What does this saying of Jesus mean to you?

[USU78]

Or than John Calvin did.

Imagine my g-g-grandfather's delight, when his patriarchal blessing told him he was a true descendant of Ephraim -- and thus among the

elect -- chosen from before the foundation of the world, to avenge the blood of The Martyrs upon the State of Illinois, and to bring

forth and establish a "redeemed" Zion, not to be removed from her place.

Predestined from all eternity to play such a puppet's role in our latter day epic. But then the patriarch added a final clause --

"if ye remain faithful..."

John Calvin, with an escape clause.

Scratch an old-timey Mormon, a Puritan bleeds.

USU "Come'ere, little spider. I've got a nice candle burning" 78

[Uncle Dale]

...

a Puritan bleeds.

...

And Elder Alexander Campbell would not have been handing out any bandages.

What does it mean to surrender ourselves so completely to God,

that our human will evaporates? Elder Campbell would have frowned

upon that question, as well.

One thing I will say for Sidney Rigdon -- he hit ol' Alex in a tender spot indeed.

Almighty God's Sovereign Grace drop-kicking Human Initiative

The question is not, who wins that contest,

Rather, what is born of such

A Jabbok wrestling,

The struggle of

Isra-El

UD

+

.

[Mudcat]

What needs to be reworked isn't the definition of "all" but your definition of dominion.

Christ alluded to what dominion is and how it is created when He said that the greatest among us would be our servant.

He taught the same principle as Jehovah in the OT "Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

Paul best enunciated the process of creating domionion when he explained that we love Christ because He first loved us.

A good example of dominion and how it is created is the virtuous woman described in the last chapter of Proverbs. She serves her family with selflessness and is undeterred in her efforts to care for them. Her every act is a manifestation of love for others. And in the end, they rise up and call her 'blessed'.

Cruel or forced subjugation is not dominion. Dominion is created when others have trust and faith in your honest, just, merciful, perfectly loving character and they willingly obey you and honor you.

Hi Mercyngrace,

I think you are only partly correct about "dominion", within the Bible you can find the word with both positive and negative connotations.

In example.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

That seems to be a positive usage of the word.

There are negative usages as well.

Gen 37:8 And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words.

Though it should be noted that there were two different Hebrew words used that were translated as "dominion".

However, I was using the word in the modern sense, which for the most part seems to mean having authority or control over and I didn't mean the "good" sort of dominion.

Perhaps Bukowski had the right of it.. regarding what the Gnostics might have thought about it. Worldly dominion and not dominion over people.

Though given that gnostics felt that matter itself is evil, that is also problematic. If the gnostics believed the ultimate state was a spiritual one devoid of matter then "rule All" would mean spiritual rulership.

I quit prattling on now.

Regards,

Mudcat

[mercyngrace]

Hi Mercyngrace,

I think you are only partly correct about "dominion", within the Bible you can find the word with both positive and negative connotations.

In example.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

That seems to be a positive usage of the word.

There are negative usages as well.

Gen 37:8 And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words.

Though it should be noted that there were two different Hebrew words used that were translated as "dominion".

However, I was using the word in the modern sense, which for the most part seems to mean having authority or control over and I didn't mean the "good" sort of dominion.

Perhaps Bukowski had the right of it.. regarding what the Gnostics might have thought about it. Worldly dominion and not dominion over people.

Though given that gnostics felt that matter itself is evil, that is also problematic. If the gnostics believed the ultimate state was a spiritual one devoid of matter then "rule All" would mean spiritual rulership.

I quit prattling on now.

Regards,

Mudcat

Thanks for the great thoughts, Mudcat.

I think conceptually "dominion" as I understand it incldues stewardship over the elements of creation. (Your first reference) A righteous steward will reap a willing dominion.

LDS also use the word dominion with negative implications as in the phrase "unrighteous dominion" (D&C 121), a reference to the misuse of power, authority, or influence.

