All Activity

Nonsense. LDS scripture, including the Bible, is not exclusive in its definition of all beings called gods. We clearly believe Jesus was God before he became human, therefore logically an exalted human cannot be the exclusive definition of a god. A godhood status existed in pre-mortal entities. D&C 29:1 and John 1:1 says Jesus is "God", is divine investiture. He carried the Father’s title and authority. D&C 93:12-14 says Jesus "received not of the fulness at the first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness". His ultimate exaltation was only completed through his mortal embodiment and physical resurrection. Philippians 2:5-11, Jesus had a pre-mortal title of "God" but "he emptied himself [ekenosen], by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death... Therefore God super-exalted him [hyperypsosen]" and so is still an exalted embodied human today as all Christians are promised to be slso. Abraham 3:22–24 says human spirits were in the council of gods at creation, "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was [human spirits]; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones [nobles even as human spirits]... And there stood one among them that was like unto God [Jesus], and he said unto those who were with him: We [Jesus and human spirits] will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these [other human spirits] may dwell." Human spirits were present in the council of the god before the earth was framed. Abraham 4:1, 26 "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." The Creation is explicitly carried out by "the gods" (elohim), a council with noble humans operating under the direction of the Father and the Lord, including premortal spirit beings acting as agents. Job 15:7-8 "Are you the first man ever born [Adam]? Were you brought forth before the hills [before Creation]? Have you listened in the council of God [sod Elohim]?" Job 38:4-7 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth [at Creation]?... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God [bene Elohim] shouted for joy?"

That could easily be a very codependent relationship I am reminded of this old blog post I saved:

Fun Fact*: Jane Doe has been doxxed online and is receiving regular death threats and threatening phone calls in general. On Tuesday she was swatted. Someone called in a false 911 call about her family’s home reporting that shots had been fired. The clear intent was that someone would get injured or killed. Police approached with weapons drawn scaring everyone and the family is now blocking out their windows and increasing security. A nice warning from all the rapists and rapist supporters that women should not try to hold men accountable for their crimes. We sure do love our misogyny don’t we? And some people say rape culture isn’t real. What clowns they must be. *Fact is actually not fun at all

Maybe this would require unconditional love and trust in God.

Then how do you react when God doesn’t provide a home, clothing, and food and everything necessary? Or they weren’t and/or aren’t being cared for in a loving environment? If you put God in front of a family court to testify about how He trusted his children to mortal parents he knew were abusive or would be abusive God would have to say that he did do that. God would be judged an unfit and negligent parent. You can appeal to a larger context where everything will eventually made right or things will be healed but that is cold comfort to those enduring pain now. And then God is going to have to send those children to spirit prison/hell to ‘fix’ their unbelief in this loving God that put them in that situation because they are horrible sinners by virtue of having been born. It is a pretty screwed up way to run things.

I have felt God's presence in my own life. Sometimes when I have prayed for something. At times, when I have not asked directly. Sometimes I am guided without realising, until after some time do I realise of a presence of God's love in a personal action. In my own thoughts process, it is a parent and child process. The parent providing a home, clothing, food and all what is necessary. And the child trusting that they will be cared for in a loving environment. I feel that it is a parent/child situation between God and ourselves.

I didn’t say it did but in this context where she was the one who was much more insensate the idea that she forced herself on them is ridiculous and counters the facts of the case as reported. The more pointed thing is that in a group sex encounter it is very difficult for one person to assault or rape two people at once especially for an AFAB person. The whole point of my ‘edited’ explanation is to make people think about that without outright describing why because it would likely get me perma-banned from this site. Yes, men can be raped. Orgasming is not proof of consent. It is very weird that you seem to want to make the assailants who were answering text messages about free sex with a drugged up girl into co-equal victims. For anyone interested this is a consistently good source for information on prominent legal cases reported by lawyers and they released a video this morning on the case and the DA comes off REALLY badly:

