The Long and Winding Road (To Ruin) or Eight Days a Week (Of Woe): Mormon Apostle Blames the Beatles for Society's Ills

[Shulem]

It's not cut and dried

....signature on the bill was "Mickey Mouse"?

or

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

The characters above his hand are cut and dried: "The Osiris Hôr, justified forever"

[MG 2.0]

This is a link and run post. You’re supposed to provide sufficient detail from any link to allow the reader to make an informed decision about whether or not to click on it. You’ve failed to do so. Despite being warned on multiple occasions about this very thing. Stop being so lazy.

The article is ridiculous, Nibley was a Biblical hack, and I can tear that article to shreds. But I would like see him try to defend the points in it in his own words, and answer my last question, before I waste much time.

MG, when you cite a source, unless you just want to look like a lazy trollish clown, you better be willing to defend it. Are you interested in taking things to a scholarly level? Or are you just here trying to make yourself feel good about you beliefs without doing any heavy lifting?

I’m willing to hear what you have to say and learn from you. Here are the questions I have: Did Origen and the other four early church fathers I’ve listed expound at all in regard to multiple heavens, and that worthiness in some form or fashion was necessary to be in/reach those heavens? Which of the five men mentioned, specifically, said that there were seven in number? What does the number seven mean in that/those instances?

Let’s leave the Bible out of it for now. It seems like the early Fathers of Christianity in the early days might have a pretty good handle on what the early Saints believed and were taught.

I won’t argue that theologians in the pre modern and modern era have looked at the original language/meaning from early writings and come to other conclusions.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/wha ... s-of-glory

It's not cut and dried

Regards,
MG

Yawn, good Lord. Before I deal with Scripture Central (LOL), the "church fathers", and Nibley, let me ask you: are you committed to Joseph Smith and your Brighamite religion no matter what? And are you willing to agree that a single contradiction with regard to a truth claim is enough to falsify it?

I'll ask it this way: are you one of those types, who if on the reception of a brand new $100 bill, would still accept it as geniune, and focus on all the "perfect things" about it, even if someone pointed out that the signature on the bill was "Mickey Mouse"?

MG, you already have Bill’s excellent Greek point about μονή = “dwelling place,” used again in John 14:23 for God indwelling the believer. That alone undercuts the “zoned subdivision of heaven” reading.

And shulem’s point here:

MG wrote: The Plan of Salvation and Exaltation provides a heavenly home for the lion's share of all of God's children.

What could be more fair/equitable than that?

shulem wrote: Sounds like a business transaction, like getting paid extra for doing extra.

Which sounds close to the rebuke in Matthew 20: 1-16.

Not to pile on much more, but I’m interested in your answers to Bill’s consolidated questions here:

Bill wrote: are you committed to Joseph Smith and your Brighamite religion no matter what? And are you willing to agree that a single contradiction with regard to a truth claim is enough to falsify it?

MG, when you cite a source, unless you just want to look like a lazy trollish clown, you better be willing to defend it. Are you interested in taking things to a scholarly level? Or are you just here trying to make yourself feel good about you beliefs without doing any heavy lifting?

What are your thoughts about Bill’s comments? I’m interested in your counterpoints.

[MG 2.0]

Yawn, good Lord. Before I deal with Scripture Central (LOL), the "church fathers", and Nibley, let me ask you: are you committed to Joseph Smith and your Brighamite religion no matter what? And are you willing to agree that a single contradiction with regard to a truth claim is enough to falsify it?

I'll ask it this way: are you one of those types, who if on the reception of a brand new $100 bill, would still accept it as geniune, and focus on all the "perfect things" about it, even if someone pointed out that the signature on the bill was "Mickey Mouse"?

MG, you already have Bill’s excellent Greek point about μονή = “dwelling place,” used again in John 14:23 for God indwelling the believer. That alone undercuts the “zoned subdivision of heaven” reading.

And shulem’s point here:

MG wrote: The Plan of Salvation and Exaltation provides a heavenly home for the lion's share of all of God's children.

What could be more fair/equitable than that?

shulem wrote: Sounds like a business transaction, like getting paid extra for doing extra.

Which sounds close to the rebuke in Matthew 20: 1-16.

Not to pile on much more, but I’m interested in your answers to Bill’s consolidated questions here:

Bill wrote: are you committed to Joseph Smith and your Brighamite religion no matter what? And are you willing to agree that a single contradiction with regard to a truth claim is enough to falsify it?

MG, when you cite a source, unless you just want to look like a lazy trollish clown, you better be willing to defend it. Are you interested in taking things to a scholarly level? Or are you just here trying to make yourself feel good about you beliefs without doing any heavy lifting?

What are your thoughts about Bill’s comments? I’m interested in your counterpoints.

