CV75

I think the Lord always judges us individually, but when a large number of individuals in a community receive His judgement it may be misinterpreted as collective judgement.

I think the Lord speaks through the living prophet concerning the guidance we need to overcome worldliness and navigate the spiritual polarization in the world around us that has become so evident as time rolls on. The consequences of our choices will certainly result according to the Lord's timing. He will not let any individual or collective pride get in the way of His Second Coming. Perhaps we might treat the members' worldliness we see today with the same charity and grace with which we treat the fallibility assigned to the saints and their leaders of yesteryear on various issues. We do not need to partake in worldiness, but we nevertheless need to charitably serve as good examples and learn from our and others' growth process.

Might I suggest that the phrase "some things are immoral in and of themselves" references those things that run contrary to the higher way of life the Lord prepared for everyone. The Lord forgives that which is done in ignorance ("Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do") while also extending the best opportunity to do better once they know what they do ("To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.").

Whitewashing of any kind is wrong, whether to justify racist actions (or make them appear less racist), to frame a cultural more as a function of race, or to perpetuate cultural mores that run contrary to God’s way (or to make them appear less immoral). All kinds of racism can be factors; aggressive, aversive and paternalistic come to mind in these examples. I believe the Book of Mormon teaches that repentance can only come according to the gospel light available, and that eventually everyone will have all the light they need to exercise their agency to repent to the degree for which the Lord atoned. It is an individual process that that be supported and enjoyed collectively. Of course, racism and ignorance affect the application of this principle, but when properly applied, the Spirit eradicates both.

There are all sorts of reasons to question and second guess the witness statements, yet all sorts of reasons to proceed and read the Book of Mormon in good faith.

There is an article in the March Liahona with several similar stories.

I'm in an airport and having difficulty finding the quote. But I beleive President Nelson once counseled that criticism of anyone's doubting the faith, testimonies, teachings, etc. concerning the Church is no more apprpriate or warranted than criticism of anyone's supporting them.

Many people read the Book of Mormon without having read or relied on the 3 and 8 witness statements, and yet receive a personal spiritual witness of its contents and message, and permanently change their lives. The same result could occur when these witness statements, or the witnesses themselves, are seen as irrelevant to or undermining the book's claims and gospel message. Why would anyone read it further when these statements could be so easily critiqued and challenged? When I first read them, I set these considerations aside, with zero discomfort (having other ancillary experiences to spur my interest) and soon discovered something far greater in the book itself. It was the same when rubbing shoulders with some of the odder members I met at Church: they had no more an impact on my spiritual experience (for example, Moroni's Promise) than the members whose personalities were more respectable or palatable to me. Yet both kinds of people bore witness of the same things I did, and lived their faith with enough commitment and similarity, despite their differences, to create a "Zion" I could happily be a part of. I think it very possible to refute the witness statements as the products of [fill in your descriptive noun] and still obtain a testimony of the book. This testimony will no doubt be as soundly critiqued and challenged as these witness statements. I think the analysis warrants a degree of prioritization between witness statements and personal experience independent of the influence of these statements, whether that influence is to discourage or encourage someone (or neither) to read the book and apply Moroni's Promise.

When the title page is used as a guide for what to extract from the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites are listed first of the peoples to whom it the book is directed.

I would say a sign serves as a type or evidence while personal revelation serves as communion and communication.

After all the quality scholarship that has been conducted over the decades to show that both literal and figurative meanings are expressed in and by the text, the stronger reactions seem driven by an oddly inordinate attachment to a bias for one or the other, or a lack of exposure to one or the other, or a broader bias against the work beyond the text and issue being discussed. Seems strange to me, as the bias even affects picking which apologist or apologetic point upon which to focus.

UAE: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates%23:~:text%3DSharjah%20Ward-,Missions,prohibited%20in%20Middle%20Eastern%20countries.&ved=2ahUKEwjsnqqazreEAxXjrYkEHbkxDxIQFnoECBEQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1-GKChncC28G70PELsB1u5

This is specifically for China, but likely applies elsewhere. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/China?lang=eng

Good timing! Today is Lunar New Year's Eve! And 2 weeks to celebrate !

Semantics. Some are earthly marriages. Some are "Ceasars" marriages. Some "don't need a piece of paper." Some are sacraments in other faith traditions. Now if you would take a turn and honestly answer my questions above, that would be great. Outside of your comfort zone, perhaps, but great. I will break them down for you: How does the thread topic concern one kind of marriage? Two? How does the topic adress secular, spiritual, or both kinds of marriage? How does it address Church-specific marriage as a temple ordinance and as a policy? How is the Church’s message about any of these mixed, and how is it not?

