Called to serve - as a CYBER Missionary?

[justamere10]

In the matter before us:

The first poster correctly stated that the earth is flat and rests upon the shoulders of four elephants, who are standing on the back of A'Tuin, the Great Turtle.

The second poster replied: "When asked what holds the turtle (sic) up, the reply is it's turtles all the way down."

I'll address my lofty remarks to that second poster who failed even to capitalize the first mention of "Turtle" in the first instance:


Now you're really piling it on and I may be getting out of my depth, though that has never happened before, but all things are possible. Ignoring the elephants because that's a given, I think (in my customary manner of unthinking) that what you're saying is that the Great Turtle is actually more than one being, but only one being, and maybe er incomprehensible??? Zounds!

You must be among those annoying ones who keep on saying the Turtle Creed was added to the Bible in defiance of Rev 22:18 to hijack the early Unturtle Church and gain control of it.


Here's what I think of such a creed:

"...supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity." D&C 123:7


It's incomprehensible that all those turtles piled one upon the other could ever be replaced, but here's what I think could happen because the creed of many turtles in one Great Turtle is seemingly filling at least part of the world with confusion:

"And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end." 1 Nephi 14:3


I'm not totally certain which side I came across as supporting but what does it matter anyway? Everyone knows we live in a world of confusion, why should today be any different?

With great respect Second Poster for your right to believe as you will, it is my considered opinion (and I'm seldom wrong about such things) that you have been drinking too much cool turtle soup and that has slowed your powers of comprehension, you're out of your depth and sinking, slowly, but sinking.

Stick with the elephants is my sage advice to you, you'll find that to be a big relief, the sounding of a clear and certain trumpet if you don't get too nosy and look beyond the mark at what it is the elephants are actually standing on.

(I apologize to the readers for any apparent confusion in the second instance, I'm just not unthinking clearly today, maybe it's the soup getting stale, let's move on shall we? But slowly, please, I must have time to unthink about such things. Er think, I'm not sure what's the difference anymore. Yes, must be the soup....)

Can anyone unexplain all that? Anyone at all?

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by justamere10

The first poster correctly stated that the earth is flat and rests upon the shoulders of four elephants, who are standing on the back of A'Tuin, the Great Turtle.

The second poster replied: "When asked what holds the turtle (sic) up, the reply is it's turtles all the way down."

Okay, what is it with people who refuse to call me by name? You are the second person who has done so today. What is up with that?

“Elphaba.” Is that so hard to write? Perhaps it is daunting because it is difficult to remember? If so, just use cut and paste. That’s how I get by.

I'll address my lofty remarks to that second poster who failed even to capitalize the first mention of "Turtle" in the first instance:

Now you're really piling it on >snip<blah blah blah<snip> but only one being, and maybe er incomprehensible??? Zounds!

Zounds? Is that in the Book of Mormon? Egad!

You must be among those annoying ones who keep on saying the Turtle Creed was added to the Bible in defiance of Rev 22:18 to hijack the early Unturtle Church and gain control of it.

Nope. Thoreau talked about them, and I thought it was funny.

Here's what I think of such a creed:

"...supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity." D&C 123:7

Since you asked, let me reference DotC (The Doctrine of the Clever), Book of Elphaba, Hawking 1:1.

“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy, described how the earth orbits around the sun, and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!”

See, old ladies, of which I am one, get to write “turtles” in lower case.

It's incomprehensible that all those turtles piled one upon the other could ever be replaced, but here's what I think could happen because the creed of many turtles in one Great Turtle is seemingly filling at least part of the world with confusion:

"And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end." 1 Nephi 14:3

Hmm, that is one way of looking at it I suppose. However, I think it is more likely you are bothered because the Great Turtle didn’t have to “digg” for anything. He only had to look down when he said “Hi” to his mates.

Bishop Newell K. Whitney’s comments are not scripture, but I believe they do apply:

“. . . . I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, . . .”

Sounds like an elephant and turtles to me, or it would if I were Hindu.

I'm not totally certain which side I came across as supporting but what does it matter anyway? Everyone knows we live in a world of confusion, why should today be any different?

Yes, well, you’re probably scared spitless you’re going to fall off the elephant because you’re balanced precariously on the back of a turtle. That would confuse even those who are as brilliant as the Second Poster.

With great respect Second Poster for your right to believe as you will, it is my considered opinion (and I'm seldom wrong about such things) that you have been drinking too much cool turtle soup and that has slowed your powers of comprehension, you're out of your depth and sinking, slowly, but sinking.

Of course the obvious retort is "I’m drinking something, but it ain’t turtle soup." But I am far too clever to resort to the obvious--except when it's served with a twist.

Speaking of sinking, do you suppose the Titanic fell off its turtles?

Stick with the elephants is my sage advice to you, you'll find that to be a big relief, the sounding of a clear and certain trumpet if you don't get too nosy and look beyond the mark at what it is the elephants, are actually standing on.

As elephants are wont to do, if I look down at what he is standing on, he might pee on me.

You look for me.

(I apologize to the readers for any apparent confusion in the second instance, I'm just not unthinking clearly today, maybe it's the soup getting stale, let's move on shall we?

Why is it that so many posters, when debating me, say “Let’s move on shall we?” but don’t actually move on?

