All Activity

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, the time for performing wedding ordinances is mortality (or in mortality by proxy). One cannot get married after 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 one could consummate their marriage, 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 items 4 of the 5 royal sacraments throughout the Gospels, suggesting he exclude 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?

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.

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.

So anyone who has not lived by the Boise Covenant is doomed to burn? Wouldn’t that be the vast, vast majority of humans who have lived on the earth and never had the chance to hear of it, let alone have it administered to them? Or do you believe this can happen after death? From your link

Be sure to sit towards the back of the theater. They whizzed through some data so fast that it made my eyes hurt. Other interesting details were only given a few seconds on screen. I wish more time had been spent on the content rather than the researchers themselves....such as the brief moments we were given to see the painting and sculpture from the new findings. I think the book may be more satisifying.

In this, I am speaking according to my beliefs. I believe the fires are eternal, that is, unchanging and unyielding, when one is experiencing them. I do not know if they are of ultimately finite duration or not. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

That's kind of my point: priesthood ordinations, blessings, or leadership succession doesn't always follow a lineal or genealogically sequential process.

And is the burning eternal or for a time?

In this, I am speaking according to my beliefs. I believe it is their fate to be burned at the appearing of the Lord - as with all who have heard the Sermon on the Mount and will not obey it as written. I do not believe "tithed," as used in these verses, has any reference to tithing as practiced in the LDS Church. Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

As far as reported, I agree. At least the more severe stuff. There is the possibility that men feel awkward about reporting such. Men aren’t in our culture supposed to respond to similar threatening or humiliating situations by being passive, fleeing, or even fawning. If it was happening as much as for women, there would be a lot more violence if it was a “real man” response (as in deck anyone who physically or sexually harasses you). https://www.eeoc.gov/data/sexual-harassment-our-nations-workplaces When it comes to the less severe*** types of harassment, looks like men get it online worse than women. Need to find if it happens that way face to face. Can’t remember. And it may have changed due to more public discussion about sexual harassment and assault. I wonder if researchers controlled for places men hang out. Men might chose to visit sites that engage in these behaviors more, in part because they don’t see threat as much as women. Given the type of harassment behaviours they typically encounter (likely to cause more embarrassment than fear), this would be reasonable. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/ “Note: More severe behaviors include being physically threatened, stalked, sexually harassed or harassed for a sustained period of time. Less severe behaviors include being called an offensive name or having someone trying to purposefully embarrass them.” As far as non sexual harassment at work, men will receive such mostly from men while women luck out by getting it from both men and women (gee, I wonder why that is…actually no, I don’t, not in the least). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240212/dq240212a-eng.htm The link might not show this as don’t have time to check like I thought I would. Hopefully later.

As for myself, a male, I am naturally cautious when meeting people, as to what 'They are about' so to speak. I suppose it is a matter of trust. This could be, in a way, for a number of general reasons. As for a woman, I just feel, and I may presume wrong on this, there maybe more inappropriate interactions towards her. Or, the possibility of threat towards her.

https://www.covenantchristians.info/ is their website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fellowships_of_"the_Remnants"_movement is the wiki page for them. https://scriptures.info/ is their scriptures (the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Teachings and Commandments [overlaps with the Doctrine and Covenants]). They believe that Joseph and Hyrum were authorized servants but that all splinters (including LDS, CoC, and the others) have apostatized and so a new dispensation was started.

And what fate is that?

It is really strange that you and Seeking and Mustard Seed think this given there is obviously only one plain and ordinary meaning this phrase can mean for anyone.

