I will try not to offend!

[_David A. Bednar]

My dear sister, Harmony (I love that name!),

You asked:

Where is Elder Bednar when we need him? I have a question. I'd like him to explain the 2nd Annointing.

Well, I will do my best to explain the second annointing for you.

The second annointing is an ordinance, performed only in the temple, any temple, by one designated by the Prophet to perform such ordinances.

When the Prophet receives revelation to do so, he will make it known to his faithful servants, always a husband and wife, to meet with him or one of his designates in the temple. This will be done by letter to that couple inviting them to meet the temple on a certain date at a certain time.

These couples have proved to the Lord, through their faithfulness in always paying a full-tithe (or more) and keeping every other commandment. Meeting with your friends to play your weekly bridge game will not keep you from receiving this letter.

The Prophet's chosen designate will ordain this couple and seal them up to come forth in the first resurrection, to be kings and queens in the Holy Quorum. Indeed, many are called, but few are chosen. Only a hand-picked few are ever blessed enough to receive this ordinance. New robes are given to these couples which they are to be dressed in for their funerals for when they pass from this earth they are known as the chosen faithful by these robes.

There is no reason to read one's patriarchal blessing ever again after this event because the ordinance supercedes all blessings and promises and seals them upon them. From this point on, unless one commits blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, no sins which they might commit will prevent them from entering the celestial kingdom.

The ordinance has at times been suspended and many have passed to the other side without a sure witness of the Lord's approval of their lives here on this earth.

Also, when one receives this ordinance, it is not the case, not the case, that one is guaranteed to see the Savior during their time on this earth. But, they will surely see His face, when they pass through the vail. It is up to the Lord when he chooses to visit these specially annointed servants.

All General Authorities have received this annointing.

Those who have received this annointing stand as special witnesses of "the name of Christ." Make no mistake here. Not special witnesses of Christ, but, rather, special witnesses of the name of Christ, as is written in the Church Handbook of Instructions. This is an important distinction and a recent change in the "doctrine" which few if any have noticed. It is a crucial distinction which must be understood.

Last, but not least, those who receive this annointing are told not to tell anyone else about this annointing (although most tell their children and grandchildren.) We are not happy about that, but what can we do. It is not such a great sin, which those who are annointed surely know. It must be a great blessing to these children and grandchildren to know that such an annointing is within reach of any worthy saint, although it certainly helps to know someone in the Quorum of the 15 or to be a descendant of the quorum of the 50, instituted in Nauvoo.

What more can I tell you? It is deep stuff, yeah, even one of the mysteries of the Kingdom.

As always your brother in harness and blinders, even Elder David A. Bednar, one of the 15 of the quorum of the 12.

[_harmony]

My dear sister, Harmony (I love that name!),

well, that just goes to show you haven't been on the boards for long.

[snip]

There is no reason to read one's patriarchal blessing ever again after this event because the ordinance supercedes all blessings and promises and seals them upon them. From this point on, unless one commits blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, no sins which they might commit will prevent them from entering the celestial kingdom.

Like child abuse, wife abuse, murder, theft. Right.

All General Authorities have received this annointing.

So... even the ones who were excommunicated for child abuse have their calling and election made sure. That's good to know. And it surely does push the limits of tolerance.

Those who have received this annointing stand as special witnesses of "the name of Christ." Make no mistake here. Not special witnesses of Christ, but, rather, special witnesses of the name of Christ, as is written in the Church Handbook of Instructions. This is an important distinction and a recent change in the "doctrine" which few if any have noticed. It is a crucial distinction which must be understood.

Which you don't explain, which leads me to believe this is more of your horse manure.

Last, but not least, those who receive this annointing are told not to tell anyone else about this annointing (although most tell their children and grandchildren.) We are not happy about that, but what can we do. It is not such a great sin, which those who are annointed surely know. It must be a great blessing to these children and grandchildren to know that such an annointing is within reach of any worthy saint, although it certainly helps to know someone in the Quorum of the 15 or to be a descendant of the quorum of the 50, instituted in Nauvoo.

Converts need not apply. Of course, converts would not apply because it's not common knowledge, but still... no convert need apply.

What more can I tell you? It is deep stuff, yeah, even one of the mysteries of the Kingdom.

It's deep stuff, all right. More of the horse manure Joseph shoveled so well.

So Joseph thinks that this 2nd annointing circumvents the need for repentence? He negates the need for an Atonement. Good grief. More of the crap he "revealed" after Fanny.

