All Activity

I hope you won't mind me responding to your inquiry to Bluebell. Feel free to disregard if I am out of line. I addressed this inquiry back in 2021: I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst. Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals. A few thoughts: 1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool: I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful: The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively. 2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity): I've posted this a few times now: So we have: Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience"). This seems about right. Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up. Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity. 3. My Attempt at a Framework: Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) : So there you are. I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior. 4. Defining Terms and Parameters: I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony. Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) : Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc. As Joseph Smith put it: And, of course, there is D&C 76: So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom? Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?" 5. Additional Resources: I would point an interested party to the following essays: The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson) I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton) The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson) Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin) Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony." It can. I think he can create some pretty good counterfeits. That's his thing. Lust can be confused for love. A correct principle can be distorted into something wrong. A charismatic figure can say or write things that are, as Paul put it, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." An individual or group may, as Paul also put it, "have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge," as they are "ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." I am reminded here of a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series. A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey. Here's a character summary: Shift's scheme is summed up this way: The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme. They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further: The heroes of the story respond this way: "By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger." That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by some folks. Chad Daybell certainly springs to mind. Hence the value of Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool (see above). I think he can come up with pretty good counterfeits. Paul spoke of the devil appearing as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14), as did Jacob (2 Nephi 9:9) and Joseph Smith (D&C 128:20). Those that are of God are reliable. But then, how do you determine which are of God? Again, the Four-Legged Stood seems pretty useful. Each leg counterbalances the other three. Yes. Or that the information sought is not yet to be revealed. Or that the individual is not prepared. Lots of possible reasons. I think we sometimes make things a bit too difficult. See also the section above dealing with simplicity on the other side of complexity. In the end, though, we do need to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). I would appreciate any critique or assessment of the above. Thanks, -Smac

Unique is the only way that I can find to describe it as well.

I think that I struggle to trust God because I struggle to feel safe in His care. Does that make more sense? It's hard to talk about such nebulous concepts sometimes.

I agree, I don't think He creates hardships, but rather allows them. In the thick of it, it doesn't always feel like there is a difference in those ideas.

Welcome to the board and thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's comforting to know that I'm not alone. I like what you said about what you are doing right now.... I find that's how I have to operate as well. Find what gets me through at that time. It might not be what helps the next time but so far there has always been something else that gets me through the next time so I find comfort in that. And comfort in how every time I throw my hands up in the air and decide that I'm just going to take a step back from my relationship with God, or decide that something in the gospel isn't true, the spirit won't seem to let me. I mean, if I continued to push those impressions away or was determined to change the relationship He would let me I know. But He's never let me go that direction without trying to argue against it first, and that is probably one of the greatest blessings I'm given, even if I don't appreciate it all the time. (hopefully that makes sense)

I have no answers but someone a few weeks ago talked about how maybe this life is better understood less as a test that God has designed and more as a prerequisite that must be accomplished (not because He capriciously decided it but because there is no way, no literal way, for us to be able to access the celestial kingdom without the changes that mortality creates, not just physically but in all the ways). That person described it a lot better and it was actually connected to physics and the laws of physics (if I remember right it was the specific laws dealing with entropy) so it was a way cooler and more in depth explanation than my pitiful description of it, but it made a lot of sense to me.

Speaking only for myself, there is something that differentiates it from normal emotional reactions but I honestly could not put it into words in any way that would make sense. I can only say that I perceived it as being very direct and from a space that was outside of myself. But I don't want to give the impression that every interaction with the divine feels that unique way for me. I believe I have received answers to prayers or been guided but it was much more nebulous and could have easily been a normal reaction (emotional isn't how I would describe it). At those times I ascribed it to God because of what would probably best be described as circumstantial evidence.

