All Activity

Those people tend to be promiscuous. Why bother with marriage and commitment? If there are properties then simply work out a business contract. However, children will likely lose their bonding, stability and long term commitment. Like those damned to heartbreak of foster care.

I would say the ideas are similar but I wouldn't say they are equivalent.

Whereas babies and those under age of 8 that pass away are redeemed from the Fall without ever having to wait in the "place of torment" (see Luke 16:23).

The doctrine of spirit prison resembles a purgatory for the wicked, where individuals must suffer for their own sins to be cleansed. While faithful LDS elders avoid this suffering to preach to those in darkness (D&C 138:57), the spirits in prison are only redeemed after receiving all temple ordinances (v. 58). Furthermore, verse 59 suggests that Christ's atonement alone does not exempt them from paying a personal penalty for their transgressions before being washed clean. Catholic purgatory is exclusively for the saved whereas spirit prison includes both the unevangelized, the unrepentant, the wicked, and possibly those who have not received all the temple ordinances. How do you feel this requirement for personal suffering and all temple ordinances impacts the core teaching regarding the sufficiency of Christ's atonement? Keeping all the commandments is also a requirement. "That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power".

From this blog: Then a link: California city makes history allowing throuples, foursomes to legally register as partners I think this will end up as an incremental step toward full legal recognition of group marriages. If "marriage" can be redefined to remove gender as an element, and if that redefinition is constitutionally required, then I'm not sure I see a constraint against redefining marriage again to remove number as an element, also as a constitutional requirement. Boy, divorce and child custody and asset division and whatnot will be brutal. "{T}his law is just the beginning. Yes, I think that is right. I asked Grok to outline some potential/likely outcomes: Marriage has always been centered on procreation and the rearing of children. That's gone now. Across the great majority of recorded human societies, marriage has functioned primarily as a sexual and economic union that regulates reproduction, establishes paternity, and creates a relatively stable setting for the rearing of children. While the precise rules vary (monogamy, polygyny, etc.), the institution is nearly universal and is tightly linked to the production and socialization of offspring. Sexual access outside marriage has typically been restricted precisely because of its consequences for children and inheritance. Decoupling marriage from procreation is a recent development, largely confined to the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in a subset of wealthy Western societies. Changes in contraception, no-fault divorce, prioritizing romantic companionship over reproductive partnership, and the legalization of same-sex marriage have, I think, contributed to a legal and cultural redefinition in which the rearing of children is no longer a necessary or even expected feature of the institution. That shift is historically anomalous rather than the long-standing norm. I don't think it will end well. So not very good for women, either. This is the sort of stuff that has made polygamy one of the few aspects of the Restored Gospel which I find troubling, as not intuitively "good." My acceptance of the principle is abstract, as is acceptance of past requirements for animal sacrifice. And not very good for a lot of men, either. Divorce lawyers who specialize in addressing the dissolution of group marriages may end up making a lot of money. We need to see what the long-term data indicates. I suspect it will not be good. Hmm. Thanks, -Smac

There are several interpretations. One refers to it as the Parable of the Olive Leaf. Another (Lesson 93, Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teach Manual) identifies specific priesthood holders as "the first laborers in this last kingdom". "Remind students that the Lord gave the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 88 to a g roup of priesthood holders who had prayed to know the Lord’s will concerning the establishment of Zion. In this revelation, the Lord referred to this group of priesthood holders as “the first laborers in this last kingdom” (see D&C 88:70, 74) and commanded them to organize and attend a school to prepare themselves to preach the gospel among the nations of the earth (see D&C 88:74, 84, 127)". The idea of being the "first laborers in this last kingdom" was emphasized again in 1974 and 1996 General Conference talks by Presidents Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley. But they don't identify the twelve servants who are each working with the lord of the field on their respective worlds. D&C 88:51 mentions a man (later identified as "lord of the field") sending twelve servants into the field to dig it, each in his own respective hour. The "field" seems limited in scope, only twelve worlds. The idea of "many kingdoms" seems to be many worlds, but then one in particular is identified as the last one, or the last kingdom. The aspect of "hour" seems to denote time. The "lord of the field" visits and works with each servant. The "lord" is mentioned as having tarried with the first servant for only his hour (the first hour). The lord visits each of the other eleven servants and presumably also tarries with each of them for their respective hour; the second hour for the second servant, the third hour for the third servant, and so on. The "hour" is the same for all the twelve servants on each of their own worlds. It is unclear who the twelve servants of the twelve worlds are assuming the "lord of the field" is Jesus Christ, as verse 75 seems to indicate. Verses 70 and 74 introduces laborers in the last kingdom, not individual servants for each separate kingdom mentioned earlier. This seems to symbolize Earth as the last kingdom according to the revelation given by Joseph Smith. "Tarry ye, tarry ye in this place, and call a solemn assembly, even of those who are the first laborers in this last kingdom". "And I give unto you, who are the first laborers in this last kingdom, a commandment that you assemble yourselves together, and organize yourselves, and prepare yourselves, and sanctify yourselves; yea, purify your hearts, and cleanse your hands and your feet before me, that I may make you clean". The parable in D&C 88 reminds me of the one in Jacob 5, where the servant labors alone with the Lord of the vineyard for the majority of the time (verses 10-60). It is only in verse 61 that other servants are called in the last time. All of them (indicated as a few), together with the first servant (of Jacob 5), labor in the field (Jacob 5:70). This "last time" (5:71) appears to be analogous to the "last kingdom" (the twelveth hour) of D&C 88.

