The Easter Story

[volgadon]

How does holding his feet not prove he's not just a phantom in and of itself?

In the Homeric world view phantoms were identical in appearance to the living, except that they could not be grasped. In the Iliad Achilles tries to embrace Patroclus and fails to do so. In the Odyssey Odysseus tries to do the same with his mother, producing identical results.

[mfbukowski]

How do you reconcile

"you do not sow the body which is to be"

and

"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

with

"Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side"?

I don't have much at stake in this discussion really, but as far as reconciling the above scriptures, I think the traditional LDS interpretation does about as good a job as any.

1) The body which is "sown", is the "seed" for the body which is to come, and just as a seed is the "embryo" for the plant, the corruptible body is the "embryo" for the resurrected body

2) Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God, traditional LDS theology teaches that resurrected bodies are glorified flesh (transformed) and bone, not blood.

My personal view is that one cannot expect all these ancient texts to agree, and it really doesn't matter, but it is interesting to see the different possible interpretations and I find it instructive to see, again and again, how taking all this literally can get people confused.

[Mortal Man]

You don’t spell out the problem here (unless I missed it), but I’m guessing you make this point because you think it is contradicted in the Gospel accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead prior to his own death and resurrection (e.g., the Nain widow’s son in Luke and Lazarus in John). But Paul is here speaking of the future (eschatological) resurrection of the dead that was inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection. The term “first fruits” in this context is a metaphor meaning that Christ’s resurrection is the beginning of the eschatological resurrection of redeemed humanity to immortal life. Paul’s idea here is in no way contradicted by the Gospel accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead to resume their mortal lives.

Let's take a look at Lazarus.

19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.

Many mourners were present.

20 Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went to meet Him, but Mary stayed at the house.

21 Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.

22 “Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.”

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

But will it be an eschatological resurrection?

24 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,

26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Jesus seems to imply here that there's no difference between eschatological resurrections and the regular kind.

27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

28 When she had said this, she went away and called Mary her sister, saying secretly, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.”

29 And when she heard it, she got up quickly and was coming to Him.

30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met Him.

31 Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and consoling her, when they saw that Mary got up quickly and went out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there.

The many observers followed Mary to the tomb.

32 Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.”

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled,

34 and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.”

35 Jesus wept.

36 So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!”

The crowd was emotionally involved.

37 But some of them said, “Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?” [Like Asclepius could have done?]

38 So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it.

Just like the stone on Jesus' tomb.

39 Jesus said, “Remove the stone.” Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.”

Four days beats Jonah, Hippolytus, and Jesus himself.

40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me.

42 “I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.”

43 When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.”

44 The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

High drama here.

45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him.

But none of these many people bothered to tell Peter, Paul, James, Mark, Matthew or Luke about this mother of all miracles.

46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done.

But none of them bothered to tell Josephus, Tacitus or Philo about this stunning event.

[Mortal Man]

I saw your response and thought, "Oh. I wonder how I missed that." I laughed out loud when I saw what you were referring to:

The image was a nice touch.

I'm glad you liked it. I was a bit worried that some people would be offended but I just couldn't resist.

[WalkerW]

If Paul had known about the wounds, he wouldn't have taught what he did.

What you're claiming he taught is a non-physical resurrection. Did you skip over Wright's analysis I provided? How about Craig S. Keener:

Paul's depiction of a psychikos ("soulish") body (15:44) sounds startling in Greek (lost in the NRSV's "physical"), as does his pneumatikos ("spiritual") body. But Paul cannot mean bodies "made of soul" or "made of spirit": elsewhere in the letter he uses "spiritual" for "of the Spirit"; -ikos adjectives (as opposed to -inos adjectives) normally denote mode of existence rather than substance..."Flesh and blood" was a familiar idiom for humans or human bodies, which could not endure heavenly life. (1-2 Corinthians, Cambridge University Press, 2005: 132-133)

This is all within the context of comparing mortal with immortal, corruptible with incorruptible, the earthly Adam with the heavenly Adam, death with life.

"Flesh and blood" was an idiom for the corruptible mortal man. Corruptible mortality cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

[Rob Bowman]

Mortal Man,

You wrote:

Let's take a look at Lazarus

Okay.

19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.

Many mourners were present

True, though "many" is a relative term. It could have been a couple dozen.

20 Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went to meet Him, but Mary stayed at the house.

21 Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.

22 “Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.”

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

But will it be an eschatological resurrection?

