Happy 5th Birthday, LDS Anarchy Blog!


Joseph Smith, Jun. wearing the Nephite breastplate with the Urim and Thummim attached to it by a rod.

“He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.”

I thought that instead of a birthday cake this year, we’d get an image of Joseph wearing the breastplate.  All my life I have searched for and waited for some artist to depict this, in vain.  So, I guess this non-artist (me) will have to take the first step, using Microsoft Paint.  (Yes, I already know it looks like crap!)  If anyone else would like to try their more artistic hand at drawing a better Urim and Thummim and breastplate, be my guest.  The above image is based upon descriptions made by members of Joseph’s family.

Five years old and still growing

In case it wasn’t already obvious, two more contributors have been added: liv435 and Elder Chantdown.

Elder Chantdown sneaked into the blog roster through the backdoor.  dyc4557 kept posting his articles, so I figured we might as well make him a fully-fledged contributor since he kept contributing anyway!  He’s been visiting this blog for some time now and we’re happy to have him on board.

liv435 is a fairly recent blog visitor who has made an impact already with her comments.  She is unique among all the blog contributors in that, well, she’s a she!  Our first female blogger!  And it’s about time.  The blog needed a female touch, (though I don’t expect to change the red Anarchy is Order symbol to pink any time soon…)

These two have already put out some great stuff so we look forward to more.

7 October 2007

That’s the day it all began.  So, if you want to celebrate it, perhaps you could eat some red and black jello or something. I’d list the blog’s stats, but really, who cares?  If you want to express your opinion about this blog, how cool it is or how bad it sucks, you can either leave a comment below and/or use the poll I set up for just that purpose:

LDS Anarchy Blog Readership Poll

One last thing…

I’m publishing this post the day before the blog’s birthday, on 6 October 2012, because it just seems right to me that this picture of Joseph Smith wearing the breastplate and Urim and Thummim ought to go out on Saturday, the first day of General Conference.  Also, because I thought I’d give everyone a heads up in advance so that they had time to prepare their anarchy jellos and cakes for Sunday, the actual day of the birthday.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Advertisements

63 Comments

  1. Happy birthday! Looking forward to another great year.

  2. You know what? I’ve changed my mind. Here’s a birthday present from me: the blog’s stats.

    Total Visits By Year
    2007: 7,164 (from Oct. 7 to end of year)
    2008: 72,933
    2009: 74,918
    2010: 73,410
    2011: 84,331
    2012: 66,405 (year is not finished, yet)

    Average Per Day
    2007: 83
    2008: 199
    2009: 205
    2010: 201
    2011: 231
    2012: 236

    Top 10 Posts
    Joseph Smith’s Daguerreotype – An Appeal for Help (13,491)
    Why do LDS still circumcise their boys? ( 10,861)
    How I get out of jury duty (9,361)
    The hollow earth theory, the plasma model and Mormon theology (6,580)
    The Apostasy of the LDS Church (4,854)
    What did Jesus Christ look like? (4,213)
    Extended fasting: a cure for all spiritual AND PHYSICAL ailments (4,052)
    My extended fast journal ( 3,799)
    Introducing a new bartering currency—the first coin: 1/2 Troy oz pure silver .999 fine (3,531)
    The Keys to Prophecy VI: A Great Star (3,438)

    Total Number of Hits (counted up to this very moment)
    379,156

    Day With the Highest Number of Views
    March 27, 2008, with 914 views.

    Top 10 Views by Country (since Feb 25, 2012)
    United States: 44,126
    United Kingdom: 1,315
    Canada: 1,300
    Australia: 1,249
    Philippines: 936
    Switzerland: 674
    Spain: 407
    Belgium: 386
    Brazil: 315
    New Zealand: 262

    Top 10 Referrers
    Search Engines: 28,378
    Wordpress.com: 1,817
    mormonblogs.org: 1,448
    en.wordpress.com: 1,087
    wheatandtares.org: 1,031
    Facebook: 1,014
    Google Reader: 1,011
    templestudy.com: 841
    onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com: 809
    mormonmatters.org: 708

    Top Ten Clicks (from the blog
    ldsanarchy.files.wordpress.com (2,548)
    scriptures.lds.org (1,835)
    en.wordpress.com (1,487)
    ourhollowearth.com (1,024)
    WordPress.com (894)
    gravatar.com (808)
    threewatches.blogspot.com (771)
    ldsendowment.org (699)
    readandpostpb.proboards101.com (613)
    lds.org (567)

    Top 10 Search Engine Terms
    anarchy (13,054)
    lds anarchy (5,522)
    how to get out of jury duty (2,659)
    joseph smith (1,279)
    canopic jars (1,151)
    get out of jury duty (885)
    ldsanarchy (850)
    mormon circumcision (801)
    lds anarchist (738)
    circumcision lds (605)

    Views by Author
    LDS Anarchist (198,522)
    anthonyelarson (20,926)
    Justin (14,996)
    onewhoiswatching (8,306)
    dyc4557 ( 5,012)
    rodneycluff (3,163)
    spektator (2,896)
    Elder Chantdown (1,370)
    liv435 (292)
    illmatic253 (162)

    There have been
    370 posts,
    6,454 comments,
    78 categories,
    3,726 tags,
    68 blog followers (they sign up to follow the whole blog) and
    131 comment followers (they sign up to follow a particular post.)