That's good of you Rain. I, not surprisingly, agree. God bless you.

It makes me think that you were typing, at least somewhat, like you talk. I am with an organization that interviews refugees and others about immigration. We record what is said on an app and it transcribes it for us, but it always needs a cleanup of mistranscribed words or who is saying what etc. "You know" is very common in people's language. There have been times when people have said it 80 times in the course of 60-90 min. Sometimes it is just a filler word, but sometimes people are just trying to make a connection. The latter is what I think of yours.

It implies either direction, that angel are influenced by these cultures or the cultures are influenced by these angels, which could be disturbing to Christian people to suggest "pagan" cultures are possibly angelically inspired. We know that could be the case, if the angels do run the world or inspires it at all but it subverts expectations, with the angels the Bible depicts wearing priestly white robes and sash.

Hmmm. I never knew. I am wondering if I am so ignorant that I should quit voting voluntarily and quit listening to outsiders who don't even have any idea how little I pay attention to what is called news, like Ice, and their maskers. It stopped abruptly, but I was blown away with text messages continuously reminding me to be voting until Tuesday. I obeyed them. They were also going HARD after someone called Joshua. I made some suggestions about how they might find him. I think he used to have my current phone#. Until recently it was always about some activity called vaping. Vaping is synonymous perhaps with voting? It was like the world was coming to an end if Joshua didn't vote/vape. Joshua must be very wise, but forgetful? They haven't got back to me about whether he voted/vaped or not. When I text back to find about whether they succeeded in persuading him to vote/vape they don't even reply. Kinda rude? Why do people want those like me who don't care much about voting/vaping to vote/vape? I only checked on a couple of the choices I made later. As almost always, I voted/vaped for the wrong side anyway. That's no fun. I voted/vaped for all these things and people that I didn't know about. I think there should be some kind of qualification that would eliminate people like me who don't pay attention unless I get hassled about it. And believe me, I have never been more hassled than this year. They should leave voting/vaping to people who actually care about those activities, and leave the rest of us who want to forget about them alone! I got this sticker as a prize for voting/vaping that used the old lingo. It said, "I voted." Back when I was young, I never knew about vaping/voting. Only voting. They are probably using up surplus stickers. Anyway, it was probably hoped that I would put it on my forehead like ashes on Ash Wednesday. I admit, I only put it on the steering wheel of my son's in-law car. (I voted/vaped in-between school runs for the grandchildren and they have so many kids we don't have a big enough car to take them all). I tried to scrape it off later, realizing that my son-in-law will find out I didn't put it on my head where it belongs.

I am not wed to our current 3 dimensional experience as being our eternal existence. I suspect we are much more in part because of how God can be aware of all things throughout time. This might even include a true omnipresence for God and the rest of the universe. I don’t see 3 dimensions as required by scripture.

I read it as ICE is a prime example of masking/anonymity leading to incivility, abuse: https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-agents-seizing-people-now-routinely-wear-masks-thats-wrong My guess is Elder Cook wasn’t thinking of the government in his talk. Would like it if he was though.

When I said "You know." I didn't mean what the words say. There are expressions which are understood not necessarily according to the literal meaning. What I meant more literally was, "Hey y'know how some people seem to be slow at getting punchlines?" Words are hard. But its all we have to try to communicate. What do you think about the Word became flesh? I almost certainly miss a lot of the implications of that too. Anyway, ICE is probably easier. Let's try to understand that first.

