Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. My take is somewhat rough and unschooled, but we know that the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Presiding High Priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood on Earth, and thus presides over it's extension, the Aaronic Priesthood. These are the priesthoods through which covenants with God are made, covenants which determine our standing with and obligations towards God and His kingdom on the Earth. All covenants made in the Church are made on the basis of delegated authority from God, which passes through the Presiding High Priest. It seems to me that
  2. I'd say the hearts of the children of men are definitely waxing cold.
  3. Indeed, such a day is likely near at hand. I'll be interested to see what affect that has on BYU's size and/or prestige. Small Christian/Western traditionalist schools such as Saint Andrew's and Hillsdale College already reject government funding, but they are very small operations. More prominent religiously-affiliated schools, like BYU, Boston College, Catholic University of America, and Liberty University, still by and large take federal aid, and it's hard to imagine any of them retaining their stature without it.
  4. I've had the same experience. It shook me pretty much to the core, but the advice worked. I very much look forward to hearing the voice of God - the leitmotif of Creation.
  5. I admit I can't observe the world on a basic level without sense experiences. I can't observe the world save through my human consciousness. I agree that we must trust our own consciousness, as such trust is necessary as a prerequisite for any form of inquiry or observation. The thing is, I feel like there is a reality beyond my own consciousness which grounds it, which my consciousness observes and latches onto. For example, I don't dream much, but when I do there's usually things in it that are wrong, that are strange. I wake up and realize that what I dreamed didn't make sense, wasn't
  6. In which case that belief would be false and those benefits nothing more than happy accidents. No eternal life would or could come of it. I see how Pragmatism might justify that, since its a useful belief, but I'm still attached to the theory that truth does correspond to the external world.
  7. @Benjamin Seeker has it right. Jesus Christ needed to be literally resurrected. You are right, we must have faith in historicity. I suppose we don't need historical proof of it to have faith, obviously. But there needs to be room for it to be historical or else it doesn't work. What I'm more interested in right now, though, is how Pragmatism justifies spiritual testimony.
  8. Sure, I'll bite. This is interesting to me and I'm eager to be taught. I have dropped a rock down the shaft of Pragmatism and I haven't heard it hit bottom yet, so why not? How does Pragmatism (with Alma 42, which I just read and I kind of see the connection but not really) justify testimony as evidence? I do believe in testimony as evidence already, but I would like to see it from this angle. I'll confess to not understanding the functional theology of the Atonement very well, but the centrality of Christ's sacrifice seems to preclude a "fictional crucifixion and Resurrection" if it is
  9. A stirring round of applause for your deep, profound, insightful, and completely original commentary
  10. This is a recurring difficulty throughout any holistic study of the scriptures. The same mechanism is in play with the so-called "dark sayings of Jesus", those times when the Savior calls for impossible standards of perfection, asks us to be willing to leave father and mothers and brothers and sisters, and declares that He came not to bring peace but a sword. I can only conclude that such statements as Alma's refer to a yet future, perfected condition, which the Savior bids us attain progressively, with His help. After all, all of these must eventually be met in order for us to partake o
  11. Funny. That's exactly what Benjamin Franklin thought. He said the East India Company should be recompensed for the tea by the state. George Washington wrote that the Bostonians had gone crazy. Some Tories they were, huh? I'm gonna push back further on the whole Boston Tea Party analogy. There is only a general parallel here, not strong enough to justify the violence that we see. The Boston Tea Party was organized and focused to a point. The perpetrators, a group called the Sons of Liberty, organized themselves in order to effect a strike on the East India Tea Company, the state-level
  12. @The Nehor, that was beautiful. Seeing as I am one such fan, you have shown me myself.
  13. I second this. I would love to learn more about that. In general, @Kevin Christensen, that was a wonderful response. I have struggled with the universality of the "somehow" by which Joseph concocted all these things. It's an effortless handwave that that permits faith in that position but which does not actually explain anything. It's boundary maintenance and nothing more. Regarding Kuhn: "Particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed." I find that Moron
  14. Interesting point! That actually makes some sense. The Nephite wickedness is introduced in Jacob 1:15 as occurring under the reign of the second king, which could be a coincidence or simple time-stamp but could also signal a connection between that king and and the outbreak of the Nephite iniquity. It helps that Jacob 2 correlates with Deuteronomy 17:17, one of the commandments for kings in the Mosaic code, and half of Jacob's sermon focuses on the wanton acquisition of wealth and pride. Jacob might be speaking to King Nephi II here.
