All Activity

Calling this a fabricated controversy is a way to shut down discussion rather than address the substance. Single-sex bathrooms and changing rooms exist because of biological sex differences in strength, privacy needs, and patterns of sexual crime. Once policy shifts from sex to self-declared identity with no verification, any male can claim access. There are documented cases of voyeurism, exposure, and assault under those conditions—enough that women have reason to object, even if absolute numbers remain lower than ordinary male-perpetrated crime. The issues here, discussion of which you are sidestepping and trying to shut down, involve privacy invasions, the principle of sex-based spaces, or the parallel problems we already see in women’s prisons and sports. Trans people can face real harassment. I acknowledge that. The solution isn’t to treat sex as optional. Rather, we should maintain sex-based facilities and expand neutral single-occupancy options. Once policy shifts from sex to self-declared identity with no meaningful verification or limiting principle, sex-segregatec spaces cease to exist in a de jure and de facto sense. These issues scale immediately to other female-only categories. If self-ID is enough for a bathroom, it is enough for a locker room or changing area (where nudity is the norm), a women’s sports team, or a women’s prison wing. These are not separate issues; they rest on the identical claim that gender identity overrides sex. Changing rooms and locker rooms are more intimate than public toilets. When access is granted on identity alone, women and girls lose the ability to undress and change without the presence of male bodies. Privacy and dignity are not optional extras. They are the reason the spaces were sex-segregated in the first place. Then there's the potential impact on women's sports. Male puberty produces lasting advantages in muscle mass, bone density, strength, speed, and lung capacity. Even after hormone treatment, many of those advantages remain. The female category exists precisely to give females a fair chance to compete and win. Treating self-ID as decisive collapses that category and turns it into a mixed-sex competition in which males retain systematic physical edges. And prisons. Female prisoners are a captive, highly vulnerable population. Sex-based patterns of offending—particularly sexual and violent crime—differ markedly between males and females. When housing decisions rest on identity rather than sex, intact males (including those with histories of sexual or violent offences) can be placed among women who cannot simply leave the facility. The physical differences that make male-on-female violence more dangerous do not disappear because of a declaration and AI-generatef meme cartoons (which areas appeals to ridicule). These are real issues, not contrived ones. Trans-identifying people can face real harassment; that is a legitimate concern. The solution is not to treat sex as optional across every domain. It is to maintain sex-based facilities and categories, expand neutral single-occupancy options where feasible, and handle rare, carefully assessed exceptions without making self-declaration the sole criterion. Pretending women’s boundary concerns are just bigotry or a right-wing invention does not make the material differences in strength, crime patterns, and privacy needs disappear. The bathroom debate is the entry point; the same logic, once accepted, rewrites sports fairness and prison safety. That is why the controversy is real. Thanks, Smac

The book of Job is classified as Wisdom Literature in the Bible (among the different genres of the Bible). It's like the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. And this video explains the role of "ha satan" (the satan) in the book of Job, among other things. I highly recommend it.

Hi @AnchoredinChrist, Thank you for the note. We agree that later doctrines and commentary can and sometimes do contradict the canon. On the separate question of whether some currently canonized material ought not to be regarded as revelation: that is a larger discussion than the papers take up. The hierarchy presented in the papers is applied both within the existing canon and to later teachings. Even inside the standard works, material can be sorted into Class 1 (direct divine voice), Class 2 (prophetic accounts of visions or revelations), and Class 3 (narrative, historical, or interpretive commentary). The tool simply gives priority to the higher classes when evaluating apparent contradictions — whether those contradictions appear within the canon itself or between the canon and later Class 3 commentary. It is not a proposal for revising the existing canon. It is a method for reading and weighing what is already there. I appreciate you engaging with the distinction.