[_moksha]

But, yes, Americans do love their coke. Keep in touch and let me know how Serafina is getting along. Maybe she would feel better trying some of that Coca-Cola. It might just give her the kick she needs to get back to work. And, my brothers in Jamaica are still wanting to inquire about work with your compadres there in Blancacoca. What type of work opportunities might my fine laid-back brethren in Jamaica
be able to find if they cruised over on the Stake Presidents cruiser? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Your brother in the Quorum of the 15, yeah, even Elder David A. Bednar

Dear Elder Bednar,

Your are very wise about the American's love for their coke bottle. We thought the Americans were wanting a refill with our coca, and sent us the internet box in return. My Serafina sends her best and in her own way believes it is oh so true, although your missionaries say she cannot be baptized because she is a burro. Giving her some of my village medicine does pick up her spirits some. When I read your letter to my village about the your brothers in Jamaica wanting to work, they murmured, but when I told them about El Stake Presidente's cruiser, they were wondering if you could deliver some packages of our Blancacoca medicine to our cousins in Miami. They are rich with American money and could pay your brothers from Jamaica for their trouble and make a tithing donation to El Stake Presidente too. They would send my village money to our Credit Suisse account, to help buy food for our children.

Juan Moksha Valdez
Blancacoca, Colombia

[_desert_vulture]

A sumarai sword would be best of all. They cut through a body like a hot knife through butter. Nice, clean and efficient.

So, you could liken a Samurai sword to the sword of Laban, since they were both made of fine steel. And the sword of Laban could be likened unto the flaming sword of the Angel of polygamy, and the flaming sword of Cherubim circling about the Tree of Life making sure that the progeny of Adam do not stretch forth their hands and partake of the fruit, lest they be trapped forever in their sins.

Now I see why a gun won't work. No symbolism. Its all symbolic. Thanks pal.

[_marg]

Good day to you, my fine sister! I see you are still participating here on the boards.

Yes but I haven't been reading all the threads unfortunately, and have been spending hardly any time on the Spalding Rigdon debate which does interest me. I noticed a thread yesterday in which an Aquinas I think he's a catholic seemed to be attempting to confuse your brethren, I did post to that. The thread in which I was attempting to argue J. Smith as an atheist or deist, stopped as Jason preferred we talk about it off the board for now.

Didn't your husband come back home? You must miss him. I know my wife sure misses me when I am away from home, what with all my travels these days.

Well no I don't miss him, been married 34 years. And he’s retired now so we do see each other lots. He was away for 10 days helping his 83 year old mother who'd just had knee replacement surgery. She's doing extremely well by the way. Isn't it marvelous, I'm catching on to that phrase, isn't it a wonderful phrase...anyhoo, that not everyone relies on gut feelings and faith and that some people appreciate the importance of evidence, inductive reasoning and training in their line of work. I'm so pleased that doctors don't rely on a burning sensation when diagnosing or performing surgery. Thanks goodness for that. I've been saying lately in a couple of my posts, that scripture shouldn't be relied upon or supercede one's own thinking on philosophical/ethical issues. Gaz and Gramp75 come to mind as one’s eager to quote scripture in lieu of giving their own thoughts. Surely if a God exists who created mankind , he/she/it gave brains to be used, not to be shut down and the thinking of others supercede one’s own.

Yes, heaven is just like earth. You have deduced the grand principle. The only difference between the things we do here and the things we will do there, is that there, we will be doing them all in a celestial manner. Celestial toilet cleaning, celestial horseback riding, skiing, eating, etc. We will be celestially 24 years old, 75 years old, 2 years old, etc.

Can you grasp this principle?

It reminds me a little of the plot in Lost Horizon http://www.answers.com/Lost+Horizon?gwp ... 4&method=3

Fantasies are wonderful escapisms.

It is beautiful, is it not? Celestial wrinkles, celestial acne, celestial cellulite, celestial muscles, and so on.

Well that’s exactly the problem. Dying between the ages of 15- 40 years. might be okay but anything outside of that, not so good. Who’d want to be stuck at the age of 75 for the rest of one’s life or as a toddler.

I think you can see what I'm getting at. Celestial sex is just the half of it. There is so much more! Celestial fairy tales, celestial Disney movies, celestial church meetings. Well, I should stop before you want to just end it and go there today.

Let me tell you from experience, sex isn’t so great after 50. It's just not the same. If the fantasy you describe is true, the age one dies at would make a big difference on the quality of one's afterlife. It's possible though David that you missed the one and only spaceship to a better place, a shangra-la..that the Heaven's Gate people said they were going to. Maybe they were right, their place exists and yours doesn't. How would you know?

