All Activity

Thanks bluebell

We teach faith is a gift of the Spirit. We also teach that faith as a principle must come before the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost (AoF 4) Logically this means that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not the only gift of the Spirit. https://www.bible.com/bible/111/1CO.12

In scripture…examples of people who were unlikely to have been baptized and received the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost (even if you assume they had an identical or even just comparable ordinance at the time), but are recognized by LDS as having some, if not many gifts of the Spirit: The magi are recognized as having been inspired to seek out Christ. Balaam, while not always in line with the Spirit I am guessing, still received revelation at times. Cornelius was not a Christian and yet was considered devout towards God, prayed to him and had an angel visit him before he was baptized. Samuel the Lamanite was called as a prophet directly by God, but may not have been a member of the Nephite Church, which would explain why they hadn’t bothered to record his prophecies. The Lamanites were said to be striving to live the law of Moses and some of them had been baptized in Helaman 5. I am not sure we should assume they then set up the Church fully among the Lamanites, so that those converted could then baptize with authority. I may be missing where it says that though. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/23?lang=eng Joseph Smith received much revelation concerning multiple subjects prior to baptism and confirmation covenants. It’s a popular doctrinal point that the Constitution is an inspired document and none of those involved had been confirmed or were in their lifetime. God even speaks of raising up those involved in section 101. ”80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose,” Apostles and prophets have quoted CS Lewis to explain doctrine many times. If they don’t believe he was inspired by the Spirit, given spiritual knowledge, why would they do that when they have numerous quotes on tap from our own leaders and members? We teach that God answers prayers of nonmembers just as he does members. Surely there are many, many nonLDS who have prayed for personal revelation and for the presence of the Spirit. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/faith-of-our-father?lang=eng Incomplete (lacking fullness) does not mean absent.

That is how some members interpret it if they choose to ignore what scriptures teach, but not having the constant guaranteed companionship is not the same as having no companionship at all nor does it exclude you from having it with you at all times because you seek it in other ways and are worthy in those ways. Think of the difference between having the marriage contract with your wife vs having a non contractual friendship with someone or a different form of contract even. That someone could even move in to be a roommate, so with you as often or even more than a wife might be. They might even have a contract based on something besides marriage. They will never be your spouse, but they may have a very deep, different type of intimate relationship with you, correct? And I believe that is where most people get hung up through lack of understanding what this means. Even with the ordinance, if we sin, we lose this form of companionship until we repent. It is not a vending machine type of relationship nor is it exclusive rights. Listing blessings received through the ordinance does not mean that the ordinance is the only way to receive those blessings just as many blessings received through marriage or parenthood are not exclusive to those, even if a few are. “the website isn't as kind as you are, is it” While I recognize that some members, perhaps many though in my own experience they are definitely not the majority, and even some leaders tend to have black and white, rigid, or even all or nothing type of thinking, that does not require our actual doctrine to be so rigid. We have examples of leaders correcting past leaders (for example the Priesthood Ban and Adam-God) even if they are at times overly careful out of respect not to call out particular leaders when disavowing certain beliefs, so I don’t see a need to treat past leaders as authoritative when they contradict current teachings and/or scripture or even just logic.