    Average Comments Per Month
    163

    Most Commented Posts
    CHI #7 (177)
    Why do LDS still circumcise their boys? (164)
    The Concept of Race, in the Gospel (118)
    The Apostasy of the LDS Church (111)
    Body modesty is not a principle of the gospel (105)
    An alternate view of the keys (101)
    Establishing the tribes of Israel: the real reason for plural marriage (100)
    Introducing a new bartering currency—the first coin: 1/2 Troy oz pure silver .999 fine (88)
    Deep Waters: How many wives? How many husbands? (82)
    Joseph Smith’s Daguerreotype – An Appeal for Help (82)
    The Split-Brain Model of the Gospel (70)

    Total Shares (122)
    Facebook (74)
    Email (14)
    StumbleUpon (13)
    Twitter (11)
    Digg (6)
    Press This (3)
    Reddit (1)

    Top 10 Posts (and Pages) by Shares
    About (17)
    The Split-Brain Model of the Gospel (9)
    CHI #5 (5)
    Gimme some a that Mormon-hippie love, with a side of anarchy. (4)
    The Priesthood (4)
    My extended fast journal (4)
    Abrahamic Concubinage as an Inter-Tribal Function (3)
    Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender (3)
    Isaiah Explained: Isaiah Institute Translation with audio commentary by Avraham Gileadi (3)
    Manasseh’s future leadership role (3)
    Extended fasting: a cure for all spiritual AND PHYSICAL ailments (3)

    Top Rated Posts
    Spicing up your church experience: Women’s edition 5/5 (11 votes)
    Spicing up your church experience 5/5 (10 votes)
    Taking our Myths Literally 5/5 (6 votes)
    Intimacy as the Opposite of Sin 5/5 (6 votes)
    An alternate view of the keys 5/5 (5 votes)
    Why do LDS still circumcise their boys? 5/5 (4 votes)
    LDS Anarchist’s Posts Are “Open” Copyright 5/5 (4 votes)
    Selections from the Book of Laman 5/5 (4 votes)
    A Mystical Look at the LDS Restoration Movement 5/5 (3 votes)
    The Split-Brain Model of the Gospel 5/5 (3 votes)

    Top 3 Rated Comments
    This one (15 for, 1 against)
    this one (14 for, 0 against)
    and this one (12 for, 0 against)

    Highest Hits In a Month
    January 2011 with 8,679 hits.

    Highest Average Daily Hits
    November 2010 with a daily average of 285 hits.

    Now, did I leave anything out?

  3. The top rated comments are all on circumcision? Interesting. Happy fifth! Here’s to the next five years impacting a whole lot of people the same way I have been.

    When I first looked I thought you drew Joseph Smith snorkeling and was very curious what the point was…but once I knew what you were trying to depict I decided you probably couldn’t do much better than that.

    Also, according to my daughters, red is a girl color. So no need to change.

  4. I laugh that “anarchy”, “circumcision”, and “jury duty” are our top-3 draws.

  5. Top 10 Views by Country (since Feb 25, 2012)
    Philippines: 936.
    I don’t know of anyone else in the Philippines who reads this blog so I am forced to conclude one thing. I spend WAY TOO MUCH TIME looking at this blog!

  6. Yeah, dyc4557, I thought you’d get a kick out of that.

  7. Just a note to all the blog contributors. This blog is listed on the Mormon Blogs Aggregator, so if you want more exposure for any particular post, make sure you use tags that fit into that aggregator’s notice system. Just use whichever Mormon Blogs tags fit for your particular post and as soon as you hit publish it will appear on their posting board, under the Categories that pertain to the Mormon Blogs tags you used. It sounds confusing, but just check out the link and you’ll see what I mean.

  8. Thank you for all!
    I really love going through the posts!

  9. Wanted to express my appreciation for those that contribute here, both the authors and those that drop a comment on posts.

    I was on a path that has lead me to where I am now. I think I would have arrived here eventually, but some things I experienced here helped me. Kinda like learning to surf with someone else in the water and they help with a little push when you are trying to catch a wave, you get it much quicker.

    I don’t come by here as much anymore, the place I am at is no longer a path but more a way. I love all of you. For all that we are distant and separated, I say that with actual feeling and connection to several of you.

  10. I decided to give Twitter another try. So, for any who are interested, here is my new Twitter account: @LDSAnarchist

  11. This is a call out to the other contributors of this blog. I was thinking that it would be interesting to get everyone’s take on the King Follett Sermon. If anyone feels so inclined to expound it in a post or series of posts, I think that would be quite interesting. Most people read the sermon in the very same way. I’d be curious to see if the contributors of this particular blog interpret it like other Mormons do.

  12. I’ve become a Dvorak convert. To make the transition easier and quicker, I’ve set my computer to Dvorak and removed its Qwerty setting. My top speed was 56 wpm on Qwerty. I hope to double it on Dvorak. (Currently it’s probably at 5 wpm. But I’m hopeful it’ll improve rapidly.)

  13. 15 wpm now, no errors, with Dvorak.

  14. I’ve been watching the earthquake swarm in the Solomon Islands with interest for days now, wondering whether these were foreshocks of a coming great quake. Well, apparently that’s what they were. A magnitude 8.0 earthquake just occurred in the Santa Cruz Islands region in the last hour. It will likely be downgraded in magnitude as seismologists study the data and take more accurate measurements.

  15. Apparently, this earthquake generated a tsunami. Also, a CME may be heading our way, caused by a C9-class solar flare that just occurred. I wonder if this has anything to do with the large comets in our solar system?