This is the whole problem, really. We are stuck with self identification and don't have @Navidad around to police their claims. It isn't all that different from the boundary maintenance of the identification of who is a "Christian". I suppose there is confusion over the word "Evangelical" since it can refer to missionary work rather than a specific movement. For example, Mormon Research Ministry defines itself as an "evangelical missionary/apologetics organization" (teaching "Mormons" the bad news of the LDS "gospel", those are my words, not from their website ). But Alpha and Omega ministries are Reformed Baptists, which (I understand) to be part of the broader evangelical movement. All I know is they don't like Mormonism and they are not shy about slamming it every chance they get.

Hi @manol, Yes, I believe Article of Faith 9 is true: God continues to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. How we recognize them is the practical question the Class hierarchy tries to address. Class 1 material uses the direct divine voice markers familiar from scripture (“saith the Lord,” etc.). Class 2 consists of clear accounts of visions or revelations (for example, Nephi’s vision, John’s apocalypse, or Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the dead in D&C 138). Class 3 is the large body of commentary, counsel, and synthesis—even when the speaker feels inspired. Stewardship involves inspired judgment and responsibility, but it is not identical to revelation, and it is not automatically Class 1 or 2. New revelation that meets Class 1 or Class 2 criteria can be added to the canon through the established process of presentation and common consent of the Church (as happened with D&C 138). Until that happens, it remains subject to the existing canon. The hierarchy is simply a way to keep the priority clear: Class 1 and Class 2 set the standard against which later commentary is measured. As an illustration, the 2020 Restoration Proclamation states that the Book of Mormon testifies that all human beings are sons and daughters of a loving Father in Heaven. That language is best understood as Class 3 synthesis. The Book of Mormon itself emphasizes becoming sons and daughters of Christ through the covenant (Mosiah 5:7 and related passages). The Proclamation is useful and authoritative as current Church teaching, but it does not rise to the level of Class 1 or Class 2 canon. This is the same distinction the papers apply to other later developments. In short, ongoing revelation is real. The hierarchy simply asks us to notice which category a given statement belongs to and to give the highest weight to what has been formally received as canon.

The argument is essentially equivocating between two different questions: whether the Father is God over/relative to the Son in the biblical relationship, and whether the Father is a higher-ranking deity who is more divine than the Son. I would answer the first yes and the second no. The “two different questions” are an invention of your own. Your second question is impossible. How can a being be “more divine” than another? What is your definition of “divine”? Either Jesus has a God above him (a “higher God”) or he does not. The Bible says that Jesus has a God, and that God the Father is the “most high” God. There is “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:6). Jesus even taught that God the Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3), and Jesus is subject to him (he submitted to his will). God the Father is above him in rank (which is what being in subjection means). Therefore, there are two Gods, and one of them is above the other, and one of them is subject to the other (as the Bible says). God (the Father) is the “God of gods”. Hmmm. Now you sound like Joseph Smith when he was explaining how God became our God. This is the key. The creation argument doesn’t help, because as you said elsewhere, “the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, was the agent through whom God created everything”. Jesus has a God above him, and God the Father is the one who created all things through Jesus Christ. God the Father granted Jesus the power to do this, and appointed him for that work. As Hebrews 2:7 says, Jesus was crowned “with glory and honour, and [God the Father] didst set him over the works of [his] hands” Hebrews 1:2, God the Father “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”. Acts 2:36, “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Matthew 11:27, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father”. John 5:26-27, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.“ John 13:3, “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God”. John 8:42, “If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” And God the Father “gave” glory to Jesus prior to the creation of the world, “O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5, 22) God the Father “gave” him “glory”, he gave him “power”, he made him “Lord”, and Jesus is eternally subject to him. Clearly Jesus has a God above him, and Jesus serves his Father and does his will. Thank you for stating this as your “belief”, because the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus created Satan. You can believe anything you want, but don’t hold it up as a true teaching against Latter-day Saint doctrine, because it isn’t biblical. And see my prior post asking about this belief making Jesus the source of all evil in the universe.

