Gray Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I'd be happy if Jesus even got a Stan Lee-esque cameo. You mean the mortal Jesus, right?
halconero Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) On July 6, 2016 at 11:16 AM, consiglieri said: So Jesus never makes an appearance but it is all about him anyway? This must be the Mormon version of Waiting for Godot. He's all throughout the presentation... (edit: I've actually come closer to JHLPROF with regards to the identity of the Father as of late, but we would probably differ in the identity of Jehovah, in which case he's all throughout the endowment, with specific reference to his Atoning mission). Edited July 8, 2016 by halconero 2
JLHPROF Posted July 8, 2016 Author Posted July 8, 2016 4 hours ago, halconero said: He's all throughout the presentation... (edit: I've actually come closer to JHLPROF with regards to the identity of the Father as of late, but we would probably differ in the identity of Jehovah, in which case he's all throughout the endowment, with specific reference to his Atoning mission). We'll get you there yet. 1
Tacenda Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 5 hours ago, halconero said: He's all throughout the presentation... (edit: I've actually come closer to JHLPROF with regards to the identity of the Father as of late, but we would probably differ in the identity of Jehovah, in which case he's all throughout the endowment, with specific reference to his Atoning mission). Yes, but not memorable apparently, the character of someone else is much more prominent.
JLHPROF Posted July 8, 2016 Author Posted July 8, 2016 15 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Yes, but not memorable apparently, the character of someone else is much more prominent. Some are more concerned with the portrayal of the person than his plan. When Christ says nobody comes to the Father except by him, that refers to his laws, commandments, ordinances, priesthood, and atonement. It is by Christ's teachings and atonement that salvation and exaltation are determined. Christ said not to even call him good. And he said that not everyone that calls him Lord will enter his kingdom. The evangelical method of praising Christ to the exclusion or reduction of everything else is not Christ's plan, goal or desire. And is not the requirement he set on entrance into his presence. 1
theplains Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 On 05/07/2016 at 4:39 PM, Storm Rider said: Yes, we will become gods because that is the natural evolution of God's children. Are we disagreeing on anything? According to Joseph Smith's teaching, only the gods are considered the children of God. While I don't believe this, I wonder if you do? Thanks, Jim
Storm Rider Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 5 hours ago, theplains said: According to Joseph Smith's teaching, only the gods are considered the children of God. While I don't believe this, I wonder if you do? Thanks, Jim I think context is important, but the blanket statement that a children of God are only those who are obedient is not something I agree with on its surface. If the definition of child of God is one who obeys God, then obviously my position changes. When I hear the term child of God or children of God I generally think in the context that he is our Father in Heaven...thus we all are his children. It is how I think of God the Father; he is my Father in Heaven. I can understand the definition be changed to an individual who obeys God or searches after him, loves him, etc. It is just not the first context in which I think. So, being verbose as usual, it all depends on context. I suspect you would agree with this also, yes?
salgare Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 On 7/5/2016 at 8:34 PM, Bernard Gui said: Not sure I want to watch 6 videos of Paul Toscano (I watched the first one). I remember Paul's epic calling out of the BYU Philharmonic Orchestra director Ralph Laycock for his "trend-setting sideburns" in a Daily Universe music review Paul wrote following one of our concerts. Seems like he didn't like the cut of Ralph's chops. John Fugal had a much stronger influence on me. The intent of my reference to Paul was that he was also tutored by Hyrum, and gives a excellent feel for what Hyrum believed/taught, well until he was silenced. BTW, if you or anyone else is interested, several years back I found my old set of 50 some odd 90minute cassette tapes of his three (1 per year), 3 day firesides in Snowflake and digitized the whole of it to one DVD, which I presented to him as a gift of appreciation. That dvd is available to anyone interested and willing to give me a mailing address.