  16. ive started working on my take on the king follet discourse

  17. speaking of the solar system..
    http://news.sky.com/story/1048633/asteroid-to-pass-earth-in-record-near-miss

  18. so this asteroid is predicted to pass earth at about 17000 mi (27000 km). the closest flyby ever recorded before this (that im aware of) was at 26700 mi (43000 km). http://www.astrometrica.at/default.html?/images/200404.html

    geostationary satellites of which there are about 300 in orbit are at 22000 mi (35000 km)
    http://www.satbeams.com/satellites

    the moon is on average about 238000 mi (384400 km) from earth

    so this asteroid is going to closer than any earlier record flyby by about 40% (i think im pretty bad at math) and 30% closer than the satellites. things might just get interesting soon. this is definitely close enough to throw a lot of satellites out of orbit

  19. just happens to be the same day as a huge novelty spike
    http://www.fractal-timewave.com/timewave_calculator.php#content

  20. I thought this was interesting. Winter storm “Nemo” had a hurricane-like eye.

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=123

  21. 26 wpm with Dvorak, no errors, nearly half my former top speed. Dvorak is so much easier to use than Qwerty, but my brain keeps wanting to type Qwerty. It is very difficult to unlearn Qwerty. I wish I had never learned it. My children, who never learned Qwerty are now learning with Dvorak and they have it so much easier than I do. They say that when I sit down to type, my facial muscles go into contortions. They can totally tell my mind is fighting itself.

  22. is it worth the effort to retrain?

  23. I believe so. There’s hardly any finger movement with Dvorak, so even though my speed has decreased, it feels like once I master this keyboard, my accuracy and speed should go through the roof. Initially I’m hoping for double my Qwerty speed, since that is typical of people who switch, but because it feels so natural, with practice I bet I’ll be able to get even faster, while keeping accuracy at 100%. The problem I’m having is not with Dvorak. I memorized all the keys in the first sitting. So did my wife and children. Nor are the finger strokes difficult. They’re actually much easier than Qwerty keystrokes. The problem, then, is merely my Qwerty habit. I want to overcome it in the shortest possible time, which is why I have elected to go cold turkey by removing the Qwerty setting from my computer.

  24. 28 wpm, no errors, exactly half my former top speed. Still struggling, but not as much.

  25. 33 wpm, no errors. Inching up.

  26. 38 wpm, no errors. Whoo-hoo!

  27. 42 wpm, no errors. Passed the 40 wpm barrier!

  28. Been thinking about a new [Ordered Tribal Anarchy – Tribal Order Anarchy – Tribal Anarchy Order – Anarchic Tribal Order – Anarchy Ordered Tribe – Ordered Anarchy Tribe] symbol. Came up with this:

    Tribal Anarchy is Order

    Just wish I was an artist and could make it cooler-looking. I think I’ll call this the “Tribal Anarchy is Order” (TAO) symbol. I like the symbol because if you turn it one way, the tribe comes first. Turn it the other way and anarchy comes first. Either way, though, there is order. To me, both directions look like someone holding a stick. One way, a tribal warrior holding a staff or a spear. The other way, a guy on a boat (“anarchy established on a tribe, even on the ‘t’ of ‘tribe’, which bends to support the weight or modifies itself accordingly, as a semi-rigid structure”), holding a long stick or paddle. The tribal warrior suggests defense and strength, perhaps even the threat of war, while the boatman suggests a journey and peace. Both have the Sun (the Son of God?) behind them or always in the picture. It can be used one way as an emblem of peace and turned upside down as an emblem of war, depending on the circumstances. Anyway, I like the symbol. It captures my imagination.

  29. Yeah — I like it too — I think I may make a variation of it for myself. If I like it, then I’ll post it here too.

  30. TAO image, Version 9

    TAO, Version 9

    Obviously, the GEMTAM and LDS letters can be removed to make it a pure TAO symbol. Feel free to use and modify, as anyone wishes.

  31. TAO symbol, Version 2

    TAO symbol, Version 2

    My kids like this one. I can do this one better, though. This was a first try.

  32. Wasn’t sure where to put this… Denver Snuffer has been called into a disciplinary counsel for apostasy. See the letter linked below.

    Don’t call me. (Yes, that means you too!)

    I’m actually kind of glad that he put the letter up, but he’ll probably get in trouble for that, too.

  33. I could have sworn I wrote a list of translated beings mentioned in the scriptures and more especially the Book of Mormon but I can’t seem to find it anywhere on this blog. Perhaps I wrote it down in a comment on some other blog. It doesn’t really matter where I put it, I guess, since it’s still in my head and I could write it down again if need be. But I wanted to add some potentials to the list, since I was reading the scriptures the other day and noticed that Alma, Amulek and the sons of Mosiah were each given power that no man could slay them. The Book of Mormon gives no account of the death of any of these men and in fact intimates that Alma was translated, so, given that Amulek and the others were given the same power as Alma, and there is no record of their deaths, it may be that these men also were translated.