Why is it necessary to you to insist it’s binary instead of bimodal? There are other human systems that are strongly bimodal and yet no one has issues with describing variations on the spectrum rather than insisting on there just being two modes and everything is one or the other. For example, handedness…it’s not either right or left even though the vast majority of people (over 90%) are one or the other. Sex (and I mean biology and not gender) was defined long before we knew of the existence of X and Y chromosome, so objectively why should we only use them to define sex? There are those who produce eggs, get pregnant and have children who also may possess some male biological characteristics. There are those who produce fertile sperm who may have some female biological characteristics. Others may need help with only some aspects, but still be a mother or father in any meaningful biological sense. https://www.pacificfertilitycenter.com/blog/intersex-fertility-care-exploring-your-reproductive-options There are plenty of professional organizations that define sex on the basis of multiple biological characteristics. Why insist the only relevant ones are the chromosomes and then dismiss the variations and their expressions that even occur with them as irrelevant anomalies? AI did the work below:

Miserere. What does your reply mean? Can you explain its popularity to me? I am truly ignorant. Heh. You know. I don't get jokes. I get some. But often not. Was this a joke?

Had a similar experience and same.

The omnipresence of God being portrayed as a big false doctrine is my recollection as well, and in its place was the LDS teaching that "God has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as a man's". I also remember trying to find the best interpretation to explain away the uncomfortable concept of an omnnipresent God which not only shows up, but is repeated from different angles, in verse 41 of Section 88: "He [God] comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." Now I'm going to venture into the fringe zone: The word "comprehend" has two meanings: One meaning is, "to deeply understand". "Comprehend" also means "to comprise or include". Okay if we give that second definition a test drive? Not to exclude the first definition, but to deliberately include the second: "He [God] comprises and includes all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." Kinda shakes things up a bit, doesn't it? I'm not claiming that reading is consistent with the rest of LDS doctrine, but I do think that reading of the word "comprehend" is consistent with the rest of that verse. Not that I'm challenging you or @bluebell or even Bruce R. McConkie to either a scripture duel or a testimony duel, but that verse (and in particular with that reading of the word "comprehend") has become something I am very comfortable with.

I agree and state that if you are a government actor and need anonymity when carrying out violent government actions outside of a literal war zone then 99.9% of the time something has gone horribly wrong. “Hans…..are we the baddies?” levels of wrong.

I don’t think this counsel would improve anyone. It is the old “there are rats in the basement but they hide when the lights come on so if we leave the light on all the time then the rat problem is solved” thing. If we behave badly when we think there is no way for it to be traced back to us then online civility is the least of our problems. I don’t know how to cleanse the inner vessel but this solution is just a thin coat of whitewash hiding negative emotions and resentments. I see why an apostle would want it to stop. It is bad PR for the church if members are jackasses online but this is hacking at the leaves of the problem and leaving the branches and the roots.

It's not working when GA skip right past the firehoses of lie-based messaging that is directly driving animosity. Elder Cook blasts past the ongoing reality that powerful interests harm continually harm and exploit weaker people. After giving widespread harm-making a pass, he attacks one of the last remaining methods people have to safeguard themselves.

Could you elaborate on what "trans occurrences" means? Do you agree or disagree that DSDs are developmental variations and disorders within the binary system of male and female, and that there is no third sex? So are space aliens. So are dragons. And there are people who "identify" as these things. But these folks are humans, not space aliens or dragons or dogs or whatever, which means that their incongruent-with-reality notions are a manifestation of mental illness. Some may be faking it, I suppose, but I don't see how to reconcile someone sincerely declaring "My name is John Crenshaw, and I 'identify' as a Alsatian Husky. Woof!" with good mental health. If John is saying this and expecting others to take it seriously, then I think he is mentally ill. I assume you concur with the foregoing, is that right? If so, what differentiates one form of what I see as incongruent-with-reality thinking (John's self-identity) with another incongruent-with-reality thinking (an adult male saying "I 'identify' as a woman")? Why is the former rejected and the latter embraced and ratified and endorses. Both are incongruent with reality, AFAICS. If you disagree, I would like to listen to what you have to say. You are free to respond as much or as little as you like. Thanks, -Smac

You are my favorite person today.

That last bit implies that angels mimic Judeo-Christian culture. Probably insulting to angels.

They don't negate the binary because binary is the natural default. My point is that there are a number of studies on genetic variation that directly lead to trans occurrences; ranging from physical intersex to individuals with mismatched chromosomes relative to their presenting genitalia. As to why I used only unicorn, it's because it was the easy fantasy creature on your list. Do I really need to go through and address every one, or will you stop imagining subtext in my statements? BTW, based on your post, I'm pretty confident you had AI prepare at least half of what you said. I don't consider that good faith, counselor.

It could have been just my ward or the couple of teachers I had, but my memory is in my early years (pre 15 probably, but might be prior to university), omnipresence of God (meaning the Father) was treated as a big false doctrine, something that made us different from those Trinitarians. I do think there has been less negative emphasis placed on it in my experience and instead just explaining the LDS version, but again could just be because that wasn’t my home ward anymore. This was Northern California, not Utah btw. Which means 60s and early 70s….