Posted on 04/15/2010 8:56:50 AM PDT by T Minus Four
Think of the Salt Lake Temple as a designer bottle holding a one-of-a-kind fragrance.
Think of the gardens and buildings of Temple Square as bubble wrap around that container.
Think of the City Creek Center to the south, the Church Plaza to the east, the Conference Center to the north, and the Family History Library and Church History Museum to the west as a firm, sturdy box around all of it.
When something merits that much protection, you have to figure rough bumps and bounces are coming down the road.
I get a feeling the LDS Church sees turbulence ahead -- nasty weather -- and it is making preparations.
It's not about being defensive and keeping things out.
It's about being protective and keeping precious things safe.
When the chilly winds blow, forest creatures gather all that's life-sustaining about them.
Horses in the fields cluster together to stand against the hail.
I feel the LDS Church battening down the hatches for bad weather.
The Tabernacle Choir, which was performing musical versions of Robert Frost poetry and other secular works, now releases CDs filled with songs of faith, assurance and the need to rely on the Divine.
I feel protection is the point behind the long row of sentries -- those Mormon temples -- that stand along the Wasatch -- the new Brigham City temple, new Payson temple, the new remade Ogden temple and all the others.
I feel protect precious things is the point of the new mission statements of LDS businesses, the point for books that are picked for publication and the lessons selected for manuals.
Part of the world would divide and conquer.
The church would gather and protect.
Something uneasy this way comes. Not a vilent clash as in Jerusalem -- where cultures fight openly. We won't be seeing stone throwers in the streets of Salt Lake City.
The battle here won't be about territory.
It will be about choices -- about the advent of a bolder, more self-indulgent popular culture.
The church can see the writing on the wall -- often literally.
And graffiti on the temple will never do.
It's time -- as the old hymn has it -- to "safely gather in, ere the winter storms begin."
The plan is not to force people away.
The plan is to keep what's on the inside safe from harm.
And if that means putting up ramparts and watchtowers, so be it.
Even heaven, if you believe the stories, is a gated community -- not to keep people away, but to safeguard the gentle hearts of those who dwell there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-mail: jerjohn@desnews.com Jerry Earl Johnston chronicles his take on the Mormon experience in his column New Harmony, which appears on MormonTimes.com on Wednesdays and Sundays.
"I'm Ilk! --> HE's Spartacus! "
It's all Geek to me!
"I told my mother...
...I've learned that PRESBYTERIANism is UNTRUE."
WHY do you believe this?
And I am SURE that the kids LOVED playing in the street, too; until the BUS hit them!
Watch out for them SHE-bears!
And his 'church' fractured to pieces after his death.
Nana, nana, NANA!
Where WERE you??
You may send me a new keyboard at this LOCATION...
Well he was running for POTUS in 1844...
When Joseph Smith ran for president in 1844, a pamphlet expressing his views (General Smiths Views) was distributed across the nation. Probably penned by Phelps, the New York Herald described the document as a very remarkable and original document a more curious and unique thing has probably not been published since the time of Mohamet The following are some of Josephs positions*; they are worth reading for their striking humanity alone, born, no doubt out of his own deprivations:
MORE --> http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/12/19/joseph-smiths-views/
Me, too; but I can NOT figger out what Joseph Smith learned to be UNTRUE about PRESBYTERIANism!
Verily, and it came to pass...
It's called "picking at nits" when you can't refute the points made. Creating some made up concern that is supposedly offensive to get the topic diverted to another area that is of no value or has no bearing on the current discussion.
There are some experts in that around here.
But then again, I will probably be told that it's my own "bias" for pointing this out.
I think you are mistaken about Latter-day Saints insulting Jesus. I have never heard any talk or lesson or testimony where anyone has said anything demeaning, insulting or derogatory about Jesus Christ. I have constantly heard the opposite.
We teach, testify, exhort, encourage people to believe in Jesus Christ, to come unto him, to repent of sin, to follow his teachings.
They never rescinded it. Take a look at D&C 132. It's still canon even if they don't "practice" it.
Silly boy, don’t you know that the portion of the Bible that tells you about the 100% rule must not have been “translated correctly”? There are different requirements for LdS prophets.
place marker 90082
Example?
You realize, don't you, that most of his life Joseph Smith didn't teach the "the Father has a body" of flesh business? He only introduced this about the last 15 months of his life.
What did Smith teach early on?
I have a copy of the 1833 Book of Commandments & 1835 Doctrine & Covenants. This includes the original Mormon "sacred" Lectures of Faith. (Since removed as such by Mormon leaders).
You should read Smith's Fifth Lecture. Here, I'll quote it for you:
The Father being a personage of SPIRIT, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of TABERNACLE, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being the form and likeness of man, or rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;--he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father (p. 53)
You see? Smith contrasts Jesus tabernacled body with the Father as Spirit!!! "But," you might say, "see. He references as Jesus being made in the "likeness...image...express image and likeness" of the Father.
Well, Smith really took the time to elaborate upon this. In the Q&A section, Smith was addressing this, but never came out & said this was a physical image: Thirdly, he is also in the likeness of the personage of the Father. Heb. 1:1,2,3. God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past to the Fathers, by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, who he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who, being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. Again, Philip. 2;5,6. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (p. 56)
As you can see in the Q&A, there's NO (as in ZERO) references to the Father as a physical being, a flesh and bones being. And NOTHING to contradict His reference as "Spirit" by Smith. He just cites Heb. 1:1-3 and Phil. 2:5-6 -- and you won't find any such teaching there.
>How did Smith further define this "express image" of the Son of the Father on p. 54, before the Q&A?
The Son was ...in the express image and likeness of the Father--a Mediator for man--being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all...
So there again...nothing physical or flesh & bones about the Mormon god, or that he was a man.
What about other revelations Smith had at this time period (1833-1835)?
No.
Nothing in the early D&C, referenced as the Book of Commandments, as God having a fleshly body, or that he was a man.
Nothing in the Book of Mormon as God having a fleshly body, or that he was a man.
Nothing in the Bible as God having a fleshly body, or that he was a man.
(In fact, Numbers 23:19 expressly says God IS NOT a man!)
If it was an important revelation to the "restored gospel," you don't think God would have let all those revelations go by, including the entirety of the Book of Mormon peoples, without mentioning it, do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.