I appreciate you saying that on more than one occasion. I believe that is your teaching, and while I appreciate it very much. Here is what I read on the Church website in the article on the Gift of the Holy Spirit: "Have you ever considered all the ways you’ve been blessed through the gift of the Holy Ghost? All of God’s children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His gospel. But the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism. This gift is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost—a member of the Godhead. It is no ordinary gift—it can’t be seen—but its power is undeniable when you choose to receive it through righteous living. Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation, and enjoy the blessings known as “the gifts of the Spirit.” Let's go down through that. 1. All of God's children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His Gospel. - In other words I can experience the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding me to the LDS Church. That's a pretty limited influence for me since I already have accepted Jesus Christ and His Gospel - just not in the LDS Church. Not much benefit for me there, right? 2. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism. That of course means no Gift of the Holy Ghost without LDS baptism and covenants. My baptism and covenants don't count. So there is no benefit there for me, right? 3. This gift (the one available in 2. is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. So this one isn't available to me, is it? No constant companionship. Maybe sometimes, once-in-a while companionship? I have no idea what this one even means. 4. This is the big one!!! "Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation and enjoy the blessings known as "the gifts of the Spirit." This is a doozy (as my mother used to say). So. . . I haven't received the gift of the Holy Ghost, therefore I have not been cleansed from sin, I cannot receive personal revelation and by far, worst of all, I cannot enjoy the blessings known as "the gifts of the Spirit." What does this mean except that I have no access to enjoy: Wisdom, Understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, Fear of the Lord, Faith, Healing, Miracles, prophecy, discerning Spirits, tongues, administrations and helps. Also, what about the fruits of the spirit? Without the Gift of the Spirit, how do I enjoy the fruits of the Spirit? That eliminates: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These four items are devastating exclusions for me as a non-LDS Christian. As a non-LDS Christian, I clearly am less than. Over the last few months I have never felt more less than when it comes to our local LDS friends. So now I have to say I have experienced most all of these things to one degree or another, so of course my personal truth is that I reject this LDS doctrinal exclusion of all of this in the lives of non-LDS Christians. So your thinking seems to me to be non-orthodox on this issue. You are kind so you state the Gift of the Holy Ghost is one kind of direct influence of God in my life, not the only kind. So what are the other kinds of direct influences of God in my life? Certainly you can't mean the Light of Christ that is available to everyone on earth????? As a non-LDS Christian, what are the direct (to use your word) influences of the Holy Spirit I have available to me, given the exclusions listed in: Gift of the Holy Ghost ? Thanks so much. I own that I get really frustrated on this one. It seems to me to be one of the principal doctrines of the LDS Church that when discussed with kind LDS Christians, I am told, "Well, we don't really mean that . . . . . . oh and its not something personal! Huh? No personal revelation isn't personal? I would rather not hijack this thread, but it is pretty related to the concept of a great apostasy. Anyway, I do appreciate your kindness as always, but the website isn't as kind as you are, is it?

Again, not having the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not not having any direct influence of the Holy Spirit. That is not authoritative doctrine of the Church. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is one kind of direct influence, not the only kind.

This is a clearer statement of the same proposal, not a different one. "Identity" still governs entry in the first instance (and allows anyone into what was created as a sex-segregated space), and conduct governs expulsion after entry. Sincerity is, somehow, supposed to function as the eligibility test. Stalls and “private options” are the consolation prize given to women, on the condition that they surrender sex-segregated spaces and silence themselves about it. "Birth-sex" exclusion is treated as a stipulated taste rather than the very purpose for which women's spaces are created and maintained. The model is honest enough to say the evidence does not show this uniquely minimizes harm to biological females, but then recommends it anyway. Let's start with the definition of “optimal.” It says the objective is lowest expected harm, with particular priority to biological females’ safety, privacy, dignity, and practical access. It then says existing evidence does not establish that identity access does that. The recommendation is therefore not the policy that won on the stated criterion. It is the policy that survives after sex exclusivity is redescribed as an extra preference and after “do not assume a transgender woman’s presence is inherently harmful” is loaded into the prompt’s scoring. If female-only occupancy is what privacy and dignity are in a shared toilet, that is not a silent expansion of the population. It is the content of the interest. And self-ID, "sincere" or otherwise, is still not administrable. The model admits a quiet liar with no visible misconduct gets in. Staff may not use appearance or status alone. There is no showing, no official, and no moment of refusal except a separate offense. That is Question 2 unanswered. Calling it a “hybrid” does not add a gate. It just adds a lock on the stall and a training memo. Women and girls still get the short end of the stick. The Massachusetts paper is still the load-bearing study, and it still doesn't bear the load you are putting on it. To its credit, the model lists the right caveats: a tiny treated sample, police logs, mixed facility types, no female-specific total experience, weak causal desig, etc., and then lets “no detected increase in those charges” do work those caveats forbid. It does not measure avoidance, dignity, HR discipline, or the usable sex line. Again, a 2026 methodological critique in Theory and Society is why that paper should not be treated as the empirical floor for a statewide rule. “Predictions of a crime wave are overstated” is not the same as “the institutional effects are imaginary.” Women who "identify" as men are used again as the symmetry that makes sex rules look cruel (when we all know the elephant in the room is men in the bathroom). A sex rule places females in the women’s room. If that is “compelled placement,” every sex-separated space is compelled placement. The comparison only works if the harm of a masculine female in a female room is treated as equal to admitting males as a class. Those are not equal. One is an edge of a female category. The other is the end of the category. You are still not acknowledging that your proposal eradicates sex-segregated spaces. On spillover the model is careful and still too neat, by a long shot. Bostock reserved bathrooms. Lower courts, agencies, and advocates did not. The 2016 "Dear Colleague" letter put restrooms and locker rooms in one sentence. Public-accommodations clauses do not contain a “toilets only” proviso. You can write a narrow statute. This recommendation does not. It says the same rule need not govern showers, sport, or prison, then offers no legal distinction that would stop the next complaint from quoting the restroom policy as the meaning of “sex.” That was Question 1. The steelman is the right objection: a preventive sex line is what the space is; identity access asks - requires - women to detect danger after the male is already inside. Small studies cannot certify the trade. The model answers that birth-sex rules also have costs, and that current evidence does not “establish that balance in their favor.” That shifts the burden. The status quo to be justified is the demolition of exclusivity, not the existence of a women’s room. If the evidence gap is “we have not measured females’ total experience under competing rules,” the recommendation should be: do not change the eligibility rule until you have. As it is, the gap is used to keep identity at the door and to call stalls an adequate substitute for a female-only room. What would change my mind is the inverse of the model’s last paragraph. That is, show a limiting principle that a clerk can apply without a lawsuit. Show why "identity-as-sex" in a restroom policy will not be cited in the locker-room brief (and good luck with that). Show that women who object will not be the ones disciplined. Show that the policy will not eradicate, de facto and/or de jure, sex-segregates spaces. Until then, all this is still just a "self-ID" plus conduct law, with better partitions. That may be a building code, it it is not a women’s facility. Thanks, -Smac