Joseph Smith also said, "... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 345). He doesn't say "how God came to be our God" – you insert the word "our". That's the difference. He does say how God came to be “our God” in the same sermon. I broke it down for you last time. If we define God as the most advanced being in existence, then God has always been God according to Joseph Smith. But scripture also shows us that there are ways that God becomes our God, which is what Joseph Smith was saying about our relationship to him. For example: "And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people". (Leviticus 26:12) "But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you." (Jeremiah 7:23) "Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God". (Jeremiah 11:4) "And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God". (Jeremiah 30:22) "And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God". (Ezekiel 36:28) And there are also ways that God ceases to be God for some: "Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God". (Hosea 1:9) By that, you mean offspring through at least one heavenly mother. No, by that I mean that God increases in the number of his creations. In the Protestant view, God has only one creation: this earth and the universe relating to it. So, from a Protestant point of view God is just a beginner at the creation thing, but he still went from being a non-creator to a creator (and that is an increase from zero to one, even though is just one creation). But in the Latter-day Saint point of view, God has made “worlds without number” and continually increases in the number of his creations. I don't believe you or I are self-existent in the sense that we existed eternally as intelligences (maybe with or without gender) prior to being formed into spirit children of heavenly parents. Acts 17:29 says, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device". Consider all those people who supposedly grew up with Heavenly Father on some other world whom he supposedly atoned for. Whose offspring are they? The fact that we are all the “offspring of God” is a Bible teaching, whether you choose to believe it or not. And remember, you were the first to acknowledge how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood what Paul was teaching in that sermon. But Paul was teaching something more important than just that. Paul was teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God, since that’s what the Greek word génos means. We are the “genus” of God (as it says in the Latin translations), the same kind of being that God is. This means that some aspect of our existence (our spirits) is the same kind of being that God is, and is co-eternal with God, and the fact that we are the same "kind" of being as God is totally independent of the relationship we enter into with God, becoming his “offspring”. The LDS Jesus is an uncreated, eternal intelligence who became the first spirit child of heavenly parents, who then became a God before his incarnation on our Earth. The Book of Mormon refers to him as the Eternal God. In similar fashion, LDS men and women are believed to be uncreated, eternal intelligences who became spirit children of heavenly parents. They hope to also become Gods in the future. In some future time, they will also be considered as Eternal Gods. But that doesn't mean they will have eternally existed as Gods. Jesus never specifically spoke the words "I am God" to the Jews. But they understood what he was saying and sought to kill him for blasphemy. What the Jews understood was that anyone who claimed to be a “son of God” or to have God as their “Father” was making themselves equal with God. This goes back to the original Jewish teachings that the “sons of God” are also gods. Observe how the Jews reacted to Jesus calling God his “Father” in John chapter 5:17-18: “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” This same line of reasoning was also applied in John chapter 10, when Jesus was referring to himself doing the works of his Father and the Jews took up stones “again” to stone him. Actually, you shared scripture that you tried to claim was saying that God has always been God, but it only said that he is God “from age to age”, which is not the same thing. Not in those specific places, but Joseph Smith and others did teach it. Joseph Smith did not teach that God has a God above him as I showed in my last post (in the part that you completely ignored). And what I quoted from what Joseph Smith taught contradicts what you are claiming that he taught. And that others may have interpreted the one incorrect account of a Joseph Smith sermon that was interpolated and published as if it was the original sermon in a way that Joseph Smith did not intend, is immaterial. We have better sources available to us today, and we can compare the original notes to his other teachings. Furthermore, even among the sources you quoted there are problems. First, none of them said that God has a God above him. Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him (he would have had an earthly Father when he dwelt on an earth, like Joseph Smith was teaching). They are either talking about Jesus (as is the case of your quote from Orson Pratt’s, The Kingdom of God), or they are ambiguous (they may very well be talking about an earthly father, as Joseph Smith did), or they state a disclaimer about its relation to official church doctrine (as in the case of Joseph Fielding Smith’s, Doctrines of Salvation), or it was publicly disowned and rejected by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles as being representative of official church doctrine (as in the case of Orson Pratt’s publication, The Seer), or are relying on a publication of Joseph Smith’s sermon that was interpolated from a single incorrect source. Official church doctrine is not derived from a few quotes here and there. I don't know. Let me speculate Since you don’t know, then we can’t speculate. There is no point in that. From a traditional Christian point of view, John 1:3 teaches that the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, was the agent through whom God created everything. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". The wording is deliberately comprehensive. John isn't saying merely that Christ created some things or that He helped God create the earth. He is saying that everything that belongs to the category of created things came into existence through Him. The logic is: • Everything that was created was made through the Word. • Therefore, the Word cannot Himself belong to the category of things that were created. John 1:1 says the Word "was God." • Therefore, the Word is understood as eternally divine, rather than a creature. Your conclusion above is built upon unbiblical assumptions, or upon assumptions that contradict the Bible. And some aspects of your conclusion are based on ideas that were developed after the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was formulated at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch. I’ll break it down here: “Everything that was created was made through the Word”. This, by itself, is an accurate statement. But the key part of this statement is “everything that was created”, which is relative to the creation of this earth (as is the context of John 1:1-3) and this indicates that there are things or beings that were not created (i.e. “without him was not any thing made that was made”). So Jesus created only those things that were made, and it is correct to say (as you did) that “everything that belongs to the category of created things came into existence through Him”, since this excludes those things, or beings, that are not created (such as our spirits, since we are all the same “kind” of being as God). “Therefore, the Word cannot Himself belong to the category of things that were created. John 1:1 says the Word ‘was God’”. This is also, by itself, an accurate statement. Jesus has existed eternally. He “was God” and was “with God” the Father in the beginning. “Therefore, the Word is understood as eternally divine, rather than a creature”. This is where your logic breaks down, because this is based on the false assumption that anything that is eternal is divine, which was a later idea that was derived from the development of creation ex-nihilo. From the outset this contradicts the Biblical teaching that all mankind are the génos of God, the same “kind” of being as God. And since we are all the same kind of being that God is (as the Bible teaches), then the idea that anything that is eternal is divine goes out the window. Also you said, "John isn't saying merely that Christ created some things or that He helped God create the earth". But John did say Jesus only made the things "that were made", and the Bible has numerous passages indicated that God the Father created all things through Jesus Christ (see my next post for more details). As stated previously, Colossians 1:15-17 doesn’t say anything about Jesus creating Satan. The “visible and invisible” things are explained in the verse, “whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers”. This is not talking about the creation of beings, but of the establishment of order and governments, as Paul explains elsewhere, where he says: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1) Furthermore, I think this is a really odd doctrine for you to cling to, since if Jesus really created Satan, an evil being that Jesus foreknew would be the cause of all evil and would bring about the fall of mankind and introduce sin and destruction throughout the world, then wouldn’t that be an evil choice for him to make? Are you seriously comfortable with this non-biblical idea that Jesus created Satan, making Jesus is the source of all evil?

