These are three grand keys ..

[salgare]

2 hours ago, volgadon said:

Have you read Aimé Palliére's "The Unknown Sanctuary"? There is much of interest in his journey from Catholicism to a sort of universalism on Jewish lines because he reflects on life-changing events resulting from seemingly mundane occurrences and statements uttered by others along his path. It goes along with what i think you are saying, but even there particularism is important. Both universalism and particularism are needed since each addresses needs that the other does not. We need a universalist role of prophet, but can we forget the priest who has taken on particularistic restrictions in order to serve as the bridge between what is open to all and what all may become by imitating God?

I had to look up particularism ... this is pretty deep.  I don't know if this fits in, but I wonder if a third concept, one that by definition is an opposite of these two ... Humanistic.  I mention this in terms of morality, where perceived universalistic, and maybe even worse? particularism morals are analyzed.

Also,

"but can we forget the priest who has taken on particularistic restrictions in order to serve as the bridge between what is open to all and what all may become by imitating God?"

Could you put this into country hick terms?

Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As a bishop one is trained to always "teach the doctrine" to solve problems.  We are not trained as social workers and yet are called on to give very personal counseling and the only tools we have are "universal" doctrine- the scriptures.  But I have seen marriages on the rocks actually be restored by teaching from the scriptures alone, so I know for a fact that it can be done but that balance is not easy.

My concerns are for my posterity, as a Patriarch, I need to find more universalist ways teach/guide them to their own journey to particularism (Partriarch/Matriah) ... is this the idea?

And there are some contemporary writers I would also count as "prophets" in that sense- I don't want to mention them here because I know it will be misunderstood, but really I think Smith's stuff at times rivals and excells the NT.

I need to remember you are looking at things at a way different view (you kind of blew me away before).  I may well be hung up on this whole fruits thing in an effort allow people (my children) to let go of too limiting/exclusive/strict definition of a universalist prophet looking for particularism prophets where ever thy might find them (even in some mundane place)

Is this a bit closer to what you are saying?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have not read it but it sounds very interesting!  I will have to get a copy.

These are certainly two poles - the yin and yang of social interaction.  It would be interesting to examine these poles as you suggest here from the point of view of religious leadership and ministry.  THAT is where the balance is required and most difficult.  And yes, I think that is the source of the tension in this discussion.  In my experience in that regard, that is where the rubber meets the road when one is trying to give religious advice.  One must somehow phrase very focused and practical in terms of the universal.  As a bishop one is trained to always "teach the doctrine" to solve problems.  We are not trained as social workers and yet are called on to give very personal counseling and the only tools we have are "universal" doctrine- the scriptures.  But I have seen marriages on the rocks actually be restored by teaching from the scriptures alone, so I know for a fact that it can be done but that balance is not easy.

But what I was attempting to explain was more the epistemology of how each of us must define for ourselves who is a prophet and essentially what religious leader to follow.  I read some of Bahá'u'lláh's "revelations" before I joined the church, and they left me flat.  They did not even convince me a little- I felt nothing.

But in reading Joseph Smith, I instantly felt affinity.  I have read a lot of writings by a lot of alleged "prophets" or just founders of religions and none communicated to me like the revelations of Smith.  It reminds me of what was said of Christ in the NT, that he spoke with "authority", as a prophet and not as a theologian or religious teacher.  There is an authenticity in his attitude that communicates directly.   Alma 32 is pure brilliance as is Moroni.

Then we have the church.  We have the writings of Smith's followers, and to me, there are the writings of followers, quite honestly.  Good stuff but none of the fire of Smith.  Very little of that perfect blend of universalism and particularism you mentioned, not much that could change an individual life and yet have universal import-  very little of that life-changing fire I felt with Joseph.

But some.  It seems most were still much better than Bahá'u'lláh.  And there are some contemporary writers I would also count as "prophets" in that sense- I don't want to mention them here because I know it will be misunderstood, but really I think Smith's stuff at times rivals and excells the NT.  It is probably because we are closer culturally than I am certainly to that ancient Jewish culture.  On the other hand, you have such a great grasp of that era and culture that I would love to crawl into your head and see some of that the way you do. 

Thanks for the tip.  I will have to check out that book!

I gave you a reputation point for this, but I wanted to do more, since you expressed what I have also felt so very well. But what else could I do?  So I have quoted you just so your words would appear one more time, at least.

[Stargazer]

I have searched this thread from beginning to end and I cannot find anything that explains what is wrong in that photo of Pres. Uchtdorf.  What is salgare attempting to say by posting it?  Photoshop be hanged, what difference does it make?  Is there something objectionable in what Pres. Uchtdorf is doing?  Is his stance disrespectful?  Is he about to dump pies on the poor homeless?  What?  Everyone else seems to have "gotten" it and have complained, but I am apparently the only one who doesn't get the joke.