Harris describes both a curtain and not a curtain. He describes using the plates and also just using a stone in the hat. His descriptions are the most confusing. The phase with Oliver and later is less confusing and is almost always with the stone in the hat. My best guess would be that Joseph first copied the characters from the plates behind a curtain. And then started doing the translation behind the curtain and then switched to the hat without the curtain. We have Emma's statement about nothing between him and her while his head is in the hat and she could have either been in the very beginning (before Martin), helping out while Martin was there, or between Martin and Oliver. Her story about the walls of Jerusalem include her being able to see him (he was "pale as a sheet") and that would have been pretty early in the 116 pages so by that point, it appears he wasn't using a sheet.

There is no sense of security with the peace that comes from movement in calm surroundings. No sense of another’s presence. For me at least, the experience of what I identify as the Spirit, as God is unique.

And you shift again instead of demonstrating your claim. Okay, never mind.

I am wondering if you could help me a bit. I've been working on this concept of "safe." My wife uses it here and there, a therapist we went to used it, some others of my acquaintance use it. It seems, by the usage of some, to refer to emotional or mental safety. But then I'm not sure what that means. For me, "feel safe" in this context appears to more or less be an expression of trust. That is, "reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence." I provisionally reach this conclusion by asking myself if a statement like this makes sense: "I trust you, but I don't feel safe around you." I haven't quite been able to make that work. I would therefore like to better understand what you mean by "it doesn't help me to trust God more or feel safe trusting Him." Could you elaborate on what you mean here? I'd like to better understand your perspective. In The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis repeatedly speaks of Aslan - the Christ figure - as "not a tame lion." I have thought that what he means is that Aslan is free, sovereign, and not under human control. In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Mr. Beaver tells the children that Aslan is a lion and, when they ask whether he is safe, replies: “Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.” Later the same book notes that Aslan “doesn’t like being tied down” and is “wild… Not like a tame lion.” The line is repeated across the series (Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair, The Last Battle, and others) whenever characters are tempted to treat Aslan as predictable, summonable, or subject to their expectations. The point is twofold. First, Aslan cannot be domesticated. He comes and goes as he wills, cannot be kept or compelled, and does not exist to confirm human plans or expectations or comfort. Second, his goodness is not the same as safety or mildness. He is both terrible and good; encountering him produces awe as well as affection. Lewis is recovering the biblical sense of the divine as holy and other—powerful enough to inspire fear, not a tame pet who can be managed or reduced to moral sentiment. Because Aslan is Lewis’s imagining of what the Son of God might be like if incarnated in Narnia, the repeated reminder functions as a guard against sentimentalizing Christ. The Lion of Judah is not a domesticated symbol. So perhaps "safe" in the context of what Mr. Beaver meant pertains to something like this: "He is not 'safe' in that He may do things that we do not prefer or expect or fully understand, but He is good, so we can 'trust' Him. Not because He is predictable or under our control or subject to our preferences and expectations, but because no matter what He does, and even when He does things that are difficult for us to understand, we can trust that what He has done is right and good and true." Anyway, just some thoughts. Thanks, -Smac

Justice and mercy are connected, because the human idea of justice is often limited or flawed, which is why we might prefer a more perfect and wise Judge untangle it all. True justice isn't just about punishment. After all, what is justice for someone who was wronged or falsely accused, justice is mercy and vindication. It can mean restoring what was lost or fixing what is broken. Earth often seems serendipitous, I think It mostly is serendipitous. Meaning events are not always because God caused it, but because we live in an imperfect world where free will and earthly randomness does happen. Rather than viewing our heartbreak as 'God's plan' and forcing ourselves to call it good, maybe faith is believing the truth that its bad or otherwise not God's will, but rather that God has the ability to ultimately repair, heal, and set right everything that went wrong. That the story isn't finished until both justice and mercy have its day.

Yes, you do have to experience something to learn from it.

The But if not talk is one of my favorites. It doesn't help me to trust God more or feel safe trusting Him but it does help me to still feel loved by Him.

I do believe in justice and I think you are right in that we can't hope for justice in this world. I believe in mercy too of course. I'm starting to learn how the existence of God's mercy is another example of His justice. I don't think justice could exist without God providing us with a Savior, for example.

