All Activity

Yesterday's doctrine and direct commandment from God became tomorrow's theory. Already addressed previously. The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred". It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng And the church's "Religion 324-325 - Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual" says there were "some revelations still in possession of the Church which were not included" in the Book of Commandments. I am not privy to all the records of the LDS Church so I don't know what all is there or not. It was called a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. One thing we know for sure – it was taught as doctrine. This won't change no matter how many times the current LDS Church tries to disavow them as theories instead. Then we have all the teachings recorded by President George Cannon in the book "Gospel Truth", mentioned at the start of the thread "The Red Men are the Indians" https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113467-the-indians-are-the-red-men/ I wonder if the LDS Church has disavowed those LDS "truths" as theories too. Recorded teachings from past LDS leaders refer to it as doctrine and a direct commandment from God. That's sufficient preservation. Doctrine back then, but theory today. That doctrine was of God or it was of man. This explains why the LDS Church cannot issue a simple "We are sorry, we apologize" statement. I suspect The Family – Proclamation to the World "doctrine" will become a theory in the LDS Church some day. Considered theory today, taught as doctrine back then. The Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses publish/teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that he returned invisibly in 1914 and made them (members of that body) the faithful and discreet slave to dispense spiritual food to the world. Only 144,000 belong to the Bride of Christ. Are they leading people astray? Erring in teachings sounds more appropriate as some people don't consider all teachings to be doctrines. "But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians that someone can present a different Jesus while still using Christian-sounding language.

Noted. But he never said "we are sorry" or "we apologize". Let's again focus on part of what he said: "Our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past or present, in any form and we disavow any theory that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters and I consider you friends". But black or dark skin being a sign of a curse was taught as a truth, not a theory. "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012, President Joseph Fielding Smith) "Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of the Lamanites' skin was only a mark or sign of the curse" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2017). "The Lamanites remained in the land and rebelled against the Lord. They "were cut off from his presence" (2 Nephi 5:20). The curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God (see 2 Nephi 5:20-24). The changing of the Lamanites' skin was a mark or sign of the curse. The nature of this mark is not fully understood" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2024). I now see the references to "we" in a representative capacity. But still, no "we are sorry" and/or "we apologize". And the LDS Church still continues to propagate that what former LDS leaders taught were theories in regards to the priesthood ban. It's time to end this mantra. It was doctrine. "It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible. However, in the Pearl of Great Price, we find the following statement written by Abraham: "Now this first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.' Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:25-26" (Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Negro and the Priesthood," Improvement Era, April 1924, p. 565). "The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers' rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings we are entitled to'" (Official statement of the First Presidency, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 89-90). Then there's the First Presidency letter of 1969. I addressed some of this earlier. Their position continues to say it was a theory, but we know it was not. But still, no admitting "we are sorry", "we apologize", and "we taught a false doctrine". The LDS Church is not accurately depicting how it was taught in their past. History shows otherwise. It's time to get that skeleton out of the closet and finally bury it. I already addressed this earlier. Lot's of flip-flopping. Then you have Kimball's statement in the 1960 General Conference: "The work is unfolding, and blinded eyes begin to see, and scattered people begin to gather. I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing de- lightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated". Nothing to add regarding the FAIR article or the one by Gregory Prince other than to say they tried to reverse the ban which was a doctrine as taught by former LDS leaders. As I mentioned before, not all revelations were recorded. And the reason for the ban was considered a doctrine back then. But these days, it has become a theory. The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred". It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng The Muslim verse of Jesus is only a prophet. The JW version of Jesus is Michael the Archangel. The Hindu version of Jesus is only a great teacher. The LDS version of Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God. Another Jesus is the Eternal God. These are examples of different Christs. As I mentioned before, not all revelations were recorded. The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred". It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng As shown earlier, it was called a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. Person A makes this statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were of God". Person B makes the opposite statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were not of God, but from man". It isn't a question of who (Person A or B) said it or when. The question is whether a statement is true.

Do you believe Baal, Asherah, Molech, Chemosh, Dagon, and Satan are real gods? If yes, how?

