Unchanging Ordinances Or Was Moses Baptized By Immersion?

[Palerider]

Have you ever been to Disneyland? There are several "kingdoms" but all are "Disneyland". Paradise is said to be a division of the spirit world- there is no inconsistency here.

I have been to Disneyland and this sort of reminds me of Mickey mouse.

Anyway, I beg to differ. By eliminating "paradise" as the option of where the thief is heading, (otherwise why change it) yet stating that He (the Savior) would personally answer the thief's questions, that places the Savior in Spirit prison teaching the gospel as opposed to LDS doctrine which iirc teaches that only his servants were sent once the affixed gulf was bridged.

[mfbukowski]

I have been to Disneyland and this sort of reminds me of Mickey mouse.

Anyway, I beg to differ. By eliminating "paradise" as the option of where the thief is heading, (otherwise why change it) yet stating that He (the Savior) would personally answer the thief's questions, that places the Savior in Spirit prison teaching the gospel as opposed to LDS doctrine which iirc teaches that only his servants were sent once the affixed gulf was bridged.

1Peter 3

¹⁸ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

¹⁹ By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

²⁰ Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

[Palerider]

1Peter 3

I absolutely agree with you.

Now your only problem is in explaining why D&C 138: 28-30 contradicts the Biblical scriptures here:

"And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the ^bwicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

organized his forces and appointed ^bmessengers, ^cclothed with power and authority, and ^dcommissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in ^edarkness, even to ^fall the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead."

Edited July 11, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

on this you and I probably agree. My issue is first the assumption that time works the same way for immortals as mortals and then some stuff that my mind is too hazy to remember right now due to a new drug I am trying out (hopefully this will not be a permanent state as it seems to be effective otherwise). I also remember many times being taught that there are those out there urging us for their work to be done and the connection is made to being in SP rather than Paradise, but my belief is there is something else going on.

For one thing, I am uncertain that SP is a literal place and perhaps the next life is much like this one where one person sees their life as heaven while the person standing next to them experiences it as hell.

Here I pretty much rely on the Savior's parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus; Luke 16:19-31 :

19“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.20“And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,21and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.22“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.23“In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.24“And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’25“But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.26‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’27“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—28for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’29“But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’30“But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’31“But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

This seems to indicate a separation of place. Was the gap actually bridged after the Savior's visit to the spirits in prison? It appears to be speculative and lacking evidence from a purely Biblical perspective.

As an aside, this is also a great example of the esteem with which the Savior views the Old Testament and it's message. He seems to indicate that the writings themselves (combined with the Spirit) are sufficient to lead one to repentence. Combined with the second witness of the New Testament regarding His mission, I see them as a formidable affirmation of the Savior for those who truly want to know.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Palerider

[mfbukowski]

I absolutely agree with you.

Now your only problem is in explaining why D&C 138: 28-30 contradicts the Biblical scriptures here:

"And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the ^bwicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

organized his forces and appointed ^bmessengers, ^cclothed with power and authority, and ^dcommissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in ^edarkness, even to ^fall the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead."

Straight up?

I don't care if it conflicts or not, BUT it doesn't conflict

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

First of all, the biblical scripture is directly quoted by Joseph F. - so clearly he was aware of what the scripture said, and his point was to CLARIFY the scripture, not connflict with it.

What you are not accounting for is a commonplace in language when we talk about in tasks or massive undertakings.

Who "built" Trump tower? Donald Trump.

Did Donald get out there and put on his welder's hat and put all that steel together himself?.

Of course not!.

Wh preached to the spirits in prison? Christ.

Did he go out and speak to each one individually?

Of course not. Who organized the earth? God.

But what about Jehovah and Michael? Of course the authority to do tasks like this is allocated to others all the time.

No inconsistency.

Besides I don't take it literally necessarily anyway. The idea is that we can do things for them and doing so helps us. But even taking it literally I see no inconsistency

[mfbukowski]

This seems to indicate a separation of place.

I am certain that even if you and I were in the same room, we would not "be in the same place".

We are speaking of dreams and visions here, not architectural renderings or maps of heaven. These are mental states and attitudes spoken of metaphorically.

And yes, that is not what you were taught as a child.

We all need to get over it, and "put away childish things"

Edited July 11, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Palerider]

Straight up?

I don't care if it conflicts or not, BUT it doesn't conflict

First of all, the biblical scripture is directly quoted by Joseph F. - so clearly he was aware of what the scripture said, and his point was to CLARIFY the scripture, not connflict with it.

The scripture has no need of "clarification".

The problem is in the head of Joseph F. Smith. If he had even given this an ounce of critical thinking he would have realized that communication in the hereafter is not limited to the constraints we find in the here and now. As a matter of fact it is enhanced in ways we cannot understand or comprehend here.