    And they had power given unto them, insomuch that they could not be confined in dungeons; neither was it possible that any man could slay them; nevertheless they did not exercise their power until they were bound in bands and cast into prison. Now, this was done that the Lord might show forth his power in them. (Alma 8:31)

    And the Lord said unto Mosiah: Let them go up, for many shall believe on their words, and they shall have eternal life; and I will deliver thy sons out of the hands of the Lamanites. (Mosiah 28:7)

    Therefore they did not fear Ammon, for they supposed that one of their men could slay him according to their pleasure, for they knew not that the Lord had promised Mosiah that he would deliver his sons out of their hands; neither did they know anything concerning the Lord; therefore they delighted in the destruction of their brethren; and for this cause they stood to scatter the flocks of the king.

    Now we see that Ammon could not be slain, for the Lord had said unto Mosiah, his father: I will spare him, and it shall be unto him according to thy faith—therefore, Mosiah trusted him unto the Lord. (Alma 17:35-36)

    And they answered the king, and said: Whether he be the Great Spirit or a man, we know not; but this much we do know, that he cannot be slain by the enemies of the king; neither can they scatter the king’s flocks when he is with us, because of his expertness and great strength; therefore, we know that he is a friend to the king. And now, O king, we do not believe that a man has such great power, for we know he cannot be slain. (Alma 18:3)

    And now, if thou wilt tell me concerning these things, whatsoever thou desirest I will give unto thee; and if it were needed, I would guard thee with my armies; but I know that thou art more powerful than all they; nevertheless, whatsoever thou desirest of me I will grant it unto thee. (Alma 18:21)

    Also, I want to write that it appears that Ammon’s power, which exceeded all the Lamanite armies (according to the servants), was patterned after the strength of the Lord given to Samson, who slew a thousand soldiers with just the jaw-bone of an ass and who would have continued unconquerable if he hadn’t fallen into transgression. I suppose that most would say that the servants’ assessment was an exaggeration and not accurate, and I would have agreed previously, but now I’m not so sure. The Nephites had the strength of the Lord given to them, so that one Nephite died for every 11 Lamanites that perished, but that may have been the strength ratio given to non-translated Nephites. Once a man became translated, the upper limit of strength may have been lifted, like Samson.

    In other words, I had been under the impression that Samson was unique among men in his strength, but that assessment may have been premature. These translated Nephites, or any translated person, really, may have been given the same level of strength and power as Samson.

    One more thing: Alma and Amulek may have told the Ammalickiahites that they had been given the powers that God had bestowed upon them, of not being able to be slain, of saving the righteous, of being delivered from prisons, etc. This may have been the reason why the judge said the following to them:

    Behold, ye see that ye had not power to save those who had been cast into the fire; neither has God saved them because they were of thy faith. And the judge smote them again upon their cheeks, and asked: What say ye for yourselves? (Alma 14:15)

    And it came to pass that they departed and went their ways, but came again on the morrow; and the judge also smote them again on their cheeks. And many came forth also, and smote them, saying: Will ye stand again and judge this people, and condemn our law? If ye have such great power why do ye not deliver yourselves? (Alma 14:20)

    And the chief judge stood before them, and smote them again, and said unto them: If ye have the power of God deliver yourselves from these bands, and then we will believe that the Lord will destroy this people according to your words. (Alma 14:24)

    My point in all this is that these very same blessings and levels of immense strength, power, etc., appear to be available to all who seek, obtain and exercise this same faith, not just Samson or a select lucky few.

  34. My youngest son doesn’t like to take baths or showers and so he never wants to get baptized. Yesterday, as yet again he voiced his determination not to be baptized, I calmed his fears somewhat, explaining that he didn’t need to be baptized since he was already sanctified by Christ, just as he didn’t need to partake of the sacrament, and that sacrament was for people who were older and capable of sin, just like baptism was for people who had sinned. I told him that if he waited a few more years, and if the Millennium had not yet shown up by then, that his mind would likely be changed and he would then want to be baptized and also partake of the sacrament. But if the Millennium burst upon us prior to him turning 8, that he would not need to ever get baptized, since there would be no more sin in the Millennium, Satan being bound.

    I do not know if the teaching was correct, though. So, I ask the blog readership, will baptism be required as an ordinance of salvation for the sinless people living in the Millennium?

    Keep in mind that little children are also sinless, and thus do not need baptism for the remission of sins. This is what Mormon wrote to Moroni:

    Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

    And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

    But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

    Mormon here links repentance to baptism, but the people living in the Millennium will be in need of no repentance, either. That puts the second and third principles of the gospel in question. (1st, faith, 2nd, repentance, 3rd, baptism, 4th, gift of the Holy Ghost.) I wonder if the people in the Millennium will merely exercise faith, receive a baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and then be confirmed by the laying on of hands, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, never needing to repent or be baptized?

    I suppose those who say that people will be baptized in the Millennium will point to the baptism of sinless Jesus, who fulfilled all righteousness by His act and set an example for us. But Jesus may have been a special case, because Mormon also says:

    For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

    Those who have the whole law and who abide by the whole law (those who live during the Millennium, who have never sinned), are also under no condemnation, therefore they also cannot repent and baptism is useless to them, as well, (if we follow Mormon’s logic to conclusion.) The second and third principles of the gospel, then, may be only for those who have broken the law. Just because you are accountable and capable of committing sin (having reached the age of eight) does that mean that you must be baptized, even if you have broken no law? We baptize all who arrive at age eight, because Satan is not bound, but is here among us, tempting us, and we know that all who come under the influence of his temptations, at age eight, inevitably end up falling. But the same cannot be said of the people living during the Millennium, who will have no such temptations given to them at age eight, or any other time afterward, for a thousand years.

    So again, I ask, will there be baptism of sinless people during the Millennium?

