All Activity

This week's Come Follow Me deals with Jeremiah 1–3; 7; 16–18; 20 Here is what President Russell M. Nelson said about the premortal life: "Your Heavenly Father has known you for a very long time. You, as His son or daughter, were chosen by Him to come to earth at this precise time, to be a leader in His great work on earth. You were chosen not for your bodily characteristics but for your spiritual attributes, such as bravery, courage, integrity of heart, a thirst for truth, a hunger for wisdom, and a desire to serve others. You developed some of these attributes premortally". Which attributes were not developed in the premortal period?

Therefore, your earlier statement "The Nephite leadership and priesthood pass through Nephi's line rather than Sam's" is not accurate.

That is in fact what I said, as you are quoting me, and you can either say “ok now I understand what you’ve been trying to say” or you can dig in with your pride so as not to have to say “ gosh now that makes sense. I misunderstood you.” At any rate now, you know my position. Take it or leave it.

You merely assume angels are sexless and "being like the angels" means to lose their gender and relationships. But Jesus specifies why they are like the angels, in the context of not marrying or being given in marriage in heaven. Angels do not perform marriage ceremonies or enter into new domestic contracts while in heaven. In Second Temple Jewish literature such as 1 Enoch and apocalyptic texts, the angels, once they leave heaven and descended to earth, took wives and had children. They are not presumed to be neutered, sexless entities. If Jesus intended to teach that existing marriages are dissolved in heaven, He would have used permanent, state-of-being terminology indicating a dissolved bond. Instead, He reinforced what LDS scholars maintain, the resurrection is not the time where marriages are performed nor consummated. You merely assume Jesus was an ascetic, citing His call to leave houses and families for the gospel is an ideal state. Yet, the same Jesus gave the strictest defense of marriage as enduring. When asked about divorce, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). Jesus' mention of "eunuchs" (Matthew 19:12) of three categories, "for the kingdom of heaven's sake" is a common temporary or focused vow for the sake of serving God, identical to Paul's counsel during times of service or due to "the present distress" (1 Corinthians 7:26) the severe local persecutions and impending upheavals facing early Christians in Corinth. He notes that marrying is not a sin (1 Corinthians 7:28) and his theology of the sexes was, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:11). Far from teaching that celibacy as the higher spiritual norm for all, Timothy is warned that apostate movements will arise characterized by "forbidding to marry" (1 Timothy 4:1-3). Early Christian asceticism and permanent celibacy actually grew as Christianity interacted with Hellenistic and Roman philosophical dualism which viewed the physical body and sex as inherently corrupt.

Do you think it is fair to say "Every gay man has a latent pedophile waiting to escape in the right situation, ergo there is nothing wrong with saying that 'all gay men are potential pedophiles?'" you can't make this stuff up.

dup

Are there any that are permanent/eternal no matter what? I'm under the impression that everything depends on our faithfulness.

24 Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven. The angels in heaven of course being sexless. It strikes me as a dishonest reading to parse out the words to suggest that Jesus was suggesting that existing marriages would be valid in the afterlife. Jesus wasn't pro-marriage to begin with - he asked his followers to abandon their families and praised those who lived as eunuchs. In fact both Jesus and Paul were in favor of celibacy and didn't celebrate family relationships. That narrative in Christianity only came later, as Roman cultural values started to creep in.

oops, wrong thread

It’s interesting how you interpret things this way. It's interesting that "all men are potential rapists" is, in the minds of some, distinguishable from "all gay men are potential pedophiles," "all Muslims are potential terrorists," "all black men are potential rapists," and so on. "All men are potential rapists" is not ambiguous. I have to wonder why, if you mean "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," you don't just say that. I have some surmises about why. Yes it is. "All men are potential rapists" refers to all men. I am a man. Ipso facto, it is a description of me. "All men are potential rapists" is not a statement about men? Thanks, -Smac

Do you agree that "all Muslims are potential terrorists?" Do you agree that all Jewish settlers "are potential terrorists?" Do you agree that "all men are potential rapists?" I ask this rhetorically, as I think you do agree with this statement. I still ask it and hope you will answer because I think you also do not think that "all Muslims are potential terrorists" or "all gays are potential pedophiles." Some Muslims are terrorists, and some gay men are pedophiles, but I don't think you feel this validates the foregoing categorical statements or removes them from the ambit of prejudice. Nor do I. That might change, though, if I was running through a crime-ridden neighborhood at 2:00 a.m. I do listen and disagree. I disagree with the sentiment that "all men are potential rapists" for the same reasons I disagree with "all gays are potential pedophiles" and "all black men are potential rapists" and "all Muslims are potential terrorists." Do you agree or disagree with these sentiments? Do you think it is fair to say "Every gay man has a latent pedophile waiting to escape in the right situation, ergo there is nothing wrong with saying that 'all gay men are potential pedophiles?'" Or would you find, as I do, that characterization to be prejudiced and abhorrent? In your view, if a woman has a "lived, shared, traumatic experience" caused by a black man, would she be justified in publicly declaring that "all black men are potential rapists?" Thanks, -Smac