In terms of the quote in the OP, I see dominion in a positive sense - as we emulate God, others are drawn to us. Ultimately, we are lifted up by others (exalted) as we willingly condescend to humbly serve. Also, my having dominion does not preclude your having it. When we both honor each other and extend love to the degree that we are of one heart and one mind, we achieve Zion - the state of being pure in heart. We become one with God and one with each other. We are at once in a position of dominance and willing submission. Joint-heirs all.

[SearchDog]

Likewise, I was astonished to learn that Joseph Smith and The Twelve at Nauvoo

had been lying through their teeth, when they denied spiritual wifery was

being taught practiced among the leaders of that holy city.

I was astonished to read President Sidney Rigdon's contemporary disclosures and

denunciations of 1845-46, alongside the denials of The Twelve at Nauvoo.

I was astonished that the Reorganized LDS Church authorities sanitized

Rigdon's denunciations, so as to shield Joseph Smith, and make him out

as the monogamous prophet, whose church was perverted by the polygamous 12.

I was so astonished at this 160 years of holy lies, that I eventually left.

But that "astonishment" was as a grain of sand on an endless beach,

compared to the "astonishment" of Divine Union with the Holy One of Israel.

Mormons live in a low order fantasy world -- compared to the possibilities

they might comprehend, were they to expand their spiritual horizons.

UD

My only comment comes in testimony of what you call "spiritual wifery". So be it.

Polygamy is not a perversion when consummated according to the laws of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is, quite simply, better to be married in Christ than unmarried. It is better to be endowed with the holy gift of parental procreation of spirit children than to be a child. It is better to be a family in Israel than to be without.

A woman has more opportunity in the afterlife to be married in priestly polygamy than a man has of becoming a polygamist priest after death. It is better to make the decision (covenant) in this life than to wait for someone to preform the ordinance in a LDS temple after death.

The only thing better than the promise of a Celestial Wife, is the fulfillment of that promise.

When faith is not blocked or damned by doubt, all is possible in God.

[USU78]

And Elder Alexander Campbell would not have been handing out any bandages.

What does it mean to surrender ourselves so completely to God, that our human will evaporates? Elder Campbell would have frowned

upon that question, as well.

One thing I will say for Sidney Rigdon -- he hit ol' Alex in a tender spot indeed. Almighty God's Sovereign Grace drop-kicking Human Initiative The question is not, who wins that contest, Rather, what is born of such A Jabbok wrestling, The struggle of Isra-El

I will not let thee go, unless thou bless me.

What is my name?

I am a fraud . . . I am a failure . . . I am the one who sinned

Perhaps "the All" that the seeker after truth rules over is the sinful self. Overcome that, and gain "the All."

[Uncle Dale]

...

Overcome that

...

It has already been done for you.

Uncle "somebody up there must love you" Dale

[USU78]

It has already been done for you.

Uncle "somebody up there must love you" Dale

You telling me Y'akov doesn't have to wrestle after all?

Who's he wrestling with, really?

Without that there struggle . . .

And then there's this:

He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.

[Uncle Dale]

...

And then there's this:

If Judas was born again, then why did he betray Jesus?

If Judas was not born again, then how could he have remained faithful?

If Judas was born again, then why did he betray Jesus?

If Judas was not born again, then why was he ever made an apostle?

If Judas was born again, then why did he betray Jesus?

This "calling and election made sure" scuttlebutt needs a bit of rehearsing.

And so I'm sending it back to the kitchen, until it gets roasted right.

But, let me put it this way -- once you've been to the mountain top, you don't forget it.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

Polygamy is not a perversion when consummated according to the laws of our Lord Jesus Christ.

...

And, looking in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, where do I find that stated?

Here is what Elder Sidney Rigdon published on page 40, of the December 2, 1844

Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate

It may be deemed superflous, to enter upon an elaborate argument, to shew that polygamy is not from above, but is from beneath.