There were meetinghouses in the 1800's that were designed that way - largely, I suspect, because that's basically how everyone else did it, and it was what the early Saints were used to. But if you go here and jump to the section on The Bountiful Standard Plan (1969-72), you'll see a more recent style that has it set up that way as well. Personally, I like the fact that our chapels differ from the layout used in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or other traditional liturgical churches. Moving the sacrament table to the center would make us look a bit more like other churches - which isn't inherently bad, but it's a cultural shift that I don't really see the need for. And, if I'm being completely honest, this all just feels very "Utah" to me. It feels like the sort of thing some pious LDS leader - perhaps not unlike the one in Bountiful - might propose as a visible way of signaling that we really understand the true meaning of sacrament meeting - "If the sacrament is the center of our worship, shouldn't the table literally be at the center?" - and then everyone immediately thinks, "Well, of course." Once you frame it that way, the symbolism is so compelling that the pragmatic questions can almost start to feel beside the point. Realistically though, most of my objections are largely pragmatic. In addition to the ones I listed previously, I think moving it to the front would create visual congestion. Now you've got a layout that's more like: speaker -> giant table -> congregation, which isn't necessarily better, IMO. And how are they going to deal with things like wheelchair access, little children approaching the front whenever they break free of their parents, and all of the other practical issues that would now have to be considered when using the chapel for something other than sacrament meeting. I mean, are they going to plop caskets right on top of it during funerals? Are they going to be able to remove it when using the building for orchestra / large choral performances, like the one our stake holds each Christmas? A well-meaning theological idea can become a frustrating architectural solution if those kinds of things aren't taken into consideration and solved elegantly at the outset.

I think we have discussed this before, but can’t remember any details.

I tried the search feature to see if it had an older discussion of putting pictures of Christ in the chapel. Do any of you posters remember this. I vaguely remember discussing it and how some thought it shouldn't happen, for some or other reason.

I agree! I think where the Sacrament table is now is a great spot. But do remember an old picture of the early church's Sacrament table in the center. But you make good points about the cost of renovating chapels, if that's the route they'd take. Maybe they'll start doing it in new buildings. And the point about the bishop signaling to the young men that they said the prayer wrong is something to think about. I think putting in stained glass or a Christ portrait of some kind might help focus better perhaps. And thinking a little cheaper?

I think you are conflating two different ideas. Different denominations exist (generally) because people disagree about doctrinal or theological issues. Not because they believe (again, in general) that they must be a member of that specific church to be saved. For most Protestants, salvation is not connected to authority or doctrinal accuracy. That’s why a methodist and Baptist might completely disagree about certain doctoral issues, but still consider each other saved.

I would agree. Fortunately, I've been attending the same building for the last 15 years, where the sacrament table sits on the rostrum, stage left, and Christ has been at the center of our worship the entire time.

This video, a BYU Forum speech, was given in 2025. I post this just because it's interesting.

I think most children growing up in active LDS families, especially boys, know very well that the expectation is there, because it's talked about. It's almost as if it were a "rite of passage" or a cultural norm. Like when I was finishing my first hitch in the Army, I was expecting to be contacted by the re-enlistment sergeant to sign up for another term. I was going to tell him "Thanks, but no thanks," but my mouth rebelled against me and had me signing up for another, what turned out to be four more years. My ward's previous last full-time missionary came home about five years ago. We're a small ward so it happened that there weren't any more active children in the pipeline until this year. But the pipeline has progressed to the point that we're sending out three this year. The first flew to the Provo MTC last week. He's going to the Philippines. The next is one of my nieces, who is leaving for Provo in October, and she will be serving in American Fork, of all places. Number three has only just put in his papers and we don't know where he might be going yet. I know these kids, and also know they are going on their own initiative because they want to. We have one more in the same age cohort, but he's going to attend university for the time being. His parents hope he'll choose to serve, but they're not pressuring him. I myself had no pressure at all, because I was a convert at age 14, the only member in my family. I wasn't really active until I turned 17. I figured I had no business serving a mission since I hadn't grown up in the church and didn't have an adequate background for it. I didn't even know the song "Popcorn Popping on the Apricot Tree"! But I changed my mind as I became more spiritually awake.