  15. @stemelbow, so be it. I thank you for the challenge, it has actually helped me dig into and understand the text more. I offer Jacob 1:15: Wanton fornication and adultery are not highlighted as the example of "wicked practices", desiring many wives and concubines is. It can't be much clearer.
  16. Let's go over this one more time. Unsanctioned polygamy is a sexual sin. "Whoredom" means sexual sin. Therefore, unsanctioned polygamy is a whoredom. That's what he was referring to. The sin of David and Solomon, of "them of old", is explicitly laid out as the taking of many additional wives and concubines. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the Nephites read the accounts of David and Solomon taking many wives and concubines, and felt that it justified them in committing blatant adultery. The thing is, that is ridiculous. We don't have any Solomonic adu
  17. The blinkered and selective nature of your reading is astonishing. I get it. I really do. You feel really proud of your critique and the ability it gives you to throw the accusation of inconsistency in the face of God. You've practically married yourself to this reading, warts and all. Be careful when adopting the boilerplate tactic of telling believers "you have cognitive obligations to believe x and therefore you are engaging in y". Some swords cut both ways. I'm sure that you're mature enough to realize that people can simply disagree with you on the merits of things without being enthralle
  18. Interesting. I was trained as a veil worker but never thought about it in that light. Thank you.
  19. I have no idea how you can say that Jacob 2 doesn't condemn the Nephites for taking extra wives when it literally commands them to refrain from doing exactly that, right after browbeating them for following in the errors of David and Solomon, who are expressly condemned in the same passage for taking many extra wives without prophetic sanction. Nor do I have any idea how you can successfully disassociate "whoredom" from sexual sin, which is what unsanctioned polygamy IS. I'm not squinting at all. Your persistence in asserting that "whoredoms" cannot possibly mean unsanctioned polygamy be
  20. I'm inclined to agree with bluebell and Talmage's eloquent presentation, and I'd like to elaborate on it if I can. The rending of the temple veil is singularly intriguing and meaningful to me, out of all the concurrent events going on on that most important of days, the Day of the ultimate Atonement. I'm going to include some references to Robert Boylan, who has some blog pieces on the subject. The veil of the temple, standing in between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, could only be passed through by the High Priest in the performance of his ritual duty as the atoning representati
  21. David sinned in the case of Uriah, thus losing his exaltation. His murder of Uriah was obviously evil, and his marriage to Bathsheba was not sanctioned by the prophets (see 2 Samuel 12:1-11). However, these verses are not talking about David alone. D&C 132:38 says "they." You are forgetting Solomon, who is never known to have killed for a bride but is specifically condemned in the book of 1 Kings for taking "strange wives" in contravention of the Mosaic commandments. That fact that he also stands condemned means that we're not just talking about Uriah here, but a bigger pattern of sexual s
  22. Per D&C 132, David and Solomon sinned in taking wives without prophetic sanction. D&C 132:38-39, emphasis mine: Since Jacob is clearly not sanctioning these additional marriages and concubinage relationships, they are illicit in the eyes of the Lord and therefore are sins.
  23. I see, thank you for the clarification. I think there's good reason for conflating the "whoredoms" committed by the Nephites with polygamy. I don't think that is a stretch at all. The specific thing which the Lord condemns in Jacob 2 is David and Solomon's practice of taking many wives and concubines. The specific injunction against the taking of plural wives and concubines is given in Jacob 2:27, preceded by the command in verse 26 that the Nephites shall not "do like unto them of old." The sin attributed to "them of old" is the taking of many wives and concubines, which suggests quite
  24. It seems like we did. My apologies for my part in it as well. From here, for the sake of understanding, you ask the question, "Why would the Lord need polygamy if he could raise up seed to himself without it?" I understood that to mean that, since members of the church can have kids without polygamy, polygamy would not be necessary to raise up seed. Is that a correct understanding of your position?
  25. I will explain how I came up with this. It starts with the acknowledgement that Jacob 2 was written by an intelligent person, be it Jacob, God, or Joseph Smith. With that in mind, I look at this verse and see that in Jacob 2:27, the Lord explicitly endorses marriage. This includes the implicit endorsement of having children. It's manifestly illogical to believe that the original author of this passage would command marriage and then preclude childbearing just 3 verses later. Therefore, I conclude that "raise up seed to me" was not intended as an exhaustive reference to childbearing
  • Create New...