24 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,

26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Jesus seems to imply here that there's no difference between eschatological resurrections and the regular kind

Not at all. Lazarus had died; in the eschaton, Jesus assures Martha, Lazarus will live again because Jesus, in whom Lazarus believed, is the resurrection and the life. Furthermore, "everyone who lives and believes in" Jesus "will never die" in the sense that they already have the assurance of eternal life; that eternal life is already theirs. But death, for now, is still a reality ("even if he dies"). This means that when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, it is not the eschatological, final resurrection to immortality. John, who wrote this account, clearly understands that there will be an eschatological resurrection (John 5:28-29).

27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

28 When she had said this, she went away and called Mary her sister, saying secretly, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.”

29 And when she heard it, she got up quickly and was coming to Him.

30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met Him.

31 Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and consoling her, when they saw that Mary got up quickly and went out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there.

The many observers followed Mary to the tomb.

32 Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.”

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled,

34 and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.”

35 Jesus wept.

36 So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!”

The crowd was emotionally involved

All true, but I don't see the relevance of this information, unless it is to your objection (below) that this miracle is found only in John

37 But some of them said, “Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?” [Like Asclepius could have done?]

38 So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it.

Just like the stone on Jesus' tomb

Yep. Lazarus's resurrection was a physical resurrection, and so was Jesus' resurrection. They are similar in that respect. But Lazarus' resurrection was also different in other ways

39 Jesus said, “Remove the stone.” Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.”

Four days beats Jonah, Hippolytus, and Jesus himself.

40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me.

42 “I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.”

43 When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.”

44 The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

High drama here.

45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him.

But none of these many people bothered to tell Peter, Paul, James, Mark, Matthew or Luke about this mother of all miracles.

46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done.

But none of them bothered to tell Josephus, Tacitus or Philo about this stunning event.

This is a different point, and the whole argument is an argument from silence. The fact that the other NT writers don't mention the miracle proves nothing. Perhaps they knew about it but didn't want to include it for some reason (e.g., perhaps they felt its inclusion would "steal the thunder" of Jesus' own resurrection). Perhaps they didn't know about it. In the case of Paul's writings, since he offers no narrative of Jesus' ministry (because he was writing epistles, not a biography), his silence about this specific miracle certainly proves nothing. Since the event took place in a small village and involved an individual whom no one viewed as a person of religious significance (i.e., not the Messiah or the like), the story need not have circulated widely. I'm sure the Pharisees who didn't believe in Jesus would not have helped to spread the story. I see no reason why we should expect the story to show up in the non-Christian sources you mentioned.

[mercyngrace]

Rob,

Mortal Man has been suspended from the board.

MnG

[mfbukowski]

Rob,

Mortal Man has been suspended from the board.

MnG

No way! Really?

[mercyngrace]

No way! Really?

Yeah - I'm confused also. Looks to me that the mud slinging in the "Breath of Fresh Air" thread started with post #91.

[mfbukowski]

Yeah - I'm confused also. Looks to me that the mud slinging in the "Breath of Fresh Air" thread started with post #91.

Well of course I don't agree with that post, it was over the top, but so what else is new?

I guess questioning the mods is not going to get us anywhere, so much for that I guess. Someone else there was much worse and should have gotten more than he did imo- but.... refer to the previous sentence!

[David Bokovoy]

Well of course I don't agree with that post, it was over the top, but so what else is new?

I guess questioning the mods is not going to get us anywhere, so much for that I guess. Someone else there was much worse and should have gotten more than he did imo- but.... refer to the previous sentence!

Will presents personal attack after personal attack against Andrew and then Andrew is banned?!!!

Despite my disagreement with his humanistic approach, Mortal Man, i.e. Andrew manifests considerable patience in this forum and I admire him for it. Personally, I would like to read Rob's exchange with Andrew. I would suggest that it take place in the Celestial forum of Mormon Discussions where Andrew can post and participants are not allowed to present personal attacks, no matter who they are.

Just avoid the Terrestrial plain.

[mfbukowski]

Will presents personal attack after personal attack against Andrew and then Andrew is banned?!!!

Despite my disagreement with his humanistic approach, Mortal Man, i.e. Andrew manifests considerable patience in this forum and I admire him for it. Personally, I would like to read Rob's exchange with Andrew. I would suggest that it take place in the Celestial forum of Mormon Discussions where Andrew can post and participants are not allowed to present personal attacks, no matter who they are.

Just avoid the Terrestrial plain.

Yes, I don't get it either.

I would also like to see Rob's responses to MM, though as I said earlier, I don't have much to say myself on these topics.

I second the Celestial forum suggestion- good idea!