Yes, please tell me what I think, feel, and believe because I can’t know that for myself. Of course I must think the same as you as that’s the only reasonable interpretation. (I am not insulted here, just trying to make a point that gets paid attention to.) ”I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Because language is only allowed to have one “plain and ordinary” meaning for everyone and of course everyone will always agree on it. Why do we even bother to have dictionaries? You read much poetry, Smac? Reminds me of how in some people’s view scripture can have only one “plain and ordinary meaning” and everyone would obviously interpret it that way…except they don’t. So they must have agendas in those who think this way. It couldn’t be that they bring different experiences and therefore different context to words and therefore meaning varies. You and JFS and Bruce R. McConkie would probably get along quite well…most of the time. It would be interesting to eavesdrop on conversations where all of you are arguing for a different “plain reading”*** interpretation of scripture…or anything else. I mention the above to point out while I think the rigidness that is attached to “ plain and ordinary”, “face value”, “common sense”, etc is highly problematic, a lot of good people hold to such views. ***https://benspackman.com/2024/02/joseph-fielding-smith-death-before-the-fall-and-2-nephi-222/ “Smith believed that one achieved knowledge of these scientific facts through “plain reading” of the scriptural text. God intended scripture’s meaning to be plain and self-evident throughout centuries and across translation; context and outside information were not really needed. Indeed, if scripture lent itself to multiple interpretations, it would render scripture useless, he argued. (This is the assumption of “plain reading” and is plentifully documentable in Smith’s writings. Smith termed it “literal” reading, but this is a mistake.)”

For sure. Unfortunately we find incidents where our comfort is granted prematurely but we all have to exist somehow!

I think, maybe it is a matter, that a woman may have to be on the defensive, until she can lower her guard when feeling a bit more comfortable, or confident.

It’s interesting how you interpret things this way. I think you are assuming that “ all men are potential rapists” means that every single man including you has a budding rapist within. Try to listen to this statement(”all men”) again with a different point of view: situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody. IMPORTANT: this statement is not a description of a specific man. It is not a description of you. What it is, is a description of the state of mind of a woman that she must carry around every day, as situations that require awareness can pop up at any time. We do not have the luxury of retiring our conscientiousness. It’s not about you. It’s about the state of mind of women’s vigilance.

Beating a dead horse here, but... A Jewish survivor of the October 7th attack, survives kidnapping and abuse, lives with PTSD every time she sees a Muslim in public and says that in her lived experience "all muslims are potential terrorists" A native of the West Bank area is continually harassed by masked Jewish settlers, beaten and threatened with violence while just trying to live their lives says that in her lived experience "all settlers are potential terrorists". A woman, that time after time is harrassed, threatened, assaulted by men both strangers and friends says that in her lived experience, "all men are potential rapists". For me, I recognize that I don't worry when I run alone five days a week. My heart rate doesn't go up with a woman approaches me. I don't stack chairs by the door of my hotel room to prevent someone from entering. I don't worry about my personal safety. That position however is a position of privilege. You don't listen and don't care, so you don't care to hear that woman aren't saying every man has a latent rapist waiting to escape in the right situation. Rather, they are explaining their lived, shared, traumatic experience that every experience with a man alone is like being alone with a potential rapist. That they have to take precautions, have thoughts, and worries every single time a man approaches. And for good reason.

I am, in this, speaking according to my beliefs. For those who acknowledge Denver Snuffer to be a messenger sent from Heaven, and have signified their belief in that before God and men by submitting to authorized re-baptism, and have said "yes" to the Boise Covenant, "Covenant Christians" are what the Lord has commanded them to refer to each other as, as per this revelation. The Boise Covenant is found here: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/158 "All the words of the Lord which have been read to you this day" refers to this: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/157 That was in answer to this prayer: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/156 As I understand it, Covenant Christians are Christians who are distinguished from other Christians in the sight of the Lord by the Boise Covenant. If they fail to yield obedience to its terms, then there is nothing dividing them from any other Christians, and they shall suffer the same fate as them when the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

I'm glad you think that, but this comment is better directed at folks like Calm and Bluebell, who do think I am a "potential rapist," as are all men everywhere. That's what "all men are potential rapists" means. Situational awareness is a good idea. "All men are potential rapists." I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning. "All {black} men are potential rapists." Same thing. "All {Muslims} are potential {terrorists}." Same thing. And so on. Thanks, -Smac

Well, I'll ask another question: What is a Covenant Christian in your use of that term? I spoke once at Covenant College. I have been to several churches with Covenant in their name. I consider myself a covenantal Christian. So I am uncertain as to what exactly you are referring. Thanks, Navidad

They have subsequently restored it to the record.