Jump to content

Inoculation


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, rongo said:

Yes, and how the angel/handshake test in D&C works (as I believe it does) if they can manipulate matter at times. 

My dad and other missionaries had a terrifying experience in the late 1960s. The mission president's wife called the office missionaries in a panic. When they got to the mission home, the cabinets and doors were opening and shutting, over and over. They tied some shut and blocked others, but the string and obstacles were untied and moved before their eyes, and the slamming continued. The mission president came in and cast out the devils with the authority of the priesthood, and it ceased immediately. 

One wouldn't think that such a thing in the mission home would have been possible in the first place, but the priesthood immediately had the upper hand. It's the matter-manipulation thing that I don't have an answer to. I believe that we who kept our first estate have power over them, especially because we have bodies, unless we allow access and power. But there are sometimes exceptions. 

This goes to what Smac quoted in the post just before yours:

Satan has power on earth only as individual persons give it to him by succumbing to his temptations (TPJS, p. 187).

Link to post

Tangentially applicable:

There are many Elders in this house who, if I had the power to mesmerize that vase and make it dance on that table, would say that it was done by the power of God. Who could tell whether it was done by the power of God or the power of the Devil? No person, unless he had the revelations of Jesus Christ within him. I suppose you are ready to ask Brother Brigham if he thinks the power of the Devil could make the vase dance. Yes, and could take it up and carry it out doors, just as easy as to turn up a table and move it here and there, or to cause a rap, rap, rap, or to bake and pass around pancakes, or to get hold of a person’s hand, and make him write in every style you can think of, imitating George Washington’s, Benjamin Franklin’s, Joseph Smith’s, and other autographs. Can you tell whether that is by the power of God or by the power of the Devil? No, unless you have the revelations of Jesus Christ.

—Discourses of Brigham Young, 74

Also, if power is at least partially a function of knowledge, then to the extent that Satan retains knowledge of the material world and the natural and scientific laws affecting that world, he may well retain the power to influence it except to the extent that a higher power specifically thwarts him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This goes to what Smac quoted in the post just before yours:

Satan has power on earth only as individual persons give it to him by succumbing to his temptations (TPJS, p. 187).

Except the mission president, his wife, etc. weren't giving him power. One wouldn't normally think that that would be "allowed" to happen in the mission home, but it did. They responded immediately to the casting out.

I still have full confidence that my home and family are protected, but sometimes that isn't the case. But if something were to happen along those lines, I have no fear that the priesthood wouldn't be effective. It's just odd when they sometimes do what one wouldn't think they are allowed to do. 

Link to post
14 hours ago, rongo said:

Yes, and how the angel/handshake test in D&C works (as I believe it does) if they can manipulate matter at times. 

My dad and other missionaries had a terrifying experience in the late 1960s. The mission president's wife called the office missionaries in a panic. When they got to the mission home, the cabinets and doors were opening and shutting, over and over. They tied some shut and blocked others, but the string and obstacles were untied and moved before their eyes, and the slamming continued. The mission president came in and cast out the devils with the authority of the priesthood, and it ceased immediately. 

One wouldn't think that such a thing in the mission home would have been possible in the first place, but the priesthood immediately had the upper hand. It's the matter-manipulation thing that I don't have an answer to. I believe that we who kept our first estate have power over them, especially because we have bodies, unless we allow access and power. But there are sometimes exceptions. 

Sounds more like some grumpy ghosts to me. So was your dad there and did he see this with his own eyes, because it sure sounds fishy. Or gives me hope that we don't die immediately after death but go somewhere, and some don't leave, like grumpy ghosts. 

Link to post
36 minutes ago, rongo said:

Except the mission president, his wife, etc. weren't giving him power. One wouldn't normally think that that would be "allowed" to happen in the mission home, but it did. They responded immediately to the casting out.

I still have full confidence that my home and family are protected, but sometimes that isn't the case. But if something were to happen along those lines, I have no fear that the priesthood wouldn't be effective. It's just odd when they sometimes do what one wouldn't think they are allowed to do. 

I suppose these exceptions occur in cases like Joseph Smith, who supposed that the adversary knew early on that Joseph was to be “an annoyer and disturber of his kingdom.”

Link to post
20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sounds more like some grumpy ghosts to me. So was your dad there and did he see this with his own eyes, because it sure sounds fishy. Or gives me hope that we don't die immediately after death but go somewhere, and some don't leave, like grumpy ghosts. 

Reminds me of the song on that attraction at Disneyland: “Grim, grinning ghosts come out to socialize.”

Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Sounds more like some grumpy ghosts to me. So was your dad there and did he see this with his own eyes, because it sure sounds fishy. Or gives me hope that we don't die immediately after death but go somewhere, and some don't leave, like grumpy ghosts. 

Yes, my dad saw it; he was one of the elders she called to come quickly (they tied the cabinets shut and they came untied and kept slamming. As you can imagine, this freaked everyone out). 

Poltergeists or not, they obeyed the mission president's MP command to stop and depart. 

Link to post

I think it's interesting that Satan and his followers use satanic darkness (even spilling into the physical; Joseph Smith couldn't breathe) when people are on the cusp of something monumental on the covenant path. Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, Abraham making his covenant (Genesis 15; "an horror of great darkness fell upon him"), Moses in Moses 1, Hugh B. Brown the day before his call as an apostle, etc. Clearly, God allows this testing, but all of them were the opposite of "inviting it in." 