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I have searched this thread from beginning to end and I cannot find anything that explains what is wrong in that photo of Pres. Uchtdorf.

There is nothing wrong with the photo.

 

Quote

What is salgare attempting to say by posting it?

 

I stated immediately before the photo "IMO, Here is a good example:"

I should have used more clarity in the photo description with something like:

"A good example of the expected fruits of a disciple of Christ might be 20 years of a persons dedication with feeding the homeless"

 

Quote

Photoshop be hanged, what difference does it make?

 

I assumed people where claiming it was photoshopped by me in some sort of an effort to offend or some such.  Other than that it should not make any difference. 

 

Quote

Is there something objectionable in what Pres. Uchtdorf is doing?  Is his stance disrespectful?  Is he about to dump pies on the poor homeless?  What?

 

Of course not.  In my assumption that I was being challenged for photochopping for some ill intent, I accused challengers of only making the accusation because it was a foreign concept to them of a GA actually DOING a Christlike work.

 

Quote

Everyone else seems to have "gotten" it and have complained, but I am apparently the only one who doesn't get the joke.

It is no joke, actually its pretty sad. 

I have avoided all along pointing out where I first saw and lifted this picture, as I worry about the strictness of the board wars rule.

These people "got it".

"Nice opening post and nice picture, stand up guy.", "Yup, this is good stuff. Thanks for posting", " President Uchtdorf and his wife do this multiple times during the year. This not for it for publicity but rather out of a sense of religious obligation. It is like the many examples of Pope Francis. He realized he had a religious obligation to act in such a manner if he is to follow in the shoes of the fisherman.", "cool", "It's an excellent example of different faiths working together to provide charity to those most in need. Celebrate the good in the world."

not a single comment about photoshopping.

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare

[volgadon]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

volgadon,

thank you for this post.  I will need to spend some time with it and some web searches to try and understand what you have given me here.

I'm an uneducated simple man, my spelling and English grammar suck.  The chemo has done some permanent damage, leaving me with phantom smells, short term memory and other issues.  I apologize for all that as it relates to my posting here and can only ask for others patience.  I will always be an easy target for those so inclined.  I do understand how it truly annoys some.

Sorry if I was a jerk.

[theplains]

12 hours ago, salgare said:

Interesting question.  The only possibly would be those that rose with Jesus at this resurrection ... right??? i.e. even JS is currently in Paradise right?

Which angels had died and rose again at Christ's resurrection? An LDS hymn doesn't have Smith
in Paradise but rather ascended to heaven.

Before the three grand keys Joseph mentions given in 1843, how would people detect false
messengers?

The pattern taught in the Temple would be that God the Father and even God the Son don't visit, they send messangers, right?

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, theplains said:

Which angels had died and rose again at Christ's resurrection?

We don't have a list but the scriptures are clear many saints were resurrected at the time of Christ's resurrection.  And I would imagine many of them were righteous messnegers of God's word.

Quote

An LDS hymn doesn't have Smith in Paradise but rather ascended to heaven.

In LDS theology concerning the duality of Heaven and Hell, Heaven is Paradise.  However, I personally believe him to be resurrected.

Quote

Before the three grand keys Joseph mentions given in 1843, how would people detect false messengers?

Joseph gave many ways.  By the color of his hair.  By his contradicting previous revelation.  Not having wings.  By his clothing.

And the three grand keys were well known before 1843.  Wilford Woodruff records them in 1839.  William Clayton in 1840.  They were in the endowment in 1842.

[theplains]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph gave many ways.  By the color of his hair.  By his contradicting previous revelation.  Not having wings.  By his clothing.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.

Jim

[salgare]

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

Sorry if I was a jerk.

No worries, I was just thankful for a post with substance worthy of contemplation

Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Which angels had died and rose again at Christ's resurrection? An LDS hymn doesn't have Smith
in Paradise but rather ascended to heaven.

Before the three grand keys Joseph mentions given in 1843, how would people detect false
messengers?

Thanks,
Jim

All of the resurrection rules (and various titles, trumpets etc) were a blur to me even back in the day. Totally beyond me now.

To my very limited understanding ... for this earth, there were no resurrections up until that of Christ ... around that very time, I believe its said that many arose from the grave.  Then I think everyone is pretty much going to have to go to paradise/hell after that right? Until what "The Morning of the First Res" or some such.

