grand key-word

Post by **_Blixa** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:44 pm

asbestosman wrote:
Blixa wrote:
Asbestosman, I think you are thinking of something different, but I have a question as well about your comment:

[snip]

Is the 'new name' alluded to here, the same as the new name one recieves in the temple? It doesn't seem so from this description, so are there two "new names" one should recieve, the second being given on actual admittance to the Celestial Kingdom (along with a side of peepstone)? If so, then why does one need one for the reasons given in verse 10 "whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known," since presumably in the Celestial Kingdom one will have this knowledge already. Verse 10 makes the "white stone with new name" sound like something needed in earth more than in heaven...

Please forgive me for not commenting much further on the matter. Looking back I think my scripture was only tangentially related to Celestial Kingdom's question as I think most here agree.

No problem.

But I'm kind of still wondering about the new name business anyway...

Post by **_evolving** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:42 pm

here are my two cents --

PoGP fac 2 fig7

Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove

the restored on the left - the orig(where he plagiarized it from)on right

PoGP fac 2 Fig. 3

Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed.

--------------------

In my attempt to understand the latest Book of Abraham apologetics - take this this image

as the grand key-word.. at least for Shirts and Lindsay the wedjet/wadjet-eye holds amazing mysterious woo-woo type power. the whole horus/christ archetype/mythology connection explanation only weakens the divinity of christ. but to each his own - If Joseph would have said the grand key-words were peanut butter. i'm sure there are plenty of connections to the ancient world to make an argument.

this whole life is an enigma wrapped in an illusion anyway.

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:54 pm

evolving wrote:

Is that a lizard with a phallus? If only Mark Hoffman had thrown some of that into the salamander deal...

Post by **_evolving** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:06 pm

Is that a lizard with a phallus? If only Mark Hoffman had thrown some of that into the salamander deal...

what is even better than that is the Church yanked the phallus off the facimille between 1850 & 1930 and put it back out of god's belly not to pornographic(i think those dates are correct) - but I don't think I should use the words phallus and yanked in the same sentence. I start to blush.
~evolving

Post by **_moksha** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:43 pm

evolving wrote:what is even better than that is the Church yanked the phallus off the facimille between 1850 & 1930...

What were they thinking? Wouldn't God with a hard-on confirm the Church's argument of a physical body for God, and even perhaps lend creedence to polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom?

Post by **_evolving** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:49 pm

moksha wrote:
evolving wrote:what is even better than that is the Church yanked the phallus off the facimille between 1850 & 1930...

What were they thinking? Wouldn't God with a hard-on confirm the Church's argument of a physical body for God, and even perhaps lend creedence to polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom?

Well yes - God with an eternal hard-on is quite appealing to the man, but what about his wife. I sure hope astro-glide is an eternal principle and a lubricant.
~evolving

Post by **_Sethbag** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:52 pm

I think Kerry Shirts, the backward professor, used the idea of God with a dick as part of his proof that the ancients believed in a physical-body God. He even waxed eloquent on God's ejaculation, if I recall. I couldn't bring myself to listen to that whole podcast, nor indeed any of his podcasts. A few minutes of the bull**** were all I could take.

Post by **_Blixa** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:53 pm

If I'm not mistaken there is a whole Kerry Shirts rant/discourse on god's hard on. Others will have to provide the link. I ran out of Kolob-glide...

Post by **_Blixa** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:53 pm

Sethbag wrote:I think Kerry Shirts, the backward professor, used the idea of God with a dick as part of his proof that the ancients believed in a physical-body God. He even waxed eloquent on God's ejaculation, if I recall. I couldn't bring myself to listen to that whole podcast, nor indeed any of his podcasts. A few minutes of the bull**** were all I could take.

Jinx!

You owe me a Coke...

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:54 pm

Sethbag wrote:I think Kerry Shirts, the backward professor, used the idea of God with a dick as part of his proof that the ancients believed in a physical-body God. He even waxed eloquent on God's ejaculation, if I recall. I couldn't bring myself to listen to that whole podcast, nor indeed any of his podcasts. A few minutes of the bull**** were all I could take.

I believe that podcast was a brilliant work of parody and cautionary tale for those who try to use archeology as a tool within religion. I don't think he was completely serious. Methinks it was a Parody Lost...

Then again; maybe he was serious (but to me it sounded like a parody regarding the use of archeology to prove religious claims).