I intend to respond to what you say, as I infer it is reflective of what you think. So when you say "All men are potential rapists," I infer that you think that all men are potential rapists. You: And on and on and on. "All {black} men are potential rapists." I think black men would feel denigrated by that. Judges and juries are regularly called upon to read the words/language in a statute or whatnot and interpret it by its plain and ordinary meaning. This is a "rule of construction" ("construction" meaning interpretation, "to construe"). See here: The very fact that you feel compelled to add an asterisked paragraph-long explanation of what this claim means is intended to guide others on construing/interpreting it. As it is, there is no ambiguity in "all men are potential rapists." You: "I am not denigrating all men or harboring prejudicial views by describing them as potential rapists." There are certainly circumstances in which a scripture or phrase can be ambiguous, or can be interpreted in ways other than their "plain and ordinary meaning." There are also circumstances in which a statement can be read per its "plain and ordinary meaning." A speed limit sign that says "25 MPH" is a good example. It does not require, say, a paragraph-long explanation. Similarly, "all men are potential rapists" is a pretty straightforward statement. You can, of course, add a paragraph-long explanation and expect others to intuit and/or credit it. But then, so can someone saying "All gays are potential pedophiles" or "All Muslims are potential terrorists." "All black men are potential rapists" is facially prejudiced and abhorrent. A person can come along and offer a paragraph-long explanation about how it should not be read using the "plain and ordinary meanings" of the words, and should instead be construed in some sort "hey, I'm not denigrating black men by calling all of them 'potential rapists'" sort of way. I suspect many of these folks would not be persuaded by this stuff. Thanks, -Smac

To "have a dog in the fight" means to have a personal stake, vested interest, or direct involvement in the outcome of a situation, argument, or competition. I have no personal stake, vested interest, or direct involvement in the Cornell matter. If the accusations are substantively true, those found guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If the accusations are substantively embellished or fabricated, there should be serious repercussions for that. I don't know the accuser or the accused, nor have any connection with any of them. I abhor prejudice, and I see that in the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment so frequently advanced and defended by your and others, and which sentiment is being made manifest in this matter. I am opposed to mobocratic rage, rushing to judgment, and the inversion or disregard of the presumption of innocence, and I am in favor of the rule of law, due process, and dispassionate evaluation of evidence. Are you? I am striving for dispassionate analysis. I do not think most of the participants in this discussion are, at least those who are inverting the presumption of innocence, are rushing to judgment, etc. Yes. "All men are potential rapists" is not rational. It is, instead, abject prejudice. It is borne of emotion, not reason. The presumption of innocence matters, or should matter. Fair-minded and dispassionate evaluation of evidence should matter. You and yours are running roughshod over these things. I think assessing the evidence can hew toward dispassionate and fair-minded analysis, and it can also hew toward anger and rage and prejudice. The latter are emotionalisms. I abhor prejudice because it is irrational and immoral. That is a reasoned assessment, not an emotional one. I think we need to abstain from prejudice, from inverting or ignoring the presumption of evidence, from rushing to judgment, and from assessing the evidence based on rage and anger. Thanks, -Smac

While it was definitely an allusion to the Book of Tobit the questioners were also being sneaky. The Book of Tobit was not about Levirate marriages but their question was. That might also have been intended to trip up Jesus. Also Levirate marriage was on the way out if not already gone so Jesus endorsing Levirate marriage might be seen as something that could trip him up. I don’t find the apologetic about eternal marriage sidestepping this verse that convincing. I only know the basics of the Jewish afterlife of the time so have only a vague idea what a typical Pharisee would think of Jesus’s reply. The Sadducees doing the questioning would not believe in the resurrection at all.

Deadlines seem so unnecessary in eternities to me.

Which of the covenants that are entered into in mortality are permanent / eternal no matter what , and which are contingent upon worthiness of the participant ?