Thus ... there could not have been any physical angels of light pre-Christ.  The only possible angels post Christ would be those that arose from the grave as mentioned above.  If JS or others who have died post christ have resurrected, these are some kind of special cases.

 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I gave you a reputation point for this, but I wanted to do more, since you expressed what I have also felt so very well. But what else could I do?  So I have quoted you just so your words would appear one more time, at least.

Wow,Thanks! !

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I have searched this thread from beginning to end and I cannot find anything that explains what is wrong in that photo of Pres. Uchtdorf.  What is salgare attempting to say by posting it?  Photoshop be hanged, what difference does it make?  Is there something objectionable in what Pres. Uchtdorf is doing?  Is his stance disrespectful?  Is he about to dump pies on the poor homeless?  What?  Everyone else seems to have "gotten" it and have complained, but I am apparently the only one who doesn't get the joke.

never occurred to me that Salgare would have been the one to photoshop the photo if it had been photoshopped.  I thought if it was, it was likely by a believer who for some reason wasn't satisfied with using actual photos out there, wanted a shot that 'told' a particular story, so to speak...perhaps one that had him more up close and personal in his service than others they had found (there are already those out there, but there are people who either are bad users of search programs and can't find stuff...and not a lot of such images come up when goggling uchtdorf and soup kitchen for some reason). But nothing nefarious.

It was just a weird looking photo.  My involvement only occurred because a judgment was being made of those who saw the photo as photoshopped.  From what I could tell, no one who saw it as photoshopped was concerned about the content, it was just something that was odd.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm

[volgadon]

8 hours ago, salgare said:

I had to look up particularism ... this is pretty deep.  I don't know if this fits in, but I wonder if a third concept, one that by definition is an opposite of these two ... Humanistic.  I mention this in terms of morality, where perceived universalistic, and maybe even worse? particularism morals are analyzed.

Also,

"but can we forget the priest who has taken on particularistic restrictions in order to serve as the bridge between what is open to all and what all may become by imitating God?"

Could you put this into country hick terms?

I should probably explain Elijah Benamozegh's ideas a bit more, as he was Palliére's teacher in this matter. Benamozegh was a 19th century Italian rabbi and kabbalist well-versed in both Jewish sources and contemporary philosophy who sought to recover the universal religion. In his view, after the flood, God made a covenant with Noah that applies to all mankind. In classical Jewish sources, those who abide by the laws given to Noah are sons of Noah, or Noachides. There was a thread here on this a couple of months ago. Benamozegh classified followers of this as laymen. These are universal, Mora laws meant to ensure peace between all creation. God, though, also called priests. The children of Israel were given more restrictive laws, particularistic ones, which do not obligate all of mankind. The purpose is to make Israel holy as Israel functions like priests who serve the rest of humanity. They are the bridge between it and God, who is also holy. The priest is to point the layman towards something higher. Hope this helps.

[volgadon]

In short, morals are universal, they are the minimum requirements. Holiness is particularistic.

[Calm]

One of volgadon's post in the older thread for those interested in that conversation:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62451-answer-me-this/?do=findComment&comment=1209328554

[CV75]

On 12/29/2015 at 2:39 PM, salgare said:

We have been given the keys to identify the messengers, are we using them or resorting to struggle with individual messages, one by one?

D&C 129 is about how we detect those beings from heaven acting as God’s messengers from the third part of the stars of heaven that were cast into the earth acting to deceive. Note that the tester has to be eligible to receive the Light of Christ or the power of the Holy Ghost in order to use the three keys properly (same as D&C 50:31).

Replacing a discernment of the messenger with the discernment of the message, our spirits discern truth just as our hands discern the presence or absence of physical objects. Typically our spiritual perception must be enhanced by the Light of Christ or the power of the Holy Ghost in order to rise above our fallen perceptions and relate to messages from God. The message from God may come couched in a form that might be more or less familiar to the obedient (D&C 129:5) than another (verse 7). But the message from the adversary is couched in forms appealing to the fallen mind, or a mind that is willing to overlook deception (or is willing to self-deceive).

The requisite spiritual connections for stimuli and perception are made between like spirits. Verses 5 and 7 show that compatible glory can manifest, or couched, in at least two approved ways. But there is no glorified message from the devil, and so no message is perceived by the righteous man; this was Moses’ experience (Moses 1:15). However, one who hasn’t risen above his fallen perceptions through Christ’s grace will find something to receive from the devil’s messages (Alma 30:53, Jacob 7:17-18).