  35. I don’t know why that’s a question that I hadn’t thought of before. The first thought I had about it was — and I can’t remember — are children who’ve died before the age of 8 proxy baptized in temples or not?

  36. As far as I know, they are not baptized.

  37. That’s what I thought too, but I couldn’t remember for sure. In that case, my estimation is that those not subjected to the temptation of sin by the devil are not in need of baptism.

    If that were the criteria for baptism [“those under the possibility of being tempted by the devil need baptism”] then Jesus wouldn’t need to have been a “special case”, for He was subjected to Satan’s temptations. And there’s also no question raised as to why we would baptize children who just turned 8 [and therefore don’t have any sins that need remitted yet] because they need baptism simply because now they are subject to the devil’s temptations [whether they’ve yielded or not].

    So for all people living out a mortal life during the Millennium, I’d guess that they would not be in need of baptism — and it would be for the same reason why children today are not in need of it — i.e., they are not subjected to temptations from the devil — and baptism is only for those subjected to his promptings and enticings.

  38. Your words make me wonder if Jesus was tempted by the devil starting at age eight like the rest of us, or whether he was tempted of the devil from the get-go. If the Holy Child could not be taught by anyone:

    And it came to pass that Jesus grew up with his brethren, and waxed strong, and waited upon the Lord for the time of his ministry to come. And he served under his father, and he spake not as other men, neither could he be taught; for he needed not that any man should teach him. (JST Matt. 3:24-25)

    then maybe the devil was allowed to tempt him from the beginning. Little children are innocent, but also ignorant. Perhaps Jesus was different in that He was ever innocent but never ignorant, so that His age of accountability was from everlasting to everlasting.

  39. I personally prefer to err on the side of Jesus being more like us regular humans [rather than less like] — so I’d like to think that He had the same “child <8 years-old protection" placed on Him that every other human child has.

  40. Why is it that we get the eight year window? Is is not because we do not know right from wrong, and thus can ignorantly sin? The angel said to king Benjamin about Christ:

    For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

    Would you say that Jesus was capable of sinning in ignorance as a child? In other words, would you say He did not know right from wrong prior to age eight? Or even, that He perhaps did ignorantly sin as a little child, but that was not counted against Him because of His ignorance?

  41. Notice King Benjamin’s “or”. There is no such thing as “ignorantly sinning”. The “or” is put there for the readers’ benefit. Sin is, by definition, a willful act. So the “or” is an editorial remark for the benefit of readers such as ourselves.

    Would you say that Jesus was capable of sinning in ignorance as a child?

    Yes. There was a period of time in which He pooped on Himself, demanded attention from His mother selfishly, etc. that was prior to the age of 8 [just like any other <8 year-old human].

    So,

    In other words, would you say He did not know right from wrong prior to age eight?

    When He consented to emptying Himself of His godliness and being born on earth as a human-being — then part of that process was the “loss” of the “omniscience” He had as a part of the Godhead — making Him “as a little child” whenever He was a little child on Earth [just like Adam].

  42. When He consented to emptying Himself of His godliness and being born on earth as a human-being

    So, you see Jesus as progressing from human/man to God, so that Amulek’s words are only speaking of Christ at the moment of His death and not of Him prior to becoming the infinite and eternal sacrifice?

    For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

    And when Abinadi taught that “God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man,” are you saying that this wasn’t just a form, but He was in very deed a man (“emptying Himself of His godliness”) and then progressed (back to) Godhood (no longer a man)? Also, is there a scripture that says that Christ was made “as a little child”? I am trying to (mentally) search the scriptures and I’m coming up blank. I recall reading that Christ “humbleth himself before the Father,” but I can’t recall anything else. The scriptures that speak of Christ’s infancy are pretty scant on details, so I assume you are arriving at these conclusions through other scriptures, but which ones? Finally, how do you figure that Christ lost His omniscience by being born? I recall that last year I wrote extensively about the omnipotence of God, but could it be that I’ve never addressed God’s omniscience on this blog?

  43. I suppose this is some of my personal theology through my own scripture reading — but I’d say:

    Philippians 2:5-11

    let this mind be in you
    which was also in the anointed Jesus
    who
    being in the form of god
    did not estimate his equality with god something to be grasped at
    but rather made himself of no reputation
    and took upon himself the form of a servant
    and was made in the likeness of humans
    and being found in the figure of a man
    he humbled himself
    and became obedient even unto death
    even the death of the cross
    wherefore
    god also hath highly exalted him
    and given him a name
    above every name
    that at the name of

    Jesus

    every knee should bend
    of things in heaven
    and things in earth
    and things under earth
    and that every tongue should confess
    that the anointed Jesus is lord
    to the glory of god
    the father

    The Greek for “form” here is

    morphe

    as in meta+morphosis. When a caterpillar under goes “metamorphosis”, does it simply “appear” to “look like” a butterfly — or did it, in very deed, become a butterfly?

    Jesus [before mortality] was, in every form — “God”. He did not view His premortal equality with God something He needed to greedily grasp/cling onto — so He emptied Himself of His “Godness” in order to take upon Himself, in every form, the figure and likeness of a human-being [specifically, a man].

    Hebrews 5:8-9

    though he were a son
    he yet learned obedience
    by the things which he suffered
    and once made perfect
    he became the author of eternal salvation
    unto all them that obey him

  44. From the Wikipedia:

    The word “metamorphosis” derives from Greek μεταμόρφωσις, “transformation, transforming”, from μετα- (meta-), “change” + μορφή (morphe), “form”.