There's a lady that I see on instagram sometimes (not a latter-day saint as far as I can tell) who has been saying some things that really resonate with me and many experiences I've had in my life. The last one that she posted said: "You're not afraid God's will won't happen. You're afraid it will. Because somewhere along the way, 'God's will' became the explanation for everything that broke your heart. The thing you lost. The prayer He didn't answer. The life you begged Him not to let fall apart. And afterward you were told: God knows best, God had a reason, God's ways are higher. So now when someone says 'Trust God with the outcome' you don't hear comfort. You hear: Anything can happen and if it does, you have to find a way to call it good. Maybe that's why surrender feels so complicated. Because somewhere along the way you stopped experiencing God's will as something you could rest in and started experiencing it as something you had to brace for." Amen. I know there is a God because I've personally experienced Him. I know He loves me because I've personally experienced His love. But translating that into trusting Him as been an uphill battle. Why does it seem like life is set up to make it hard to trust Him and how do we do it anyway?

I have been thinking of Robert Smith as well as Mark Bukowski. I am glad for your report about Robert.

Stargazer "If you want to see something that rather resembles ritual magic, read how baptisms are conducted in the Catholic Church." 3DOP I note that you use the expression, "rather resembles ritual magic". You didn't accuse our baptisms of actually being magic. Good. One reason for analyzing this statement is that even in the Roman rite, this form of baptism is used only in a few traditional communities that have permission from the Holy See to use the 1962 Missal. The Church has always recognized that her rituals tend to become repetitive and ever-growing in various ways and places. There is an expression which has become somewhat popular among Catholics who find themselves exasperated, mainly with private devotions that seem to be ever growing in length, but also with the public liturgy. It is sometimes called "piety sprawl". I will give just one example out of many. When the 1962 Missal came into use, it deliberately trimmed one of two prayers we call the Confiteor, that existed from a reform of the Mass promulgated by Pius XII in 1955. So what happened? Apparently nothing. I have been to probably a thousand Masses supposedly celebrated according to the 1962 MIssal. I have never been to an old Mass with one Confiteor. Two are so unnecessary. All it does is extend the length of a Mass that is already repeating every reading from the Latin, and then again in the vernacular. Finally, the 1970 reform of St. Paul VI, with the approval of 99% of the bishops at Vatican II, succeeded in reducing the Confiteor from two to one, while trimming the number of intercessions from individual saints. The Mass is also made shorter by only allowing one reading of the same text. I really don't know how the Church ever decided to read the same exact readings twice, once in Latin, and again the vernacular. Piety sprawl? So yes, one can make an argument against the way baptisms were conducted in the Catholic Church. But that has not been the norm since 1970. I have not been to a baptism in the New Rite for two decades. But I understand it is significantly shorter today. Some dislike the New Rite. Most don't care. Some don't like the Old Rite. The Church is a rich and diverse Body that includes all types. Even in our current age of communication, a church composed of one and a half billion baptized souls is difficult to micromanage. The pope and his bishops, I think wisely, often allow variations to the official set words and gestures (rubrics) of the liturgies without exercising their disciplinary authority. Why aren't the authorities more strict? It doesn't change the essential efficacy of the sacrament. The point above is that all the breathings, saliva, salt, and any other odd gesture are completely unnecessary to a valid baptism. They might "rather resemble ritual magic", but mistakes or disobedience does not annul the sacrament. It is not to be applauded, but many words and gestures can be added or left out at the whim or ineptitude of the minister. For that reason, it seems like the Old Rite of baptism should not be equated with the strictness which is commonly understood as necessary to ritual magic. Stargazer, you rightly avoided saying that our older baptisms were actually ritual magic. Those who don't understand it might read that description you linked and find it bizarre or yucky. I am considering explaining my theory about why the Church would ever have approved it originally. When understood properly, it beautifully symbolizes some very important Catholic beliefs.