Prayers for you Pyreaux. I think you can still talk to him.

This is very powerful. Well said. This is compelling. Well said. I was on the pastoral staff of at least six different churches (in varying capacities) including as senior pastor. In those capacities, I prepared teachings, sermons, instruction for two Sunday morning teachings, two Sunday evening teachings, and a Wednesday and/or Thursday evening Bible study. Every week. Every year, except perhaps when we had special speakers or I was on vacation. During those years no one ever told me what to teach or preach. There was no curriculum, no calendared formal schedule of lexicon to follow. For all those sermons/presentations/teachings, I prayed, studied, taught, and interpreted the gospel as I learned (I was always learning) it to be. It was quite a full-time job with visiting hospitals, shut-ins, administering the church, etc. In all of those situations, I was teaching in some form. I was telling the folks something in some way new every presentation. I prayed diligently for wisdom and guidance from the Holy Spirit as I prepared and then delivered each talk. At least over one thousand times at the very least. In some ways my teachings were authoritative for my congregations. Were they dogma? I don't know. I never thought of it that way. Were they canonical? Perhaps for some in my congregations who had an overly high estimate of me. Were they a revelation? Yes, I think so - at least, to @webbles point using my definition of the word. I never once consulted a creed, unless I was doing a series of teachings on creeds. In the same way, but to a much much much lesser degree and with no authority, except that which anyone has giving a LDS Sacrament talk, I took my turn (as did my wife) giving sacrament talks. I prepared in the same way. No one told me what to teach. I think I did it occasionally more often than "my turn" because if someone got sick, the bishop could count on me at the last minute. So, do I believe in new revelation from the Holy Spirit? Yes, every week as I taught. No, if you mean as authoritative for some church beyond my own. I preached in churches with bishops, in the case of Mennonite churches (and LDS chapels - if you will accept a Sacrament talk as a preaching - I do, because I really didn't do anything differerent, except make the talks a whole lot shorter. My "sermons" and Bible teachings in my full-time service were never less than an hour. I bet that doesn't surprise any of you! Ha! I just offer all of this up to you to suggest that even when we speak of teaching, preaching, revelation, inspiration, explaining, or whatever we call it, we, who were in full-time ministry were always, often five times a week teaching and interpreting new stuff for our congregations from the sacred desk of the pulpit. Perhaps, no more than five times in all those efforts did I preach a sermon I heard someone else give or that I got from a book written by someone else. Was I a revelator? Yes and No. Now of course, and you can imagine I can't resist saying this, I am told that I don't even have the Gift of the Holy Spirit because I am not LDS. I guess I was deceiving myself all those times I believed I did what I did under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. So no, I can't agree with that onlyism of my LDS friends in that regard. Perhaps it is at best my personal truth. I would ask you all to accept that even if it runs counter to your doctrine which is your own corporate truth. I think that fits into what @webbleswas trying to say in the above quote. Anyway I love you all in Christ. I treasure this forum as a place where the vast majority of posters honor and respect each other. I think that makes Christ smile. Best to all Navidad.