Avatar4321 Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 On 7/6/2016 at 1:18 PM, consiglieri said: I'd be happy if Jesus even got a Stan Lee-esque cameo. Okay, let me tell you what I really think. I think the reason for Jesus's absence in the temple drama is because the patrons themselves represent Jesus. They receive tokens representing the condescension of God to come to earth as Jesus; and then receive tokens whereby they are symbolically crucified. They even receive a name obviously associated with Jesus. They then ascend and enter into heaven to sit on the right hand of God. So truth be told, I think Jesus is present in the endowment ceremony from beginning to end. He's just not up there on the screen. He's in the audience. so you're complaining about Jesus being absent why? Even you agree he isn't absent. That makes no sense
UtahTexan Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 On 6/27/2016 at 10:24 AM, JLHPROF said: In another thread Tacenda said: We've had repeated discussions on this board about mention of Christ in Sacrament meetings, about focus on Christ at Christmas, etc. So, if we want to emphasize Christ in ALL our meetings, I would like to know - what is it you think we should emphasize and how should that look? Is the idea that the only doctrine we bother with should be the atonement and first principles? Is the idea that we spend all our meetings singing praise to Christ? Is the idea that the majority of our meetings and lessons should focus on Christ's teachings in the scriptures? For those that feel we don't focus on Christ enough, what should things look like to improve? Should we look more like an evangelical religion? Just curious. I think it is important to allow the Spirit to guide and direct. Christ leads His Church the way Christ sees fit
Bernard Gui Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 On July 8, 2016 at 8:02 PM, salgare said: The intent of my reference to Paul was that he was also tutored by Hyrum, and gives a excellent feel for what Hyrum believed/taught, well until he was silenced. BTW, if you or anyone else is interested, several years back I found my old set of 50 some odd 90minute cassette tapes of his three (1 per year), 3 day firesides in Snowflake and digitized the whole of it to one DVD, which I presented to him as a gift of appreciation. That dvd is available to anyone interested and willing to give me a mailing address. Perhaps we should all be more careful in selecting those who tutor us?
consiglieri Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 On 7/9/2016 at 6:30 PM, Avatar4321 said: so you're complaining about Jesus being absent why? Even you agree he isn't absent. That makes no sense Because he is absent from the dramatis personae of the temple drama. That's why.
JLHPROF Posted July 11, 2016 Author Posted July 11, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Because he is absent from the dramatis personae of the temple drama. That's why. Which is a ridiculous complaint. And given the current teachings of the Church on Jehovah (which although I disagree with are officially taught) Christ IS in the temple drama as Jehovah. 2
halconero Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 Seriously. Though I'm a hybrid of old and new when it comes to doctrine (Brigham on Adam; Talmage on Jehovah) there's no argument that as the endowment is currently presented that Christ is absent. In fact, in several of the current versions whenever Christ's atoning mission is mentioned he is physically referenced. 3
theplains Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 On 08/07/2016 at 9:35 PM, Storm Rider said: So, being verbose as usual, it all depends on context. I suspect you would agree with this also, yes? Yes. Context is important. But only the joint-heirs (taught to be gods by JS) are called the children of God in that passage. Thanks, Jim
consiglieri Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 On 7/11/2016 at 9:19 AM, JLHPROF said: Which is a ridiculous complaint. And given the current teachings of the Church on Jehovah (which although I disagree with are officially taught) Christ IS in the temple drama as Jehovah. I am not sure if that makes it better, given the sum total of Jehovah's activity in the temple is to be a middle-management suck up who never does anything but what he is told, and never says anything but what he is told. Is that supposed to be the example we are supposed to follow?
JLHPROF Posted July 12, 2016 Author Posted July 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I am not sure if that makes it better, given the sum total of Jehovah's activity in the temple is to be a middle-management suck up who never does anything but what he is told, and never says anything but what he is told. Is that supposed to be the example we are supposed to follow? "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." - John 6:38 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.' - John 5:19 "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." - John 12:49 That's EXACTLY the example we are supposed to follow. But I think you knew that.
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 15 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I am not sure if that makes it better, given the sum total of Jehovah's activity in the temple is to be a middle-management suck up who never does anything but what he is told, and never says anything but what he is told. Is that supposed to be the example we are supposed to follow? Yes, I'm sorry to say, this is my take, unless I have missed something. 1
JLHPROF Posted July 12, 2016 Author Posted July 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: Yes, I'm sorry to say, this is my take, unless I have missed something. Why would you be sorry about Christ's great example?
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Why would you be sorry about Christ's great example? I'm sorry to say, that I see in the temple He is like Consig describes...I guess I just want more.
JLHPROF Posted July 12, 2016 Author Posted July 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: I'm sorry to say, that I see in the temple He is like Consig describes...I guess I just want more. As I said to Consig: "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." - John 6:38 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.' - John 5:19 "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." - John 12:49 This is how Christ describes himself. Sometimes I think we want the Christ we imagine, not the Christ that the record describes.
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: As I said to Consig: "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." - John 6:38 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.' - John 5:19 "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." - John 12:49 This is how Christ describes himself. Sometimes I think we want the Christ we imagine, not the Christ that the record describes. Thanks, I didn't see that. I guess the church followed this to a "T". 1
Recommended Posts