It is semantic in that you describe marriage one way and I another. How does the thread topic concern one kind of marriage or two; secular, spiritual, both; or Church-specific? How is the Church’s message about one or both (or any) mixed, and not? I addressed your questions the best I could. It is about semantics because you expect answers to support yours, and call mine dodging and deflecting. I accept that whether marriage is a blessing or not, or from God or from people, to be in the eye of the beholder. Is that a mixed message? Not to me. Claims of mixed messaging arise from “some people” (your term) observing the different ways Church leaders may minister to same-sex couples in their units; I’m inclined to believe this comes from folks (my term) who do not appreciate that “circumstances vary greatly from unit to unit and person to person.” I see such claims to be affected by bias, and in such a case as this one, the semantics of actions as much if not more than words.

Yours is one way of looking at it, and it is clearly a matter of semantics. But my semantic way of seeing it is, the Church does not perform same-sex marriages while acknowledging that governments and other churches do. The Church uses a particular doctrine for her purposes while acknowledging legal and secular definitions in our society at large as needed. I would say the Church thus navigates the presence of other standards in the world, while holding to her own, quite well. There’s another thread or two about how leaders may differ in how they address the topic in their units and among their membership, and I think that is appropriate since “circumstances vary greatly from unit to unit and person to person.” Religiously speaking in terms of a sacrament, some kinds of marriage are ordained of God and others not. Religiously speaking in terms of doctrine, the Atonement of Christ allows everyone the opportunity to live God's laws while remaining subject to them even when they choose not to.

Yours is one way of looking at it, and it is clearly a matter of semantics. But my semantic way of seeing it is, the Church does not perform same-sex marriages while acknowledging that governments and other churches do. The Church uses a particular doctrine for her purposes while acknowledging legal and secular definitions in our society at large as needed. I would say the Church thus navigates the presence of other standards in the world, while holding to her own, quite well. There’s another thread or two about how leaders may differ in how they address the topic in their units and among their membership, and I think that is appropriate since “circumstances vary greatly from unit to unit and person to person.”

I take it this post represents your mind made up, in a narrow kind of way. My mind is made up both ways, depending on the conversation, the point in the conversation and the flow of ideas -- especially some 20 hours apart! Thank you for pointing out that the Church offers particular recommendations (even as exceptions) within the general paradigm that marriage is indeed for everyone (it is ordained of God for the eternal destiny of His children). Seems like she’s made up her mind both ways, too. Feel free to pick up a conversation with California boy on your own terms. Good luck with your black-and-white approach!

But we've been talking about the covenant of marriage in the Church, not marriage in general. I'd rather continue to drill down and particularize these points of discussion than generalize them.

It depends, since everything has a context in relation to everything else. It is more central than some things and less central than others. Christ is the most central to me, ideally speaking, and when push comes to shove. I think the way He and marriage are presented in our temple covenants reflects God's will for everyone.

I think it means that God does not do miracles that violate laws in the sphere in which they are performed. An example of a moral miracle is the principle of repentance and spiritual rebirth. An example of a physical miracle is resurrection. God performs both kinds by virtue of Jesus' atonement. Alma 32 offers a type of science that examines both kinds of miracles, and the experience of discovery, adoption and sharing of conclusions takes place in and with our physical bodies. It's use of a physical metaphor (seed, work, tree, etc.) shows that it works in a physical and even theoretical realm. So, the study of Jesus' virgin birth would allow for identifying the physical and spiritual elements of the parties involved according to the accounts provided. Interviewing the parties themselves becomes a practical matter, and a matter of priority.

Good point! The atonement of Christ supports agency which supports joy. Without agency there is also no existence, so agency seems to be the link between Christ's work and our existence and joy. A fulness of His atonement renders a fulness of joy via a fulness of agency or existence. The "fulness", interestingly to me, is presented and offered from His perspective (and dare I say it, bias!), so many are happy with only the portion they are willing to receive according to their personal perspective and bias. Since bias is a common attribute for everyone, even God, I think it would be well to capture and adopt His paradigm if haply we might seek and find it.

I would say that marriage is the vehicle by which we come into any of the estates along the way. The reason for our existence? That is a very big question! "Agency" is my simple answer, and "To attain a fullness of agency" is my more developed answer. Fundamentally, bias is a consequence of agency, as are belief and conviction.

Come to think of it. the plates themselves are a great conductor of electricity.!