You do have a dog in the fight and you are passionate and have intense feelings about the topic. I don't understand why you can say that you hate and are disgusted by something and then also believe that you are dispassionate, unbiased, and completely rational about it as you've been doing all this time. That is the tension I'm referring to. You claim that I and others are letting emotionalism run roughshod while you are not. But emotionalism just means someone has intense feelings about something. When you said that you abhor the 'all men are potential rapists' theme you are providing an example of your emotionalism. Again, more tension that you either can't see for some reason or won't see. Either way no one is buying the 'when I do it it's ok but when you do it it's not' argument. You are not unbiased or dispassionate enough on this topic to make those kinds of judgments.

Supposedly upon resurrection day a judgement follows from which marriage is a factor of that judgement, and glories are assigned. Most might say this judgement is permanent. Though I've heard a few Latter-days Saint hope there are post-resurrection advancements through the kingdoms of glory. Happy folk doctrines.

But why not?

Deleted

Inspired by Hayden Carroll's new video, when he ran into the common Matthew 22 prooftext against Eternal Marriage, he gave a common apologetic, Jesus merely states in the resurrection, they "neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Matt. 22:30). The Greek verbs gamousin (men marrying) and gamizontai (women being given in marriage) refer to the act of getting married (performing the ordinance). Matthew did not use perfect-tense verbs like gegamekasin (married one) to mean "there are none in a married state" in the resurrection. We agree with Jesus, the time for performing wedding ordinances is mortality (or in mortality by proxy). One cannot get married in the resurrection. A sound defense, but I am curious why I don't see many Saints argue that Jesus would have believed in some kind of Eternal Marriage there, maybe they don't know or read the same materials I do or just can't recite it very easily. In Latter-day Saint ancient scripture comparative studies, such as John A. Tvedtnes' "Mormonism in the Early Jewish Christian Milieu", argued the riddle presented by the Sadducees of a woman married sequentially to seven brothers under the Levirate law, was not a hypothetical scenario. It was a direct reference to the Book of Tobit. In Tobit, Sarah was married to seven consecutive men, all of whom died before the marriage could be consummated (Tobit 3:7–8). When the Sadducees approached Jesus they were directly ridiculing the validity of the story in the Book of Tobit as an authoritative scripture and knew that the Jesus and the Pharisees accepted the Book of Tobit. If the seven men resurrected, in theory they could then consummate their marriages, and violate Mosaic laws against polyandry. Jesus defends Tobit as scripture, and says, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures". In the Tobit narrative, the seven men died before their consummation, but Sarah’s covenant marriage, the one pronounced "forever", was with Tobias. Jesus and the Pharisees may also have believed in an Eternal Marriage tradition The Pharisees of the Second Temple period were the primary authors and supporters of the Talmud, so did have concepts like Bashert. The Talmud (Sotah 2a) famously declares that before an embryo is formed, a Bat Kol (heavenly voice) proclaims who that soul is destined to marry. Kabbalistic literature deepens this concept (Zohar II:93a), teaching that a husband and wife began as two halves of a single soul split at birth. Their earthly union brings shleimut (wholeness). Well, the Apocryphal Book of Tobit offers one of the clearest ancient expressions of this foreordained eternal marriage. Before Tobias marries Sarah, the Archangel Raphael tells him, "She was set apart for you before the world was made" (Tobit 6:17). During the wedding ceremony performed by Raguel, the bride's father pronounces, "She is given to you from this day forth and forever [eis ton aiona]" (Tobit 7:11–12, Codex Sinaiticus). Very similar to Joseph and Aseneth, an Anthropos / Archangel descends and promises Aseneth a "heavenly bridal chamber" (nymphon) prepared for those who love God (Joseph and Aseneth 15:4–8). Aseneth washes in pure water, puts on ancient white linen as a wedding garment and a royal crown, and partakes of a sacramental meal. The text repeatedly declares that Aseneth will be Joseph’s bride "forever and ever" (eis ton aiona tou aionos, cf. 21:3, 21:21). Gospel of Philip names the "sacrament of the bridal chamber" (nymphon) as the highest ordinance, that seals couples into eternal perfection. Philo of Alexandria documents the priests "Greater Initiation", above the Aaronic initiation, involving a Sacred Marriage (Hieros Gamos) while clad in white robes. The Book of Zohar called this Sacred Copulation (Zivvug ha-Kodesh), regarded as the highest of all mysteries. The Royal Cult's Resurrection Rituals include Marriage This fits into a broader ancient Near Eastern and Biblical theology of the Davidic Royal Cult. In The Man and the Temple and On Jewish Folklore, Dr. Raphael Patai notes that during the high-priestly autumn rites, the Kingship festival, a marriage ritual took place in sacred space and sacred time (illud tempus). Therefore, the marriage performed within either the Holy of Holies or the upper temple chamber was not bound by mortal clock-time or standard earthly laws. All the royal endowment rituals served a resurrective function. Patai notes in his cross-cultural comparisons of Near Eastern sacred marriages that the Queen holds a crucial role in the resurrection and eternal restoration of her King and husband. The union was designed to triumph over death itself, ensuring that the King was resurrected and restored to his throne, making the marital bond an essential component of eternal life and rebirth. Psalm 45 describes the royal marriage, where the king’s garments smell of anointing oils (myrrh). This holy union made atonement for the land and unlocked the "Judgment Day of Rain" and fertility for the land (Ps 72:6, 16; Zech 14:16–18). Marriages of this royal order took place in "a special room on top of the temple building" (Raphael Patai, On Jewish Folklore, 123), often described as the "sacred hut" or "bridal chamber" (Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacred Kingship in Ancient Israel, 226–227), the gold Upper Chambers above the Holy of Holies (1 Chronicles 28:11; 2 Chronicles 3:9) The bride is washed, anointed with oil (Ezekiel 16:9; Ruth 3:3), endowed in white robes (Ezekiel 16:10–13), and crowned (Ezekiel 16:12; Song of Solomon 3:11). These robes match the vestments worn by temple priests. Priests are "clothed with salvation" and "righteousness" (2 Chronicles 6:41; Psalm 132:9, 16). Isaiah says the Lord has "clothed me with the garments of salvation... as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments [pe'er], and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels" (Isaiah 61:10). The pe'er (head-dress) is the exact term used for the Aaronite priestly bonnet (Exodus 39:28). The wedding chamber (khuppah) was an enclosed space behind a veil (Psalm 19:5; Joel 2:16). You could not separate the King's royal priesthood from his royal matrimony. They were parts of a single, unified ritual system designed to bring resurrection and order. When the Sadducees approached Jesus in Matthew 22 with their riddle about the seven brothers, they must think Jesus was claiming to have restored the high-priestly marriage. Because Jesus already explicitly claimed and restored 4 of the 5 ancient royal sacraments throughout the Gospels. Any suggestion He excluded the royal marriage rite would break the entire structural logic of the Davidic Melchizedek tradition He claimed to represent. Has FAIR or any apologist followed up or made use of John A. Tvedtnes' idea since it was proposed?