Perhaps it varies with wards or regions, but I have seen social pressure…questions like when are you turning in your papers or are you taking a year of college before your mission…this assumption one is going. I have also heard of bishops calling young men in to help them plan for their mission, see if the bishop or the ward can help support them in some way. I am not saying this is wrong or unhealthy, just relaying experiences. I don’t think my son felt he received undue pressure. I will have to ask my grandson if he has (he’s 21)

The rearranging of furniture, especially in a place of worship, has the potential to cause more concern than being of a benefit. I get that impression from a few of the posts. Maybe if things have worked reasonably well as they are, then just leave things as they are, and just make necessary improvements where and as needed.

And so virtue gets signaled. I really don't know how you wrote this particular gem as if whining about things totally out of Utah's control is going to contribute to somehow fixing the problem. If we talk about it more than it's been talked about in the past decade this will help, right? I have news for you: Utah can't fix climate change. The most Utah can do is deal with it. Shouting "Climate change!" is a lot like the disingenuous "stolen land acknowledgement" that certain people like to signal their virtue about. As if this somehow fixes something -- which it doesn't because it's a "Hey! Look at me!" applause stimulator that does nothing more than emotionally reward the virtue signaler. As if the 75 viewers of this topic so far would have been better enlightened if @Pyreaux had written "because of climate change" somewhere in the OP. Would it have made the slightest difference? Do you know what I thought of, first thing, while reading it? Climate change! He didn't need to write it, because we've all been propagandized to death about the subject. It's become Pavlovian conditioning at this stage, and both advocates and deniers instantly know what's up. And then grumble to themselves according to their particular persuasion. May the Green New Deal be with you.

Strawman indeed (same as what Pyreaux said). The other thing that will never make sense under your dichotomy are how the Hebrew superlatives work. The Bible speaks of the Holy of holies, Heaven of heavens, Sabbath of sabbaths, servant of servants, vanity of vanities, song of songs, King of kings, Lord of lords. This Hebrew grammatic construction requires that the two words connected in the expression are in the same category, but one is the "most" or "supreme" over the others. We never suppose that "holies" of the "Holy of holies" are not truly holy, rather the one is the holiest of all others. The same thing with "King of kings". There is one "King" that is supreme, one that rules over all other "kings". The same thing with "Lord of lords". There is one "Lord" that is supreme', the highest Lord over all other "lords". But when we get to the "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17), the modern Christian view can't handle that. So we start hearing excuses and exceptions that these other "gods" must be idols, false gods, corrupt human judges, demons, or some other category of being that totally breaks the Hebrew superlative. It's either that God is the "God of gods", or he is: The False God of false gods The Idol of idols The Corrupt Human Judge of corrupt human judges The Devil of devils The Hebrew superlatives don't work any other way.

I was at home in Washington state, asleep. The rest of the household was awake and the kids were getting ready for school, etc. Suddenly one of kids comes waking me up, telling me that one of the twin towers has collapsed. I quickly pulled on some clothes and headed downstairs to the TV room. I'm standing in front of the TV watching live coverage when suddenly the second tower comes tumbling down. What a wakeup. I head to work at the usual time, and arrive to find that all the televisions in the building have been pulled out of storage rooms and all are tuned into live streams of the whole thing. Very little work is getting done, because most of us are watching the coverage. I noticed that my coworker that I consult with on a particular software system is sitting in her cubicle staring at her monitor, but not doing anything in particular. I go to ask her if she's OK, and she is definitely not. Turns out that her brother, who worked for an investment firm in San Diego, CA, just happened to be in meetings in NYC that day at their company headquarters, located in one of the towers. Oh, crap! Not feeling particularly useful at helping her deal with this, I go to see our division chief and tell him about it. He does seem to know how to handle it, and he goes to speak with her. I find out later that this was the correct thing to do, because he is able to reassure her of his support and concern over the situation. As for the brother, he later turns out to be among the survivors. What happened was that although his meetings were occurring above where the airplane struck the building he was in, he had volunteered to go down to the floor where all the refreshments were being sold, in order to get donuts and such for the meeting. That's where he was when the airliner hit, and he was able to evacuate downstairs. To my coworker's huge relief. When the news was released as to who had been responsible for the attack, the hotheaded one of my sons became very irate, and was talking about going down to the recruiters to join the US Marine Corps. But I reminded him that he didn't have a high school diploma or a GED, so the Marines likely wouldn't take him. I told him he'd have to schedule taking a GED, and this cooled his ardor considerably. Apparently he was more scared of taking a test than of Marine drill instructors or being in a war! Well, he could have passed no problem. We had home-schooled him because he was causing trouble in his school, which is the reason for no HS diploma, but he took on being home-schooled with great enthusiasm. Sharp as a tack; just too much of a "good ole boy."