Good questions. I don't think I believe that everything is God's will, but I do think I believe that God makes choices to allow things He could stop from happening. I do think that letting go of expectations is mandatory in my relationship with God, but I also think that we do have a right to expect some things from Him because of our covenantal relationship. I guess I just need to better understand what I should expect and what I shouldn't. And yes! Letting go of expectations requires grief. And anger too.

The 116 pages were dictated from behind a curtain and Harris was told not to look behind the curtain while Smith was doing whatever because it would make God angry?

The Tribune: LDS scholar appears on Joe Rogan’s podcast — but not all his fans are celebrating I would have preferred to see a Latter-day Saint who professes faith in the things that are distinctive and important to the Restored Gospel and to the lives of observant and faithful Latter-day Saints. As it is, we got Dan, who has things to say about our faith along these lines: Based on the Trib article, it sounds like Rogan wasn't really interested in McClellan as a member of the Church. If so, I hope someday he books someone else, someone who will speak and act like, well, a Latter-day Saint. The same Jesus about whom Dan said this: Dan is competent on the biblical text and the historical context. The problem is that I think Dan seeks to implicitly encourage his listeners to take that competence and shift it over to his philosophical claims about what is possible, then treats the philosophical claim as if it were a finding of biblical scholarship. He does the same with sociopolitical issues. He's a smart guy and knows a lot about the Bible, so we ought to privilege his say-so about sociopolitical issues like elective abortion, same-sex marriage, trans issues, and so on. The first half is not a historical conclusion. “Physical impossibility” and “violates everything we know about the operation of the universe” are prior commitments about the uniformity of nature, our pristine and complete understanding of nature, and the exclusion of divine action. Historical method can assess the best explanation of the available evidence under a given set of assumptions. It cannot, by itself, establish that a resurrection is impossible. Once that impossibility is stipulated, the rest of the paragraph is just the stipulation restated: the evidence is insufficient because it would have to overcome a bar that has already been set beyond the reach of any historical data. That is a methodological choice, not a result delivered by "the data." The second half is more careful, and it is the part that actually falls within his field. The broad consensus that there was a historical Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher and was executed is real. The further claim that the resurrection narratives are later stories generated by his followers is a reconstruction, not a bare datum. The earliest material (the pre-Pauline formula in 1 Corinthians 15, the empty-tomb tradition, the appearance claims) is early enough and widespread enough that many scholars treat belief in the resurrection as part of the earliest Christian movement rather than a later invention. Dan’s version is one interpretive option; presenting it as simply “what the data show” elides the interpretive step. And that is, in my view, the principal flaw in Dan's schtick. He positions, through leveraged credentialism and bolstering, his opinions as "the data." Listeners are then invited to treat a negative conclusion about the resurrection as the output of neutral academic expertise rather than as the product of a naturalistic prior plus a particular reading of the sources. Biblical scholarship can tell us a great deal about what the earliest Christians claimed, when those claims appear, and how they developed. It does not uniquely qualify someone - Dan - to rule the resurrection out as a physical impossibility, nor does it convert that ruling into a scholarly finding that all non-dogmatic scholars must accept. The distinction between those two things is the core of the critique. Thanks, -Smac