Do you seriously need an anatomy lesson in order to see how very unlikely that equivalence is? I hope you reconsider this response. The question was not about anatomy. An erection is a reflex. It is not a "yes," and it is not proof that someone could have said no. Lubrication and sexual climax are reflexes too. If, as you seem to be declaring, a physiological response counts as consent, that rule could just as readily be used against a woman whose body responded during an assault she did not agree to. I am sure you would not apply your reasoning in that circumstance. Courts do not treat that response as consent. The incapacity point is about whether a person could understand and agree, not about whose body reacted. If everyone was too impaired to agree, anatomy does not answer which of them had to stop. Moreover, under New York law, voluntary intoxication does not automatically establish a lack of consent. Instead, it creates a widely debated framework that requires prosecutors to prove a victim was entirely "physically helpless" (such as being unconscious) to establish incapacity. If a person is conscious but heavily impaired due to substances they willingly consumed, New York's legal definition of "mental incapacitation" does not apply, as that status is strictly reserved for instances where an intoxicant was administered without their consent. The Argument for the Status Quo: Opponents of changing these statutes—such as the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers—argue that broadening the law could severely compromise due process. They contend that without objective boundaries, the law fails to provide clear guidance on exactly when a partner transitions from being legally "intoxicated" to legally "incapable" of agreeing to sex. The core concern is criminalizing ambiguous, consensual encounters where both parties are willingly under the influence. The Argument for Reform: Conversely, advocates and lawmakers argue that this framework creates a dangerous "voluntary intoxication loophole". They point out that under the current standard, an individual who is severely impaired but still awake can be legally exploited. Critics argue that capacity should depend entirely on a person's cognitive state at the moment of the encounter, rather than the mechanism of how they became intoxicated. For my part, I am unsettled on how I feel the law should treat this issue. I see merit to both sides of the debate. My point here, though, is that the reasoning being deployed to inculpate the men - that Jane Doe was too drunk/stoned to consent to sex - is not only contravened by her own voluntary sworn 2024 statement (in which she describes consensual instances of taking drugs and participating in multiple instances of group sex), it also would seem to apply to inculpate Jane Doe for her having had sexual contact with the men when they could be said to have been incapable of giving consent. Indeed, one of the accused has publicly stated this very point. I did not say the men were morally equivalent to her. I asked whether incapacity, as a principle, is a one-way rule. Those are different claims. Calling the question misogynistic does not answer it. Who could physically initiate is also not the question. The question is who could agree. Being less able to start sex while impaired does not tell you whether someone else, also impaired, could refuse it. Flexibility is not consent. The pharmacology does not do the work you want it to do either. If ketamine suppresses libido and alcohol impairs performance, that is a fact about bodies, when the issue here is consent. It is not a finding about who was more incapacitated or who agreed. An erection is not a blood-alcohol test. The presence or lack of one is not a consent test. The same mistake in reasoning runs the other direction: a woman's body can respond during contact she did not agree to, and that response is not a yes. Again, I am sure you do not mean to present a rule that could be construed in that way. Performance and consent are different facts. If the men were in fact less impaired, say so from the evidence. That is a fact question. It is not established by an anatomy joke, and it is not established by treating a reflex as proof they were sober enough to be responsible and she was not. Some resources for your consideration: Rape Myths (Washington University's Relationship & Sexual Violence Prevention Center Questions, emotions and physical responses after a traumatic sexual experience (Sexual Assault Center, Netherlands) Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation – a review This is a very difficult topic. Thanks, -Smac

When President Kimball referred to humans as gods in embryo, doesn’t this mean we are gods right now, but progressing to become more mature ones?

Which Mormon scriptures clearly identify gods being exalted humans (humans being made gods) instead of only receiving divine titles and authority?