Exactly. That is a great way to discern a Fundamentalist from an Evangelical.

I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but if someone identified to you as an Evangelical who was aggressively and with certitude bashing members of the LDS church, I wouldn't both correcting them. They aren't going to change. Now, to be clear, I would correct them, but I don't think a member of the LDS Church should, unless you simply want to change the subject. I think it greatly depends on if they are asking questions, clarifying, or critiquing rather than onlying and othering. As an Evangelical professor, I taught all my students to be curious and to ask questions of others of all faiths. As an Evangelical, I am also used to and comfortable with differences. For example, I enjoy the current Evangelical debate about Genesis 1 and 2, whether those passages deal with material creation, or functional creation. That is a huge difference and is a wonderful, although sometimes caustic, debate among Evangelicals. Fundamentalists wouldn't even engage in the debate. They would simply inform me they are praying for me to get it right, which of course means, as they see it. I personally think the idea of Gen 1 and 2 as functional creation is brilliant. It means I don't have to bash or be in conflict with what science teaches. If you do anything, I would ask them what they think the difference is between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical. See what they say. That is a way to learn and have a fun discussion without getting into an argument. I enjoy doing something similar in discussing with LeBaron and LDS Mormons. They dress and look alike; but it doesn't take long to sense the differences. If I didn't answer your question, please ask again. Thanks.

