All Activity

Virtue signaling is the act of publicly expressing opinions or supporting social causes primarily to show off your good character or moral correctness, rather than out of genuine conviction. Neither myself or @Pyreaux are doing this.

I struggle with this. No child consents to anything, not to being born, not to being adopted, (in younger years) not to which parent gets custody, and so on. I have reconciled this in a way that seems to be driving the extraordinarily good relationship I have with (all 5 of) my sons. It is my choices that forced them into existence. They owe me nothing because non-existent beings are incapable of consenting to anything. I had all the power of consent and due to this extremely one-sided arrangement, I remain in their debt for the rest of my life. I reside in a permanent state of servitude to them. These are the defaults, our starting points. Respecting their consent builds abiding trust at a deep level. Consent is key to salvation, ethics, ability and love. It hangs out in the very best circles. The weight I place on consent flows from Church's teaching about Satan's premortal plan for us - which was based on a lack of consent and the resulting dearth of worthwhile redemption. Associating those two conditions with evil has changed my relationships with others, in ways that can be indescribably positive. Consent may outweigh even kindness in achieving our most valuable and fulfilling humanity. Plugging my parenting into all that has been ceaselessly good.

Here's a brand-new channel, Remnant Voices; it went "live" on 26 August 2026. So far 7 videos uploaded in less than a month! They describe their channel thus: "Remnant Voices shares Native perspectives on the restored gospel. Hosted by Anthony Rivera and Zander Sturgill. Presented by the Ancient America Foundation." This is their latest video, "Elder Gong Pointed to This Ancient Native Site. We Found Why!"

Eh, I’m fine with their process, I think they are doing it tongue in cheek. Maybe they are being more self-focused than they should be but so am I sometimes so I don’t feel like I can really judge them fairly. I agree that children have a right to a father and mother, but I also struggle with how often God is fine with taking a father or mother (or even both) to the detriment of the children. Mortal life seems to be set up to force us to deal with the less ideal. I’m good leaving this situation between them and God

Its simple semantics. Adam is a specific person in the Bible. But everyone reading this thread is a true and very real adam (a human). But none of us is the original, singular Adam of Genesis. Often Elohim means specifically Yahweh, but it also angels are elohim, territorial spirits are elohim, and disembodied human spirits like Samuel are elohim. These are sons of God, they are adopted, those whom the Most High legally elevated, from whatever they were and maybe technically still are, into His court, delegating to them executive authority. In human exaltation, the humans adopted as sons of God, are no longer Gentiles nor sons of Jacob-Israel restrained by Mosaic Law anymore, but are also elevated. Scripture says human believers receive huiothesia ('adoption as sons' - Galatians 4:5) and become 'partakers of the divine nature' (2 Peter 1:4). Calling an adopted entity a 'son' or a 'god' (elohim) acknowledges their covenant investiture and delegated authority. Adam is the progenitor of other adams. El is the progenitor (The Father) of other elohim. Covenant/adoption sonship with El renders a non-son a newborn son in every legal sense. Calling a heavenly entity an elohim is not a claim that they are the progenitor El Himself. Get it? Moab had Chemosh, and his Father is El ('Il), "Woe to you, O Moab! You are ruined, O people of Chemosh!" (Numbers 21:29). Ammon had Milcom / Molech and his Father is El ('Il). Edom had Qos and his Father is El ('Il). Tyre had Melqart and his Father is El. Sidon had Eshmun and his Father is El. The Philistines had Dagon and his Father is El (Elyon or Anu/Dagan). Babylon had Marduk / Bel and his Father was Ea, "Babylon is taken, Bel is put to shame, Merodach [Marduk] is dismayed" (Jeremiah 50:2). Assyria had Ashur and his Father is Enlil. Canaan had Baal-Hadad and his Father is El. Egypt had Ra and his father was Khnum, Joseph married Asenath, who was the daughter of Poti-phe-Ra, a priest of the Egyptian city of On. Everyone had a supreme Father God that stood at the head, while executive ruling authority over the earth is passed to a son (Ra, Marduk, Baal). The ancient world seems to universally understand the gods are a kinship network of divine beings operating in the same structured hierarchy. No, that is what you want it to mean. I already told you. In Roman Galatia was the imperial cult, who worshiped humans and their idols of humans, that claimed a divine status they did not possess. Paul tells the Galatian Gentiles that they were enslaved to mortal emperors, client kings, and political rulers and/or serving their images which possess zero intrinsic divinity. It's a scary notion, if you were a Gentile of another nation with no access to Israel or Christianity, it would be incumbent on you to obey the laws of your nation and deity as equal to God the Father, and ignore the Lord of Israel. If you were the Pharoh, you should obey Moses as he were equal to the Lord. Divine Investiture is how a subordinate figure can speak and act with authority that is equal in weight and validity to the sovereign, while remaining lesser in rank or form. "Equal" does not mean being as "great". Hence, Jesus is made "equal" to the Father, while the Father is "greater" than Jesus, without controdiction. Then Jesus is not your God. If you exclude any subordinate, invested, or generated divine person, then Jesus cannot be your God. "And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3) The Father is "the ONLY true God" (ton monon alēthinon theon), while distinguishing Himself as the One who was sent (an invested agent). Yes, by all accounts. To govern the laws and affairs of the Canaanites, for a time. I'm not imposing non-doctrinal theories from Mormonism here, you are the one imposing your beliefs on ancient Near Eastern texts that explicitly teach a populated, delegated hierarchy in heaven. Mormonism is allowing me to see the matter from outside of your tradition. Strict Monotheism is just your tradition, and nothing more, just as Infinite Regress is just a tradition.

