justice. Each of the actual citations offered above supports the notion that WE are progressing, learning, and growing to become like God. They say nothing about Christ doing so. Respectfully, you have provided no evidence in support of your claims.

Nor I with you- I simply wish to explore your argument, and to reveal either its truths or its errors.To (once again) quote one of Christ's apostles: I want to find the truth- not only for my own sake, but for the sake of others who will be swayed by what they read here. Simply reasserting the same point over does not make it more true simply for the repetition.Please provide some sort of scriptural or doctrinal evidence for your claim. The key words there are, unfortunately, "in my mind".I understand that this is your belief and opinion, but objective evidence is lacking. I have already provided at least one quote which contradicts that supposition. Of that I have no doubt.Where I have issues is in the notion that he loves me more than he did before his mortal ministry.

Since I opened the floor to a Call for References, it seems only fair that I supply at least one. The notion under discussion is accounted for as the first of what Bruce McConkie called "The Seven Deadly Heresies". To quote the Apostle: Emphasis mine.Some may be inclined to argue that McConkie here makes no differentiation between Heavenly Father and the Savior. My response is, "Why should he make such a distinction?" According to the teachings of the Church, Christ (in his premortal form) was fully God. The Savior himself said that he could do nothing which he had not seen the Father do. Both statements imply a full and perfect knowledge of what God-the-Father was capable of. Moreover, it was Christ who was the creator of the Heaven and the Earth (admittedly, at his Father's direction and command), and it was Christ who was the lawgiver. It was Christ who covenanted first with Israel and later with those who would be the Children of God (through obedience and adoption). To quote the Prophet Joseph Smith: Back to McConkie: To suppose that Christ needed to "learn" wisdom or compassion during his mortal ministry is, in my not-so-humble opinion, to deny his pre-mortal Godhood.And that denial contradicts all that has been revealed and all that is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I appreciate your tone and restraint (and will try to mirror it). Rather than simply restating opinions, perhaps it might be best to provide specific evidence in support of the claim. Scriptural citations would be best, but I will also happily take the words of the Lord's prophets and apostles as evidence for the changes you ascribe. Here is my problem with your statement: Impicit in your claims is the notion that Christ's premortal ideas of justice and mercy were harsher than his post mortal judgements specifically because his views were "softened" by his experiences in mortality. That in itself is a heresy, because it contradicts what we are told is the very nature of God. One cannot be god (pre- or post-mortal) without perfect adherence to the law. To do so would be to contradict the very nature of God. Whether as the pre-mortal Jehovah or the post-mortal Christ, our Savior was and is God- perfect in his righteousness, infinite in his mercy. If his views were "softened" and altered by compassion (as is your claim), then necessarily, his previous views were NOT perfect- again, a heresy. Moreover, God is omniscient; all knowing. If Christ had to "learn" compassion, to have his views "softened" by his mortal sufferings, then by definition, he was not omniscient, which means he was not fully God. You are (essentially) arguing that the Jehovah of the Old Testamant was (quite basically) Christ-on-training-wheels, and that he learned to ride a two-wheeler only upon completing his mortal ministry. That contradicts nearly everything that has been revealed about Christ (and about Heavenly Father's methodology). I do not deny that Christ's mortal form changed and grew (Christ was apparently subject to the veil, as are we all), but that only means that he had to re-learn that which was kept from him by the Veil. But respectfully, I do not believe that the notion that Christ's eternal perspective and eternal wisdom were altered by his mortal mission can be supported either from Scriptures or from the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles.

You were doing great right up until this point: These statements imply that God is changeable, and somehow still learning: that the Lord's perception, wisdom and compassion were somehow expanded by his mortal ministry. Both notions are not only false (as specified in Scripture), but also border on heretical (as per the teachings of the Church). You would have been on solid ground to say, "It is a vast difference in our perspective of the mind of God." and "Mortal life and the Atonement had a significant effect on our perception of the personality of our Savior." Christ in his mortal form was already God- perfect before the Law, infinitely merciful to the penitent, and unchangeable. It is our perception and understanding that was altered by Christ's mortal ministry, not his.

Marshmallow shaped to look like animals (usually baby chickens, hence the name) and coated in colored sugar crystals.Peeps Home

I agree. But for those who see this is a vindication of their agitation and lobbying- and as fuel of the fire of their agenda- I am AFRAID for them. I have no issue who see Sister Stevens prayer as an affirmation of their worth and acceptance within the Church. But I am very afraid for the eternal welfare of those who see her prayer as a vindication of their efforts to "reform" the Church.

You're quite correct. How silly of us (in the absense of clear communication from you) to take your posts at face-value.Whatever could we have been thinking?