^^This^^ has been true for me. For better or for worse, I tend to see what I'm looking for... one implication being that, to a certain extent, I am my own jailer; but on the other hand, the key is in my own pocket. If I give my intellect (limited as it may be) the task of finding all the injustices a decent God would never have allowed and/or could have prevented, my intellect will deliver in abundance. I have not found that to be the path of greatest light for me. But it may well be for someone else - who am I to judge? Perhaps the brightest path for some is to make sure that God (or at least what we've been led to believe about God) gets called out for not living up to expectations. If that is what works for you, carry on! Personally, I think Viktor Frankl figured this stuff out. Here are a few relevant quotes: "Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation." "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." "Our greatest freedom is the freedom to choose our attitude." Here's another take on the same basic concept, that of claiming and acting upon our freedom to choose our response and our attitude in the face of whatever circumstances present, this time not from a concentration-camp survivor but from a zombie: "Choose love in spite of all you see in the world. Choose love regardless of what you're going through. It does not matter how much you're suffering, the choice for love is still there. It never goes away despite any circumstance, despite any temperature in the world, despite any war, despite any famine, despite how wealthy you are, despite how happy you are, how sad you are, how depressed you are, the choice to remember to choose love never ever goes away. Regardless of whether the world is perfect or is going through the absolute fires of who knows what, the choice is still there. Be strong enough to make that choice. That's what it's about, to make [that choice] regardless." - near-death experiencer Jonathan Ashford That is what I aspire to, and I have a very long ways to go. Edited to add: This morning my YouTube feed fed me this short video, I have no idea who this guy is, but his message is to deliberately choose one's focus rather than trying to battle one's mind over every single thought. It's an imo very practical application of what @MustardSeed said, namely that we do find what we seek. Here it is, cued up to his core message, which he gets across in less than a minute and a half: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp9lIUHWyFc&t=263s

I get wanting to hold onto that but while in many ways not brave to eternal struggles (as evidenced in this thread) I do have a strong thirst for knowledge and one thing I learned in a very harsh manner is sometimes the facts don’t match what I want them to. I would like to believe there is a simple or even complex solution to human conflict but as I studied history I didn’t find any way out of the constant conflicts between humans. They are baked into the world we live in. More recently I don’t like that I can’t find any good reason to trust God and have begun to doubt He exists at all. In fact in some ways I hope He doesn’t. If a lot of what His character in scripture is shown as is accurate I don’t trust Him at all and don’t want to live in a world he runs. I am still open to God somehow reaching out to help but am also terrified if He does as it will almost certainly involve breaking me in multiple ways because that seems to be how it works. Then again i think I could cope with a Telestial eternity if He just for the most part leaves us alone. Then again annihilation on death doesn’t carry the same fear for me that it used to. If that is the end then being dead will probably be a lot like what it was before I was born and that wasn’t so bad. I would rather the child not be finished but my wishes mean little in the face of cold reality.