    I think we can both agree that “form” is obviously applied to God in the scriptures, but what about “meta-“? If God went through a metamorphosis went He came down to Earth, then how do you account for these scriptures:

    Mormon: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable [meta-able] being; but he is unchangeable [un-meta-able] from all eternity to all eternity.”

    Moroni: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing [meta-ing]?”

    On another topic, you wrote above:

    Notice King Benjamin’s “or”. There is no such thing as “ignorantly sinning”. The “or” is put there for the readers’ benefit. Sin is, by definition, a willful act. So the “or” is an editorial remark for the benefit of readers such as ourselves.

    If you look a few verses ahead in that same chapter, the angel says the following:

    And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.

    Now look at what Jacob said:

    Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

    For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

    God’s justice demands that even the people that have not had the law given to them on earth must go to hell. Ignorance of the law does not excuse us of the responsibility to comply with the law. If you break one of man’s laws, unknowingly, and then tell the cop, “But I didn’t know that was a law!” he will still cite you or arrest you. Knowledge of the law is not his problem, it’s yours. His concern is who breaks the law, not whether they know the law. So, justice demands that everyone that breaks the law of God, whether they know it or not, receive the penalty affixed to the law. This is because we all knew the law in the pre-mortal existence, and voluntarily came down here, knowing that a veil of forgetfulness would be placed upon us. Thus, our ignorance of the law was intentional, meaning we quite literally break the laws with knowledge aforethought, or, to put it differently, with foreknowledge aforebirth. Because of this vulnerability that the veil of forgetfulness creates, in which our ignorance of the law (having forgotten all about it) will inevitably lead to ignorantly sinning, the atonement of Christ provides a safety cushion of eight years (a deliverance from hell) for everyone, in which we can learn right from wrong, and He atones for all the sins we commit in those first eight years in which we are ignorant (forgetful) of God’s law. This satisfies the demands of justice, just as it satisfies the demands of justice upon all those that repent of their sins.

    If the above is true, then we are brought back to the infant Jesus, from birth to age eight. If Jesus were to break the law as an infant, ignorantly, how then could he atone for the sins of the world? Can his atonement, which requires that He be perfect in the law every whit, having never broken it, pay for His own sins that He committed ignorantly as an infant? This leads to other questions, such as whether or not Jesus was ever devoid of His omniscience at any point in His existence, or his omnipotence or any of the qualities that make up God. If God can only be God eternally, not ever changing (meta-ing), then what does it mean that He went from grace to grace and received not of the fulness at first?

  45. Because the Godhead was born into time-and-space as Jesus Christ, a theological mystery arises concerning the nature of God’s “oneness” and “unchangeability”.

    Both LDS and other Christians have this conflict in different ways. For Christians, they’re left having to tackle how God is supposed to be unchangeable and incorporeal in the Old Testament yet took upon Him the form of Jesus and resurrected with a physical body in the New Testament. For LDS, we’ve got to wonder how Jesus could be in every whit equal with the Father despite never having been born, married, and resurrected, which is what we say all of the Father’s children have to do to be like the Father.

    Either way — whatever the scriptures mean by “God doesn’t change” — it obviously doesn’t include the Son [who was “God” from the beginning] letting-go of the form of God and taking upon Himself the form of a man. The scriptures must not, therefore, be referring to this particular change in God when they use the word “change” [cause something undoubtedly was different: He was a premortal spirit with the Father, then He was bound in mortal flesh on earth, then He was a resurrected man with the Father].

    Perhaps the reason Jesus could “learn obedience” and “become perfect” and advance “grace to grace” and not “receive a fullness at first” [while still leaving the nature of God “unchangeable”] is in the fact that He emptied Himself of the form of God that was in Him [lying it in reserve with the Father in heaven] and took upon Himself the form of a human [in order to become perfect through the things He would suffer].

    Also — point taken about Jesus committing acts that could be considered sin when He was <8 years-old — and the one about King Benjamin's "or" and ignorantly sinning. I was thinking of the scripture that says something like "to him that knoweth something and doesn't do, to him it is sin", which links sin with the willful transgression of the law's bounds. But I hadn't considered the things you brought-up about that. I’d amend what I wrote by saying that only in a universe where the atonement of Christ exists [and is there to satisfy the demands of justice] is it the case that there is no such thing as “ignorantly sinning”. It is sin [in reality] but it isn’t accounted as sin because the atonement of Jesus covers for such transgressions unconditionally.

  46. Either way — whatever the scriptures mean by “God doesn’t change” — it obviously doesn’t include the Son [who was “God” from the beginning] letting-go of the form of God and taking upon Himself the form of a man. The scriptures must not, therefore, be referring to this particular change in God when they use the word “change” [cause something undoubtedly was different: He was a premortal spirit with the Father, then He was bound in mortal flesh on earth, then He was a resurrected man with the Father].

    Isaiah spoke this of the wicked daughters of Zion:

    In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; the chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers; the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; the rings, and nose jewels; the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; the glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils.

    Also, there is much talk in the scriptures about clothing:

    “And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.”

    “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

    I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering.”

    “And they did have silks, and fine-twined linen; and they did work all manner of cloth, that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness.”

    “Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.”

    “And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.”