[Pahoran]

Yeah - I'm confused also. Looks to me that the mud slinging in the "Breath of Fresh Air" thread started with post #91.

Given your previously expressed disdain for Will, I can understand that. However, I see the real insults starting with post 101.

Sometimes there's just no way to tell it like it is without getting someone's back up. For instance if someone thinks that he, as a "rank and file" member of the Church, should "take matters into his own hands," then the kindest thing we can say about that is that he is trying to "steady the ark." But if he tries to whip up support for some kind of general "rank and file" revolt, then that is properly described as "subversion."

If the Church came to be governed according to the wishes of the "rank and file" it would no longer be governed by the will of Heaven. At that point it would cease to be the Lord's Church, and would effectively be destroyed.

Those who are trying to destroy the Church from within are not our brethren; they are wolves in sheeps' clothing.

And if Will is the only person who has the courage to point this out, then I am properly ashamed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

To stir us back on topic, there is this quote from Rob.

Not at all. Lazarus had died; in the eschaton, Jesus assures Martha, Lazarus will live again because Jesus, in whom Lazarus believed, is the resurrection and the life. Furthermore, "everyone who lives and believes in" Jesus "will never die" in the sense that they already have the assurance of eternal life; that eternal life is already theirs. But death, for now, is still a reality ("even if he dies"). This means that when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, it is not the eschatological, final resurrection to immortality. John, who wrote this account, clearly understands that there will be an eschatological resurrection (John 5:28-29).

Excellent points. I would add the following from the Babylonian Talmud, t. Berakhot 18a-b.

The righteous are called "living" even in their death, as it is said: Benayahu, son of Yehoyada, son of a living man...

Do you mean to say that all other people are sons of dead men? Rather, son of a living man, for even in his death he was called living.

Here we see that "life" is not to be confused with mortal life, life is the kind of existence afforded the righteous.

[mercyngrace]

Given your previously expressed disdain for Will, I can understand that. However, I see the real insults starting with post 101.

Fair enough. But just to let you know, I don't have any disdain for Will. I don't care for his tactics on the message boards but I don't know him well enough to have disdain for him.

Sometimes there's just no way to tell it like it is without getting someone's back up. For instance if someone thinks that he, as a "rank and file" member of the Church, should "take matters into his own hands," then the kindest thing we can say about that is that he is trying to "steady the ark." But if he tries to whip up support for some kind of general "rank and file" revolt, then that is properly described as "subversion."

I didn't notice support getting whipped up in the thread, did you? I saw most people disagreeing without being disagreeable right up until the broad brushing post I mentioned.

If the Church came to be governed according to the wishes of the "rank and file" it would no longer be governed by the will of Heaven. At that point it would cease to be the Lord's Church, and would effectively be destroyed.

Do you think that because I love people who disagree with me and prefer that they be in the church rather than out, I want to restructure the church? If so, you are mistaken.

Those who are trying to destroy the Church from within are not our brethren; they are wolves in sheeps' clothing.

Presuming this is true, should we become wolves then, too? If we do, what distinguishes us?

And if Will is the only person who has the courage to point this out, then I am properly ashamed.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't think it takes courage to revile your enemies or despise those who persecute you. I think it takes courage to love them.

[William Schryver]

Given your previously expressed disdain for Will, I can understand that. However, I see the real insults starting with post 101.

Sometimes there's just no way to tell it like it is without getting someone's back up. For instance if someone thinks that he, as a "rank and file" member of the Church, should "take matters into his own hands," then the kindest thing we can say about that is that he is trying to "steady the ark." But if he tries to whip up support for some kind of general "rank and file" revolt, then that is properly described as "subversion."

If the Church came to be governed according to the wishes of the "rank and file" it would no longer be governed by the will of Heaven. At that point it would cease to be the Lord's Church, and would effectively be destroyed.

Those who are trying to destroy the Church from within are not our brethren; they are wolves in sheeps' clothing.

Regards,

Pahoran

Truth.

I might only add that, in my estimation, there is virtually no possibility of the "rank and file" attempting to "take matters into their own hands." I walk in and out of many circles in my path of life, and one of them is that which circumscribes the "rank and file" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know the "rank and file" well. They are my brothers, my sisters, and my friends. They can, with very few exceptions, and notwithstanding their weaknesses, be counted upon, in the final analysis, to hear and heed the voice of the spirit above all other voices. I have great confidence in both them and those called to lead them. When the time comes, they will be equal to the task of redeeming Zion.