On basis of its location in the Bible. Job is placed directly inside the Ketuvim (the Writings), alongside Proverbs and Psalms, encompassing poetry and wisdom literature. On the basis of its structure, Chapters 3 through 42 are written in structured Hebrew verse. There is a stylized, symmetrical rhythm to it. Like the repetitive messengers bringing bad news, or the very precise numbers of livestock. I believe there was a Job, and there was a council of malicious sons of God, and there were people and territory under the protection of one son of God while off limits to the other sons of God, unless given permission by that son of God. Or they'll go to war. If this "adversary" was Baal, or one of the other sons of El, he would not be allowed to destroy Job's property, livestock, servants, and even kill his children, unless the Lord of Israel first gave him permission. Whether literal or poetic liberties were taken, the boundaries described do have a real theological basis.

I wonder why mine only needs to be verified when I have not been posting for half a day or more usually. Sometimes it happens with a long post that has taken me way to long to write and proofread before I hit “submit”.

Do you want to know when it was changed or just evidence it was? The latter: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng Added: oops, should have turned the page, lol

The more I look into this, the more I think you are right, but it’s likely going to take more repetition to rewrite how I automatically think of the antimormon version of Fundamentalists given the decades they and I called them Evangelicals. My experience is that it is difficult to get a Fundamentalist to discuss their own beliefs. They spend a lot of time though quoting what they think mine should be. Of course, that may be because I typically encounter them on forums like this one. Can’t remember if I have asked you this before or not… When a Fundamentalist tells me they are Evangelical, how can I respect their choice while still being accurate in identification? Do you find Evangelical Fundamentalist acceptable even if it’s not correct using the categories you believe and I am leaning towards portray the differences best (since Evangelical is in the same category as Fundamentalist so it would be like saying an animal was an invertebrate vertebrate)? Especially since they could take the label of Fundamentalist as intending to be an insult given how it’s used these days. Most of the time I would likely avoid even mentioning the label to avoid possible offense, but I can see a possible need if I am pointing out differences between them and Mainstreams and Evangelicals (perhaps in refuting a claim a Christian must believe ______).

This topic?

There is certainly nothing wrong with critiquing someone's beliefs. That is often fun. Where we err is when we walk down the slippery slope to symbolic violence: Ranking, Generalizing, NormalizIng, Onlying, and Othering. Those are, in my experience, precursors to much of human conflict and all of the many forms of violence.

The current General Handbook, section 38.6.4, “Birth Control,” says: “The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.” the last sentence is important to note. Seems to me that it has been explicitly stated that your judgement of others on this topic is the actual sin?

The problem of course is that Satan in Job is not the Satan of Christianity. He's a member of the divine council and he's not working in opposition to God. He's just testing Job's loyalty, and God lets him. Trying to map Job onto LDS or Christian theology doesn't work well because their Satan basically functions as the god of evil. In Job Satan is on God's side.

We we have to be able to buy them if we are to wear them.

