Hemidakota Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 This quote was unfamiliar to me, but, nonetheless, it is AMAZING and I am filled with love and peace while I read it.Do you have an online link to it?Or can I buy the book somewhere?I am hungry for more on intelligence. Beyond what Skousen brought together in his talk, if it is to be had.Few concepts have caught my attention MORE than that which deals with intelligences!!!Not at this time. It is a disturbing subject once you become an 'observer outside looking in'. Something that Proffesor Hugh B. Nibley quoted [speech]The Apostles ask the Lord, during the forty days after the resurrection, to show them what it is like before the creation and when the creation arose, and he tells them in these writings, "Don't ask for that." He says people can't remain in their right minds after seeing that sort of thing. Abraham has seen the star. He says you won it like it, you'll be terrified. "My Father worked out his kingdom in fear and trembling and I must do the same." Well, when these Apostles asked to see the spaces, and in quite a number of these writings the Lord says, "No, it's better for you not to." Because it is more frightening than anything else if you don't know what is going on.Journal of Discourses is online via the BYU site.
Guest tomk Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 Not at this time. It is a disturbing subject once you become an 'observer outside looking in'. Something that Proffesor Hugh B. Nibley quoted [speech]Journal of Discourses is online via the BYU site. I must not (yet) understand it, because I do not fear this knowledge.Is what you are alluding to spelled-out somewhere?
Aphrodite Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 It may be controversial to some who seek to understand the more profound doctrines, when their foundation in the gospel is not solid. If their faith is shaken by simple things, how can they not be shaken by greater things? The wise man built his house upon a rock.My faith was shaken by the greater things first.When our perspectives are limited by finite minds, how can we expect to understand what Brigham Young meant in one discourse?We should understand it pretty well. If GBH or TSM gives a talk, it is very clear and basic. They are always very specific and clear on what they think should happen. So why do people accept that Brigham Young's talks are complex and need more explaining when this explanation is not given to other propjets??? Ive always been told, including by people on here, the gospel is simple and GAs are clear as to what they expect of us. Obviousl this does not apply to Brugham...or indeed any contraversial doctrine that people cant explain. Sometimes people just aren't ready to understand. I respect your answer but that old sentence is an excuse for things that can't be explained.Consider what the Lord told Moses concerning the many worlds that He created. Read Moses Chapter One prayerfully and pay close attention to vs. 30-39. Can you wrap your mind around that? I may read it but not praterfully. I don't think I believe in prayer any longer. The same thing will happen with or without it.
Guest tomk Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 Jesus telling them "you are not ready for this yet"Reminds me of this:Moses 1: 10, 25, 29, 34-35, 37, 41 10 And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. • • •Maybe this is vision is what Jesus' disciples "were not ready for."Moses says "know I know man is nothing" -- I sense this goes far deeper than we might assume. 25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God. • • •"as if thou wert God"Indeed, this kind of power IS the power of God. To have HONOR with the intelligences who govern and control existence. To have them obey your command. 29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. • • • 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. • • • 37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. • • • 41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.
Hemidakota Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 I must not (yet) understand it, because I do not fear this knowledge.Is what you are alluding to spelled-out somewhere?A few GA and handful BYU professors in the past covered the subject on-n-off but not in a book form that I am aware of.Intelligence Eternal-Not Created: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (Doc. & Cov., Sec. xciii, 29.) It is more of researching the subject and 'connecting-the-dots' to put it into one big picture. Too bad I couldn't pick JS mind if he was alive today. "I am dwelling on the immorality of the spirit of man. Is it logolical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it (i. e. the intelligence) had a beginning. The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were no spirits, for they are co-equal (co-eternal) with our Father in heaven. * * * * * I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man-the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning it will have an end. * * * * * Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. * * * * * The first principles of a man are self-existent with God.-Joseph Smith-(Mill. Star, Vol. 23, p. 262.)
Guest tomk Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 A few GA and handful BYU professors in the past covered the subject on-n-off but not in a book form that I am aware of.Intelligence Eternal-Not Created: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (Doc. & Cov., Sec. xciii, 29.) It is more of researching the subject and 'connecting-the-dots' to put it into one big picture. Too bad I couldn't pick JS mind if he was alive today. Thank you for all of this, but in what way does this go beyond what Skousen presented in his talk?
Guest tomk Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 What did these "GAs and BYU Professors" talk about, beyond what Skousen says?
Hemidakota Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 He clearly limits his talk to the three states only. I can understand that since most, whom the spirit will not 'stir the soul', in grasping the deeper meaning of progression of life. As quoted in another thread, I left a [high level] line of progression, a snapshot that only requires a simple wrapped ‘return line’ to the other side.