[Skylla]

Given your previously expressed disdain for Will, I can understand that. However, I see the real insults starting with post 101.

Sometimes there's just no way to tell it like it is without getting someone's back up. For instance if someone thinks that he, as a "rank and file" member of the Church, should "take matters into his own hands," then the kindest thing we can say about that is that he is trying to "steady the ark." But if he tries to whip up support for some kind of general "rank and file" revolt, then that is properly described as "subversion."

If the Church came to be governed according to the wishes of the "rank and file" it would no longer be governed by the will of Heaven. At that point it would cease to be the Lord's Church, and would effectively be destroyed.

Those who are trying to destroy the Church from within are not our brethren; they are wolves in sheeps' clothing.

And if Will is the only person who has the courage to point this out, then I am properly ashamed.

Regards,

Pahoran

Post #91 was difficult to interpret due to the topic and it wasn't a direct insult. Post #101 was an obvious insult. We had one report from someone not involved in the ugliness. I decided I would either suspend the person who started it or everyone involved. This time I decided on one person in hopes that everyone will take more responsibility for cleaning up the tone of this board. If anyone wants to preach at Will, do it by private message. Don't do it on the board. Report it.

Skylla

[volgadon]

What was the crowning event that enabled Peter et al. to stand as witnesses to the resurrected Christ?

The gospels don't say what the crowning event was. They present several episodes, all of which add up to a witness that Jesus raised himself from the dead. That is what Paul describes, not really going into detail on any of it.

"...and they said nothing to any one;"

You forgot the preceding portion of the verse.

How do you reconcile

"you do not sow the body which is to be"

and

"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

with

"Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side"?

There is no need to reconcile what is not in conflict. Flesh and blood was a term for mortal men (no pun intended). Blood was the substance propelling mortal life. An earthly nature could not inherit heavenly spheres, unless the driving force was changed into a spiritual one. Aphtharsia does not mean something which is spiritual as opposed to physical, it means something that won't perish, decay, or come to an end.

[Pahoran]

Fair enough. But just to let you know, I don't have any disdain for Will. I don't care for his tactics on the message boards but I don't know him well enough to have disdain for him.

Perhaps I misread, but your remark in this post seemed pretty disdainful.

And Consiglieri -- the largely hostile fringe Mormon to whom you were giving aid and comfort -- gave you one of his famous high-fives, describing your post as a "double-link zinger!" (shriek his) and you as a "pistol packing mama" from whom Will should "slowly back away."

For some reason, you did not see fit to correct him.

Evidently your own tactic -- at least in that thread -- is to bust the chops of any pro-LDS poster whose style you dislike, while anti-Mormons, fringe Mormons, cultural Mormons and brazen apostates get a pass.

I didn't notice support getting whipped up in the thread, did you? I saw most people disagreeing without being disagreeable right up until the broad brushing post I mentioned.

I actually thought this remark was rather disagreeable:

The Correlation Committee is too paralyzed by fear and denial to act responsibly in this matter. The deny/obfuscate/whitewash approach has failed. The more they tighten their grip, the more members will slip through their fingers. The rank-and-file must take matters into their own hands before thousands more families are destroyed.

I think that was disagreeable because I think the accusation that "the Correlation Committee" -- i.e. the General Authorities overseeing teaching in the Church -- are engaged in some "deny/obfuscate/whitewash approach" is a vicious false accusation that ought to be challenged. I also thought it was disagreeable because I have frequently encountered the old canard that "the Mormon Church destroys families," and I happen to think it is rather malicious.

But perhaps that's my fault. Perhaps I'm just too sensitive about false accusations against people and institutions I admire. All I can say in my own defence is that these people and institutions are important to me; I identify with them, and I have yet to be persuaded that there is any principle of charity, or good sportsmanship, or "making nice" that imposes any duty upon me to pretend that such falsehoods ought to go unchallenged, or that those making them have no duty to get the facts before they spout off.

But apart from that, I draw your attention to the clause I highlighted. Will targeted that -- with laser-beam accuracy -- as a call to join its author in apostasy.

Maybe that's unkind. Or cruel. Or insensitive. Or politically incorrect. But, to my mind, all of that isn't quite as important as whether or not it is factually accurate.

Which, IMHO, it is.

Do you think that because I love people who disagree with me and prefer that they be in the church rather than out, I want to restructure the church? If so, you are mistaken.

I wasn't talking about you. But since you asked, I do think that, in the long run, we will (or at least ought to) show at least as much love and encouragement to those who are defending what we believe as we do to those who are attacking it.