[_Roger Morrison]

Dear Elder/Apostle Bednar: Thank You for what you say... Into which i'll boldly inject:

I'm sorry that I can not give you further comfort at this time. RM: Not as sorry as i am. I would suggest that you ponder the scriptures and the writings of Robert George (the great Catholic ethicist) during this time of mourning for your brothers. RM: AND my SISTERS! Are YOU afraid of 'them' too? The church doesn't have anyone that can reason through this kind of stuff since our dear brother Elder McConkie passed away RM: Surely to "God" he wasn't our last hope!?? (Oh, how I miss his scholarship), RM: He did say some cool stuff! I liked tthe Great Whore thing. so you are going to have to rely on others (see George, et. al.). The natural law philosophers are saying what we would say, that is, if we had any philosophers to say it. RM: Why do you think we don't have 'em!

But, alas, we know that many will drop out of their harnesses over this matter, as many did in Nauvoo, over the principle of polygamy. We wait upon God for his message RM: Yea but, is there any of the 15+3 who could hear him? As you know MLK Jr. heard Him first w hen He delivered His message re "the Blacks"...Ya know what i'm sayin' Bro?? and until then, 'love the sinner, but despise the sin." RM: Easy for you to say!

Your brother in the blinders and harness, yeah, even one of the 15 of the quorum of the 12.

Elder David A. Bednar

But, I would take a Prophet overa philosopher any day, wouldn't you? RM: Depend who's wearing the hat. You just can't always depend on a Profit...Ya know what i'm sayin'??

Elder B. You really let me down on that one! I was truly counting on You!! See what you can do with this one: When can we look forward to the establishment of Priestesshood? Surely there is more hope NOW for our Mothers to be recognized for their value in establishing Zion; even when they don't get their full credit as co-creators of humanity... The Lord wants Women in those group photos...

IT IS THEIR TIME!! And, You know it! So, my highly, self-esteemed "one in harness"--pull yer weight! You're more than just another handsome face you know, Bro! Warm regards, Roger, counting on You...

[_Tommy]

Thank you David for your wise counsel. It's always a pleasure to be fed, yea, even as one of the fold by the special servants of our master. I have to chuckle at our younger generation. So full of vigor to understand the mysteries of the kingdom and the secrets of godliness. A deep subject indeed you've spoken on David. I fear many will not be ready for the responsibility that comes with such a message, however. I prefer to keep with the simple matters of the gospel, faith and repentence. As I master those, perhaps I will graduate to some of these weightier issues. But I am a little older I suppose. The twelve are composed of various noble traits. Some have said that the sum of those traits equate to the persona of Christ himself. I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. David surely exemplifies the savior as he plodded up the mount of olives to cary out his divine mission, slowly, surely, niether looking to the left nor to the right. A heavy burden borne. I'm not sure I have the raw strength for that feat. I, perhaps, am better suited for a calm discussion at the well.

I am certain David, that it is a difficult burden indeed for you to carry the weight of all that gospel knowledge while rarely being able to share it. I know in some of our meetings, I've loved your expositions but I often can't quite follow the great depth of your thinking.

I stand by your side, in the harness. A little slower these days. But every breath I breathe I dedicate to the work of the kingdom.

Ahmen.

[_Aquinas]

In our weekly meetings in the temple, the brethren often get online and witness first-hand how far some of our brothers and sisters have strayed from the one true path that leads to happiness and fulfillment in this life. It breaks our hearts. Message boards will not save you. They are the tool of Satan and participation on such boards will lead you into diverse temptations. Yes, even into sin.

For someone who claims such holiness, as David does, why has he been using the "tool of Satan?" He has posted in this thread 22 times so far, and admits that "the brethren" get online together at the Mormon temple.

Brothers and Sisters, the Church is perfect, even if the members are not. What is right and godly, in one circumstance, may not be so in another. That is one of the great truths and mysteries (among so many others) that our Prophet Joseph restored to the world. This principle of godly, moral relativity was one of the truths lost through the great apostasy. Oh how marvelous it is to have prophets on the earth today. I am sure some, if not most of you, because of your unholy addiction to message boards, failed to listen to the last General Conference. So, I want to reiterate the message I gave at the conference once again. It is clear that you have taken offense to some action or words from other another. To take offense is sin. You must repent.[/

Is this guy for real? David has the words of a Pharisee, hypocrasy reaches out from his heart through his fingers which he uses to type his messages of fear, not repentance. Let me ask the readers, was Jesus not offended when he drove out the money changers in the temple with a whip? Are lies about God not something that should stir offense in our bodies and souls, since these were created by God?

I've been reading this message board for only a short time, but all that I have read concerning the issues people are having with Mormonism had nothing to do with taking offense to other members in the Mormon church. I have, however, read much about current and former LDS taking offense in Mormon doctrine and the founder, Joseph Smith. Issues like polygamy, women's role in the Mormon church and money have been some of the major problems people have been having. Ask yourselves, readers, why David, one of your apostles, fails to listen to these concerns? Why isn't he giving sufficient explaination for these issues? Isn't he supposed to be inspired by God? This kind of response should offend any person in love with the truth.