I wonder that the B of M "story" of the Savior's visit to the America's didn't cross Smith's mind. Look at the manner of communication in that setting. 3 Nephi 11: 3-8:

3 And it came to pass that while they were thus conversing one with another, they heard a ^avoice as if it came out of heaven; and they cast their eyes round about, for they understood not the voice which they heard; and it was not a harsh voice, neither was it a loud voice; nevertheless, and notwithstanding it being a ^bsmall voice it did ^cpierce them that did hear to the center, insomuch that there was no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake; yea, it did pierce them to the very soul, and did cause their hearts to burn.

understood it not.

open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came.

Beloved Son, ^bin whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they ^asaw8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they ^asaw a Man ^bdescending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

And this suppossed story is in an earthly setting. Just imagine the enhancement of not being bound by earthly constraints.

So even your own "scripture" acknowledges this as a manner of communication from the Lord to the masses. There is no need to send missionaries to the wicked because the spiritual communication and witness are available already. All the individual need do is ask the question.

I find it more true to the Savior's character, that during his earthly ministry, he did go personally to those who were burdened with sin and he did confront directly the Pharisees and the Saduccees who preferred to remain in sin rather than acknowledge his Messiahship.

No, I think Smith is the one confused here and rather than clarification, we have a muddying of the waters in order to make things conform to his wishful thinking.

What you are not accounting for is a commonplace in language when we talk about in tasks or massive undertakings.

Who "built" Trump tower? Donald Trump.

Did Donald get out there and put on his welder's hat and put all that steel together himself?.

Of course not!.

Wh preached to the spirits in prison? Christ.

Did he go out and speak to each one individually?

Of course not. Who organized the earth? God.

But what about Jehovah and Michael? Of course the authority to do tasks like this is allocated to others all the time.

No inconsistency.

Besides I don't take it literally necessarily anyway. The idea is that we can do things for them and doing so helps us. But even taking it literally I see no inconsistency

Edited July 12, 2013 by Palerider

[mfbukowski]

The problem is in the head of Joseph F. Smith. If he had even given this an ounce of critical thinking he would have realized that communication in the hereafter is not limited to the constraints we find in the here and now. As a matter of fact it is enhanced in ways we cannot understand or comprehend here.

In my mind, the revelation points directly to things not revealed before, namely that we are/can be participants in teaching and sanctifying each other both here and on the other side of the veil, and that Christ works through us to help our brothers and sisters along the path in the attempt to build a huge, unified family of mankind unified in love and purpose, very much like the Godhead itself- yet with us participating in this great work.

Like all scripture, it is expressed in a simple, literalistic, way so that even a child may understand the concept that we are Christ's "hands" both here and on the other side.

As I said earlier, I think that criticizing scripture for being simp0le and literalistic misses the point. When you watch Sesame Street, it uses all kinds of improbable situations- like a vampire counting, or Big Bird or other characters teaching principles which can be useful for a lifetime even if the teaching device itself appears silly or childish.

Rather than accusing Big Bird of "poor critical thinking" I think we need to appreciate the truth of the principles being taught rather than attacking the communication device chosen, because it speaks to the lowest-common-denominator.

I know of no other revelation which puts us into the equation of preaching to the spirits on the other side, making mankind unified as a family teaching each other, do you?

I think that is what is to be learned here.

We need to stop looking at scriptures literally, and see the principles, and why those principles are valuable, behind what is being said.

Incidentally, at the risk of being pedantic, I think your posts would be a lot more readable, and credible- if you learned to use the quote function better.

As you point out in this very post, the way we say things makes a difference in how they are perceived.

Edited July 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

In my mind, the revelation points directly to things not revealed before, namely that we are/can be participants in teaching and sanctifying each other both here and on the other side of the veil, and that Christ works through us to help our brothers and sisters along the path in the attempt to build a huge, unified family of mankind unified in love and purpose, very much like the Godhead itself- yet with us participating in this great work.

Like all scripture, it is expressed in a simple, literalistic, way so that even a child may understand the concept that we are Christ's "hands" both here and on the other side.

As I said earlier, I think that criticizing scripture for being simple and literalistic misses the point. When you watch Sesame Street, it uses all kinds of improbable situations- like a vampire counting, or Big Bird or other characters teaching principles which can be useful for a lifetime even if the teaching device itself appears silly or childish.

Rather than accusing Big Bird of "poor critical thinking" I think we need to appreciate the truth of the principles being taught rather than attacking the communication device chosen, because it speaks to the lowest-common-denominator.

................................................

