All Activity

In this, I am speaking according to my beliefs. I believe the fires are eternal, that is, unchanging and unyielding, when one is experiencing them. I do not know if they are of ultimately finite duration or not. I do think there are multiple mortal probations, but not in the same cycle of creation. Maybe those dwelling in hell may have the opportunity, in a future cycle, to live out another mortal life, and be improved upon (or not, as the case might be). Maybe we have to live out the lives of all we have wronged that we have not reconciled with and made restitution to. But who knows? Not me! I don't know anything. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

That's kind of my point: priesthood ordinations, blessings, or leadership succession doesn't always follow a lineal or genealogically sequential process.

And is the burning eternal or for a time?

In this, I am speaking according to my beliefs. I believe it is their fate to be burned at the appearing of the Lord - as with all who have heard the Sermon on the Mount and will not obey it as written. I do not believe "tithed," as used in these verses, has any reference to tithing as practiced in the LDS Church. Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

As far as reported, I agree. At least the more severe stuff. There is the possibility that men feel awkward about reporting such. Men aren’t in our culture supposed to respond to similar threatening or humiliating situations by being passive, fleeing, or even fawning. If it was happening as much as for women, there would be a lot more violence if it was a “real man” response (as in deck anyone who physically or sexually harasses you). https://www.eeoc.gov/data/sexual-harassment-our-nations-workplaces When it comes to the less severe*** types of harassment, looks like men get it online worse than women. Need to find if it happens that way face to face. Can’t remember. And it may have changed due to more public discussion about sexual harassment and assault. I wonder if researchers controlled for places men hang out. Men might chose to visit sites that engage in these behaviors more, in part because they don’t see threat as much as women. Given the type of harassment behaviours they typically encounter (likely to cause more embarrassment than fear), this would be reasonable. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/ “Note: More severe behaviors include being physically threatened, stalked, sexually harassed or harassed for a sustained period of time. Less severe behaviors include being called an offensive name or having someone trying to purposefully embarrass them.” As far as non sexual harassment at work, men will receive such mostly from men while women luck out by getting it from both men and women (gee, I wonder why that is…actually no, I don’t, not in the least). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240212/dq240212a-eng.htm The link might not show this as don’t have time to check like I thought I would. Hopefully later.

As for myself, a male, I am naturally cautious when meeting people, as to what 'They are about' so to speak. I suppose it is a matter of trust. This could be, in a way, for a number of general reasons. As for a woman, I just feel, and I may presume wrong on this, there maybe more inappropriate interactions towards her. Or, the possibility of threat towards her.

https://www.covenantchristians.info/ is their website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fellowships_of_"the_Remnants"_movement is the wiki page for them. https://scriptures.info/ is their scriptures (the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Teachings and Commandments [overlaps with the Doctrine and Covenants]). They believe that Joseph and Hyrum were authorized servants but that all splinters (including LDS, CoC, and the others) have apostatized and so a new dispensation was started.

And what fate is that?

It is really strange that you and Seeking and Mustard Seed think this given there is obviously only one plain and ordinary meaning this phrase can mean for anyone.

Yes, please tell me what I think, feel, and believe because I can’t know that for myself. Of course I must think the same as you as that’s the only reasonable interpretation. (I am not insulted here, just trying to make a point that gets paid attention to.) ”I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Because language is only allowed to have one “plain and ordinary” meaning for everyone and of course everyone will always agree on it. Why do we even bother to have dictionaries? You read much poetry, Smac? Reminds me of how in some people’s view scripture can have only one “plain and ordinary meaning” and everyone would obviously interpret it that way…except they don’t. So they must have agendas in those who think this way. It couldn’t be that they bring different experiences and therefore different context to words and therefore meaning varies. You and JFS and Bruce R. McConkie would probably get along quite well…most of the time. It would be interesting to eavesdrop on conversations where all of you are arguing for a different “plain reading”*** interpretation of scripture…or anything else. I mention the above to point out while I think the rigidness that is attached to “ plain and ordinary”, “face value”, “common sense”, etc is highly problematic, a lot of good people hold to such views. ***https://benspackman.com/2024/02/joseph-fielding-smith-death-before-the-fall-and-2-nephi-222/ “Smith believed that one achieved knowledge of these scientific facts through “plain reading” of the scriptural text. God intended scripture’s meaning to be plain and self-evident throughout centuries and across translation; context and outside information were not really needed. Indeed, if scripture lent itself to multiple interpretations, it would render scripture useless, he argued. (This is the assumption of “plain reading” and is plentifully documentable in Smith’s writings. Smith termed it “literal” reading, but this is a mistake.)”

For sure. Unfortunately we find incidents where our comfort is granted prematurely but we all have to exist somehow!

