CV75

I didn't use the term "sometimes" -- I wrote: "Always speaking the truth" leaves room to also always speak the bullets above -- they are not mutually exclusive. You (generic) can always speak the truth (e.g. testify that Jesus is the Christ, perform a baptism, etc.) while also always making mistakes, misspeaking, speaking in error, not speaking all truth from all areas of knowledge, prioritizing the extent and depth of knowledge concerning supporting truths, advancing new and changing revelation, and ordering from the takeout window.

As an experiment, please list 5 ways the claim is objectively false and 5 ways it is objectively true. For example, I'll give it a shot: FALSE: They have spoken in error or have misspoken from time to time. They do not speak on all types and fields of truth. They may convey limited or abridged facts in support of their apostolic witness. They have changed their message based on changing revelation. They cannot "always" speak religious truth because they have to order from the takeout window. TRUE "Always speaking the truth" leaves room to also always speak the bullets above -- they are not mutually exclusive. The "truth" here means the exercise of the keys of the kingdom which involves speaking the words of testimony and the ordinances. Moroni 10" 32 - 33, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." They always speak the truth by grace. It is understood that they speak the truth when they, the presiding councils, the scriptures agree and the hearer accepts it in good faith, and/or the Holy Ghost confirms it by companionship or specific witness. The 1st bullets counts for more than one

My personal opinion and current working model is as follows: That depends on your (generic "you") perspective -- some of us have multiple perspectives depending on our vantage point. One way to integrate these perspectives is to first accept that He became God when you learned of Him, recognized and worshipped Him as such. The rest is a matter of when you think you first learned of Him, and what you have learned of Him. "Learned of" means both "learned about" and "taught by." Since we are children of God, it makes sense to me that our journey reflects God's in aspect. I take the scripture, "Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth..." to mean that we both had beginnings, shared and experienced a beginning point as an intersection of our existence in different ways. We are likewise in the end (His purpose) and continuation (His eternal round) with the Father: beginning, continuation and end and continuation, beginning so forth. I don't think any of this impacts my relationship with Christ in any way. I hope the time spent discussing it contributes to it in a positive way, though.

I have not had this experience as you describe it and I imagine we all fall somewhere along a bell curve. All we have to work with is what we've got, which is part of being human. If you sense that God is bad at communicating, give Him grace. Same with the prophets, the scriptures and other trusted sources. If you sense that you are bad at communicating, ask Him for and give yourself some grace. I think relationships, including those with God, entail communication, actions and many other aspects of what we do. If one isn't working satisfactorily, something else must. If you attribute your relationship with Christ to your own mind, I suppose there are worse things you can imagine!

I find that context is half (or more) of interpreting these two sayings ("seek and ye shall find" / "doubt not") in a functional manner. Doubt is more of a barrier to seeking (stops it cold or arrests it not too far along) more than seeking is a barrier to doubt (it opens up the options to do so). For this reason, when seeking any good thing, I think it's best to be specific and not a generalist; discipline (balancing the two mental states, leading out and building upon the seeking aspect and mastering the doubts that undermine the more expansive seeking) makes a big difference. Successful people normally do not seek doubt, but knowledge and other good things. Just a few random examples from D&C: Section 4, it refers to desires to serve God. Section 11, to things pertaining unto righteousness Section 88:63-64, to the 62 previous verses, draw near to Christ, and expedient. Section 88: 83, to the 20 previous verses, 58 subsequent verses. And in the Four Gospels, we also have different contexts and applications almost every time it is said. The same with “doubt not,” which is said by Jesus only once in the New Testament. In D&C 6, this phrase centers on Christ and in D&C 8, on translation. Young Joseph Smith did not seek doubt. He sought salvation and had some questions about what his elders were teaching about that.

Yes, I believe it is valid, and it says so right here in D&C 88 : 63 Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 64 Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name it shall be given unto you, that is expedient for you; 65 And if ye ask anything that is not expedient for you, it shall turn unto your condemnation. Jesus says “doubt not” only once in the New Testament (Matthew 21, and it is so much like Helman 10, it refers to the sealing power); in D&C He only says it twice; in 6, He says it about Himself, and in D&C 8, about translation.

In reply to each, "So far"

I think it is an extension or variation of Gaia philosophy. I am neutral about it; it has nothing to do with my relationship with God or the covenants. Anything can happen as far as I'm concerned. "Man is spirit (D&C 93: 33)", created after the image of God pre-mortally; Adam and Eve were likewise created paradisaically; after the Fall anything goes as spirits come to earth. Spirits can manifest themselves variably in different estates, so in Eden, the spirit children designated as non-accountable were organized as other life forms for the time being. D&C 77: 3 - 4 is both literal and figurative: "the classes of beings in their destined order or sphere of creation" refers to their form in Eden and this world but not the resurrection, where they are people. The sea of glass upon which they all live is an element that can be made as varied and beautiful (covering every sense) as anyone wishes. The other kingdoms likewise.

I seem to recall someone saying recently that the plan of salvation seemed very inefficient, but we hear that a lot when the alternative is that God can make things happen with a snap of the finger.

Yes, the 2nd is what I'm describing. To me, it seems no more complicated than the plan of happiness is inefficient. Each mortal soul serves a purpose in Adam's stewardship, and the vast majority are not accountable and saved, no matter when they die. Those children of God not manifesting mortal human identity or gender still have both as eternal characteristics.

You probably were clear, but I didn't read your post just the other one that referred to "this fact"...

That is awfully qualified!

I was pointing out that the article he linked to is a satire with attendant issues as to fact and logical fallacy. I can't say I've ever heard the assumption like the one you shared here was ever taught as Church doctrine. Has anyone here heard the assumption that all mortal life forms are some expression of humanity as it was organized as spirits, enabling the complete flexing of the requisite distribution of the two genders in the afterlife -- that any non-human is just an abnormality of mortal replication?