Absolutely. In all the wards I have lived, it seemed like the only pressure came from parents. This will differ over time and space, because parents differ.

Indeed. If I am worthy, I could always Transfigure right now if God should appear to me. My face will shine with divine glory just as Moses after encountering God on Sinai and Stephen before the Jewish council. Just like the High Priestly sons of God and all others who saw God, were not mortals when they saw him, as "no man can see God and live". I'd be divine in life, and not human. Alternatively, if he does not appear to me, I'm a god now as much as you might claim you are "saved" and "born again" now. Our transformation into what we will become hasn't happened yet. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2) Because you completely ignored Deuteronomy 32:8 and Daniel 10, which explicitly describe that exact geographical assignment. You are misreading your clear passages. Paul uses the Greek phrase legomenoi theoi ("called gods"). In 1 Corinthians 8:5, Paul literally says: Even if there are beings called gods, "in heaven", for Christians there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus. Paul explicitly assigns the title Theos ("God") to the Father and Kyrios ("Lord") to Jesus. If you insist that all beings "called gods", if they are not the Father, are not divine, means the Lord Jesus is not divine. What we could both agree on, is even if they are real and "in heaven" and divine, Paul is telling us to have no regard for them. In Galatians 4:8, Paul writes, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods", isn't target-locked on the heavenly Bene Elohim at all. In 1st-century Roman Galatia, the imperial cult was everywhere. Emperors were routinely declared divine and worshiped in local temples alongside city-state rulers and benefactors. Human rulers and local magistrates that claimed a divine status they did not possess. When Paul tells the Galatian Gentiles that they were enslaved to beings that "by nature are not gods" (me physei ousin theois), he is pointing out that mortal emperors, client kings, and political rulers possess zero intrinsic divine essence (physis). They are unworthy men playing god. In Galatians 4:3 and 4:9, Paul identifies them as having power, the stoicheia tou kosmou (the elementary principles or powers of the world). In the Old Testament framework (Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and Psalm 82), the real beings in heaven were meant to serve under God's authority, but many rebelled in war, became unworthy and fell, or perhaps accepted worship when not supposed to. Jeremiah is addressing manufactured idols and covenant loyalty, not spiritual entities. Jeremiah’s primary focus is the physical practice of idolatry. Jeremiah 10:3-5, "a tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe... they cannot speak; they have to be carried"). A piece of carved wood is "no god" (lo elohim). It has no intrinsic life and cannot act. But does not negate the ancient Near Eastern reality that real spiritual entities (shedim / bene elohim) operated behind pagan worship systems. Jeremiah is mocking the absurdity of bowing down to a block of wood. You just conceded the point without realizing it. "They sacrificed unto demons [shedim], not to God; to gods [elohim] whom they knew not..." Deuteronomy 32:17 explicitly uses word elohim to describe shedim (demons). Shedim in modern Bible translations is usually rendered as "demons" or "idols," is an ancient loanword derived from Akkadian "sedu", means a high-ranking, protective spiritual guardian assigned to a specific city, palace, temple, or royal personage. To the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, a sedu was not evil, but a legitimate territorial patron or spirit power that provided military protection and administrative authority over a geographic domain. Thus Deuteronomy 32:17 "They sacrificed to demons [shedim], not to God; to gods [elohim] whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up..." is a parallel structure the biblical author set up. By calling them shedim and elohim, the text acknowledges that these are patron guardians over Gentile nations (assigned at the Babel judgment in Deut 32:8–9). To Yahweh, Israel was His personal "allotted heritage" (Deut 32:9), so for an Israelite (or an adopted Christian Gentile) to offer sacrifices to a foreign nation's territorial guardian was treason. But when pagan nations sacrificed to shedim seeking their favor and they got it, and on occasion successfully opposed Yahweh. The Old Testament said they were subordinate but rebellious elohim whom Yahweh would ultimately have to judge. King Mesha of Moab was trapped in his city by the combined armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, he performed a desperate act of sacrifice to his national god, Chemosh, and defied Elisha' prophecy from the Lord, "Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath [qetsep gadol] against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land." (2 Kings 3:27) The glorious guardian of Israel in Daniel 10:5–6 is the Lord Himself. Being delayed in Daniel 10 implies that the spiritual powers of the nations (the prince of Persia) possessed such entrenched, real authority over their geographical domains that even a supreme manifestation of the Lord’s messenger, or the Lord Himself encountered a period of cosmic resistance before Michael stepped in to shift the balance. Strawman, I never said they were equal or independent of Yahweh, I said they are real, non-human, territorial spiritual entities that the Bible calls elohim. By insisting these real spiritual entities "are not real gods," you are rejecting the Bible's own vocabulary (elohim) and substituting a modern philosophical definition.