Welcome to the board. Where in Russia? I visited for a few months decades ago and then lived there for half a year a couple of years later, so I vaguely know Moscow and a few cities along the Volga. Actually, I am okay with you not sharing any personal details if you prefer. It is just an automatic reaction. What would you like to know? How did you find us?

What’s the consensus among those who have looked at the research? Is it him?

I am speaking according to my beliefs. I believe all must be (re-)baptized in token of acknowledgement of the authorized ministry of Denver Snuffer, and that the Boise Covenant is thoroughly optional, but potentially helpful for some. It is required of all to receive all whom the Lord may choose to send as His messengers, or else they cannot receive Him. I believe the covenant all mankind must minimally keep to survive the coming of the Lord are His words found in 3 Nephi 5-6 in Covenant of Christ. I read it in my talk, the YouTube of which is found earlier in this thread. That is the doctrine of Christ and the Sermon at Bountiful. Before this, the Book of Mormon version would have been the one that required keeping. I believe that the wrath of God abides upon all who will [volition, not future indicative] not receive [accept, embrace] Covenant of Christ. I believe that if one will receive Covenant of Christ, and be baptized in token of obedience to the same, that would suffice to also acknowledge Mr. Snuffer's ministry, just as Jesus came to John for baptism, and afterwards proceeded on His own ministry, led by the Holy Ghost, rather than continuing in John's association or becoming one of John's disciples. As far as the rest, I don't know how stuff works in the other world, if there is another world. So I don't know how stuff might get administered to those who died without hearing the gospel, but I would guess it's much like what the LDS believe on the matter - there's just no temple as yet to attend to baptisms for the dead. Many apologies, but my focus has been more or less solely putting one foot in front of another along the Lord's path as He gave it in the Sermon, letting everything else fade into the background. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

Hello, brothers and sisters! I’m a young man from Russia, and I’ve recently become very interested in the restored gospel and the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could you please help me learn more and share your insights? I’d really love to understand your faith better.