    We can consider, then, that this is the nature of God: both to be clothed in something and to provide clothes to all His creations. Although the clothing may change, according to the circumstance one finds him or herself in, according to the law of expediency, the person who wears the clothing remains the same. If we consider, then, that “God Himself coming down and taking on the form of man” simply means that He clothed Himself in the clothes of a man, so that His Godness was hidden, as another kind of kabod, or if we consider that

    “the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay

    The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.”

    “And prepare for the revelation which is to come, when the veil of the covering of my temple, in my tabernacle, which hideth the earth, shall be taken off, and all flesh shall see me together.”

    means the same thing, that He enclothes Himself in flesh to hide His glory from us, the tabernacle of clay or flesh being another kind of kabod, then we can consider that there was no loss or emptying, whatsoever, of Godhood, when Jesus came down. He was fully God at all times, but He didn’t show it at the first, but gradually revealed more of the glory that was already in Him in steps. So that, from our perspective, looking at Him from the outside, what we see is what John said he saw, as recorded in D&C 93:7-17, even Him receiving glory in steps. Nevertheless, Jesus repeatedly, both during and after His ministry, made the claim that “I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.” Therefore, the fulness of the glory of the Father was in Him from the start, (thus He was the Father, for He was one with the Father), but was not made manifest to men from the start, (thus He was the Son). So, it may be a matter of perspective. From our perspective, we see Him receiving more and more glory from the Father until He receives a fulness, but from God’s perspective, it is Him manifesting more of the glory that is already in Him (until we see His fulness, meaning we see Him for who He truly is: God), for He is the Spirit of truth, full of grace and truth from the beginning, and the Father dwells (and has always dwelt) in Him.

    So, it may be akin to a man wearing multiple layers of clothing, and nobody recognizing him, and then each time he takes off a clothing layer, he seems more and more familiar to us, until when the last layer of clothing comes off, we fully recognize him.

  47. I realize that that last comment was pretty long, but there is another thing to consider, and that is this: that the law of God is based upon the nature of God, or what God would do Himself if put into the specific circumstance in question. Therefore, if you put baby or little child Jesus in any particular circumstance, even with His memory completely wiped out, His nature still remains the same, and He still will do what is His nature to do, which is to precisely fulfill the law that He ordained previously (which is based upon His nature.) If this is true, then we have a glimpse as to what type of child Jesus actually was, by looking at what His law requires of children. This is what the angel said of the “ideal child”:

    And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

    For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

    For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

    We can surmise, then, that the Holy Child, or Jesus as a little child (from birth to age eight) is the standard the angel is using to describe the ideal little child. He is, after all, our exemplar, and must, of necessity then, show what it means to perform our childhood duties correctly. For there are children who are rebellious, prideful, impatient, full of hate (just look at the Lamanite children who were taught to hate the Nephites), etc. These laws for children must be based upon some standard or ideal child, and since we know that Jesus is the standard for the laws of God, they must be based upon what Jesus would do and did do, as a child.

  48. I asked my wife the original question:

    So, I ask the blog readership, will baptism be required as an ordinance of salvation for the sinless people living in the Millennium?

    Keep in mind that little children are also sinless, and thus do not need baptism for the remission of sins.

    and her answer was that she always thought that the reason we baptized children right at age 8 was not for “the remission of sins” [because they’re sinless up till that point] but because confirmation into the church of Christ and receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands follows a water baptism. Young children are about to enter the period in their life when they can be tempted by the devil — so they need confirmation into the church [for the sacrament] and the gift of the Holy Ghost [for Her guidance and support] as soon as possible.

    So, I think people in the Millennium will still need confirmation into Christ’s church and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost — so either they can get those things without a water baptism [they can just skip that one, or have a heavenly fire baptism instead or something], or they’ll be baptized as sinless people [like Jesus was baptized as a sinless person].

  49. It has begun.

  50. Brand,

    Is it possible for you to elaborate?

  51. D&C 103: 24&25

  52. and inasmuch as mine enemies come against you
    to drive you from my goodly land
    which I have consecrated to be the land of zion
    even from your own lands
    after these testimonies
    which ye have brought before me
    against them
    ye shall curse them
    and whomsoever ye curse
    I will curse
    and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies

    Well there you go …

  53. On April 15th we, the house of Israel backed the Gentile government down (BLM) this was the time of the Blood Moon on Passover. Cliven Bundy had spent two days in the Saint George Temple fasting and praying to be delivered from this rogue government, the spirit told him to wait two days the Lord would send help. The following Sat. and Sun. the BLM started rounding up his cattle, Sat. being the true Sabath. Monday the young and the aged warriors began to show up with arms. By the 15th there was 500 heavily armed militia, the boys from the mountains came to uphold the US Constitution. On the !3th myself and another Israelite performed priesthood ordinances cursing the gentiles for their wickedness. D&C 25 And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies. Sincerely a Brand plucked from the fire.

  54. Is this the curse that you preformed?

  55. This is the second one related to the Bundy Battle, the first was at the Virgin River next to the Bundy Ranch. This one is just outside of Las Vegas in the Spring Mountain Range.

  56. Just a thing or two to add, I have learned from a reliable source that Harry Reid has been having emotional issues, in a nutshell a melt down. I can hardly keep up with events as they unfold.

    This area of the Bundy Ranch is the land beyond the Rocky Mountains the heathen Chinese are trying to invade at least in part.

    A friend of mine that works in the sheriff dept. told me that the deputies are very concerned with what Sheriff Giliispe has done.