I have a small family. Would I like my children to serve a mission? Of course. However, it has to be a conclusion they come to on their own. I hope the only pressure they have is from the Lord. I'm not sure about other Bishops.

If centering Sacrament meeting on Christ requires rearranging the furniture in order for that to happen, perhaps there are bigger issues.

The mockups I've seen online make it look like the plan would be to orient the sacrament table to the front / center of the congregation. I suppose that is supposed to symbolically put Christ at the center of the meeting, but if it's below the rostrum then that's going to make the speakers look like they are 'above' the sacrament - probably not the look we are going for. Also, pragmatically, if the table is in front of the presiding authority, so how is the bishop going to signal to the Priests when they mess up the prayers? Oh, and if there are really only going to be two rows of benches, like in many Catholic churches, I see that cramping a lot of families' style. There's also the bit about spending all the money it would take to renovate buildings that are already perfectly functional to begin with. I personally think the negatives outweigh the positives, but hopefully they will test it out in a few places before trying to do anything more widespread.

As a stay at home parent, I was usually home watching the news when these horrific episodes happened in real time and they felt so surreal. First was the Space Shuttle Challenger and then 9/11. So sad and devastating.

I played pickleball with active members this morning and one is a Gospel Doctrine teacher. She didn't teach yesterday but mentioned the technique the teacher had and that was by writing 5 topic sentences and letting the class pick out which they wanted to discuss. He mentioned the first and there were no takers and erased it until they all agreed on one of the 5 and it took the whole time discussing one of the five. Thought you teachers out there might be interested in trying it.

We played the song for our 8 year old primary class, but somehow they haven't learned yet to appreciate good music. I guess this means we still have work to do.

It does seem that the church is de-emphasizing Sunday School as meeting of primary instruction, and making it a meeting of secondary instruction, in that class members are expected to spend independent time with the scripture passages under study, and then come together to contribute and discuss what we have gleaned from that independent study. The teacher's job is to facilitate this discussion, and to moderate it as needed. One of the things that I have been especially concerned for is that old thing called "borrowed light." Heber C. Kimball once said “The time will come when no man nor woman will be able to endure on borrowed light. Each will have to be guided by the light within himself. If you do not have it, how can you stand? … “… If you don’t have it you will not stand; therefore seek for the testimony of Jesus and cleave to it, that when the trying time comes you may not stumble and fall.” I have always felt that Sunday School was the place to borrow light, but that true conversion and a strong testimony of the gospel was normally only to be had in one's personal study and prayer. And thus it seems to me that the present shortened Sunday School is where one both borrows light from others who share the light they have received, and where one shares the light one has received.