We need to stop looking at scriptures literally, and see the principles, and why those principles are valuable, behind what is being said.

............................................

Of course we are speaking here of figurative accounts told in parabolic form, not literal legalisms to be used as part of the structure of Canon Law (such as Mormon Doctrine).

Are we to take literally, for example, the picture communicated to us in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus at Luke 16 in which poor Lazarus dies and finds himself reclining at the messianic banquet in the presence of Abraham, while at the same time the dead rich man is being tormented in flames a long way off in Hades, and begs Father Abraham to send Lazarus over to him with water from the tip of his finger to cool his tongue? Abraham responded by pointing out the rightness of the rich man's dilemma, and that a great gulf was fixed between them which could not be crossed, etc.

Parables, like the fables of Aesop, are not meant to be accounts of real events, but are tales with object lessons. The same applies to the Egyptian demotic Tale of Setne Khamwas II, which contains a very similar story of a rich man and a poor man who die, and whose fates are then reversed, with the rich man in torment, and the poor man now dressed in fine linen in the company of the great god Osiris. Indeed, Hugo Gressmann and other scholars are convinced that the demotic tale was the basis for Jesus' parable.

Not only that, but the same demotic tale contains an account of a young boy (Si-Osire) who is able to read a sealed book which the learned of Egypt could not read. Sound familiar?

[mfbukowski]

Of course we are speaking here of figurative accounts told in parabolic form, not literal legalisms to be used as part of the structure of Canon Law (such as Mormon Doctrine).

Are we to take literally, for example, the picture communicated to us in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus at Luke 16 in which poor Lazarus dies and finds himself reclining at the messianic banquet in the presence of Abraham, while at the same time the dead rich man is being tormented in flames a long way off in Hades, and begs Father Abraham to send Lazarus over to him with water from the tip of his finger to cool his tongue? Abraham responded by pointing out the rightness of the rich man's dilemma, and that a great gulf was fixed between them which could not be crossed, etc.

Parables, like the fables of Aesop, are not meant to be accounts of real events, but are tales with object lessons. The same applies to the Egyptian demotic Tale of Setne Khamwas II, which contains a very similar story of a rich man and a poor man who die, and whose fates are then reversed, with the rich man in torment, and the poor man now dressed in fine linen in the company of the great god Osiris. Indeed, Hugo Gressmann and other scholars are convinced that the demotic tale was the basis for Jesus' parable.

Not only that, but the same demotic tale contains an account of a young boy (Si-Osire) who is able to read a sealed book which the learned of Egypt could not read. Sound familiar?

Exactly!

And in general, I think that is why world religions often have parallel beliefs, not necessarily because one has plagiarized the other (though that is certainly possible) but because the concerns of humanity are universal, and the beliefs and stories which illustrate those beliefs point directly to that fact BECAUSE they are so similar.

What works for one culture often works for others and in many cases for all mankind. And that's why, in my opinion, it makes sense to speak of one faith path having "more truth" than another because it better approaches the universal needs of mankind better than another tradition.

Because of this, I think we can find consistency between what seems, at first blush, to be two opposite ways of seeing truth. Usually, we contrast "Absolute Truth" with "Relativism", with the latter often being identified with contingent truth and pragmatic expedience, while the former is identified with the transcendent, the eternal and unchanging. But in my view, due to the universality of the needs of mankind, what works for one culture nearly always works as well for all cultures.

What this means is that "what works" indeed BECOMES "The Absolute" simply because it absolutely always works

All cultures value the family, health, a peaceful and long life, happiness and fulfillment in one's work and joy in one's posterity. Those models or beliefs or stories which cultivate these values become the treasured heirlooms of humanity to be passed from generation to generation.

[canard78]

I am certain that even if you and I were in the same room, we would not "be in the same place".

We are speaking of dreams and visions here, not architectural renderings or maps of heaven. These are mental states and attitudes spoken of metaphorically.

And yes, that is not what you were taught as a child.

We all need to get over it, and "put away childish things"

I like this. I think this is they key issue. How can we ever pretend to come close to understand what God and heaven are really like when all we can do is use our limited minds and words.

It takes the world's greatest poets to come close to doing justice to a sunset over the mountains. We've no hope of pinning God's eternal glory down to words. Especially not English, where 'nice' is a popular adjective.

[mfbukowski]

I like this. I think this is they key issue. How can we ever pretend to come close to understand what God and heaven are really like when all we can do is use our limited minds and words.

It takes the world's greatest poets to come close to doing justice to a sunset over the mountains. We've no hope of pinning God's eternal glory down to words. Especially not English, where 'nice' is a popular adjective.

Nice post!

Seriously, I totally agree- We get all caught up in the words most of the time