Don't let that suspension turn you into a [nastee] critic. Remember, it's all in the tone, the tone.

Well, David's "tone" is obviously passive/agressive; instead of owning his anger with this person's comments, he sneaks in an insult ([nastee] critic) without directly calling him that. This message board wouldn't even let me use the real spelling of the word "nastee!" What a great example for his "flock."

David is boring. He has no humility before God, which is expected since he does not know who God is. David, you are in my prayers. May God bless you and may you come to know who the one true God is. As for anyone else reading, do not fear the truth. If God is all good, then truth must lead to God, since all truth is good. God is all good, therefore, all truth must lead to God. Our human reason is a primary faculty for knowing truth, so do not abandon it for the blind obidience that is being asked of you by the Mormon church. Reason is from God, since God created us. It should not contradict your faith, but rather be employed with faith to know God.

God Bless.

[_marg]

David is boring. He has no humility before God, which is expected since he does not know who God is.

Not like you do, hey? What's it like being so close to God and knowing him personally? Aquinas are you sure God is a he?

David, you are in my prayers. May God bless you and may you come to know who the one true God is. As for anyone else reading, do not fear the truth. If God is all good, then truth must lead to God, since all truth is good. God is all good, therefore, all truth must lead to God. Our human reason is a primary faculty for knowing truth, so do not abandon it for the blind obidience that is being asked of you by the Mormon church. Reason is from God, since God created us. It should not contradict your faith, but rather be employed with faith to know God.

God Bless.

I love your use of deductive logic Aquinas, it's so easy to be mis-used or used disingenously in order to fallaciously prove whatever one wants. Let's see,

God is all good,
truth is all good,

Therefore god = truth. or to put in your words truth leads to God.

Unfortunately though, nothing has been proven. The truth of your conclusion is dependent upon the truth of the premises!

All you've done is created a proof based on a personal definition. You've defined God as "all good" You've not proven true God is all good, let alone even proven a god exists who could be all good. So your premises have not been proven true. And your conclusion can not be relied upon.

let's see:

If chocolate cake with whipped cream is all good
and truth is all good,
Threfore chocolate cake with whipped cream is truth.

Hmmm..maybe that is correct.

[_Aquinas]

I love your use of deductive logic Aquinas, it's so easy to be mis-used or used disingenously in order to fallaciously prove whatever one wants. Let's see,

God is all good,
truth is all good,

Therefore god = truth. or to put in your words truth leads to God.

First off, what I originally wrote was this: "If God is all good, then truth leads to God, since all truth is good."

If in God, all goodness resides (thus to say of an object "A" that it is good, means that it participates in God's goodness in some way) and truth is good, then truth necessarily leads to God, since in God all goodness resides. The goodness of truth itself is found by following true things. Thus, given these explainations, here is an argument:

1. In God all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to God

If anything, my original sentence lacked a premise that defined a term (namely, premise 1, the term "all good"). When I wrote the sentence, I didn't think I'd have to defend it. The argument (if you want to call it that) that you gave as an example is both invalid and unsound and did not represent my argument. Let's look:

If chocolate cake with whipped cream is all good
and truth is all good,
Threfore chocolate cake with whipped cream is truth.

Here is your arguments structure

1. C is all G
2. T is all G
3. Therefore, C is T

Lets put some nouns/adjectives in it to clarify its absurdity:

1. Chocolate Cakes are all sweet
2. Donoughts are all sweet
3. Therefore, chocolate cakes are donoughts

Clearly invalid.

Unfortunately though, nothing has been proven. The truth of your conclusion is dependent upon the truth of the premises!

All you've done is created a proof based on a personal definition. You've defined God as "all good" You've not proven true God is all good, let alone even proven a god exists who could be all good. So your premises have not been proven true. And your conclusion can not be relied upon.

First off, this is a strawman. When did I claim that this was any sort of proof about anything? It was, at worst, a valid yet ill defined logical statement (again, I did not expect to defend it). Secondly, the soundness of a deductive argument does not depend on whether someone accepts a premise or not, but only if the premise is in fact true. You can deny the premises in this argument all you want:

1. All men have bodies
2. George Bush is a man
3. Therefore, George Bush has a body

The denial of the premises in this argument only shows that the person denying them is a moron, it says nothing about the truth of the argument. I already explained this to another poster in the other thread we posted in, but (surprise), you didn't read it. Whether an argument is compelling or not can be argued, but without posting counter argument(s) of your own, and based on the responses you have addressed to me, all you have really demonstrated to us at this point is that 1) you fail to read arguments before criticizing them 2) what you do read, you misread and 3) you have a very shallow understanding of logic.