My fellow Washingtonian, right? Hi Stargazer! You seem to be enjoying exile in the U.K. Good for you. My wife and I avidly watch this program out of your current home country, Escape to the Country. Maybe you have seen it? It makes your "exile" seem possibly quite tolerable. In contrast to what appears on the show as what could be an idyllic exile, I am happily homesick here as an exile in Kansas, living in in a new built house that won't last a hundred years. (Happy in God's apparent will, and missing an Evergreen State that I never quite appreciated for more than sixty years). I am amazed at how the Brits of old made houses that are still lovely and livable centuries ago. I hope you have one of those with a beautiful garden! If you've told us where you live I missed it. I hope you are not in a London slum, but God's will be done, right? So anyway, I like your posts and by extension, you. I truly hope all good things for you in your new life. You should believe that after I critique your long post which included some apparent misunderstandings about Catholic teaching and ritual. In following posts, I intend to use a format that will not notify you that I have responded to this original prompting to my participation here. In contrast with your occasional uninformed ideas about my faith, there are two reasons why I enjoy you here. The first and most important is that I firmly believe that you mean well. The second reason is for much shared cultural appreciation. Thus, Yes, Prime Minister, will not be included in my hopefully charitable critique. I am thinking that even if I can only be charitably wrong, it will still be a win for my side! God bless you and yours, I hope to be back soon. Rory

Spam reported

I’m helping put together a Halloween get-together this year and trying to make a shopping list. Decorations, tableware, lights, snacks, and small party games are probably the main things we’ll need. There are quite a few Halloween sales going on, so I’m comparing different options before buying everything. Halloween at ReeCoupons has also been useful for finding seasonal offers. What’s one thing you think every Halloween party should have?

Do you seriously need an anatomy lesson in order to see how very unlikely that equivalence is? Well, I suppose someone has to tell you sometime. You see smac when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much…… …..and when the mommy and daddy decide to expand this and invite other people to join….. …..realistically two at a time with each woman due to limits of flexibility…….. ……and a woman would be less likely to be able to initiate if out of her mind on drugs. I also doubt the guys were as drunk and/or drugged out as the victim. Ketamine massively inhibits libido. Alcohol degrades”performance”. Your attempt to make those who planned this rapefest as somehow morally equivalent to the victim is disgusting and misogynistic.

Boy howdy are they disturbing.

Newest text messages are problematic.

I do believe there is behaviour that is so self destructive without any possibility of positive outcome/benefit for that individual that someone should be judged incompetent and incapable of consent if engaging in it. With legal consequences for aiding and abetting such behaviours. If we can do it for suicide, which can be a mercy in some cases, surely something as dangerous as unsupervised drunken group sex could be considered as such (I bet no one was carded as “clean” in this case and it appears condoms we’re not required). Not saying the government should be the one deciding what’s consensual adults and what is incompetence. I think medical/mental professionals experienced with the fallout with feedback from caregivers and victims should.

Sad that our world is so far from that so many women can’t conceive how that would feel.

Said it great. I think the same way.

How might this world evolve if somehow, our culture was one that when women announced they were available for intoxicated group rape, that EVERY man said no? How would women see themselves differently in that world? I can’t imagine.

I personally don’t care if she signed a legal binding contract saying that she was interested in having group sex with 12 men and a monkey. I find every man who participated in this activity to be morally corrupt and deserves to be dragged. This is the way we demonstrate zero tolerance for this behavior. I’m OK with that.