I think, maybe it is a matter, that a woman may have to be on the defensive, until she can lower her guard when feeling a bit more comfortable, or confident.

It’s interesting how you interpret things this way. I think you are assuming that “ all men are potential rapists” means that every single man including you has a budding rapist within. Try to listen to this statement(”all men”) again with a different point of view: situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody. IMPORTANT: this statement is not a description of a specific man. It is not a description of you. What it is, is a description of the state of mind of a woman that she must carry around every day, as situations that require awareness can pop up at any time. We do not have the luxury of retiring our conscientiousness. It’s not about you. It’s about the state of mind of women’s vigilance.

Beating a dead horse here, but... A Jewish survivor of the October 7th attack, survives kidnapping and abuse, lives with PTSD every time she sees a Muslim in public and says that in her lived experience "all muslims are potential terrorists" A native of the West Bank area is continually harassed by masked Jewish settlers, beaten and threatened with violence while just trying to live their lives says that in her lived experience "all settlers are potential terrorists". A woman, that time after time is harrassed, threatened, assaulted by men both strangers and friends says that in her lived experience, "all men are potential rapists". For me, I recognize that I don't worry when I run alone five days a week. My heart rate doesn't go up with a woman approaches me. I don't stack chairs by the door of my hotel room to prevent someone from entering. I don't worry about my personal safety. That position however is a position of privilege. You don't listen and don't care, so you don't care to hear that woman aren't saying every man has a latent rapist waiting to escape in the right situation. Rather, they are explaining their lived, shared, traumatic experience that every experience with a man alone is like being alone with a potential rapist. That they have to take precautions, have thoughts, and worries every single time a man approaches. And for good reason.

I am, in this, speaking according to my beliefs. For those who acknowledge Denver Snuffer to be a messenger sent from Heaven, and have signified their belief in that before God and men by submitting to authorized re-baptism, and have said "yes" to the Boise Covenant, "Covenant Christians" are what the Lord has commanded them to refer to each other as, as per this revelation. The Boise Covenant is found here: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/158 "All the words of the Lord which have been read to you this day" refers to this: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/157 That was in answer to this prayer: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/156 As I understand it, Covenant Christians are Christians who are distinguished from other Christians in the sight of the Lord by the Boise Covenant. If they fail to yield obedience to its terms, then there is nothing dividing them from any other Christians, and they shall suffer the same fate as them when the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

I'm glad you think that, but this comment is better directed at folks like Calm and Bluebell, who do think I am a "potential rapist," as are all men everywhere. That's what "all men are potential rapists" means. Situational awareness is a good idea. "All men are potential rapists." I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning. "All {black} men are potential rapists." Same thing. "All {Muslims} are potential {terrorists}." Same thing. And so on. Thanks, -Smac

Well, I'll ask another question: What is a Covenant Christian in your use of that term? I spoke once at Covenant College. I have been to several churches with Covenant in their name. I consider myself a covenantal Christian. So I am uncertain as to what exactly you are referring. Thanks, Navidad

They have subsequently restored it to the record.

First, I actually agree with 43. I think Joseph did use the same terms for both unauthorized and authorized. I've read the attempts by Hale and others to show that Joseph did make a difference and I don't find it to be really strong. I just accept that Joseph lied as that makes the most sense with the evidence. But, 43 is also misspeaking what Hale and others say. They are very specific that Joseph used words in specific ways. Others who he taught absolutely could have picked up different meanings but that doesn't change the fact that Joseph, himself, was very particular. Check out https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Hales-JMH-7-2018-Denying-the-Undeniable.pdf for how Hale deals with some of the statements. But there was definitely a difference between unauthorized and authorized polygamy. Even under Brigham, there was unauthorized polygamy that could get you excommunicated (see W. W. Phelps being excommunicating for practicing polygamy in 1848). Then you have the story from Brigham about a monogamous couple who was sealed by Hyrum and Joseph got after Hyrum for misusing the sealing power (in the Denying the Undeniable article above). Even today, you could do unauthorized sealings and probably be excommunicated for it (or at least talked to harshly). So, if Joseph practiced polygamy, he would have had authorized vs unauthorized. An obvious example of unauthorized is John C. Bennet. Have you read his "expose"? He talks about how the women were in 3 tiers (based on the veil they wore) and certain men had access to certain tiers. It isn't even close to what was happening.

Oh, we definitely will speak past each other. You don't believe God can command someone to practice polygamy while I do. And your scriptural sources for it won't convince me just as my scriptural sources won't convince you. That's another reason I don't care much about the historical monogamy site. Because it is trying to convince me that my understanding of God is wrong. So most of the arguments on why D&C 132 is not theologically correct don't work for me because I see God being able to command that. Just like how you find a way to rationalize Nephi's killing of Laban, I can rationalize God's commanding polygamy. So, I like to focus on the actual physical evidence (affidavits, journals, statements, etc) vs the theological debate. What really happened vs what I want to have happened. That could by why I kept not understanding why you were quoting some of those sections.