Link to post
54 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's interesting that Satan and his followers use satanic darkness (even spilling into the physical; Joseph Smith couldn't breathe) when people are on the cusp of something monumental on the covenant path. Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, Abraham making his covenant (Genesis 15; "an horror of great darkness fell upon him"), Moses in Moses 1, Hugh B. Brown the day before his call as an apostle, etc. Clearly, God allows this testing, but all of them were the opposite of "inviting it in." 

Don’t forget even Jesus in mortality was subject to the temptations and torment of Satan. 

Link to post

I think the OT courtroom scenes (covenant lawsuits) are compelling. "Satan" is always there as a principal legal officer. The DA, so to speak. The prophet defends. He has to be a part of things.

If we are to believe that his power is in any way dictated (given or permitted) by God, then we have a theodicy problem. We have a God who creates evil. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think the OT courtroom scenes (covenant lawsuits) are compelling. "Satan" is always there as a principal legal officer. The DA, so to speak. The prophet defends. He has to be a part of things.

If we are to believe that his power is in any way dictated (given or permitted) by God, then we have a theodicy problem. We have a God who creates evil. 

Not if He allows it, but doesn't create it. Why would allowing evil lead to a theodicy problem? Only if one assumes that allowing evil is evil. 

Link to post
23 hours ago, rongo said:

Not if He allows it, but doesn't create it. Why would allowing evil lead to a theodicy problem? Only if one assumes that allowing evil is evil. 

In fact, the problematic notion is that God should/would step in to head off each and every instance of adversity or wickedness or tragedy or opposition. That would frustrate the plan of salvation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Our gospel doctrine teacher in Sunday School spent some time today talking about there being separate accounts of the First Vision. And there was a portion in the text of the lesson in the manual for individuals and families discussing it (see below).
 

Methinks the antagonists are losing or have already lost this as a talking point.  They won’t be able to ambush the average Church member with it anymore. 
 

From the manual:

Why are there various accounts of the First Vision?

During his life, Joseph Smith recorded his experience in the Sacred Grove at least four times, often using a scribe. In addition, several secondhand accounts were written by people who heard Joseph talk about his vision. Although these accounts differ in some details, depending on the audience and setting, they are otherwise consistent. And each account adds details that help us better understand Joseph Smith’s experience, just as each of the four Gospels helps us better understand the Savior’s ministry.
To read Joseph’s other accounts, see “First Vision Accounts” (Gospel Topics Essays, topics.ChurchofJesusChrist.org). What do you learn from reading all of these accounts?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Our gospel doctrine teacher in Sunday School spent some time today talking about there being separate accounts of the First Vision. And there was a portion in the text of the lesson in the manual for individuals and families discussing it (see below).
 

Methinks the antagonists are losing or have already lost this as a talking point.  They won’t be able to ambush the average Church member with it anymore. 
 

From the manual:

Why are there various accounts of the First Vision?

During his life, Joseph Smith recorded his experience in the Sacred Grove at least four times, often using a scribe. In addition, several secondhand accounts were written by people who heard Joseph talk about his vision. Although these accounts differ in some details, depending on the audience and setting, they are otherwise consistent. And each account adds details that help us better understand Joseph Smith’s experience, just as each of the four Gospels helps us better understand the Savior’s ministry.
To read Joseph’s other accounts, see “First Vision Accounts” (Gospel Topics Essays, topics.ChurchofJesusChrist.org). What do you learn from reading all of these accounts?

I think that is fantastic! I want the LDS church to continue! :)

Link to post
26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Our gospel doctrine teacher in Sunday School spent some time today talking about there being separate accounts of the First Vision. And there was a portion in the text of the lesson in the manual for individuals and families discussing it (see below).

Methinks the antagonists are losing or have already lost this as a talking point.  They won’t be able to ambush the average Church member with it anymore. 

I don't get why people are acting like the Gospel Topics Essay is groundbreaking. There was a series of articles in the 1985 and 1986 Ensigns discussing the First Vision accounts (including good ones from Milton Backman), which did as well or even better than the GT Essay. They were almost forty years ago! 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't get why people are acting like the Gospel Topics Essay is groundbreaking. There was a series of articles in the 1985 and 1986 Ensigns discussing the First Vision accounts (including good ones from Milton Backman), which did as well or even better than the GT Essay. They were almost forty years ago! 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

I suppose if there is anything groundbreaking going on, it is the pervasive inclusion in formal Church curriculum, since the release of the GT essay, of instruction about the separate accounts. It is as though the Church is trying to leave the self-appointed enemies without this weapon in their nefarious arsenal and disaffected Church members without reason to complain this knowledge was hidden from them. 
 

Which goes to the thread topic: “Inoculation”. 
 

Link to post

No matter what we or the Church does, I suspect there will always be some topic at hand for those who are chafing in their membership to grab hold of as a reason to leave.

Link to post
44 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No matter what we or the Church does, I suspect there will always be some topic at hand for those who are chafing in their membership to grab hold of as a reason to leave.

I have no doubt of this. 
 

But at least they won’t be able to credibly use “nobody told me about there being other First Vision accounts” as an excuse. 

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But at least they won’t be able to credibly use “nobody told me about there being other First Vision accounts” as an excuse. 

Though it's pretty easy to spin 'nobody told me' to 'what people told me was wrong' ... :diablo:

This is a rabbit hole of infinite depth if people want it to be.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Though it's pretty easy to spin 'nobody told me' to 'what people told me was wrong' ... :diablo:

This is a rabbit hole of infinite depth if people want it to be.

True. 
 

But we need to do what we can. 
 

Added later: I’m not as concerned about those who will seek and find the bottomless rabbit hole as I am about their preying upon the young or those who only have a rudimentary knowledge of gospel teachings or those whose faith is weak. Hence, the metaphoric application of the inoculation principle. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...