So it would be a real "breath of fresh air," to coin a phrase, if just once someone who nannies the awful apologists might occasionally, just once or twice, take time out to be as forgiving towards her ostensible friends as she is towards their opponents.

Just once or twice.

Presuming this is true, should we become wolves then, too? If we do, what distinguishes us?

The scriptures are quite clear upon the behaviour of those who are "ravening wolves" but who outwardly try to appear as sheep. They are "not sparing the flock." Their lupine behaviour does not consist in being mean to people, but in destroying the faith of the real sheep.

I don't think it takes courage to revile your enemies or despise those who persecute you. I think it takes courage to love them.

You know, I don't think Jesus meant us to love our enemies instead of our friends. Because when we do that, all we've done is dump one set of friends for another.

A phenomenon I've observed especially among those who preach "love your enemies" only to those who defend the Church of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that loyalty is, or ought to be, a bit more fundamental than whether or not we approve of someone's "tactics" or message board demeanour. Maybe it might have more to do with what is or is not worth defending in the first place.

Again, just IMHO.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman

Mortal Man has posted a reply to your last reply on another board to which we cannot link directly called mormondiscussions dot com in the Celestial forum.

I don't know if you are familiar with that board or not, but that particular forum is well moderated.

[Mike Reed]

Will presents personal attack after personal attack against Andrew and then Andrew is banned?!!!

Weak sauce. Going to the other forum now.

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran,

You've personally derided me here, making me responsible for Consiglieri's reactions to my posts, and attributing feelings and motives to me that I don't have.

Unlike some, I don't thrive on the contention or live for the fight. In contrast, I spent my time on this board trying desperately to hold the chapel doors open and invite people in all while a few people seem desperate to push people out of the pews.

You've suggested that I'm not loyal to apologists. Ask David Bokovoy about that. Ask Volgadon. Ask mfbukowski. Ask any number of people for whom I've been nothing but appplause. If there is a family here it's not defined only by church membership or what any one of us thinks of Joseph Smith or the BoA.

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

And what is His will?

Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Doing my level best to align my will to His,

MnG

Edit: You've characterized my "loyalty" by a single post about one individual's posting style and implied that I don't support "apologists". Let's be factually correct here, Pahoran, since that is what you prize. There are only two apologists on this board whose abrasive posting styles, I find offensive. And I rarely say anything about it.

[David Bokovoy]

Post #91 was difficult to interpret due to the topic and it wasn't a direct insult. Post #101 was an obvious insult. We had one report from someone not involved in the ugliness. I decided I would either suspend the person who started it or everyone involved. This time I decided on one person in hopes that everyone will take more responsibility for cleaning up the tone of this board. If anyone wants to preach at Will, do it by private message. Don't do it on the board. Report it.

Skylla

Blaming the victims, including Mortal Man, is unacceptable behavior. The perpetrator is allowed to make page after page of highly offensive comments against Mortal Man, and then state that he and unknown others are watching and will destroy my professional opportunities, and the offender is not only publicly defended in these actions by threats of banning all involved, but by a moderator stating that rather than offering a public defense over public accusations of the power to end my career that those who wish to "preach" against such comments should do so in private!

Unacceptable. Again, I hope Rob and others will continue this discussion in the Celestial Forum at Mormon Discussions.

Warm wishes to all friends who post in this forum.

[David Bokovoy]

Pahoran,

You've personally derided me here, making me responsible for Consiglieri's reactions to my posts, and attributing feelings and motives to me that I don't have.

Unlike some, I don't thrive on the contention or live for the fight. In contrast, I spent my time on this board trying desperately to hold the chapel doors open and invite people in all while a few people seem desperate to push people out of the pews.

You've suggested that I'm not loyal to apologists. Ask David Bokovoy about that. Ask Volgadon. Ask mfbukowski. Ask any number of people for whom I've been nothing but appplause. If there is a family here it's not defined only by church membership or what any one of us thinks of Joseph Smith or the BoA.

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

And what is His will?

Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Doing my level best to align my will to His,

MnG

Edit: You've characterized my "loyalty" by a single post about one individual's posting style and implied that I don't support "apologists". Let's be factually correct here, Pahoran, since that is what you prize. There are only two apologists on this board whose abrasive posting styles, I find offensive. And I rarely say anything about it.

This is the last person in this forum that deserves such treatment. This is not a good place. "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. Indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul: we believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."(Article of Faith 13)

[Nemesis]

Get back on topic now. Everyone has got to say their peace so the derailing can stop.

Nemesis