I'm saying paragraphs on the pros and cons of each those could have been the thesis of your post. I'm sure you could find papers and studies and discussion on each. Each of those is infinitely more relevant to your supposed topic of the thread (Latter-day Saint church guidance to Latter-day Saints on the topic of surrogacy) than the single line item you choose to focus on: "Same-sex and single intended parenthood is sometimes opposed on those family-structure grounds." And you continue to ignore anything in the thread that could be related to the topic (Church views on surrogacy) instead focusing now on some Rameumptom level holier than thou fault finding with Charlie Bird. You are obsessed.

Glad you found it (member of FAIR here, though pretty dormant lately)

Revelation on valid baptism is D&C 22, received in 1830. It was specifically triggered by new members who didn't want to be rebaptized. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-16-april-1830-dc-22/1 has a bit of the history around it. For the Gift of the Holy Ghost, besides D&C 22 (which covers it because it talks about all "works"), I would say the two strongest is D&C 35 (1830 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-7-december-1830-dc-35/1) and D&C 49 (1831 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-7-may-1831-dc-49/1#historical-intro). D&C 35 is about Sidney Rigdon who had just been baptized. He was previously a Campbellite preacher and had baptized many people and believed they had received the Holy Ghost. In D&C 35, he is told that he now has proper authority to baptize and lay hands on them to actually give them the Holy Ghost. D&C 49 is about the Shakers. It says (among many things) that they need to be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Since the Shakers already believe they have the gift, this is evidence that God sees differently. Additionally to those 2 sections, it also follows logically with our belief in authority. To receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, it has to be done with proper authority after you've been baptized with proper authority. An early example of this is from a discourse from Joseph Smith in 1842 (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-20-march-1842-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/4) where he discusses Cornelius I don't expect that to ever change. Proper authority is really important to us. We believe resurrected beings literal came to Joseph and Oliver and restored the priesthood. Every Melchizedek holder (which is pretty much every adult male in the church) has a "Line of Authority" which shows how their priesthood went back to those events. A non-LDS would have to somehow show that the authority was proper and that is a pretty hard argument. We don't even accept Catholic authority and they have a well documented line back to the original apostles. Edited to add the link about Joseph Smith's discourse about Cornelius.

Happens with dating too. Rating your potential partners with friends or family seems a very human tendency, if not typically so elaborate.

Not sure about that. Splitting genetic, gestational, and social parenthood on purpose is said to complicate identity, kinship, and the child’s claim to know and be raised by the people who made and carried them. If the intended parents separate, die, or reject the baby (disability, sex, “too many”), the child can be legally stranded. Medical risk is real and not fully transferable by contract (preeclampsia, C-section, infertility, death). Intended parents get the child; she keeps the body. Bonding and regret: law can order her not to be a mother after she has been one physiologically. Critics call that a forced alienation, not a clean service. Parentage: who is the mother at birth—the woman who delivered, the egg donor, or the people on the contract? States and countries split. Utah and others allow it under statute; others ban or tightly limit paid surrogacy. Contracts about a person: courts are uneasy specific-performing a pregnancy (force her to abort, or forbid abortion, or take the child against her will). If you cannot enforce the core promises, it is not an ordinary contract. Payment: many jurisdictions distinguish “compassionate” unpaid surrogacy from commercial; the latter is banned or capped because it looks like baby-selling, which is already illegal. International deals: intended parents can be left with a child no country will recognize; the surrogate can be left with a child no one will collect. Citizenship, birth certificates, and succession follow blood or gestation in ways a private contract does not control. Equality / public-policy: some constitutions and human-rights bodies have treated paid surrogacy as incompatible with dignity or with bans on trafficking in persons. Are you saying these concerns are just ideological? A matter of preference? It seems not that way to me. These are real-world effects. Given our past history, going back years, I understand why you might impute such a thing. But as with the endless accusations of "Bigot!", it's not really substantive. I find it a bad and troubling idea to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or a father. Both play vital roles. In any event, I would rather we discuss the topic, as endless ad hominem and efforts and diverting attention to the individual rather than his argument or the topic slows down meaningful discourse. Thanks, -Smac

So I found Charlie's Facebook post, with an embedded video of an event he and his husband used to select, from a panel of women, a winning "Egg Donor." And this comment from him: "Egg donor pageant." Also, on the TV in the room there is this: "Whose genetics will take the crown?" Apparently to clarify what they mean by "genetics," they also have a scoreboard for the "Egg Donors" (not "women," not "prospective mothers") : In the "Questions about donor night" section of the video, someone asked "What were the highest preferred qualities for you guys?" The response in part: They said this, but then proceeded to rank the prospective "Egg Donors" using these criteria. The event was, in their own words, an "Egg Donor Finalist Night" and "Egg Donor Selection Night," in the style of a "full scale egg donor pageant." From the OP: "Commodification: pregnancy and birth are not like renting a room; paying for them treats the woman’s body and the baby as market inputs." Grok in the OP presented this as one of the "moral, legal and ethical arguments typically cited in relation to surrogacy." Is that what Charlie and his husband are doing with their Egg Donor "Pageant?" They were literally treating and referring to these women as "egg donors" and ranking them according to specific criteria: Intelligence Health/Athlete Egg Yield Beauty Family Fit Vibes / 'It' Factor Logistics / Cost Charlie Bird: "We really didn't want it to {be} about ranking people or deciding whose genetics were 'better' (ew)." Also Charlie Bird: "{Which 'Egg Donor's'} genetics will take the crown?" I did not see, in the Instagram vid or the FB post, whether the winning "Egg Donor" will be involved in any way in the child's life. I find this troubling. Charlie wanting to be a father is understandable. What I cannot call consistent with what the Church teaches about family is treating a child’s mother as optional—or as merely one of a panel of potential “Egg Donors” to be evaluated based on "egg yield," "beauty," educational achievements, "genetics," and so on. The Church teaches that a child is entitled to a father and a mother in a covenant marriage, and that a husband and wife are the appointed pattern for giving bodies to God’s children. Charlie's plan specifically and intentionally chooses a course of action in which a child will not have that, and he then assembles a genetic mother and a separate birth mother as parts. If a married man and woman, or a lesbian couple, lined people up the same way, I would find it unseemly too. Thanks, -Smac

Well, that's why it annoyed me so much. It was irrelevant, and it wasn't just that he was pointing out a lack or gap (as if including it would have added anything). He was trying to rub Pyreaux's nose in his failure to mention it. Yes, we all know that climate change is (or might be) to blame, but mentioning would have added little or nothing. I could have ignored it. You could have ignored me. And we both might have been much happier for it. But how can your protest of my protest be virtue signaling if it's relevant to the discussion? Which it is, since the discussion has become one about virtue signaling. In 2016 Dan McClellan once accused me of being a racist because I failed to call Donald Trump a racist in a comment on Facebook, in a thread he started in order to argue against Trump's candidacy for President because he claimed Trump is a racist. My crime was that I replied to a commenter to correct a misstatement of fact (not even about Trump), but I omitted writing "Trump is a racist!" in my comment. In other words, I got called out because I failed to signal my virtue. When I then failed to profusely apologize for my horrifying lack of virtue, he appeared on my own Facebook feed and accused me of racism to all my actual "in real life" friends. When they fought back against him, he fled, and subsequently unfriended me. This unpleasant experience led me to hate virtue signaling with a passion. However, as far as I can recall, this is the absolute first time I have ever called anyone out for virtue signaling. He wasn't engaging. He was upset because "climate change" was not mentioned. He didn't disagree with the statement of the problem, he just didn't like the omission. An omission that didn't affect the facts. OK, maybe virtue signaling has levels. Level 1 - the signal has at least something to do with the topic, but doesn't really add anything other than that the signaler wants us to know that he or she cares. And maybe he or she does care, but instead of just adding it to the conversation, which might add some value to the conversation, he or she castigates the other person for failing to bring it up. Level 2 - the signal has no relevance to the topic or the purpose at hand, and the signaler just wants us to know that he or she cares about the thing being virtue signaled. Examples include the phrase "Nobody is illegal on stolen land" being tossed out at a music awards celebration after receiving a Grammy Award. In this situation, the reply under discussion was of Level 1.

No arguing necessary. They are active according to the metrics the church itself uses, and it was meant to share information and not debate a point.

Actually, I don’t believe the debate is closed because “single mothers” is not inherently equivalent to “no father figure” or “raising a child completely on their own”. Plus a lot of research on single parent families is based on situations involving trauma of children (divorce, deah, incarceration, relationship instability, etc) rather than the choice of a single woman or man to raise a child on their own while having the support of other adults, possibly even in the home. Those negative results could be more about the trauma and less about the single parent.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how relevant it is, imo. It is hardly virtue signaling if someone is writing an argument or explanation for something and you point out a major lack or gap in an argument or the information. One could look at your protesting of his pointing out of the lack of mention of climate change as virtue signaling too, just from a different perspective. I am not sure if my protest of your protest is virtue signaling. I do know I really dislike when people label others’ comments as virtue signaling because the primary purpose seems to be an easy way to not engage and just dismiss them. Talking about sustained above average snowpack as a solution seems to treat it as a serious possibility. If he believes that, it needs to be supported or why mention it? Pyreaux writes in a technical way, I think it’s respecting his effort to expect it to be substantive. Thinking about what could be done, if anything, I came across a paper promoting more cloud seeding (not treated as a total solution, but as a tool we should use more). Anyone have feedback on that idea?

Additionally there is the complications of surrogacy when it comes to temple sealings. A couple of my pioneer ancestors were on their second marriages (due to death of their previoius partners). My ggg-grandpa Nathan Staker stood in to have his wife (Eliza Cusworth) sealed to her first husband (Joseph Burton) saying he didn't want to rob the dead. He (Nathan) was then a surrogate father (in his view) for the children he had with his wife Eliza including my gg-grandmother.

I acknowledge that recent handbook changes have removed the apostasy category for same sex marriages and therefore no longer "require" a disciplinary council. It's been my experience that Charlie Bird is the exception that proves the rule, but I will admit the exception and let you argue with your coreligionists if it should be held out as an example or not:

I did not. It is the most contested point Grok raised (by far, I think), so I presented for-and-against sources, then concluded that the "jury still seems to be out" about it. Nope. Every point Grok brought up is a constested point "moral, legal and ethical arguments typically cited in relation to surrogacy". Preventing families that don't look like yours from having children just happened to be most important to you.

"Active" can mean many things. If when you say "active" you are including people who intentionally break their covenants and have membership restrictions, that is one thing. If you mean Temple Recommend holders who are striving to keep their covenants, that is another. There are still more who say they are "active" in their ward, but aren't even members.

This isn’t completely accurate. Charlie Bird and his husband are still active in their ward and currently navigating surrogacy or adoption options. I couldn’t find any links that weren’t to his Instagram videos or stuff like that but you can Google it if your curious about it.

As I count it, outside the quotes your post was 569 words long. Supposedly trying to better understand your church's policy on surrogacy. Your post was mainly in response to a grok summary of the issues surrounding surrogacy. I was trying to lay the groundwork for a discussion, yes. I didn't really commit to most, if any, of the proffered reasons to oppose surrogacy. I'll take your percentages at face value. The detrimental effects on children of being raised by single mothers, with no father in the home, are apparently not really in dispute, anywhere. So I did not spend as much time assessing this because, well, I doubt anyone would dispute it. On the other hand, whether there are "detrimental effects on children" from being raised in a same-sex-couple household is very much in dispute. I quoted sources from both sides of the discussion, and concluded: "The jury still seems to be out, I guess." I did not. It is the most contested point Grok raised (by far, I think), so I presented for-and-against sources, then concluded that the "jury still seems to be out" about it. Well, that is what I was trying to discuss: the potential origins of the Church's policy. I suspect at least some of the items Grok noted may have been involved in the formulation of the policy. Grok: "Same-sex and single intended parenthood is sometimes opposed on those family-structure grounds." Is this correct? I don't know, but I suspect it has probably been postulated in some circles. Has this happened in the upper echelons of the Church? I see no evidence of that. I asked Grok: "Is there any published statement or evidence that the policy on surrogacy in the handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was influenced, to any extent, but arguments along the lines of 'Same-sex and single intended parenthood is sometimes opposed on those family-structure grounds?'" The response: Children born through a surrogate are not born in the covenant; a sealing needs First Presidency approval. That is the whole published rationale: the husband-and-wife pattern in 2.1.3 / the Family Proclamation. It does not mention same-sex couples, single intended parents, or “family structure” as a reason to discourage the practice. What is documented nearby, but is not the surrogacy paragraph. Fertility treatments (38.6.9) are for “a married woman and man” / “a lawfully married man and woman.” Donor gametes from anyone but husband or wife are discouraged. The older Handbook 1 rule on artificial insemination was explicit about singles: “Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved.” Those who “deliberately refuse” were subject to discipline. Same-sex marriage is opposed on doctrinal family-structure grounds in 38.6.16 and the Proclamation. That is a separate heading. So the Church does oppose same-sex and (in the older AI rule) single-woman use of assisted reproduction. It has not published a sentence that says those objections are why surrogate motherhood is discouraged. What commentators infer. Some scholars read the structure as doing that work anyway: the policy is addressed only to “husband and wife,” and the First Presidency sealing gate can keep children of same-sex parents out of a sealing. That is an inference from how the rules fit together, not a disclosed drafting history. There is no First Presidency letter, newsroom Q&A, or handbook commentary that says “we discourage surrogacy because it is a path to same-sex or single parenthood.” Bottom line. On the evidence that is published: the stated influence is the husband-and-wife procreative pattern, not the family-structure argument against same-sex or single intended parents. That latter argument is real Church teaching in other sections. Connecting it as a cause of the surrogacy paragraph is plausible and undocumented. It would not be accurate to say the Church has acknowledged that influence. So there may be be some oblique association. Broadly, children should be created and raised by a man and a woman married to each other. So are people to violate the Law of Chastity in other ways. So are members who participate in polygamy. Well, you may be quite right about that. Thanks, -Smac

You can keep using the word "theory" but it doesn't apply to previous teachings by LDS leaders. It was not taught as "theory" back then. I think this is more semantics than substantive. I think it's accurate: "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." Do all LDS Church teachings and policies in the past, present, and future need to be written down as revelation from God and canonized? No, but that was not Edward Kimball's point about going "beyond the evidence." I think it's difficult to dispute that point. I don't know that "there is no formal revelation of her recorded in canon." That this has moved from speculation to inference to "doctrine" is interesting. Previous teachings that it was doctrine and a direct commandment of the Lord does not freeze the latter disavowal and referring to it as theory. It's just an admission that previous Latter-day Saints were led astray. Plowed ground. Right. It was referred to as being spectacularly wrong by Dallin H. Oaks in lesson 26 of Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, Religion 225, 2015. Yes. I'm not sure that is correct. George Q. Cannon, of the First Presidency, labelled that (the quote from the thread The Indians are the Red Men) as gospel truth. I view it as error, which led people who believed it astray. So this discussion has become a different project? No, the LDS Church is not locked in. I happily stand corrected. Even your own definition of "lead people astray" does not support this: False teaching leads people in the wrong path, to worship a false God. What people were led down "the wrong bath, to worship a false God" by way of the justifications for the priesthood ban? I think it is the same person, with differing perspectives about Him. To suggest the Latter-day Saints worship a "Jesus Christ" numerically distinct from the one in the New Testament is, in my view, fundamentally unserious and indefensible. Critics can talk all day long about how our perspective on Him is wrong, but that's it. I'm not sure about that. A person can err in doctrine and still walk with Christ. Building upon your earlier logic, canonizing teachings would help prevent you from viewing all non-canonized teachings as theories. Not sure about that. Canonization tends to clarify and solidify, and I like that. I think the Proclamation would do all sorts of good in that way if it were canonized. Perhaps not, but I'd like to see it just the same. This sounds apt. There was only one Barack Obama, but all sorts of varied and mutually incompatible opinions about him. Thanks, -Smac

As I count it, outside the quotes your post was 569 words long. Supposedly trying to better understand your church's policy on surrogacy. Your post was mainly in response to a grok summary of the issues surrounding surrogacy. 6% of grok's 480 words were on the combined issue of single parenthood and same sex households. So let's say 3% on the gay angle. Of your words? 46%. And this excludes the additional quotes from Cornell and Grok that you included on that issue. So grok thought it was worth 3% and you made it the thesis of your post. And how exactly does the church handbook policy on surrogacy intersect with same sex couples using a surrogate? Not at all. Same sex couples are excommunicated from your church. They aren't looking for advice from your leaders on this issue. There is zero overlap. Add in the fact that you completely ignore Nehor's scriptural related references around surrogacy and you certainly seemed obsessed with the gay angle. Extremely so.

See my previous replies. It was a doctrine and direct commandment from God. It was characterized in that way, yes. Whether it actually was, however, is something we cannot state with clarity and confidence. Right. They believed the previous LDS leaders were leading the people astray when they claimed it was a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. I think we see "leading the people astray" differently. We've plowed that ground many times now. I don't think we can impute this ("they believed...") onto the leaders of the Church. That's just speculation. We have other sources. But nothing that is in any way definitive. Hence the utility and value of the Church's current posture. It is fair to say that the problematic historical justifications of the ban were false teachings: they asserted things about Black people, premortality, and divine disfavor that the Church now says are not true, and leaders taught them as if they were. I think it is less fair to use “false teachings” as a synonym for “the Church now admits its prophets were frauds,” which is how the phrase is often deployed. The precise wording that matches both the record and the current official position is: leaders taught explanations that were wrong; those explanations have been disavowed; they are not doctrine. I am not admitting that. At all. And we cannot definitively say which one is correct, hence the utility and value of the Church's current posture. That appears to have been Pres. McKay's experience, yes. I don't think that amounts to evidence that the Lord instituted the ban. Right. Because they now believe those previous LDS prophets were leading the people astray. But they don't want to phrase it that way. Again, you are imputing a point of speculation ("they now believe those previous LDS prophets were leading the people astray") onto the leaders of the Church. I don't think we can do that. Because I don't think the leaders of that religious organization are endowed with the same priesthood authority and spiritual gifts as are given to the leaders of our Church. "Astray" from what? The LDS Church says the 1978 revelation came to President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. But I've never seen this revelation. From OD-2: What are your thoughts about this? We do know that black skin was put upon the Lamanites based on the three BOM passages I provided before. I don't think we can say we know this. I do. What I am less sure of is a potentially eisegetical interpretation of the text. See my prior citations to Gardner. How do you know that? The 2015 Gospel Topics essay “Mother in Heaven,” reviewed by the First Presidency and Twelve, opens: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. … The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.” That is official language. They call it doctrine. Elder Oaks: “Our theology begins with heavenly parents.” The 1995 Family Proclamation, issued by the First Presidency and Twelve, says each person is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” A 1909 First Presidency statement said men and women are “in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.” The hymn “O My Father” is in the hymnbook. In April 2022 Elder Renlund pointed members to that essay as the summary of what is known. Existence of heavenly parents is official Church teaching, repeatedly affirmed by the First Presidency and Twelve. In current institutional usage, that is doctrine. It is not canonized doctrine. No scripture names her. No published revelation describes her. Almost nothing about her has been revealed. Calling it doctrine is therefore a claim about who gets to define doctrine (living prophets), not a claim that the same evidentiary bar used for the Resurrection or the Book of Mormon has been met. If you reserve “doctrine” for what is in the standard works or in a revelation presented for a sustaining vote, then “Heavenly Mother” is a cherished authoritative inference, not doctrine. If you accept the Church’s present definition — united teaching of the Fifteen — then it is doctrine with an unusually thin revelatory file. The discomfort is, I think,, not confusion about the essay. It is that the Church uses one word for both. Right. Those LDS prophets were leading the people astray if the ban was not of God. Again, plowed ground. I think we'll just need to disagree about what "leading the people astray" means. The Pearl of Great Price refers to Adam's transgression as a sin. "Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents [Adam and Eve] cannot be answered upon the heads of the children [Abel, Cain, etc], for they are whole from the foundation of the world" (Moses 6:44). Here is that passage: A scripture referencing a "saying abroad among the people" does not, in my view, amount to calling that "saying" authoritative. Also, not quite sure what this has to do with my comments. Could you elaborate? Was this a restriction by commandment of men or of God? We currently do not have sufficient knowledge to say either way. The priesthood ban and the reason for it is not a moral hinge. Okay. That is surely the impression you have been giving. Whether past leaders "led people astray" and/or taught "false doctrine" and such are all predicated on their justifications for the ban. That prophets and apostles are not perfect, and that they can make mistakes, even some serious ones (such as by erroneously propagating speculation, devoid of any known revelatory provenance, as "doctrine") is not a "moral hinge" for me. I don't use this as a pivot point for listening or not listening to the leaders of the Church, for sustaining them or not sustaining them, and so on. The impression I have been getting from your comments is that you do use this (some form of inerrancy/infallibility) as a pivot point / hinge. What is a "moral hinge" is whether God exists, and whether Jesus Christ is His Son, and whether the Plan of Salvation is true, and whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and whether the other foundational events involving Joseph Smith - particularly the restoration of the Priesthood and the organization of the Church - are true and confirmed by the Spirit. I agree. That some of Joseph's successors allowed and propagated substantial error in the Church (non-revelatory justifications for the priesthood ban) is not a hinge or a pivot point or a litmus test for the "legitimacy of the Restored Gospel." I'm not sure what this means. Maybe you believe the LDS Church needs a written revelation for everything it teaches or every policy it institutes. I do not. When Muslims speak of Jesus, are you claiming that they are speaking of a numerically distinct Jesus wholly differentiated from the Jesus of the New Testament? No. I believe Muslims have different perspectives and opinions about the Jesus of the New Testament. Yes, that. I think I have accurately stated what Muslims believe. I respect their views, but I disagree with them insofar as they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Okay. I think we'll have to disagree about that. Some people believe that Barack Obama was a great president, others thought he was a terrible president. Differing perspectives on Mr. Obama, but not two separate Obamas. Person A's statement was most accurate decades ago – LDS leaders previously taught the ban and the reason for it were of God. Right. But that wasn't my question. I'm not sure this is accurate. Again, plowed ground. We'll just need to agree to disagree. I guess we'll disagree about this as well. I'm okay with that. Thank you for your comments. -Smac

If you have a start, middle, and finish worked out, you are in a good place! Back when I was a teenager I came up with a premise for a science-fiction novel, and had even started writing it, but wasn't sure how it was going to end. I wrote to famous science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov asking for advice, and he actually replied! He said that what I should do is come up with an ending first, and then let the start and middle bend towards it. Since have all three, you're golden!