  57. Well, this is interesting: A Few Notes from the Mesa Lecture

  58. I put that link up in the previous comment a little more than a week ago but I guess no one looked at it. Some of the note points looked awfully familiar, as I believe they have been discussed before on this blog. Quoted from that link:

    Denver reminded us that the priesthood doesn’t require a church to exist. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The church requires the priesthood. He reiterated how D&C 121:37-42 works. Power in the priesthood is NOT to control. If it is used to control or compel by virtue of dominion then the priesthood or the authority of that man is lost. Persuasion and long-suffering is required.

    Denver quoted D&C 50:17-25, and said “you should not waste another three-hour block of time in nonsense each Sunday. If nothing more, get together and read the scriptures or have a prayer meeting, but don’t waste your time on stuff from Deseret or published by the LDS Church.”

    “You do not need buildings to meet. Tithing is for the poor. Joseph Smith only built one building – a temple.” “Denver just announced there will eventually be a temple built. The names of those baptized will be recorded. A record will be kept and deposited once a year in the temple.” This is an amazing declaration. There is to be no hierarchy. The church is a community of believers.

    He also said, “Anyone who forbids you to partake of the sacrament in the Lord’s way is anti-Christ.” He also said we should use wine or if necessary for medical reasons, grape juice. The church should kneel with those who bless the Sacrament.”

  59. I was looking over D&C 112 the other day and I noticed that the Lord was speaking to the twelve apostles, starting in verse 14:

    Now, I say unto you, and what I say unto you, I say unto all the Twelve: Arise and gird up your loins, take up your cross, follow me, and feed my sheep.

    The reason why this is significant is because later on in the revelation, the Lord says this:

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.

    Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

    And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; first among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. (D&C 112:23-26)

    So vengeance is to come first among the twelve, eh? Lol. Perhaps the Lord does not like the fact that the twelve aren’t doing their duty of preaching the gospel to every creature among the Gentiles? Instead they act as high priests, going around regulating the churches already established in the stakes, instead of building up the branches of the church outside of the stakes? I wonder if the seventy will also be condemned for not doing their duty of preaching the gospel among the Gentiles, instead of just presiding over the missionary forces, who are the actual ones that preach the gospel? Or, how about the bishops, who now have control over more than just temporal matters, judging also in spiritual matters, contrary to the commandments and their appointed duty? I wonder if all this usurpation of authority and dereliction of duty will get a free pass from the Lord when the desolation begins… Heck, is there any priesthood officers, at all, I wonder, doing their duty? For virtually all the officers of the church have the responsibility to travel and preach, and none of this happens. Perhaps the deacons and teachers will be spared…or on second thought, maybe just the deacons (for the teachers don’t do much of their duty, either.)

  60. who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house

    Now, Rock recently wrote on his Pure Mormonism blog:

    This brings us back to those modern general authorities who insist they should be held in deference because the words they speak are equal to the words of God. Remember what Henry Eyring said of his brethren in the hierarchy? “The Lord has said of them ‘What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

    But is Eyring correct? Is that what the Lord has said of them? Or did the Lord actually say those words about a different group of men, regarding an actual set of revelations received directly through Him and echoing His voice? These men, the ones Henry Eyring is referring to, hadn’t even been born when the Lord made that statement a hundred and eighty-odd years ago. Neither had their fathers, and neither had their grandfathers and most likely their great-great grandfathers. So I don’t think God was talking about them. Maybe the Lord has said something similar about the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, but I have never seen a revelation saying so, have you? The Lord’s words in D&C 1:38 don’t come close to fitting this scenario.

    What about Russell Ballard’s claim? “When the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak with a united voice, it is the voice of the Lord for that time.”

    I don’t know how quick God is to take offense when people try to put words in his mouth he never said, but if it was me I’d be annoyed with that one. In ancient times “taking the Lord’s name in vain” meant representing God as saying something or taking a position on something which He never intended. Does Ballard even realize how arrogantly offensive his declaration is? Vox Populi, Vox Dei is the exact opposite of how God works. The word of God must actually come from God, not from a committee of men.

    Now,

    and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house

    is the intransitive form of the word, blaspheme, which, according to the 1828 dictionary, means:

    BLASPHE’ME, v.i. To utter blasphemy.

    He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. Mark 3.

    1. To arrogate the prerogatives of God.

    This man blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God? Math.9. Mark 2.

    so, this doesn’t mean

    BLASPHE’ME, v.t. [Gr. The first syllable is the same as in blame, blasme, denoting injury; L. loedo, loesus; The last syllable is the Gr.,to speak.]

    1. To speak of the Supreme Being in terms of impious irreverence; to revile or speak reproachfully of God, or the Holy Spirit. 1 Kings 21. Mark 3.

    2. To speak evil of; to utter abuse or calumny against; to speak reproachfully of.

    Instead, it simply means that they take upon themselves authority to speak or act for God which they do not have. Now, who can deny that this has not already occurred, or that it is not currently occurring?

  61. Here is an article typing crop circles to plasma formations:

    The physics of crop formations

    Is the mystery now solved?

  62. I caught this Sunstone presentation from Rock’s blog [Click the link, then click the “play” icon, then “Download”, then “Download Anyway”] — what I caught in the introduction was the mention that non-mainstream Mormons might potentially call themselves, “LDS Anarchists”.

  63. Yeah, I noticed that when he put it up on his blog.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS