consiglieri Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 Do I take it that nobody has a problem with my altering a few words in Section 88?Silence is consent, you know.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Jeff K. Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 silence can also be apathy, disinterest, ignorance, fear, boredom......
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 silence can also be apathy, disinterest, ignorance, fear, boredom......Be afraid.Be very afraid.
Nofear Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Do I take it that nobody has a problem with my altering a few words in Section 88?Well, since that is basically what I proposed in my first response, no, not really.
Doctor Steuss Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Do I take it that nobody has a problem with my altering a few words in Section 88?Silence is consent, you know.All the Best!--ConsiglieriI'm still digesting it. My initial thought is that it makes sense (and helps tie in the statement with the section as a whole). My initial thoughts often have me end up in strange places wearing someone else's pants though...
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 Well, since that is basically what I proposed in my first response, no, not really. But you have to change three words for it to make sense.As it stands, it remains problematic.I'm okay with changing three words if you are.What's three words among friends?All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 I'm still digesting it. My initial thought is that it makes sense (and helps tie in the statement with the section as a whole). My initial thoughts often have me end up in strange places wearing someone else's pants though...Thanks for taking the time to look at my proposed emendation to the text, Herr Doktor. I value your opinion highly.And not to toot my own horn , but I proposed an emendation to the Book of Mormon text to Royal Skousen which he ended up approving as one that should be made , in spite of the fact that the original manuscript is missing for that verse, and the printer's manuscript has it as it reads today ; which is why my name appears in his first volume of the Critical Text of the Book of Mormon. All the Best!--Consiglieri
Doctor Steuss Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 And not to toot my own horn , but I proposed an emendation to the Book of Mormon text to Royal Skousen which he ended up approving as one that should be made , in spite of the fact that the original manuscript is missing for that verse, and the printer's manuscript has it as it reads today ; which is why my name appears in his first volume of the Critical Text of the Book of Mormon. All the Best!--ConsiglieriWell, if you're not going to toot your horn, I might just give it a toot of my own. The above 'tis totally toot-tastic!Any chance you could fill a feller in on the portion of the Book of Mormon text that is now heretical (it's gotta be heretical, what with your anti-Mormon thinking and whatnot).-StuPS. I don't know why, but I feel the need to say: "Tutelage" (but maybe "Tootelage"... or maybe not).PPS. Yesterday was David Bowie's birthday. Thought you should know.PPPS. Is it supposed to be added "P's" or added "S's" when you do more than one Post Script. I think P (i.e. Post post script), but S kinda sounds cool (i.e. Post script script).PSSPPSPPSSP. I like derailing stuff (happy Friday my brudda).
Ipso Facto Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 consiglieri:So just who are you that you know that two current members of the Twelve view it this way? You are starting to creep me out, man!Who do I have to be? Do you think that general authorities donâ??t have friends or casual conversations with â??normalâ? folks?In any event, why would this â??creep [you] outâ??What an odd thing to say.My conversations with the two men I have in mind occurred prior to their callings to the Twelve. Their (and my own) views on this particular passage are nothing more or less than their own opinions. It was not my impression that they believed their opinion to be authoritative, or doctrinal, nor could I ever imagine them giving apostolic sanction to their (or anyone elseâ??s) opinion on this question. It was simply their interpretation of the passage. They believed it to be related to certain things said in D&C 138. This is an interpretation that goes back a century (or more) in church circles. As I suggested earlier, my experience is that it is almost ubiquitous among people who give thought to such things. At the very least, I know it to be a very common interpretation. Iâ??m surprised to hear you say you have never previously heard this interpretation articulated.Nevertheless, in retrospect, I regret stating things the way I did. I can see how it came across that I was, perhaps, attempting to appeal to authority. That was not my intention. It was more of an aside. I have simply found this passage quite interesting over the years, and have spoken about it with several people during my life â?? including at least two men who subsequently were called into high positions in the church. Still, the interpretation I advance is â?? and I emphasize this â?? only my opinion. I believe it to be very well founded. But I also believe it to be largely inconsequential. I commend you in your attempts to understand the scriptures better. I regret that more people do not take more seriously â?? as you obviously do â?? the injunction to â??search the scriptures.â? I am sure that you have profited thereby, and will continue to do so throughout your life.
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 Any chance you could fill a feller in on the portion of the Book of Mormon text that is now heretical (it's gotta be heretical, what with your anti-Mormon thinking and whatnot).Well, at the risk of jeopardizing my secret identity, and yet without revealing too much so as to retain my well earned reputation for coquettishness, I will provide below the verse in which the emendation occurs, trusting that having done so, a gentleman of such intellectual acuity as yourself will be able to connect the dots and figure out what single word should be changed to what other single word.All the Best!--ConsiglieriHint--Although I like the way it sounds, Royal Skousen rejected my attempt to emend "opposition" to "consiglieri." 2 Nephi 2:11--For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
emeliza Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Jesus is talking to the disciples while he was "in the flesh." (Why do people keep overlooking that part?)Maybe I am mis-remembering friend, but when Christ was resurrected, wasn't He 'in the flesh' as well? I could have sworn there was this big to do about His disciples touching Him and feeling that He still was of flesh and blood. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 Maybe I am mis-remembering friend, but when Christ was resurrected, wasn't He 'in the flesh' as well? I could have sworn there was this big to do about His disciples touching Him and feeling that He still was of flesh and blood. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think so. My take on this is if Christ is talking to folks in the 1830's, and relating an experience he had way back "while in the flesh," it wouldn't make any sense if he were speaking of his resurrected body, which he probably still had in the 1830's.All the Best!--Consiglieri
MrDWright Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 The scriptures have never excelled at following good rules of pronoun antecedents. I read it as, In other words, he in 1st person voice, paraphrases the promises that he gave to the fathers (the ancient prophets and people of Israel), to his disciples who were in the flesh. Obnoxious editing.I was going to say the same thing. The Savior is referring to the long space of time at which the Apostles would be in the spirit world. (All except for John, who's special situation would be discussed later.)He was assuring them that even though they would have to wait, the signs he spoke of would unfold to the inhabitants of the earth, and they would be resurrected to appear with him in glory.