Agreed. It’s much worse for me now than it used to be

You know me too well. There are those who consider there to be a single continuum from Fundamentalist to Mainstream - meaning conservative to progressive or liberal within non-LDS Christianity. This view is made without regard to specific denominational affiliation. It is a continuum, something like a normal curve. Others, including me believe they (Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Mainstream) represent three very different movements with different and specific characteristics, history, and orthopraxy in addition to orthodoxies. In my thinking the Mainstream was the original - mainstream Christianity in the USA specifically we might say. Then Fundamentalism arose to counter what had become the Mainstream social gospel at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. It became a distinct movement with specific characteristics and again was regardless of denomination or affiliation. Then in the 1940s, there arose a third, mostly USA-based movement known as Evangelicalism. It arose in reaction to Fundamentalism with its own unique orthopraxies and orthodoxies. Over the eighty or so years of the existence of the Evangelical movement, it has widened to become what is often deemed a “large tent” movement. Very simplistically, it is often said that ask an Evangelical what they believe and they will tell you what they are "for." Ask a Fundamentalist what they believe, and they will tell you what they are "against." This is overly simplistic, but at the same time somewhat broadly effective. Today, in one form or another, the Mainstreamers are characterized by what has become known as the "social gospel." Ask them what they believe, and they will discuss social justice and other "causes." They might be conservative theologically (rarely) or liberal theologically )more common). There are denominations that fall broadly within each of the three, but always with exceptions. Then of course, there are distinctions within each of the three groups, expanding the complexity. Inspite of the complexity it is pretty easy to determine to which your are speaking after about five minutes of conversation. This is moderately comparable to the movements that exist within Mormonism. They may have been formalized by the creation of a new type of Mormonism. They may also be characterized by orthopraxy within each Mormon group. By and large, when I go to a MHA meeting, I am meeting with a different form of Mormonism than when I attend a ward in Chihuahua, or a ward in rural Utah. Same church; different positions on a conservative to progressive continuum. I happen to believe I have friends who are Evangelical Mormons, and certainly there are Fundamentalist (not in the plural marriage meaning) Mormons, and there is a nascent Mormon Mainstream movement with a focus on social justice, and diversity, such as the Global branch of MHA. Since I live in Chihuahua, I have gone to meetings of the Global branch of MHA and I feel like a rank conservative. Then I hold a meeting here that is a family reunion with a group from Vernal, Utah and I feel like a progressive. So it is with Presbyterians (especially), Methodists (who have recently split into formalized groups representing all three (Fund - Evan - Main). In some sense, I see all three represented here in Latin American Catholicism. as well. Then we get back to the challenge of how do I identify and that being a valid indication of anything. That is where it gets very complicated, especially within the growing non-denominational movement within American Protestantism. When I was a boy, I went to an IFCA church; my dad pastored it. IFCA stands for Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America. That was our denomination; our orthopraxy and orthodoxy were clearly Mennonite. In the fifties it was also a way of separating ourselves from the new Evangelical movement and the traditional Mainstreamers. Now the IFCA type grouping is on the decline. It is not "cool" anymore to be Fundamentalist as it was in the fifties. Why? Because much damage has been done to folks in the name of Fundamentalism. So today, it is rare to walk up to someone and say, "Hi . . . are you a Fundamentalist?" They are more than likely to say, "No, I am independent, unaffiliated, or Evangelical" than they are to acknowledge their Fundamentalism, even though their very reasons for entering into a conversation with you may reveal their Fundamentalist tendency. Ok. . . . . . . Writing too much. I hope this helps. Blessings on all: Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Mainstreamers, and none of the abovers. Navidad

This situation with the verifying is horrible. I am having to reverify every time I change pages. Very frustrating.

Exactly. Imagine if Jesus had said "I don't like this, I'm uncomfortable". There's really a lack of willingness to follow God at all costs. Perhaps we need to take the same approach to the garment that Pres. Woodruff had for fasting. "It was remarked this morning that some people said they could not fast because it made their head ache. Well, I can fast, and so can any other man; and if it makes my head ache by keeping the commandments of God, let it ache."

On what basis do you believe the conversation between Satan and God is a poetic rendition instead of actual one? Were the limits the Lord put on Satan to test Job also poetic?

I agree, though I also think there to be certain current canonized revelation that ought not to be canonized nor considered to be revelation, so you and I would perhaps diverge on that point.