Regarding Positivism and history, I like this observation by Alan Goff: And this: Regarding historians, rather than mere "apologists" whose work you act as though can be safely dismissed by the simple act of labeling it as such, consider Peter Novick, speaking to the Latter Day Saints at a Sunstone back in 1989. So what is the problem? Novick explains: Dismissing believer's arguments without any deeper engagement than labeling them as "apologetic", for example, such things as the Aston's work on the detailed accuracy of the Book of Mormon description of the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, or the Matthew Bowen's recent work on onomastic word play in Book of Mormon stories, or Gardner's and Wright's and Sorenson's work on the Mesoamerican context, or Stubb's work on Hebrew, Phoenician and Egyptian influence on specific language groups, or the ritual and festival background of Benjamin's speech, the revelations of the 2017 LiDar surveys in Mesoamerica, and such does not demonstrate self-aware paradigm debate, but rather, uncritical ideological dismissal. It is fine to argue that apparent New Testament anachronisms and Christianity in 400 BCE solve the problem of the Book of Mormon as far as you are concerned. But as Kuhn observes all paradigm debates involve deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved," that no paradigm "solves all the problems it defines" and that any problem can be valued by different people as either as a "puzzle" to work on, or as a sufficient "counter-instance" that ends the need for further work. What you have cited as decisive, unquestionable counter-instances, I see differently, as puzzles that have what I see as existing viable solutions. For instance, a few years back, John Dehlin interviewed Mesoamericanist and Mayanist Michael Coe on what they offered as insurmountable problems for Book of Mormon believers. At one point, Dehlin asked Coe if there was any evidence of iron arrowheads or brass helmets in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times. No, Coe said, and they blathered on for a while as to why this was a serious problem that the Latter-day Saints would have to face, to the detriment of their faith. Neither showed the slightest awareness or interest in testing whether the Book of Mormon ever mentioned iron arrowheads or brass helmets. What they offered as a decisive counter-instance, was not even a viable puzzle to my eyes. This sort of thing happens with regularity among Book of Mormon critics. For another instance, when the Tanners got the scripture on computer disks and searched for New Testament anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, it turns out that Matt Roper used the same media and discovered that the Tanners failed to note where the New Testament phrasing they cited had Old Testament verbal and conceptual equivalents. Indeed, they could not have avoided generating those equivalents via the search engines available. Where is the hard, uninterpreted evidence from the history of translations from ancient texts that translation into the common language of a later time and different culture never introduces anachronism based on the need to make useful and intelligible translations, as well as due to the habits of thinking and expression that the translators themselves have acquired through their life experience and cultural background, and that critics always and inevitably have a sufficient grasp of every situation that they never make claims of decisive and telling anachronism that over-reach the implications of the evidence at hand? Barbour observes: I've published several examples of my network of theoretical assumptions and observations that can account for what you offer as counter-instances. If you want to solve the problem of my different readings via the "apologist" label, have at it. Saves effort. But also shows a lack of effort at the same time. One of the reasons I keep using Kuhn is that I find he focuses my attention in productive ways, and it also happens that I keep getting published in journals and books based on what I see. I even got an essay published at Oxford University Press in collaboration with one Margaret Barker. Regarding Barker's work, and its reception, I have read 18 of her books and many essays so far. I have explored her reception at length and I notice that she gets noticed and endorsed by interesting people, like the Rowan Williams, when Archbishop of Canterbury, by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, N. T. Wright, Andrei Orlov, Crispin Fletcher Lewis, and many others, and that books such as Temple Theology and The Risen Lord came about because she was invited by various professors to lecture at different Universities, and those who invited her to speak were impressed by what she offered enough to get her published. I personally find it fascinating to see how and where and when and what she published that led to her election to the President of the Society for Old Testament Study in England in 1999 while "just a housewife." I consider how her book Temple Themes and Christian Worship has a far more detailed listing of extensive sources than does Temple Mysticism, and that its publication led to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Queen awarding her a Lambeth Doctorate. So she is Doctor Barker, and not "just a housewife." (I am involved in preparing a bibliography of her work at present.) I don't expect her paradigm to be instantly adopted by people who are deeply committed to other paradigms. Paradigm change does not happen that way. It tends to be a generational thing. Copernicus, for instance, was not immediately crowned by all and sundry. But I notice that what she has accomplished is remarkable and notable. I continue to find her work valuable and productive of important and fruitful insights. One lukewarm review by someone who, I can safely say, has not tested her work in some of the ways I have tested it, does not overbalance my own 27 years of exploration. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT