All Activity

It's not that complicated. No one calls you a bigot because you say wait for sex until marriage. No one calls you a bigot because you say society is way too sexualized. No one calls you a bigot for your views on masturbation. Bigotry has a very narrow definition. If I say "those two people shouldn't get married" and my reason is solely based on the racial attributes, national origin, religion, gender, or sexual orientation (or some other near immutable characteristic) that is bigotry. It doesn't matter if the person stating it has all these intellectual reasons surrounding preserving "white culture", some divine curse on Cain, or anything else. It's still bigotry. You privilege yourself as a class (heterosexual) and would deny the same privileges to a different class of people (homosexual). Our ancestors sought to do the same around interracial marriages. They could write "reasoned" paragraphs about it just like you I'm sure. They were still racist. Sorry.

I was wondering what was Knox's primary source. It appears that he was mostly translating the Latin Vulgate, which is St. Jerome's translation from Greek and Hebrew into what was then the vulgar tongue of the western church (Latin), which is also why it is called a Vulgate. It would seem though that Knox was also making good use of the Hebrew and Greek secondarily. The site below is where I got that impression. https://www.knoxbible.com/ I also was impressed with the elegant but accessible English in Psalm 22 in the Knox edition, which is Psalm 23 in all Protestant Bibles and more recent Catholic Bibles. Edited to add that this might be helpful from the same site too in explaining a little history and Knox's vision for this English translation. (If I am not mistaken, Baronius Press is the publishing arm of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which is probably the most prominent of several religious communities with full permission from Rome to celebrate all their Sacraments according to the 1962 MIssal of Pope St. John XXIII). https://www.knoxbible.com/why_is_knox_bible_unique.html

Yes, I like the way Genesis 1 says God made "furniture" for the earth. That is a cool concept.

It's online at https://catholicbible.online/knox/OT

More ad hominem / tu quoque, as opposed to discussing the topic. I think the "Bigot!" schtick is so frequently utilized because it's all you've got. I can articulate a reasoned basis for my position. I don't think you can, either that or you are so immersed in your own worldview that you cannot accommodate the possibility that viewpoints divergent from yours might be reasonable. So you retreat to name-calling. Here is a set of propositions by which I have assessed my perspective on the Law of Chastity, sexuality, and marriage." I will lay them out and ask you to consider them. If you want to discuss them, we can start a separate thread: Proposition #1: Our Involved Heavenly Father I believe God exists, and that He sent us here to experience a mortal probation, to exercise agency, to choose between right and wrong, to develop and maintain faith, to repent, to serve our fellow man, and so on. I believe God is not some distant and indifferent "Cosmic Clockmaker." Rather, I believe His perspective is along the lines of "this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). And because He "so loved the world," He "gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Furthermore, God - our Heavenly Father - and His Son have sent prophets and apostles, and endowed them with authority and revelatory capacity to communicate truths and commandments and corrections to us. Proposition #2: Sex is Important In effectively every dispensation of time, sex and sexuality have proven to be very powerful and important components of the human experience/probation. It is the sine qua non of the propagation of the species, both via reproduction and - hopefully and ideally - having children raised by both a mother and father. Proposition #3: Sexual Ethics are Important Among other precepts, the Lord has given us the Law of Chastity, which constrains sexual behavior to two purposes: procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife. Elder Renlund put it this way: The foregoing constraints make a lot of sense to me, both theologically and practically. Many of the worst social ills in our society arise with varying degrees of proximity to violations of the Law of Chastity. Proposition #4: Everyone has Sexual Ethics / Parameters / Boundaries Because I believe the Law of Chastity is a revelation of God's will regarding His children, and because it makes a lot of sense, I accept it as a valid mechanism to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior. Metaphorically speaking, let's say that "Y" represents a box into which each and every form of sexual expression can be placed. Procreative sex. "Just for fun or to scratch and itch" sex. Same-sex sexual behavior. Married sex. Unmarried sex. Adultery. Masturbation. Sexual assault and abuse. Incest. All of it. Let's now say that "X" represents a smaller box, within Y but still differentiated from it. X is a subset of Y, a subset of appropriate and divinely authorized - even mandated - purposes and uses of sex and sexuality, with the rest of Y being comprised of behaviors prohibited by the Law of Chastity, by God. The Law of Chastity situates sex between a husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and/or strengthening their union, as within X. All other forms of sexual expression are outside of X. Proposition #5: Latter-day Saints are Entitled to Articulate an X/Y Differentiation The X / Y differentiation described above can cause a lot of disagreement. For example, some people differentiate X from Y by using a “Between Consenting Adults” (“BCA”) standard. That is, X includes anything in which adults consent to participate. Thus X would not include sexual behavior with children, or nonconsensual sexual behavior (such as rape). However, the BCA standard facilitates some real problems. Adultery may be “consensual” by and between the participants, but not the innocent spouse who is being cheated on. BCA also greatly increases risks associated with STIs, unwanted pregnancies (and, therefore, abortions), emotional turmoil (the “Hookup Culture” is pretty terrible), and so on. Nevertheless, BCA or some variation on it is how much of the world differentiates X from Y. In my view, our society has become way too sexualized. Children are being exposed to far too much of it, usually in harmful ways. Today’s “hookup” culture is creating all sorts of damage to the emotional and mental and physical health of those who participate in it. Pornography is stunting and distorting perspectives on sexuality. Various forms of abuse are happening with increasing frequency. The Internet has played a big role in that, but so too has the weakening of individual sexual ethics and standards. We need to return to seeing sex as an important, beautiful, sacred thing. We also need to strongly resist the tendency to inject sexuality into areas where it does not belong. Casual and coarse conversation does this. Crass jokes and vulgar humor does this. Imputing a sexual dimension onto relationships that are and/or ought to be nonsexual does this. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, everyone approaches sexual behavior with the above two boxes. I suppose there are some few truly depraved persons and groups in whose minds X is coextensive with Y (that is, without any differentiation between the two, where literally any sexual behavior is allowed). We all, either as individuals or as groups, create boundaries to differentiate appropriate and acceptable sexual behaviors (X) from those that are not (Y). I therefore respectfully reject criticisms of the Church (and its members) for its differentiation of X from Y, since all groups and individuals do this, and are entitled to do so. Proposition #6: The Law of Chastity is a Reasonable Basis for Sexual Ethics I think the Law of Chastity makes a lot of sense. Sexual behavior needs to be seen as more than just a biological impulse, more than just an itch to be scratched. Instead, sexual behavior must be constrained, it must be allowed within a narrow "closed set" of circumstances (marriage between a husband and wife), and is otherwise prohibited. In a biological sense, it creates children, and those children are, sociologically, much more likely to have a safe and stable childhood, and to avoid dysfunctional behaviors, and to grow into productive members of society, when they are raised by a father and a mother who love each other and are emotionally and sexually faithful to each other. Sex also is, or ought to be, very important to the individuals participating in it. That importance is undermined, even negated, when sexual profligacy is the norm. Parameters are necessary. I acknowledge that different people have different views on these matters. Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things such as what should and should not be in X. I am not suggesting that all conclusions reached by such “reasonable minds” are of equal value or validity, but I am saying that we need to allow each other some room for such principled and reasonable disagreement. I think such space gives us time and opportunity to utilize evidence and reasoning and analysis to persuade. Without such space, ideological narratives are sometimes coercively imposed onto us, narratives with baggage we may later find to be problematic. Even putting aside, arguendo, the argument about whether the Law of Chastity is revelatory, I think this point is difficult to dispute: It is reasonable and defensible as the basis for a code of sexual ethics. It may not be everyone's cuppa, but it works. If other people and other groups want to make X a larger box than it is for the Latter-day Saints, such are the perqs of living in a modern, pluralistic society. However, I think it is a very different proposition to assert that the Latter-day Saints are uniquely disallowed from drawing the boundaries between X and Y. That's just special pleading and fundamental unfairness and unreasonableness. Proposition #7: Treating the Law of Chastity as "Bigotry" is Unreasonable The Church’s sexual ethic (based on the Law of Chastity) is, though sensible, admittedly far more restrictive than the BCA approach. Despite the the fact that everyone differentiates X from Y, the differentiation espoused by the Church is often singled out as being terrible, awful, “bigoted,” etc. I submit, though, that the Church’s Law of Chastity makes a lot of sense. Sociologically, compliance with it helps the individual avoid all sorts of problems arising from unrestrained (or less restrained) sexual behaviors, such as avoiding unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexually-transmitted infections, sexual assault allegations, “hookup culture” issues, and so on. The Church’s teachings also make a lot of sense in biological, sociological and other contexts. This is where your "Bigot!" accusation comes into view. It is unreasoned and unsubstantiated. It is an accusation without support. It is presented not to rebut, but to silence and shame. The value of the constraints of the Law of Chastity are routinely and emphatically ignored in facile criticisms of the Church's teachings, which teachings are unfairly and falsely characterized as punitive, weird, etc. Such criticisms implicitly refuse to grant the Church any ground to teach what it believes regarding sexual ethics. I think that is unfair and inappropriate, particularly given the “(almost) anything goes” licentiousness inherent in the BCA approach. On this point I offer a quote from Pres. McKay: There is a real social “cost” which Latter-day Saints bear when the espouse and defend the Law of Chastity. It is always unfortunate - and never justified - for any Latter-day Saint to harbor prejudicial or bigoted sentiments against LGBT people (or anyone else, for that matter). But "bigotry" being an across-the-board synonym for "you disagreeing with the sexual parameters I prefer" is just not reasonable. A few reasons: First, principled and reasoned disagreement about sexual ethics (and about many other topics) is not bigotry, it is just disagreement. Second, baseless accusations of bigotry are generally intended more to silence and shame and stifle divergent viewpoints than to persuade or explain. They are coercive. Third, I sense that there is a lot of the above stuff going on, and that it is frequently directed to Latter-day Saint children, teenagers and young adults. There is a fairly potent “Mormons Hate Gays”-style accusation present in online social media content and platforms, websites, and so on. While there are undoubtedly some individual Latter-day Saints who harbor prejudices against LGBT folks, they are not following prophetic counsel when they do so. I recognize that, in the context of some “LGBT” folks, the foregoing assessment of the Law of Chastity, of the constraints the Church places on sexual behavior, can be hard to hear. But when viewed from a broader perspective, sex and sexuality regain their importance, their sanctity, and their beauty. Again, I am happy to discuss these propositions with you, and to listen to whatever propositions you use to develop your preferred set of ethics. Thanks, -Smac

I've read most of those. My understanding is that the at-the-time-revolutionary LDS concept of a pre-existence wherein choices were made, possibly including "plans", predates Raymond Moody's book by maybe 145 years or so. On the other hand my recollection is that the musical "My Turn On Earth" rather clearly depicts people making plans in the pre-existence, and it came out a two years after Raymond Moody's book. Were such ideas present in LDS culture before then? I don't know. But I don't think pre-birth planning was mentioned in Moody's book. AI doesn't think so either. I also asked AI when the first near-death experience accounts describing the making of pre-birth plans were published and it said 1992, but I do not trust AI to have made a thorough search. So if the one is informing the other it is not clear to me who started it, but I think the idea showed up in LDS culture first. What do you think? I did imply independence, and have no idea how I could ever present evidence of such. It would be like trying to prove a negative: Theoretically possible but not practical. So I now formally withdraw the implication of independence and will edit my post accordingly. <- EDIT: The time window for editing the post I was referring to has passed, so I hope this retraction is sufficient. Imo the bigger question is, are we being screwed over, or not? It is quite possible that our confirmation biases will present us with evidence supporting whichever belief we already have.

Hi Navida From my own experience from within the Catholic Church. At least since Vatican 2, The Knox Bible has been referred to with regards to the translation being of high value, and being a reliable translation. However I can not recall any actual source material for this. Although when I left High School in the mid eighties, at Catholic High School. We were handed Knox Bibles.

Key word: “sometimes”. I’m familiar with these verses, and they are often used to try to divert attention away from the literal meaning of the word “offspring” (translated from génos) in Acts 17:28-29. But none of those verses have any bearing on the context of Acts 17:28-29. First, none of the examples you gave use the Greek word génos. The Greek word génos refers to the "kind" of being in this context and has a kinship meaning. There is simply no way that the Greek word génos in Acts 17:28-29 can be misconstrued to mean that we are merely created by God. It’s totally foreign to the core meaning of the word. Second, if you reimagine the meaning of the Greek word génos in this context to be non-literal, it invalidates Paul’s entire argument. Paul's core argument is this: "if humanity is God’s offspring, then the divine cannot be captured in images of gold, silver, or stone" (see Paul and Zeus, A Universalizing Thread in Acts). Your changing of the meaning of the word génos to be about God creating humanity out of nothing (which is an impossible definition of the word) totally destroys Paul's entire argument, because if humanity is merely a creation of God and gold, silver, or stone are also creations of God, then there's no difference (so why not assume that god is gold, silver, or stone?) "What Acts 17 reveals is that early Christian thinking could treat non-Jewish, non-Christian sources as real witnesses to God, even while arguing against Greek religious practice. If humanity is truly God’s offspring, as Aratus wrote about Zeus, then representing God through statues and images misses the point of that relationship entirely. The argument only works if the Greek poets were right about something essential, and that is a significant move for understanding how early Christianity saw itself within its intellectual world. What Paul is depicted describing in Athens is not a rejection of Greek thinking about God but a universalizing claim that it was always, without knowing it, about the creator God." ( Paul and Zeus, A Universalizing Thread in Acts) And finally, you haven't considered how Paul's Greek audience would have understood his teaching. Do you think they would have thought Paul was only teaching them that God created us out of nothing? There's no possible way that they would get that message out of what Paul was saying and what he quoted from their poets. And you didn't answer the question. Given what Paul was teaching in those verses do you believe that Paul meant that we are all literal Gods right now?

That is the point. In John 1:1, God the Father is referred to as “THE God”, while Jesus (the Word) is only referred to as “God” (without the article). Jesus is not “the God” in this context, he is just “God”. Jesus is not God the Father, and God the Father is “THE God” of Jesus Christ. I didn’t say it was. The point of John 1:1 is to show the subordinate relationship of Jesus to his God, God the Father, the “only true God”. John 1:1 it distinguishes “The God” (God the Father) from Jesus (“God”), and it shows that God the Father is “THE God” of Jesus Christ. Look closely at what you just said. You wrote, “John is saying that everything that was created came into existence through the Word. Nothing that was made came into existence independently of him.” Then you say, “That is why I believe Jesus created Satan”. But that is just circular reasoning. You must first presuppose that Satan “was created” or “was made”, and then you use that verse to try to prove what you already presupposed, that Jesus created Satan. But nowhere does scripture say that Satan “was created” or “was made”. The same is true for the spirits of men, because the biblical teaching is that we are all the very “génos” of God, the “kind” of being that God is. That’s not two definite articles. What you are claiming to be “two definite articles” above are the phrases “the Lord” (ὁ κύριός) and “the God” (ὁ θεός), both of which use the one and the same definite article in the Greek for two different name titles for God. A definite article is a word placed before a noun to show that the noun refers to a specific, known person, place, or thing. In English, the only definite article is "the", and Greek has only one definite article (meaning "the"), but it changes its form depending on the noun's gender, number, and grammatical case (see here). Here’s a quote from the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD), from his commentary on John 1:1. This is relevant to my point above about John 1:1, and to your claim that Origen didn’t teach that “the Father and the Son are two separate Gods” down below: There is no question at all that Origen considered God the Father and Jesus Christ to be two distinct Gods, as well as affirming the existence of many other Gods. If you're comparing traditional Christianity with LDS theology, these verses raise the question of how Jesus can be called God while simultaneously having God as his God and remaining subject to the Father. Traditional Christianity generally answers this through the distinction between the persons of the Father and Son while maintaining that both share the one divine nature. Right, and it’s the “share the one divine nature” part of your explanation that’s not biblical at all, and why these verses are such a problem to traditional Christianity. The verses are plainly saying that Jesus, who is God, has a God above him, and separating them into separate persons still makes two persons and two Gods. The Bible has no problem saying that God is the God of other gods, or that Jesus (who is God) has a God. There are “gods many, and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”. Several LDS teachings portray this "God" you refer to above as achieving godhood. Yes, he may have been a God before he became God in relation to us, but he has not always been God. A being who needs to achieve godhood has not always been God. In your July 13 2026 post, you said "I don't think anyone denies that God the Father is an "exalted man". He has "achieved Godhood" and "progressed to Godhood" in that he was once a man who is now exalted. But that's not the same thing as him "becoming God". God the Father received exaltation (his body was exalted)". From what I know of LDS theology, exaltation involves much more than getting an exalted body: • Becoming a heavenly father or mother (D&C 132:19; D&C 131:2–4). • Becoming a God (D&C 76:58–60; D&C 132:20). • Receiving a fulness of glory (D&C 76:56, 70; D&C 93:28). • Receiving a fulness of joy (D&C 138:17; D&C 93:33–35). • Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (D&C 76:95). • Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (D&C 132:19–20; D&C 121:29). • Having eternal families (D&C 132:19; D&C 131:1–4). • Having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (D&C 132:19). • Living in God's presence (D&C 76:62; D&C 130:3). This is all biblical theology as well. • Becoming a heavenly father or mother (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7). • Becoming a God (2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2). • Receiving a fulness of glory (John 17:20-23, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:4, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Timothy 2:10, Hebrews 2:10, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Peter 1:3). • Receiving a fulness of joy (Psalms 16:11). • Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (Revelation 3:21). • Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (Matthew 25:21, 23, Revelation 2:26, Revelation 3:21, Revelation 21:7). • Having eternal families (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7). • Having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (Isaiah 55:3-5). • Living in God's presence (Revelation 21:3). But these things that pertain to us for how we can become like God is now, and they don’t all define what “exaltation” fully means or what it is entailed in becoming “God”. For example, Jesus didn’t have God’s “glory” until God the Father gave it to him in the beginning (John 17:5, 22, 24, 1 Peter 1:21), nor had he received a resurrected body, and Jesus was still considered to be God in the beginning. And God’s “glory” increases eternally, as God continues to create worlds and brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. So, there is no end to the glory and dominion that God receives. Given the fact that God the Father has always been the most advanced, most intelligent, supreme being above all others (as Joseph Smith taught), he has always possessed thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions. He created worlds before he dwelt on one of them. It is only in his relationship to us that he became our God. Psalm 90:2 says nothing about Christ (that’s another circular reasoning issue you have with that verse), nor does it say God is “eternally God” as you well know (“from age to age” is not the same as “eternally God”). We’ve been over that and you know better. And you also know that from Proverbs 8:22-25, where it is clear that the phrase “from everlasting” does NOT mean “eternally”, which contradicts your belief and misconstruing of scripture. That is a false interpretation of Isaiah 44:6 as the context shows. In LDS theology, no other Gods are formed to be the God of Israel, either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel, as Isaiah 44:6 is teaching in its context. John 17:3 says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent". Trying to comprehend that in simple fashion would lead one to conclude that Jesus is not a true God. Or it means that Jesus was saying that God the Father is indeed the only true God and Jesus is the agent and representative, the “image” of the one true God (God the Father). This is the message all throughout the gospel of John. And, as John 17 continues to show, all those who follow Jesus can also become agents of the one true God, his representatives and images of God, becoming “one” with Jesus and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, and receiving his full glory. You are the one changing what the Bible says. When Paul says, “there is one God” in 1 Corinthians 8:4, he adds “and one Lord Jesus Christ”, showing that Jesus is considered separate and distinct from the one God that Jesus represents. And elsewhere, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). The Bible explains it perfectly. As Jesus said, God the Father is the “only true God”, but Jesus went on to explain in the same chapter how he and his Father and all the believers can become “one”, or “one God” in representing the one true God who is above all. What really creates the tension is inventing some other non-biblical way that Jesus and his Father are “one God” by combining them into one being. It’s not only non-biblical, it is also nonsensical and contradicts scripture that teaches that God is the “God of gods”. The “homoousious” doctrinal invention creates more problems than it tries to solve. Not really, not when you understand the context, how the “one God” rhetoric works, and how divine images of God work in Old Testament times. And without that understanding you come away with a lot of Bible contradictions, such as all the verses that say God is the God of gods (Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Psalms 136:2-3), and that God is compared to these other gods in heaven (Psalm 89:5-7, Exodus 15:11, Psalm 97:9, Psalm 135:5). See this post in the topic thread “Many Gods in the Bible”. As for how images of God work in Old Testament times, here’s an example from the Septuagint version of Genesis 31:13: "I am God that appeared to thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst a pillar to me, and vowedst to me there a vow; now then arise and depart out of this land, depart into the land of thy nativity, and I will be with thee." The same God who is the “only true God” as Jesus said in the New Testament, obviously. I read that link. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm It does not portray Origen teaching the Father and the Son are two separate Gods. Actually, it does. See the other quote I posted from Origen, above, and my further comments, below. Don’t you even see what Origen said in the quote you posted above? God the Father and Jesus Christ are “two… persons or substances”. In other words, they are not one substance, which is what the word “homoousious” means that the Roman Emperor Constantine added to the Nicene creed from which modern Christians get this teaching today (it’s not from the Bible). And Origen goes on to describe how Jesus and his Father are “one” in the exact same way Latter-day Saints teach it and the way that Jesus himself defined it in John 17:11 and 20-23. Origin said they are “one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.” Compare what Origen said above to this statement from the Church Newsroom article, Latter-day Saints 101: What Church Members Believe: “Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity? Latter-day Saints most commonly use the term ‘Godhead’ to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads, ‘We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.’ Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate personages, but one in will and purpose — not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.” How clear can it get? Compare the two again: Origen said, “they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will”. The Church website says they “are separate personages, but one in will and purpose — not literally the same being or substance”. That’s what the earliest Christians taught and believed.

Joseph Smith taught, "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. He was once a man like us; God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did". He was not alone on his earth. He apparently lived with a woman, who would later become his wife, and with millions or billions of other people. How did Heavenly Father become a God in relation to "her" and "them"? Was she and the others offspring of Heavenly Father (the God of our Earth), or were they the offspring of some God who came before Him? I already addressed this nonsense speculation of yours last time. I’m not going to entertain your speculative meanderings. It’s pointless to discuss things that have not been revealed. Furthermore, you know there are no answers to those questions, and by asking them over and over it is an indication that you are simply trying to provoke, mock, or ridicule rather than engage in fruitful discussion. So, prepare to be ignored. It seems you are trying to cloud what the term "offspring" means. Perhaps only for what you think “offspring” means, but otherwise, no. See below. Yes, and the “Becoming Like God” Gospel Topic essay says that too, but it also says: “Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is ‘a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.’ Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity.” In other words, the fact that we are the same kind of being as God (as Acts 17:28-29 teaches) is our “eternal core” (we have existed eternally), AND (note the word “and”) each of us is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents”. Not defined. And of course, you know that Joseph Smith didn’t teach that “many Father Gods existed before a being becomes the Father of our Earth”. You already know that, because you have never been able to show that he did. Do you want me to issue this as a CFR? You need to show where Joseph Smith taught that or quit posting this nonsense. And don’t post the same quotes that I’ve already discussed and shown that they don’t teach what you are claiming. I agree that Hebrews 12:9 calls God the "Father of spirits," but I don't think that necessarily means that our spirits are literally offspring of God in the sense of being spiritually procreated by him and a his spouse. In the biblical context, "Father" can describe God as our Creator, source, and rightful Father without implying that He physically or biologically fathered our individual spirits. The verse itself doesn't say that God and a heavenly wife produced us as spirit children. I realize you are forced to take this interpretation given that you were taught by your tradition to believe that God created all things, including human spirits, out of nothing (even though the Bible never says any such things and contradicts this teaching in Acts 17:28-29). But “in the biblical context” the meaning of Hebrews 12:9 can be perfectly understood by the surrounding verses and in the light of Acts 17:28-29, which is a clear teaching from the apostle Paul that we are the same kind of being that God is, we are his “offspring”. Look at the context. When Hebrews 12:7-9 talks about the chastening of a father to his sons, it compares the “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”. It is talking about literal “fathers of our flesh” on the one hand as compared to the “Father of spirits” on the other hand. This is a direct comparison. But you want to change the latter meaning to be only that God created us and he is only our “Father” in a figurative sense. God also created rocks. Is God also the father of rocks and he chastens them too? Your interpretation breaks the meaning of the comparison and diminishes the impact of what is being taught there. Again, your rationalization above is an attempt to dodge the clear meaning of the word génos in Acts 17:28-29, which teaches that we are the same “kind” of being that God is. That we are the same “kind” of being as God is not something that can be explained away by attempting to divert attention to other meanings of “Father”. Focus on what the word génos means. It’s in the Bible. You can’t make it say what you are trying to make it say. Do you? I don’t. What Paul was doing was teaching his pagan audience about the true God of the Bible, and he used quotes from the Greek poets to help communicate true teachings about the God of the Bible. Even the phrase “For in him we live, and move, and have our being" is a direct quote from Epimenides (Cretica), writing about the Greek god Zeus. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides). Do you think Paul was talking about Zeus? That would mean all non-exalted beings (those who don't become Gods) are not children of the New Covenant. They are not the "sons of God". Whose sons are they? They are of the devil (John 8:44; 1 John 3:10). See my post on 02/09/2022 for a complete explanation of John 8:33-44 and how the different meanings of “child” or “father” are used in those verses and in the Bible. If you read John 8:33-44 carefully, you can see that Jesus recognized and used multiple meanings of the words “children”, “seed”, and “father”. A person can be the literal seed or “offspring” of someone but not be their “child” in a behavioral sense because they don’t follow the example that was set by that individual, like the Jews in those verses that were the literal seed of Abraham but because they didn’t do the works of Abraham they did not have Abraham as their “father”. You are latching on to a single meaning of these words without consideration of the context or allowance for the other meanings and it is wresting of scripture. Joseph Smith said, "Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner, to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again". As said before, Joseph Smith was using the "Jesus did what he saw the Father do" statement in that sermon only with regard to creation (“I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence”), and that God the Father dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did and he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again (as you quoted above). There is no other information about God the Father's earthly experience other than that. See my post to you when you were posting as telnetd, here, here, and here. It seems you believe Paul was equating Heavenly Father with Zeus and omitted mention of Heavenly Mother; the goddess Hera. You’ve got that backwards. It seems you believe Paul was equating Heavenly Father with Zeus and Hera. Remember, you are the one who said how his audience would have understood Paul, as you said in your post on 01/02/2025: “The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.” Is that why you don’t believe Paul’s teachings in those verses? Do you think Paul was talking about Zeus and Hera? I don’t believe that’s what Paul had in mind. Paul was using the language that his audience would understand to teach the true doctrine of the God of the Bible, that we are all the same “kind” of being that God is, and that we are all his “offspring”. Do you think that Paul didn’t realize what he was teaching them? I think Paul knew exactly what he was saying. The question is, why don’t you believe him? I think you need to read this article on the intertextual.bible website: Paul and Zeus - A Universalizing Thread in Acts. I would love to quote the entire article here, but that would be inappropriate. The whole article is worth reading. But I'll quote a couple of paragraphs here. After quoting from Acts 17:26-31, the article says: "Paul’s speech names the borrowing openly, referring to 'your own poets' before quoting the line. The speech describes a God who made the world and everything in it, who does not live in temples and is not served by human hands, and who placed every nation on earth so that people might 'search for God and perhaps grope around for him.' Into this description of the God of Israel, Paul drops a reference from a hymn to Zeus, not to argue against it, nor even to make a sarcastic reference, but to underline his point. The quotation works as evidence that Greek poets had already said something true about the God Paul is talking about, and the speech then draws a practical conclusion from that shared idea: if humanity is God’s offspring, then the divine cannot be captured in images of gold, silver, or stone." "Paul does not argue that Aratus was wrong about Zeus or that the Greek poets were talking about a false god. He takes what was said about Zeus and applies it directly to the God of Israel, suggesting that the Greeks, through their own poetry and philosophy, had already stumbled onto something real about God. The implication is that genuine theological knowledge is not limited to Jewish scripture but can be found in other cultures and their ways of thinking about the divine. The speech accepts that Greek thinkers recognized and described real truths and insists that those truths point towards a universalizing theme, claiming the best of Greek thought while arguing it only makes full sense in the context of what Paul is preaching." The article concludes as follows: "The verse in Acts therefore contains not one but two echoes of Greek poetry about Zeus, both repurposed to describe the God of Israel. Two separate poetic traditions about Zeus are folded into a single verse about the Christian God, and neither is dismissed or corrected, with the text treating both borrowings as honest expressions of a truth the Greek poets had grasped independently. What Acts 17 reveals is that early Christian thinking could treat non-Jewish, non-Christian sources as real witnesses to God, even while arguing against Greek religious practice. If humanity is truly God’s offspring, as Aratus wrote about Zeus, then representing God through statues and images misses the point of that relationship entirely. The argument only works if the Greek poets were right about something essential, and that is a significant move for understanding how early Christianity saw itself within its intellectual world. What Paul is depicted describing in Athens is not a rejection of Greek thinking about God but a universalizing claim that it was always, without knowing it, about the creator God." What the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe is irrelevant and a diversion away from the point of what is evident in Proverbs 8:22-25, which is that the phrase “from everlasting” does NOT mean “eternally”, which contradicts your belief and misconstruing of scripture. In the 1844 discourse, Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a Father. "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also". Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly interpreted Joseph Smith's teaching as meaning that Heavenly Father had a Father, and that this continued backward. In Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47, he wrote "Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand" (Doctrines of Salvation). Do you believe these teachings? Joseph Fielding Smith was interpreting Joseph Smith based on a later published interpolation of the notes taken by Thomas Bullock, and Bullock’s notes are incomplete and are contradictory to one of the sources that Joseph Smith referenced. As I explained in my post on 05/26/2025, the original notes of Thomas Bullock indicate some confusion over the quote from Abraham 3:19, and Bullock’s notes contradict the book of Abraham. So, it’s not an entirely accurate source for Joseph Smith’s sermon, and consequently some people may misinterpret what Joseph Smith was teaching by using the published source alone, as was the case for Joseph Fielding Smith. Noted. In that April 1971 New Era article, then one could attribute the following statement to Kent Nielsen: "One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world". Nielsen's statement is a presumption. Yes, and if you had read my post on 05/26/2025 you would have realized that a long time ago, because that’s exactly what I said in that post, and you would have seen that I posted the entire context of Brigham Young remarks relating to the context of that statement. Firstborn does not necessarily mean first born or first created. It depends on the context. Of course. Based on the context of those three biblical verses above plus the one from D&C. That’s funny, because only the D&C verse is about Jesus, the others are not. You hand pick a few verses that have a different meaning of firstborn and apply that meaning to all other applications of the word firstborn, and you claim that “the context of those three biblical verses” (which are not about Jesus) prove that Jesus is really not “firstborn” in any other way? You can’t be serious. What about Matthew 1:25, where it says, “And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”? Does your picking and choosing of verses apply to that meaning of “firstborn” too? Why not use real biblical verses that apply to Jesus? Like: Hebrews 1:5–6: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” The Bible's creation account does not describe God creating mankind as the offspring of a heavenly father and heavenly mother. It describes God Himself as the Creator of both male and female. The Bible’s creation account describes God forming man from the “dust of the earth” and then God placed into the man his spirit (the “breath” of life), and man became a “living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Man’s spirit came from God, for it is the “kind” of being that God is, the very génos of God, as the Bible teaches. And these teachings coincide with what the Bible teaches in Acts 17:28-29 (we are the kind of being that God is) and how God created man in Genesis 2:7, with man’s spirit coming from God. What does Joseph Smith's teaching God the Father (of Earth) having a Father mean to you? In what way is that Father the father of Heavenly Father? Do you EVER read my posts? I’ve explained that many times already, including in my last post right within the context of the quote you clipped from it above. You edited out the answer to this very question. See my post on 09/07/2026, as well as my post on 05/26/2025. Here's part of what I said: Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him, because he would have had an earthly father when he dwelt on an earth, just like Joseph Smith was teaching. I’ll quote from one portion of my post on 05/26/2025 so you can find it easily if and when you go to read it. Part of what I said is this: “I see from Thomas Bullock’s notes of that sermon that the discussion of God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth. His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”. In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce him in the same way that Jesus came into mortality. But Bullock also seems to have repeated himself in part of those notes, so it’s hard to tell if Joseph Smith was restating something for emphasis, or if Bullock recorded it incorrectly, or if he did get it correct we need further information and context to draw any conclusions with certainty.” In other words, Joseph Smith was not teaching that God the Father has a God above or before him, and he was consistent in teaching that God the Father was the “head God”, the most high God. See my post earlier in this thread on 07/26/2026. Already explained. It seems you use the terms "head God" and "most high God" in the context of only Heavenly Father and his spirit children. You’ve tried this “sphere of influence or realm” approach previously (you have several times). I realize that this is your only way out of the corner you are in, but you already know that it doesn’t work because I have responded to your attempt at this many times before. And it’s not just me, it was Joseph Smith that taught this. Joseph Smith was clear in teaching that God the Father is the “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). This is what Joseph Smith said in the King Follet Sermon: “I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by through, and everything else. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, ‘The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.’ That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.” Joseph Smith emphasized that God is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”. He was very consistent in teaching that God the Father is the Most High God. Do you believe Satan is a powerful angelic being? What I believe about Satan is irrelevant to the context and interpretation Colossians 1:15-17 and Titus 3:1. People believe all kinds of things that they read into scripture instead of letting scripture speak for itself (like the idea that Jesus created Satan). If I'm not mistaken, LDS theology puts the cause on Heavenly Father. It was part of his plan – no fall, no progression. No, you are mistaken. In LDS theology Satan is an eternal spirit that has his own agency, and Satan was not created out of nothing as you believe Jesus did in creating Satan. So, the fact that Satan existed already and God used Satan in his plan is not the same as Jesus causing the existence of all evil by creating Satan, as you believe. That sounds a lot like the early Christian notion of a “fortunate fall” (the felix culpa). St. Thomas Aquinas writes: "But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” (Summa Theologica, III, 1, 3, ad 3; see also Catechism, 412.) Does that remind you of anything? God knew Satan would become evil when God created him. Did God make a mistake? I would say no. Obviously, it’s not a mistake if God knew Satan would become evil when God created him, it was an intentional act and it makes God the source of all evil.

Yes, I am a huge fan of Chesterton. I love his prose. I have belonged to Chesterton and Buechner online groups for years. I put away the King James about forty years ago. My go-to Bible today is the CSB. I have friends who were on the committee for that version. Sssh......I won't say this too loud, but they are really good-guy Evangelicals! The Knox Bible seems to run about $60 or so. That is a little steep right now. After reading John Walton's book on Genesis 1 and 2, I am interested in some different translations. best, Navidad

There is a certain amount of hubris associated with calling someone's most significant, life defining and meaningful relationship as immoral, sinful, and wrong because of the gender of one's spouse on the one hand, and objecting to someone else labeling you a bigot on the other. If I wanted to call your relationship with your spouse as immoral, sinful and wrong simply because of your Latter-day Saint faith that would be my right, but it would be your right to call me wrongheaded and bigoted to do so. Same if I were to condemn someone's interracial marriage because of the ancestry and color of their spouses skin. I could certainly do it, and it would certainly make me a racist to do so.

I wish I was familiar. You know where I came from. King James only. When I converted the Douay Rheims felt like home. In the last few years I have grown comfortable without all of the thees and thous. Chesternonian? You like Chesterton? I do. But sometimes he truly writes so cleverly that I wonder if I believe him more because of his beautiful mastery of English than the substance of what he is proposing. One becomes enchanted with the poetry of his prose and you can be left off guard as to the meaning. Sorry I can't be more help. I hope we get input from others.

Thanks my friend. I appreciate your time and consideration in sharing your thoughts with me.

The church would have their revelations published so that others could read them. For D&C 22, we don't seem to have the original manuscript that was done. We have a copy in the "Revelation Book 1" but it appears to be a copy of either the published copy in Painesville or what ever is the original manuscript. You can see that version at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-book-1/16. To find additional versions on the Joseph Smith Papers, there is an "Additional Versions" drop down in there. I linked to the earliest version since you were asking for when the idea was introduced. I think the Civil War prophecy you are referencing is D&C 87 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-25-december-1832-dc-87/1. It was given in December 25, 1832. The Painesville Telegraph had run an article on December 21, 1832 about a cholera outbreak in India and the nullification crisis in South Carolina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis). I don't believe the revelation was printed in the Painesville Telegraph. Joseph Smith Papers doesn't include that as one of the possible "Additional Versions". The white horse prophecy is different. The earliest evidence we have for that prophecy is at least a decade after Joseph has died. And there is a lot of debate on how much of it has been embellished. Some of the ideas in that prophecy are known to be Joseph's. For example, the idea that the nation will be on the brink of destruction and will be saved by the church is in a speech that Joseph gave in 1840 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-circa-19-july-1840-as-reported-by-martha-jane-knowlton-coray-b/4. But the full white horse prophecy is generally not accepted by the church. For most of the revelations to Joseph, he would dictate the words and a transcriber would write them down. D&C 35 was done that way. After Rigdon was baptized, he came to meet Joseph for the first time and Joseph received this revelation for him. The words would not have been Rigdon's. We don't know who transcribed the words so it could have been Rigdon. But we believe it is God's words through Joseph. Yes, it is quite a leap. But we believe that the revelation is from God, so it would be His words. Here's another attempt to explain our belief on proper authority. We don't believe the authority comes from the Church. We believe there is one authority, and it is God's. We generally call it priesthood. This priesthood is given to man by God. But it can only be given by the laying on of hands (see Article of Faith 5, Moroni 3:1-4, Alma 6:1, Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3, and we also assume the act of ordination involves laying on of hands). The ordinances (baptism, confirmation/Gift of the Holy Ghost, marriage, priesthood ordination) all have to be done by someone who has this priesthood, otherwise the ordinance is not binding. We believe that God can revoke the priesthood from someone even after they have been ordained (it is His authority after all, also D&C 121:37), but receiving it requires physical laying on of hands. This is why John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John had to visit Joseph and Oliver to restore the priesthood. At the time, only the 3 Nephites and John the Beloved were on the Earth with a valid priesthood, but for what ever reason, they weren't using it for ordinances. It is also why Elijah and Moses visited the Mount of Transfiguration (to give priesthood keys to Peter, James, and John). And why Moses, Elijah, and others visited Joseph and Oliver in the Kirtland Temple. So, anyone who has this authority can perform valid ordinances. But as of right now, we believe only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can show that they've received this authority through proper laying on of hands with a chain all the way back to Christ and with no apostasy of it (this is why we don't accept Catholic or Community of Christ or other break offs of the church).

It could work either way or both were influenced by something else. I think it’s a feedback system or whatever you call the back and forth of influences. Betty Eadie was a major voice in the NDE community for awhile. Drew quite a bit of criticism from more traditional Christians, but her book Embraced by the Light was extremely popular. She then modified her account to make it more palatable to nonLDS Christians. Then there’s Raymond Moody. I would love to collect accounts and map content and language in collected accounts against a timeline of the most highly publicized accounts over the decades, see what changes and what doesn’t. I had chat come up with others. Timeline of Major Bestselling NDE Books 1975: Life After Life by Raymond A. Moody The Impact: Coined the term "near-death experience" and set the modern standard for studying the phenomenon. It became a massive cultural bestseller and introduced NDEs to the mainstream public. [1, 2, 3] 1990: Closer to the Light by Melvin Morse The Impact: A pediatrician expanded the field by researching and documenting near-death experiences specifically reported by children, achieving significant bestseller status. [1] 1992: Embraced by the Light by Betty J. Eadie The Impact: A deeply personal, widely read account that stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for years, becoming one of the most commercially successful NDE books ever published. [1, 2, 3] 1994: Saved by the Light by Dannion Brinkley The Impact: Detailed the author's dramatic account of being struck by lightning and clinically dead, capturing massive public attention and topping bestseller lists. [1] 2004: 90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper The Impact: A Baptist minister's story of a horrific car crash and his subsequent heavenly experience, which sold millions of copies and spent years on bestseller lists. [1, 2] 2006: Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo The Impact: The extraordinary account of a 4-year-old boy's emergency surgery and trip to heaven, becoming a global publishing phenomenon and feature film. [1] 2012: Proof of Heaven by Eben Alexander The Impact: Written by an academic neurosurgeon who experienced a severe case of bacterial meningitis, lending high-profile mainstream and scientific curiosity to the debate over consciousness. [1, 2] 2012: Dying to Be Me by Anita Moorjani The Impact: A profound personal recovery story detailing an NDE from end-stage cancer, which became a prominent international bestseller. [1, 2] 2016: Imagine Heaven by John Burke The Impact: Synthesizes hundreds of NDE accounts with scriptural parallels, remaining a top seller on digital audiobook and book charts. [1, 2] I do believe we should have evidence that such ideas first appeared independent of the most likely influences if the claim is independence.

You got me at Crime Writer. But then this: It's everything I could want in a Vulgate translator.

I am interested in the Knox Bible. I was recently told it was the most Chesterton-like translation of the Bible and approved for use by Catholics. What are your thoughts about it? Thanks, Navidad

I am intrigued about the inclusion of the article from the Painesville Telegraph for documentation of LDS doctrine. Didn't they run the Civil war prophecy days before Joseph Smith came out with it? Is that the same as the white horse prophecy? It is early morning and I may not be remembering correctly. I quite honestly don't understand the LDS focus on "proper authority." I now of no Biblical basis for focusing on authority coming via a church. Any authority is Christ's and remains with Him. Humans might be a tunnel for it, but I worked too long in public schools to believe adolescents, especially adolescent males have any authority about anything other than girls. I mean no disrespect, but it seems like an authority with no visible or tangible evidence. I also notice the connection between the LDS church's belief and the assumption that God is the source of it. Your comment that "this is evidence that God sees differently" is quite a leap. Of course, faith is a series of leaps, is it not? Verse 7 of D&C 35 talk about the folly and abominations of the Gentiles. That sounds like human talk, creating onlys and others. I just can't get my head around God speaking that way. Just one more question . . . . who is it that is actually writing down D&C 35 and other such passages? It is spoken in the first person singular, but obviously God didn't write it down. Some human did. Is it Rigdon recording the words of God? The Campbellites were pretty harsh restorationists. Verse 7 of D&C 35 reads very Campbellitish (ha! not a word) even though it in a sense speaks against them. I find this kind of old LDS revelation intriguing more than evidentiary, especially the Painesville Telegraph reference on the same page with articles about cough drops and dogs. I would never try and convince you that "I" had the authority to baptize, except as authority from the specific denomination which is as to purpose, method, etc. The authority to do anything we do as Christian humans is Christ's. We are most likely simply the pipeline, not the agent. Of course that is my belief; I don't mean to make your's wrong. I just find it hard to grasp.

Apologies for being dense... are you saying that NDE accounts likely influenced/instigated LDS folklore, and/or vice-versa, or something else? Well my brain state seems to be one of density... it sounds to me like you're saying, in effect, that extraordinary claims (such as NDEs and/or LDS folklore on pre-birth planning) require extraordinary proof... am I misunderstanding you?

The problem here is experience dictates language and both affects perception. Testimony meetings are a great example of this, Even if not Western NDEs, the fact we have massive global communication for some time now means we cannot discount influence. NDEs from times when civilizations were more isolated….commonalities then would be more impressive to me. Certain ideas about ghosts likely never existed until film portrayals of ghosts were shown and then they became common. The floating immaterial ghost is a result of Victorian era technology…the artifacts of early cameras. https://www.boredpanda.com/origin-idea-ghosts-floating-translucent/ Pirates never were thought to talk that way until a certain actor did it in Treasure Island. https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/english-pirates-accent-west-country-blackbeard/ There are commonalities, but as far as I am aware these could be explained by what is happening to the brain. (I am agnostic in this, it would be fascinating if it’s not shared culture driving these and something more than brain states, but because it would be extraordinary, seems like there should be clear evidence before assuming it’s not culture or brain, but actual experience). Exactly…. Added: I don’t have the years or intense interest that would drive this, so lazily resorted to Chat and asked if the idea of choosing to be born (present in many NDEs apparently, though not considered one of the universal or even more common themes) or an idea of a life planned by us were hinted at in any ancient or medieval likely NDE accounts (there were cultures who believed in a preexistence). Chat says no. I would be very interested if anyone (manol or anyone else) has come across possibles from non modern examples.

No. This is something I've always struggled with. If we understood then we wouldn't "need" it.

This is a topic on which quite a few near-death experiencers have weighed in. Their reports are pretty consistent. I come away with the impression that we are not victims; rather, we ourselves are intense experiencers of mortality and the unique opportunities for growth it offers us. I also come away with the impression that we simply do not have enough information to reliably sit in judgment. Here are two compilation videos wherein NDEers (and a few others) talk about planning our lives. While not everything on the videos aligns with current LDS thought, imo there are too many parallels with LDS doctrine and/or folklore for it to be mere coincidence. Each video is cued up to a clip that stood out to me, but imo all of the clips offer valuable insights. I think we are now living in one of the most amazing times in all of human history, having literally at our fingertips hundreds of first-hand accounts from otherwise ordinary people who have been on the other side and returned to report for the benefit of the rest of us:

I used to watch this guy on Sunday afternoons after football. But he has changed. If anything he is younger than his days on Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those. When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’. Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting? Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.