But slowly, please, I must have time to unthink about such things. Er think, I'm not sure what's the difference anymore. Yes, must be the soup....)

Or perhaps it is the Mock Turtle’s tears? Now THAT turtle always gave me the eebie jeebies. However, now that I am a wise old lady, I see he may have been upset because he didn’t have an elephant standing on him.

Can anyone unexplain all that? Anyone at all?

Perhaps the Supreme Court of the United State’s Judge Antonin Scalia, can help:

“In our favored version, an Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down."

Hey! If a Supreme Court judge doesn’t have to capitalize turtles, then neither do I!

It just occurred to me. When Brigham said God would never take polygamy from the earth, but then the 1890 Manifesto did exactly that, do you think perhaps he was really talking about his turtles? All the way down?

Elphaba

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

....
Perhaps the Supreme Court of the United State’s Judge Antonin Scalia, can help:

“In our favored version, an Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down."

Hey! If a Supreme Court judge doesn’t have to capitalize turtles, then neither do I!

It just occurred to me. When Brigham said God would never take polygamy from the earth, but then the 1890 Manifesto did exactly that, do you think perhaps he was really talking about his turtles? All the way down?

Elphaba

At least Scalia, being familiar with elephants, knew enough William Blake to throw a tiger in to burn bright and complete the trinity. It's a bit surprising that he didn't swap the turtles for donkeys though.

No, I think brother Brigham was just being fallible, though they do say it does take a long time to eat a turtle and maybe he was stuck on that and it didn't get all the way down.

But enough turtles for now, I'll try to get this thread back up to speed by posting something recently added to the lds1.org board where there are a lot of articles on many topics available for LDS Cyber Missionaries to copy, edit, and post anywhere should they need a bit of help stringing some appropriate words together.

[justamere10]

The following was adapted from a message posted in the LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum http://www.lds1.org

Many critics find fault with the LDS Church by searching through Journals of Discourses of early Church leaders, or finding quotes from such journals on anti-Mormon websites. They fail to understand that the Saints love and respect early Prophets and Church leaders but understand that they are human beings prone to making mistakes the same as were prophets from ancient times. Only God Himself is infallible, as are Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost who speaks for the Godhead.

Some critics perhaps also fail to understand that most things in journals were written by the hand of others who in most cases were recalling things they'd heard at one time, and placing their own emphases and personal interpretations and understandings on. In those days some scribes and writers wrote in the first person, as if it was the person they are writing for who was doing the writing.

Latter-day Saints should not be expected to respond to criticisms about things written anywhere except in their canon. They are bound only to the doctrines that constitute official LDS canon.

Below are some pertinent excerpts from the LDS Newsroom.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine

[Jenamarie]

Mmmm turtles. You know there's good eating on one of those.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Okay, what is it with people who refuse to call me by name? You are the second person who has done so today. What is up with that?

“Elphaba.” Is that so hard to write? Perhaps it is daunting because it is difficult to remember? If so, just use cut and paste. That’s how I get by.

.....
Some clever remarks inserted here
.....


Yes, well, you’re probably scared spitless you’re going to fall off the elephant because you’re balanced precariously on the back of a turtle. That would confuse even those who are as brilliant as the Second Poster.

Zoiks! What is it with Elphaba refusing to call herself by her own name? It is almost as bad as when Bob Dole would refer to himself in the third person....

Signed, rameumptom - who isn't afraid to call himself by his own name (If he could only remember what it is....)

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Jenamarie

Mmmm turtles. You know there's good eating on one of those.

But I wouldn't recommend eating the one you and the rest of the world are riding upon.... You think elephants on the back of a Turtle is precarious, just imagine what would happen if you remove the Turtle.

BTW, it doesn't have to be turtles all the way down, Elphaba. The Turtle swims through the vast sea of nothingness, which makes up all true spirit. This life is illusion at best, and we merely must escape it just like getting down from the back of an elephant.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

Zoiks! What is it with Elphaba refusing to call herself by her own name? It is almost as bad as when Bob Dole would refer to himself in the third person....

Hi Ram,

It is not me who does not use my name. It is posters who don't use my name.

It was Justamere10 who referred to me as the Second Poster rather than Elphaba. I know he was just goofing around, but I had read it just after WordFLOOD did the same thing--and he was not goofing around.

In fact, WF said when this person (he won't say my name) starts writing in the third person he gets nervous. That's not verbatim, but it is the gist of his words. And, of course, I had not used the third person at all.

So, my question is why are people not calling me:

Elphaba

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Hi Ram,

It is not me who does not use my name. It is posters who don't use my name.

It was Justamere10 who referred to me as the Second Poster rather than Elphaba. I know he was just goofing around, but I had read it just after WordFLOOD did the same thing--and he was not goofing around.

In fact, WF said when this person (he won't say my name) starts writing in the third person he gets nervous. That's not verbatim, but it is the gist of his words. And, of course, I had not used the third person at all.

So, my question is why are people not calling me:

Elphaba

Enjoy the day Elphaba.

[Silver Girl]

Originally Posted by KosherXMorg

Called to serve him, heavenly king of e-bay
Chosen ere to google for his name
In Blogs and Groups we tell the Father's story
Across the net his love proclaim.