You aren't either so stop projecting You'll have to show how that statement is factually true whether you stand by it or not -- thank you. Hint; estimates are not facts. I invite you to look up the difference.

Yes, you responded to a post sharing a ChatGPT "rough estimate" followed by the poster's assumption. No fact was claimed. You referred to “this fact,” which why I interjected with the substantive clarification that the article you linked is a satire which uses logical fallacies as part of its approach.

Yes, I mean retained in the spirit, and that a principle of intelligence is as much a divine attribute as it is something we can articulate. The whole plan of happiness can be considered inefficient, and as you point out, of necessity, or as a matter of eternal law. Jesus, I would say was the most efficient learner imaginable in this world, and needed 33 years to continue from grace to grace unto the fulness… and who knows how long in pre-mortality to become the “Spirit of truth,” more intelligent than all other spirits. As you point out, as He developed each grace, He repeated them flawlessly in every imaginable circumstance. I believe His work in the Garden of Gethsemane presented those circumstances which He did not personally face in His daily life prior to and subsequent to that.

Because as D&C 93 says, "that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers..." (v. 39; v. 38 provides good in contrast considering the discussion of the state of innocent children).

I've had blessings come with all kinds of mortal timing. I wouldn't say my use of "eventual" and "yet" refer to delays; I see that as a matter of expectation and not circumstance. When King Benjamin talks about the "immediate" blessing (Mosiah 2: 24), I think he means what he says in the verses that follow: our bodies belong to Him (25); a clear conscience (27); the word and perspective of God (34, 35); eternal mercy (39); blessed and happy state temporally and spiritually (41) -- and I take "temporally and spiritually" to refer to enjoying a blessed and happy state in time and in eternity, despite our circumstances. I know that may seem an unusual interpretation but that is my experience and understanding of the immediacy of God's blessing. The closer I am to Him, the better my relationship, the more immediate He is, regardless of my circumstance. Similarly, the "constant companionship" of the Holy Ghost refers as much as His unchanging reliability, dedication, devotion and loyalty toward us as it does to His immediacy (He is there when we are ready to be so blessed). This is what I report back to others. With regards to blessings of another kind, those that are viewed as such on our desires and terms, King Benjamin does qualify: "ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved..." (v. 36). I appreciate your skepticism, whether it is for the sake of discussion or your personality.

I would think it would take more than a satirical article to establish a fact (that is not its purpose), and that would be great if you would provide something. The way the post was written, it wasn't clear what you thought was a fact. For the sake of casual/satirical discussion I think that range of estimated probability is fine to use, but the stats are from 1966 and article is from 1984 -- which is part of the satire, I expect; I would think there are better sources of fact by now if anyone wanted to discuss this seriously from a demographic standpoint.

Little children are already in the way – not in the way (underfoot), but in “The Way” as King Benjamin described. In this regard, I think Moroni 8:11 speaks to their not needing the ordinance. The covenant to walk in the way, which we and all the children who die made premaritally, is acknowledged and kept by them in their various attributes (“as a child”, Mosiah 3:16-21). As an aside, I find it interesting how “a child” and “little children” are alive in Christ unlike the “children of men.” They have no need for spiritual rebirth as represented and realized by the ordinance and covenant of baptism to enter the way. I like that entering the way begins with the remission of sin because to me it fits perfectly with Moroni 10: 32-33, “by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and …sanctified in Christ by the grace of God…” Though we sin again we can repent again and still receive perfection and sanctification by grace until the fulness is realized. In Mosiah 18, the people used baptism for a two-fold purpose (verses 8 – 9 for entering the fold and verse 10, to make the covenant). Alma the younger later taught specifically about the remission of sins, but this was also taught by Abinadi to Alma in King Noah’s court (Mosiah 15:11) and of course by the holy prophets (18:19). That this too was part of baptism is evident in verses 10, 13, 14 and 16 where the baptism of fire follows the baptism of water. Do children have to learn (or re-learn) the principles of the gospel in the spirit world, which they brought with them from the premortal world, or do they remember them fully and have no need for re-education, as opposed perhaps to the accountable who may have forgotten or compromised them through the stain of mortality and their actions while accountable? I think they may not, though they may need to learn more principles, but they have a wonderful head start (D&C 130:18, attained pre-mortality, retained through the veil and kept with them after death). They have no need for repentance, so they would have no need to be taught what they already know.

I certainly appreciate satire also and the logical fallacies it is given leeway to use -- given the mix of posters, I wanted to make the point that the article is not presenting factual arguments. Were you were using the representation of "fact" satirically in your post?

We have people promising that if you do A and B that God will pour blessings upon you [eventually] and preach patience when someone does A and B and said blessings aren’t there [yet]. Others add that our understanding of these miracles and blessings becomes more spiritually refined as we do A and B. I think these all make sense.

"The Way" and policies are about saving doctrines and practices, and do not include those rights and responsibilities the Lord reserves for Himself.

Because the ordinances are ways by which the covenants are taught and conveyed in the flesh, I would err on the side that they are necessary for all. The exception is that little children do not need the baptism covenant to fulfill all righteousness in how they enter the way (Moroni and King Benjamin). It has not been revealed what other ordinances might also be excepted for children and the non-accountable, and this might be what D&C 137 refers to, but if any are, the covenants as they were taught in the first estate (Alma 13) that these ordinances carry would still be necessary.

Thank you. It might help by removing terms like exclusivity and inclusivity from the comparison between the LDS and Evangelical ways to follow Him "for this life at this time," and by recognizing and reconciling any semantics that crop up; compare them side by side. Whatever happened in your ward, I hope you still see your LDS friends and enjoy these relationships in other venues.