And a believer of the Nicaean Creed could easily say that God inspired the argument between Arius and Alexander so that it would reach Constantine so that he would then call a council and so that the correct understanding of God would be revealed to the world. What I'm trying to argue is that just because Catholics don't talk about continued revelation in the same terminology that we use doesn't mean that they don't believe in continued revelation. For us, we call inspiration that is clarification of beliefs as "continued revelation". For Catholics, they call it differently but it is pretty much the same thing. For them, the "public revelation" is finished but God still inspires and directs the Pope and the bishops to clarify understanding of the public revelation. We say revelation is ongoing but then we also seem to have a closed cannon at this point. Sure, we believe that it is possible to add to the cannon, but will we? It feels like you are trying to argue semantics and show how we are more correct because our terminology makes more sense, but that only works if everyone accepts our definitions. But they don't. I think it is more useful to understand the definitions of others and work with those definitions vs trying to just say that they are wrong because their definition isn't ours.

Prayers for comfort and strength Pyreaux, I’m so sorry.

Love it!

Except we aren't seeing further knowledge being gained from additional examination of public revelation, we are seeing conceptually new things. See the example of the Assumption of Mary. It has no support in scripture and it's support in tradition is questionable at best. There are some issues with this analogy: 1. Scale: In this case, the claim is that all data has been collected, but the experiment (i.e. mortal human existence) is still continuing despite the claim that all data has been collected. It is strange indeed to deny that data collection is continuing, but to then take so long at releasing the data set despite it supposedly being complete. 2. Lack of evidence: This support for this completeness claim is stated to be from the parameters (i.e. scripture) set forth by the designer of the experiment as well as chiefs among the designer's chosen representatives (i.e. God, Jesus' apostles). However, no explicit statements indicating this completeness can be found. Comparing this to a painting is even worse. If I can't see the whole painting, I have no reason to believe that it is complete. Were it complete, there is little reason to keep some obscured while still claiming completeness. Again, this is the cognitive dissonance. What they say and how they behave are at odds with each other. Instead of being honest and simply saying that public revelation is ongoing, they have to dance around the idea because they've caught themselves in a trap of their own making.