I would be interested, on the other hand, in your response to my post in response to bill. If I hear the same thing twice I may have to dig into things a bit more. Five early Church Fathers. Multiple heavens. Seven in some cases. What’s up with that?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

MG, you already have Bill’s excellent Greek point about μονή = “dwelling place,” used again in John 14:23 for God indwelling the believer. That alone undercuts the “zoned subdivision of heaven” reading.

And shulem’s point here:

<snip>

Which sounds close to the rebuke in Matthew 20: 1-16.

Not to pile on much more, but I’m interested in your answers to Bill’s consolidated questions here:

<snip>

What are your thoughts about Bill’s comments? I’m interested in your counterpoints.

I would be interested, on the other hand, in your response to my post in response to bill. If I hear the same thing twice I may have to dig into things a bit more. Five early Church Fathers. Multiple heavens. Seven in some cases. What’s up with that?

Regards,
MG

Sure, early Christians talked about different levels of reward and even multiple “heavens” in a cosmological sense. But what I see them saying is, “they are all in God’s kingdom, with different rewards,” not “three different final kingdoms” like D&C 76.

Will it be a waste of time for Bill to continue?

[MG 2.0]

I would be interested, on the other hand, in your response to my post in response to bill. If I hear the same thing twice I may have to dig into things a bit more. Five early Church Fathers. Multiple heavens. Seven in some cases. What’s up with that?

Regards,
MG

Sure, early Christians talked about different levels of reward and even multiple “heavens” in a cosmological sense. But what I see them saying is, “they are all in God’s kingdom, with different rewards,” not “three different final kingdoms” like D&C 76.

Will it be a waste of time for Bill to continue?

I don't think so. The LDS Church makes the claim that it teaches doctrines that are closer to the original doctrines taught in the Meridian of time when Jesus walked the earth. The five early Church Fathers that I have listed ought to be a good source to look to as to whether or not the doctrine of multiple heavens based upon worthiness, in some form or fashion, was believed by the early Saints before things became corrupted in one region/place or another.

I mean, gosh, you had five major regions that claimed to be 'the church' and/or the original believers in Jesus Christ and the Gospel that He taught.

Not all of these Church Fathers were from the same geographical area/region and yet they are teaching 'multiple heavens' of reward/glory based upon some kind of worthiness. What's up with that? For example Tertullian was an early Church Father in North Africa. Widely separated from the other four main Christian churches in antiquity.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

before I waste much time.

Bill, I’d be interested in your take on that ScriptureCentral piece. It seems to me they’re collapsing cosmology and soteriology—“heavens” in the sense of cosmic layers vs. “heavens” as final estates—and I’m curious how you’d unpack that.

They cite Chrysostom, Augustine, and Irenaeus as if they were describing three eternal rewards, but their own quotations say the righteous are all in God’s kingdom, just with different honors.

Would you mind doing a close reading? I’d like to see how you’d dismantle that argument, for my own edification. I don’t think it’s a waste of your time—for me anyway.

[Limnor]

they are teaching 'multiple heavens' of reward/glory based upon some kind of worthiness.

MG, I think you’re projecting a 19th-century framework back onto writers who simply were not saying what you think they were.

Not a single one of them places resurrected humans into different heavens or kingdoms based on moral worthiness.

[MG 2.0]

they are teaching 'multiple heavens' of reward/glory based upon some kind of worthiness.

MG, I think you’re projecting a 19th-century framework back onto writers who simply were not saying what you think they were.

Not a single one of them places resurrected humans into different heavens or kingdoms based on moral worthiness.

I think that you may be mistaken. Philo, out of the five (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Philo of Alexandria, and Origen), is the only one that did not teach concerning a literal resurrection of the body and instead focused on the soul’s ongoing or immortal life. All five of the early Church Fathers I've mentioned included multiple “heavens” or graded heavenly realms in their early teachings.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

MG, I think you’re projecting a 19th-century framework back onto writers who simply were not saying what you think they were.

Not a single one of them places resurrected humans into different heavens or kingdoms based on moral worthiness.

I think that you may be mistaken. Philo, out of the five (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Philo of Alexandria, and Origen), is the only one that did not teach concerning a literal resurrection of the body and instead focused on the soul’s ongoing or immortal life. All five of the early Church Fathers I've mentioned included multiple “heavens” or graded heavenly realms in their early teachings.

Regards,
MG

I’m not denying that some Fathers talk about “many heavens” or “degrees of glory.” I’m saying none of them teach the specifically Mormon idea of resurrected humans being eternally assigned to three separate kingdoms of glory the way D&C 76 does.

They either describe the cosmic layers of creation, or different degrees of reward within the one state of salvation—which is not the same thing.