emeliza Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 My take on this is if Christ is talking to folks in the 1830's, and relating an experience he had way back "while in the flesh," it wouldn't make any sense if he were speaking of his resurrected body, which he probably still had in the 1830's.All the Best!--ConsiglieriExcept when Christ was relaying this story to those in the 1830's He wasn't standing in front of them 'in the flesh', He was dictating thru Joseph Smith.
Ipso Facto Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Here is a further elaboration on D&C 45 as I and others have understood it:Verses 1 â?? 15 are a â??prefaceâ? directed to the people there in Kirtland in 1831 when the revelation was received.Verse 15 is both the end of the preface to the folks in 1831 and probably the first phrase of what is essentially an account of the Saviorâ??s words as delivered to his faithful disciples in the spirit world in the period between his death and resurrection.Verses 16 and 17, in my estimation, can only be understood in the context of Jesus speaking to the faithful spirits:16 And I will show it plainly as I showed it unto my disciples as I stood before them in the flesh, and spake unto them, saying: As ye have asked of me concerning the signs of my coming, in the day when I shall come in my glory in the clouds of heaven, to fulfil the promises that I have made unto your fathers,17 For as ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies to be a bondage, I will show unto you how the day of redemption shall come, and also the restoration of the scattered Israel.The spirits, as taught by Joseph Smith, are among us here on earth, and it should not confuse anyone when Jesus makes reference to earthly things while speaking to them:18 And now ye behold this temple which is in Jerusalem, which ye call the house of God, and your enemies say that this house shall never fall.Verses 34 and 35 are spoken to the spirits; the â??disciplesâ? are spoken of in the third person past:34 And now, when I the Lord had spoken these words unto my disciples, they were troubled.35 And I said unto them: Be not troubled, for, when all these things shall come to pass, ye may know that the promises which have been made unto you shall be fulfilled.Verse 38 is spoken to the spirits, but is about those who would be on the earth when the signs of His second coming would begin to be fulfilled:38 Even so it shall be in that day when they shall see all these things, then shall they know that the hour is nigh.Verse 46, also, can only be understood in the context of the Savior speaking to the spirits. He is speaking of the promise of their future resurrection:46 Wherefore, if ye have slept in peace blessed are you; for as you now behold me and know that I am, even so shall ye come unto me and your souls shall live, and your redemption shall be perfected â?¦The discourse to the spirits continues through verse 59, then begins more text directed to the Saints in 1831.So, take it for what it is worth. Disagree with it if youâ??d like. I donâ??t believe that our potential disagreement on this particular issue will disqualify any of us from the kingdom. At least I hope it wonâ??t. For your sake, that is.
mfbukowski Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 It seems pretty clear that this is correct when you just look at this one phrase: (I just cut and paste without cleaning up footnotes- sorry)11 Wherefore, hearken ye together and let me show unto you even my awisdomâ??the wisdom of him whom ye say is the God of bEnoch, and his brethren, 12 Who were aseparated from the earth, and were received unto myselfâ??a bcity reserved until a cday of righteousness shall comeâ??a day which was sought for by all holy men, and they found it not because of wickedness and abominations; 13 And confessed they were astrangers and pilgrims on the earth; 14 But obtained a apromise that they should find it and see it in their flesh. 15 Wherefore, hearken and I will reason with you, and I will aspeak unto you and prophesy, as unto men in days of old. 16 And I will show it plainly as I showed it unto my adisciples as I stood before them in the flesh, and spake unto them, saying: As ye have asked of me concerning the bsigns of my coming, in the day when I shall come in my cglory in the clouds of heaven, to fulfil the promises that I have made unto your fathers, 17 For as ye have looked upon the long aabsence of your bspirits from your bodies to be a bondage, I will show unto you how the day of redemption shall come, and also the crestoration of the dscattered Israel.He is speaking as he spoke to the spirits in prison, as he did unto men (who lived) in the days of old. It seems pretty clear to me
Ipso Facto Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 It seems pretty clear that this is correct when you just look at this one phrase: (I just cut and paste without cleaning up footnotes- sorry)He is speaking as he spoke to the spirits in prison, as he did unto men (who lived) in the days of old. It seems pretty clear to meI can't say that I understand why this revelation would have been constructed the way it was. That, to me, is another question entirely. Nevertheless, for as long as I can remember, I have always understood this to be words spoken by the Savior to the righteous dead in the spirit world, and that it is therefore connected, doctrinally speaking, to D&C 138.
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I can't say that I understand why this revelation would have been constructed the way it was. That, to me, is another question entirely. Nevertheless, for as long as I can remember, I have always understood this to be words spoken by the Savior to the righteous dead in the spirit world, and that it is therefore connected, doctrinally speaking, to D&C 138.It seems to parallel 138 quite closely and seems to be laying the groundwork. What is remarkable is how similar the revelations are considering that there were two different prophets who received them. It is almost as if the same scene is being described (of course it is...) Maybe that is why it is constructed as it is -- as a foreshadowing and "pre-verification" of the Joseph F vision. "By two witnesses...."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.