If I didn't really care, I wouldn't have bothered to look in the first place. If you find something about this to be "insulting", "inflammatory", or a "gotcha", that's more on you than me. You're choosing to be insulted over a critique of your church's own words and actions. Yes, cop outs. If there is nuance, then surely you should be able to explain it rather than simply state that it exists. They are logically opposing. Again, show the nuance. Seeing as how you referenced nuance twice to this point and failed to elaborate, I'll again go with this being a cop-out. Revelation that has not been made explicit is functionally equivalent to something that has yet to be revealed. If I claim that I have all of the burgers in the world and that there will be no more, but then in the same breath state that some burgers have yet to be made, I can't rightly claim to have all burgers in the world or that there will be no more. Whether you call the pope a "living prophet" or not isn't all that relevant. The point is that you claim that prophets are no longer needed, yet treat the pope as one in all but name. As for vicar supposedly having more "punch", that doesn't really hold water either given that "vicar" doesn't even have theological roots as a title, while the concept of a "living prophet" as relevant to Christianity goes as back to Adam. Also, given that "vicar" originally referenced the officials under the command of the Praetorian Guard, this isn't the flex you think it is (as some younger people would say) given the Guard's history as an organization. They had a bit of a habit of killing those who they were supposed to be protecting. Sure, both your pope and our prophet both claim inspiration and revelation. But again, as I quite explicitly illustrated earlier, the pope operates under the presumption that all public revelation has ceased while simultaneously claiming that not all public revelation has been made explicit. Again, this is the cop-out. Instead of just simply saying that the pope is a living prophet and that public revelation is still ongoing, you have to perform this dissonant dance where you deny the concept of a living prophet and ongoing public revelation but still behave as if both are true. The word revelation doesn't trip me up at all, that seems to be more your bag. Again, you claim that all public revelation has ceased but not all public revelation has been made explicit. We just say that it's ongoing. The latter is far more honest than the former. Yes, the Assumption of Mary was declared dogma back in 1950. Again, there's the issue. Why, if public revelation has been complete for close to 2000 years, would this only be made dogma less than a century ago? What would the point be in keeping this particular concept unexplicated for so long? Nevermind the absence of scriptural support and the questionable support in tradition. This goes back to what I presented earlier. The Catholic church's behaviors do not match up with it's actions. Accusing me of bad faith is hilarious when I point out a blatant contradiction in your church's statements versus its behaviors. You can't even elaborate on this "nuance" I'm supposedly missing or where I'm incorrect (given that my stance is taken directly from your church's own words). At what point did I claim that you were stupid? Again, if you have issue with my presentation, that's entirely on you.

I was 1600 miles away from home, working in Chantilly, VA, 20 miles from the Pentagon. The government agency I was right next to and supporting, the National Reconnaissance Office, had planned an emergency exercise for the day of a plane crashing into their headquarters building compound. Needless to say, I shut down the R&D lab I was managing, and the week was eerie... no planes in the sky for days. My family, attending and teaching seminary out west was apprehensive of my status until my son and I had phone contact. That son went on to later become an Army Ranger (after a mission), deploying to Iraq, then A-Stan 3 times. My brother who lived in Northern Virginia was scheduled to attend a meeting at the Pentagon that morning, but it was cancelled. I left Dulles Airport on Friday on the first United flight to depart from there since 9-11. We all cheered raucously as we took off and there wasn't a dry eye on the passengers.

Thank you Calm for your input, appreciated.

Someone announces the data has all been collected from an experiment and that stage of research has been finished; the lab has been assigned to someone else and the students helping out have moved on to their next project. While preliminary findings may have been released, more in-depth examination may still result in additional or even different findings. That isn’t functionally the same as the experimental part of the research still continuing even if new conclusions can be arrived at by either new data collected or new examination of old data. In this case, public revelation is equivalent to experimental data where further knowledge can come from additional examination of that public revelation. Or look at it like a painting that has hidden features in it. It’s not a new painting just because someone finally figures out how to shift their attention to be able to see those previously hidden features.

Or perhaps you should work on reading comprehension. If I claim that public revelation has ceased, but not all has been made explicit, that is no different than saying that public revelation has continued. If something is not explicit, it is functionally no different than something that is unknown.

Not correct. Again, their denominations would not exist were that not the case. Why did the Reformation happen? Why did every schism happen?

Sure, but we also aren't talking about lesser things like tobacco use or polygamy. Constantine essentially called a council to determine the nature of God and essentially would not allow any sort of dissent with his view. This is of a much greater magnitude than the two examples you presented.

I think it’s Stargazer who has written a book. Maybe he will show up and share some advice with you. My sister is writing a book, she is a retired, occasionally substituting elementary education teacher/former English lit university professor who writes daily for an hour or two first thing after breakfast iirc. It’s a deep dive version of one of her classroom adventures she would create to anchor the lessons to, which creation was something she greatly enjoyed. Writing about something you love and catches your attention seems to be the key to success of staying with the project.

The concept of divinity is certainly an interesting topic for non-LDS, especially when they try to appeal to scripture to support the idea of "only one divine being".

Seems like if you're hearing quacking from this, that makes you the duck. Incredibly ironic coming from the dude downplaying persecution going back more than a decade as little more than "Ukraine war going bad".

I am sorry you didn’t get the time desired. That hurts.

This seems like it would happen if birth sex rules are put in place as well, if not more (see my previous posts).