Certain it is however, that multitudes professing to receive the Bible, book of Mormon and book of Doctrine and Covenants as of divine authenticity, and as containing the pure doctrines of Jesus Christ, have been led to receive and adopt, as an article of their religious creed, the monstrous, antichristian and disgusting dogma, "that it is absolutely necessary, to the attainment of the highest degree of glory, that a man should have a plurality of wives." If it were a mere theory unreduced to practice, the case would be different; but when we see a system on unparalleled debauchery, growing out of, and flowing from it; contaminating the fair form of virtue, and blasting like the deadly sirocco, the very springs of existence, and happiness temporal and eternal; then surely if ever, it is high time for those who would maintain the ancient landmarks, who would contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; to be valiant for the truth.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/M&A/pdfs/MA-1-03.pdf

Now, either President Rigdon's publication of this "monstrous, anti-Christian and disgusting dogma"

was currently valid or it was not. The Twelve said he was lying and that no such doctrine as polygamy

was taught or practiced among the latter Day Saints, in Nauvoo or elsewhere.

Were The Twelve truthful in their refutations of secret polygamy among their followers or not?

Were they telling lies, or was it Elder Rigdon and his friends who were telling lies in 1844?

Uncle Dale

[SearchDog]

And, looking in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, where do I find that stated?

Here is what Elder Sidney Rigdon published on page 40, of the December 2, 1844

Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate

Now, either President Rigdon's publication of this "monstrous, anti-Christian and disgusting dogma"

was currently valid or it was not. The Twelve said he was lying and that no such doctrine as polygamy

was taught or practiced among the latter Day Saints, in Nauvoo or elsewhere.

Were The Twelve truthful in their refutations of secret polygamy among their followers or not?

Were they telling lies, or was it Elder Rigdon and his friends who were telling lies in 1844?

Uncle Dale

I cannot resolve the discrepancies presented in your post.

But if Sidney Rigdon is correct in his assessment of plural marriage, then he should have included in his words an explanation for why God allowed and even sponsored it in the OT, otherwise Sidney owes Abraham and Jacob an apology.

I think the OT makes it clear that plural marriage is not a "monstrous...and disgusting dogma" when conducted according to the will of God. As far as being "anti-Christian", we must leave the OT and look into the NT.

Did Sydney Rigdon include in his comments any references from the NT that would so condemn plural marriage as to call it a "monstrous, anti-Christian and disgusting dogma"? Or can you fill in what Sydney left out? Where in the NT is plural marriage condemned?

Furthermore, being as the LDS have followed Christ's will (albeit through revelation) on the subject of plural marriage, how can it be anti-Christian?

I look at it this way: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were the example of a parallel development in the generational word of God. The OT scriptures, the NT scriptures, and the LDS scriptures are their equivalents. Abraham is representative of the Father, Isaac is representative of the Son, and Jacob (Israel) is representative of the holy community of saints, aka the Church or the Holy Spirit of God. In other words, God's Spirit is maintained, embodied, and carried forward in His Holy Family, Israel.

It is fitting that Isaac is portrayed as have only one wife (Rebecca) since he prefigures the image of Christ as having only one Church. But the story of Genesis does not stop with Isaac's marriage. It continues into the formation of Israel through Jacob and his plural marriages. Similarly, the story of Christ does not stop at the NT but continues in latter-day scripture toward the formation of a celestial Israel in Christ.

If we continue to liken the scriptures unto ourselves we see that Rebecca gave birth to two sons. One (Esau) who is legally deserving of the birthright and one (Jacob) who obtains it according to the will of God. In real life we can associate those who received the promise of Christ with Esau and those who would actually obtain the promise with Jacob. The first born were the legal inheritors but the second born was God's eventually choice to receive the birthright.

So it is with the Jewish people and their Christian equivalents, who received the promise but did not maintain the spirit that would bring them to an Israel in Christ. An Israel in which plural marriage is a blessing, not a monstrous, disgusting dogma.

Neither is monogamy a terrible thing. But it is simply not the highest glory available in Israel.