Edited January 1, 2016 by CV75

[salgare]

3 hours ago, volgadon said:

I should probably explain Elijah Benamozegh's ideas a bit more, as he was Palliére's teacher in this matter. Benamozegh was a 19th century Italian rabbi and kabbalist well-versed in both Jewish sources and contemporary philosophy who sought to recover the universal religion. In his view, after the flood, God made a covenant with Noah that applies to all mankind. In classical Jewish sources, those who abide by the laws given to Noah are sons of Noah, or Noachides. There was a thread here on this a couple of months ago. Benamozegh classified followers of this as laymen. These are universal, Mora laws meant to ensure peace between all creation. God, though, also called priests. The children of Israel were given more restrictive laws, particularistic ones, which do not obligate all of mankind. The purpose is to make Israel holy as Israel functions like priests who serve the rest of humanity. They are the bridge between it and God, who is also holy. The priest is to point the layman towards something higher. Hope this helps.

Ah, the leaven for the loaf.  Yes I remember now the covenant sign of the rainbow.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The lighting on the tray is inconsistent with the ambient lighting.  It is coming from the left and casts a bright reflection, but the lighting in the room is diffused.  Though the tray is brightly illuminated, there is no shadow on the people below the tray

The bottom of the tray is "jagged" - the line that forms the bottom is not straight, it wiggles around a bit.

Definitely photo shopped but I don't think that is of any importance.

What is the photo's origen? 

I can tell you that at the Deseret News it's an ethical taboo to publish a Photoshopped picture. It is grounds for severe reprimand if not firing. 

I would assume the policy is the same at KSL as well, as they are essentially the same company nowadays. 

Edited January 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is the photo's origen? 

I can tell you that at the Deseret News it's an ethical taboo to publish a Photoshopped picture. It is grounds for severe reprimand if not firing. 

I would assume the policy is the same at KSL as well, as they are essentially the same company nowadays. 

Hey Scott,

Welcome to the thread from hell.

This post is the best I can do to show source.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209573511

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, salgare said:

Hey Scott,

Welcome to the thread from hell.

This post is the best I can do to show source.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209573511

 

 

Thanks. 

Looks like it's a Salt Lake Tribune photo. I can't speak to their policies, but I would be surprised to learn they allow Photoshopped images. 

Good journalistic publications  trade on their credibility, and manipulated photography harms that. 

[Calm]

Given the rest of the pictures in the article, it is probably just an awkward shot.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the rest of the pictures in the article, it is probably just an awkward shot.

Yes, I think it will be included in the compilation video, "General Authority Bloopers, Practical Jokes and Awkward Moments"

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well thank you for the invitation to the thread, from another post.

The only "evidence" "that one can have for a belief that someone is a prophet is spiritual evidence.  Objective evidence doesn't convince me.  Scriptural evidence does not convince me because scripture itself can only be known to be "true" by the spirit.

I question everything, I believe no one about anything unless I can prove every principle for myself.  I have a testimony that Joseph was a prophet. Joseph was a visionary and totally brilliant as a religious leader.

Brigham had that spark as well.

For me there is nothing to debate.  It is not a question of evidence of any kind.

That's about all I have to say.   This is a religious question and must be answered by religious means, not by "evidence". 

Can you help me out here. Where can I find a directive that religious questions cannot be examined based on evidence, at least in part?

Edited January 2, 2016 by Teancum

[volgadon]

15 hours ago, salgare said:

I have also reviewed my individual posts in this thread several times. Early on, I assumed that even the mention of "by their fruits" would be as a picture being worth a 1000 words to a Mormon community.  In my years of a diligent pursuit of a gift of personal revelation (years ago now) I found that isolating my thoughts from the still small voice, and even other voices was a tough thing.  From basic Temple teachings concerning this very concept I also assumed that a brief mention of them as well as a simple mention of D&C 129 would also be as a picture worth a 100 words to a Mormon community.  As things went on ... much lost in a derail of my own making, futher explanations still failed.

I do not believe there is even slight indigenous emotions, feelings, intent etc at all ... I turned to lds.org in total frustration wondering how/why this huge disconnect.

And even here I'm confused by your words.  Are you saying you see disingenuous speech/actions because I've taken a swat at the Savior?

Attempt at full sentences follow:

I've found personal revelation to be a very error prone, big learning curve experience.

I've found personal inspiration to be even more error prone, but with a much smaller learning curve.

I believe D&C 129 and the Temple validate this error prone tendency and have given "the Lord’s test is the only one that will stand with the passage of time and reveal the truth about those who claim to do his work."

I'm hearing people insist this is no so.

 

 

 

The additional quote from the talk shows that fruit here includes the effect that learning about Jesus' life and teachings has on our own lives. The Alma 32 experiment is included in that test! So is a personal witness from God.