The graph has 3 lines, one for monogamous wife, first polygamous wife, and subsequent polygamous wives. It then shows the infant mortality of each child position (child 1 to child 9). So the first child of the first wife (and the second child and third) have a much, much higher infant mortality rate than the same child of monogamous wives and later polygamous wives. It is specific on which child position it is and it is solely infant mortality (<1 year of age). So a wife who's husband will later take a second wife has a higher infant mortality than a wife who's husband doesn't end up taking a second wife. That's why it is odd to me. It could be that these men were more likely to go on missions and so would be leaving their wives alone and that is the reason, which would make sense since polygamous husbands were more active in the church, but that would mean that polygamy isn't the cause of higher child mortality but instead it was higher activity in the church (the dissertation also pointed to that as well). What 2012 meta analysis are you talking about?

If Hosea was a priest, it was: https://www.esv.org/Leviticus+21:7;Leviticus+21:13–14/ hThey shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled, neithershall they marry a woman divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy to hisGod. Do we know his tribe?

That’s a good list, I’m not familiar with a couple of them so I’d need to look them up. Abraham of course didn’t sacrifice Isaac, so an Abrahamic test is only such if the Lord doesn’t actually intend for you to ever go through with it. And was it against a commandment to marry a prostitute? I understand it was breaking commandments to be one, but I’ve not heard it was to be married to one. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible gives more clarification to the quote of Jesus. The King James Version says, 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. The Joseph Smith Translation says, 26 If anyone come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters or husband, yea and their own life also, or in other words is afraid to lay down their life for my sake, cannot be my disciple. (https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Luke.pdf – page 74) So the clarification is that Jesus is talking about laying down one’s life for Christ. As far as the importance of commandments to God goes, I think Monogamy as Divine Design section 71 to give a valuable viewpoint, 71 ~ Jacob promises destruction to the men over polygamy, even if they are following every other commandment ~ Jacob quotes the Lord as saying, "For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction;" (Jacob 2:33) That the Lord would threaten the Nephite men with destruction for breaking the law of monogamy, even though they were obeying every other commandment, is significant. The Nephite men are even threatened by the Lord with destruction by the Lamanites, who were not following the law of Moses as the Nephites were. This suggests that the Lord considered the law of monogamy to be of greater importance to follow than the Mosaic Law. This also indicates that the Lord considers there to be no level of spiritual obedience to other commandments that can compensate for not obeying the law of monogamy. historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Brigham Young explicitly laid down other essential qualifiers What he "sent out to the children of men" Referring to specific formal, vetted publications produced for public or global circulation. Periodicals like the Millennial Star in Great Britain were edited and compiled by Apostles specifically to present vetted doctrine to investigators and foreign branches. Formal documents signed and issued directly by the First Presidency to the world such as the 1845 Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles or official General Epistles. "Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve" The Deseret News was a weekly newspaper where shorthand reporters sat in the congregation, took rapid shorthand notes of a Sunday sermons given without preparation, and rushed those transcriptions into print to keep the frontier community informed. This was not a meticulous canonical review where Brigham Young could sit down with to carefully vet, rewrite, and officially authorize every single paragraph of his rhetoric as doctrine. The theological mechanism Brigham Young was invoking when he held up the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants was the living oracles are more authoritative to us today than written books. He was championing a foundational pillar of Latter-day Saint theology. The principle of continuous, living revelation, for the immediate, active challenges of the present day, which changes all the time. Brigham had a right to propose new scripture, but if he truly intended a sermon to be officially accepted, it would be first presented and voted on by the body of the Church. What Brigham actually taught about his own preaching, "I have known many times I have preached wrong and spoken false principles, but I am but a human being and I am not perfect... pray to God in the name of Jesus to bind me up from speaking false principles." (Brigham Young, May 1854, speaking in Springville, Utah) If Brigham Young himself explicitly acknowledged that his impromptu pulpit preachings could contain human error, rough edges, or false principles, then he certainly would not view a quick newspaper transcription of a Sunday sermon as an infallible, immutable scripture. God will not suffer the leaders to "lead the Church astray" (JD 9:289), as that has a very specific theological meaning. It refers to a collective institutional apostasy. God will not allow the Church as a whole to lose its priesthood keys, wander into total unauthorized darkness, or break the eternal covenant path to salvation. It does not mean every administrative policy, disciplinary decision, personal opinion, or sermons spoken without preparation made by a Brigham Young is free from error.

Church leadership