Guest tomk Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 He clearly limits his talk to the three states only. I can understand that since most, whom the spirit will not 'stir the soul', in grasping the deeper meaning of progression of life. As quoted in another thread, I left a [high level] line of progression, a snapshot that only requires a simple wrapped ‘return line’ to the other side. You're speaking in riddles. :)Do you have "more" -- BEYOND SKOUSEN'S TALK -- that you can give me?Yes?No?Maybe so?Give me the links man!! :)
skalenfehl Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 I respect your answer but that old sentence is an excuse for things that can't be explained. It can be an excuse, but isn't always so. I may read it but not prayerfully. I don't think I believe in prayer any longer. The same thing will happen with or without it.Indeed. In either case, I wish and hope all the best for you.
Guest User-Removed Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 Tomk...what Skousen are you referring to?
the Ogre Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 Tomk...what Skousen are you referring to?Who cares, Skousen (and all apologists) is a dingus.
Guest tomk Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 Tomk...what Skousen are you referring to? W. Cleon SkousenHe gave a talk on the Atonement, which explains how "Intelligences" are what we call the "demands of Justice"They are extremely tiny. They form the fabric of the universe.Here is the talk:A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement CronkHope this helps.Tom
Guest tomk Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 Who cares, Skousen (and all apologists) is a dingus. From the site rules:1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.
the Ogre Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 From the site rules:1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.As apologists are neither leaders or teachers, unless they are so called or are general authorities, but are paid for their priestcraft, I am free to criticize them and their absolute arrogance and printed blathering whenever I feel like it. Skousen, Nibley, et al. and the nice seminary teacher in my ward (and all the CES monkeys at BYU) have no authority in the church to speak for its doctrine only those called, set-apart, and sustained in conference are. All these little Nehorites, who publish through D-Book (except afore mentioned GAs), have no right to honor, privilege, or critical refuge from me or anyone else.Do not elevate those who deserve absolutely nothing and ought to be banned from being quoted in Sacrament Meetings and Gospel Doctrine, PH & RS Lessons.
Guest tomk Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 As apologists are neither leaders or teachers, unless they are so called or are general authorities, but are paid for their priestcraft, I am free to criticize them and their absolute arrogance and printed blathering whenever I feel like it. Skousen, Nibley, et al. and the nice seminary teacher in my ward (and all the CES monkeys at BYU) have no authority in the church to speak for its doctrine only those called, set-apart, and sustained in conference are. All these little Nehorites, who publish through D-Book (except afore mentioned GAs), have no right to honor, privilege, or critical refuge from me or anyone else.Do not elevate those who deserve absolutely nothing and ought to be banned from being quoted in Sacrament Meetings and Gospel Doctrine, PH & RS Lessons. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just not sure how voicing it in the way you did it contributed meaningfully to this post. (Dingus???)
the Ogre Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just not sure how voicing it in the way you did it contributed meaningfully to this post. (Dingus???)I call it what it is. The guy is one. Reading their pap only leads people astray. Stop doing it and stick to conference reports, scripture, and books by current GAs.
Guest tomk Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 I call it what it is. The guy is one. Reading their pap only leads people astray. Stop doing it and stick to conference reports, scripture, and books by current GAs. Again, not everyone shares your viewpoint.Several General Authorities, including President Monson, attended his funeral. If they held the same opinion of Skousen as you do, I doubt they would have attended.I think that lots of people have something meaningful to contribute to the body of truth enjoyed by the Saints, not just General Authorities.If it is okay with you, I'll let the Holy Spirit direct me in truths paths, not the restrictions you suggest which have no foundation in scripture or anything GAs have stated regarding our search for truth.
the Ogre Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 If it is okay with you, I'll let the Holy Spirit direct me in truths paths, not the restrictions you suggest which have no foundation in scripture or anything GAs have stated regarding our search for truth.Enjoy that which is not the Iron Rod, bud, but at the same time don't get all upset when I say apologists are bunch of Nehorites who only write the philosophies of men mingled with scripture instead of focusing on what the L-rd has to say to us through H-s scripture and not through another person.
Hemidakota Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 At this point, there is a contentious spirit insuing and we all need to allow Heather take care of this problem.
Guest tomk Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 Enjoy that which is not the Iron Rod, bud, but at the same time don't get all upset when I say apologists are bunch of Nehorites who only write the philosophies of men mingled with scripture instead of focusing on what the L-rd has to say to us through H-s scripture and not through another person. I can see that what I wrote above what you decided to quote was ignored.What have you to say about President Monson attending his funeral? Do you have any idea, really, who W. Cleon Skousen was, and what was his contribution to the Church over the course of his lifetime?These people that you are demeaning, in in my view, dishonoring, through your words, are children of God. I would take care not to speak evil of the Lord's annointed.
skalenfehl Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 At this point, there is a contentious spirit insuing and we all need to allow Heather take care of this problem.This topic has gone off track and taken a new course. I'm going to go ahead and lock it.
Gwen Posted April 3, 2008 Report Posted April 3, 2008 let's refrain from making personal attacks or name calling on anyone. doesn't matter if they are here or not, official chruch leaders or not. name calling is immature and should be refrained from. i'm sure one can express their oppinion maturely and if not then maybe this isn't the right discussion for you to be in.
Recommended Posts