That RFM episode triggered me to go buy a white wool felt tophat. And he is right, you can actually read with your face in it. It seems like the light is diffusing through the material into the hat. It doesn't seem to be reflecting from the brim in. If I cover the brim with dark material, it is still readable. And reading from the hat does explain some things. Skousen's work shows that Joseph seemed to be working with a ~20 word section and on a foolscap page, that is about 1 line worth of text (I based this by counting the text in a line from the original manuscript). So Joseph could just be doing 1 line at a time. When coming back from a break, he just has to remember the line he is on and can start from the beginning. But I think there are some really hard issues with this idea as well. First, I could read easily if I was outside or in a room with big windows. Once I moved to a room that had smaller windows or didn't have direct sunlight, the reading got much, much harder. Since 1830 era windows are poorer quality than modern windows and smaller than the ones I experimented with, I think it is more likely that the reading would have been hard. And reading for a long period of time was painful to my eyes. I can't imagine doing it every day for months. Second, a hat can't fit that much text in it. Take the size of the Original Manuscript. It is foolscap that has been folded in half. The original foolscap is 16–18 × 12–13½ inches (from Joseph Smith Papers) and folded in half is either 16½ × 7 inches or 13 × 8¼ inches. Unless Joseph had a really big hat, neither of those sizes will fit in the hat (my hat was a 7 5/8 which is considered XL at https://www.lockhatters.com/blogs/news/how-to-measure-top-hat-size). Folding that in half wouldn't fit either. You have to fold it one more time to fit it comfortably. And if you just push the paper in and let it scrunch up on the sides, that part of the paper is unreadable (I tried). And because of the lighting and ink contrast, you need a slightly bigger font size than what is on the Original Manuscript (I tested with laser ink on modern white paper which has better contrast than 1830 ink on 1830 paper). I cut out a sheet of paper that fit the inside of my hat perfectly and then counted how many words in handwriting roughly the size of the Original Manuscript would fit and it fit around 200-250 words. At around 15 wpm (using the middle value from Welch's expirement at https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/timing-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-days-and-hours-never-to-be-forgotten), that means he has run out of text in the absolute best case (he cut a piece of paper that fits his hat perfectly with maximum words) about every 20 minutes. He would need to swap out the paper in his hat at that point. That's a lot of swaps. It isn't once per meal and once in the middle. At 15 wpm, they are translating 5-6 hours a day, so he is swapping a piece of paper 15-18 times a day. Every day for 3 months. And not a single person mentions it? That's a lot of breaks. We do have breaks mentioned, but every 20 minutes? And that's pretty much the best case scenario. More likely he is taking a break every 10-15 minutes or even more frequent. Third, it is extremely easy for anyone to see into the hat. I didn't realize how open the hat would be. I was sitting next to my kids and when I raised my head, anyone who was standing or just slightly above me could see into the base of the hat. They didn't even have to try to look. I have a 7 inch top hat which is about as tall as Lincoln's stovetop hat, so this is a tall hat and probably taller than what Joseph would have (taller hats were for wealthy people). I don't care how much warning Joseph would have to tell people, it was really hard for the people I tested with to not see the inside of the hat. Fourth, the 2 statements that RFM used don't actually mention Joseph telling them to not look in the hat. No hat is mentioned. First quote is from Josiah Jones' interview of Oliver Cowdery in 1841 (number 71 in https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/welch/2016-04-11/welch_the_miraculous_translation_of_the_book_of_mormon_opening_the_heavens.pdf) Second quote is John Clacks interview of Martin Harris in 1840 (number 45 in the welch pdf above) The first quote could be inferred to mean he is talking about looking into the stones when it is in the hat, but it could also just be looking into the stones at any time (there is a difference between looking into and looking at). The second quote is from very early in the translation process with Joseph used a blanket to separate him. It is quite likely that at this stage, he wasn't using the stone in the hat process. By the time Cowdery came along, there was no suspended blanket separating Joseph from anyone and people did look at him while he had his face in the hat. So, the idea that Joseph read a manuscript inside the hat does sound plausible when I first heard it, but after attempting to figure out the actual mechanics of it, it seems very implausible. He had to do this magic trick for months in front of the same people and random people and he had to switch the paper every 10-20 minutes and prevent people from getting a glimpse.

I was talking about that specific kind of eternal rest. I was not conflating it with finding consolation in something in this life. I am glad for almost anything that alleviates suffering. There is already far too much of it. I don’t what minimize what you have gained. I do have a hard time accepting that God’s grace can only be manifest by pouring out suffering everywhere. The idea that humans must be broken in order to learn has a heroic bend to it and overcoming struggles is aspirational. I just find that grace less impressive when the consolation comes from the person who inflicted the suffering in the first place. Or at least allowed it to happen though with an omniscient and omnipotent being I have a very hard time determining a distinction between allowing and acting as both are direct choices made. This is the only way? The best way? Really? It also makes me shudder. If opposition in all things is some unending principle I have little reason to believe suffering and the like will stop in some future state where all will be made right. If the opposition matches the power of the person we might even expect it to get much worse.

A little. He wasn’t very good at it. He was better at it then this kind of really dumb playground insult level. What you said is Trump-level nicknaming. Sleepy Joe Biden. Lying Hillary. Childish and dumb. I mean, if you are going to insult someone put some wit into it. This is just sad.

I think they need to be more blunt. They are worried about offending climate change deniers in their own body. Do they really need this level of coddling?

I assume you mean the New York will be underwater by 2010 prediction as that is the most common one. Which he didn’t make. So their cunning plan was to have this girl call out the UN for failing the future in order to create a global totalitarian dictatorship that *checks notes* no one is seriously agitating for, has no support, and the UN doesn’t have the authority to create. This is conspiracy nonsense. Only the stupidest of fundamentalist evangelical rapture enthusiasts think that all nations are eager to lay down their sovereignty. Why are you doing this?