BlueDreams

Weird thought, have you tried garlic chives? They're easy to grown and really do have a garlic taste to them. There's no goodd substitute for mushrooms though 😕

Caffeine is my lifesaver when I have a migraine. Ironically sugar cancels that out for me, so I have maté cocido with a Tylenol when that happens. Also have it on really bad nights of sleep. Like any medicinal plant/substance, I try to use it moderately. Partially because I don't want the dependency. Mainly because I know the effect shrinks if my body gets used to it and can end up backfiring. But nothing has been more effective in dropping my migraines than getting rid of cheese from my regular diet (I can have it a few times a year). I curse the day that i figured that one out. Even if I feel better. With luv, BD

I'm talking about the text not the practice when I say this. It should be noted much of the SAD diet especially isn't living up to those standards period. It's heavily processed, pulled early from all over the world, and often super out of season (the overall vibes of the wow is definitely more fresh and whole foods in their proper seasons), and super meat heavy (I'm not going to debate that comma placement). It also is marketed more for the few food we heavily subsidize to support big ag (see the warnings of why the WOW is given), and is extremely limited in food diversity (again a general sense focuses on a brought range of herbs and grains and plants). And the blessing tied to it as you point out includes being able to walk and not be weary/run and not faint, and have treasures of knowledge even hidden treasures. Excessive sugar consumption fails on so many of these things. ....not that I never eat it. We all have our points of hypocrisy or failure in living up to wisdom. 😋 With luv, BD

You Can also make a strong case that that's against the word of wisdom too.

Ehh. Grandma wants coffee in the morning with her breakfast when she visits for a long stay. A used coffee machine and some basic coffee isn't what I'd call a gift and it isn't even rocking the bank much. It's similar for me to when my husband buys more meat than we usually get when his sister and/or mom visit for longer stays. Or when we bought completely different food for his brother's family that neither of us would want to eat because it was too sweet/processed. Groceries ain't gifts. I'm not going to police what people think is a meal. Besides, I've been a health freak long enough to know that heavily disrupting people's diets can be very miserable for someone. I like my guests to be comfortable. With luv, BD

We did the same for my grandma when I was a kid. FWIW I definitely don't feel the same about coffee or tea as I do with drinking or smoking. With luv, BD

COMPLETELY guessing, since the only one who really knows is your wife. But I'm wondering if the kids buys drinks thing being fairly recent was a bigger concession than she cares to admit and this event triggered her hurt of having what she feels and values in life being compromised. Logically agreeing to something isn't the same as emotionally accepting it. Quick reaction: I've never done it. Though to be fair,I have very few family members who drink that I'm close to. The only one currently is my brother and his wife. But they drink SUPER rarely after their heavy drinking early years led to an episode of alcohol poisoning. We don't usually buy each others' meals or drinks. Personally I probably would have had a food, no drink policy mainly because I'm cheap and never buy drinks period. It's water 98% of the time. The 2% I'd probably be willing to buy an equivalent alcoholic beverage for someone too. That said, I do have more emotional baggage around drinking. I think my bro has a healthy limit now, but I've seen a ton of the negative consequences from drinking and they've been pretty harmful in just the short term consequences, let alone the long term health ones. For me it's not at the level of ice cream and more like buying someone a gun (if guns were cheap...I know they're not). Or cigars I guess too. I get that all of those are very different. But I have similar emotional reactions to them in my body due to values I hold and they're Things I've heard being bought as high-end gifts to somebody. I don't buy these for other people and don't enjoy being around them. I can handle all of these in limited controlled circumstances...but don't purposely seek them out. With cigars, they can make me feel sick from the second hand smoke, so I really try to avoid that. But I don't like guns and don't want them in my house. If someone open carried, I'd insist they store their gun in their car while visiting. If someone loves a good wine, I'd say cool... I don't got that here. There are things that are me specific in health or beliefs that I have no problem with happening around me or buying someone something different. I'm a vegetarian....my husband and family regularly eat meat. I don't eat dairy often. They do. I'm a health freak. Most aren't or interpret that differently. On these, there are very few hard lines on things. Minus chuckarama. I will not eat that overpriced crap anymore and will bow out of family dinners that happen there. (No offense to those who like it). But again these emotionally register differently. Not consistently so...not always logically so. But as I mentioned above, logic and emotional reactions are two very different beasts. I think the more consistent value is a live-let live attitude and a limit to accomodations and respect of differences. I can respect a different choice as long as it doesn't directly effect me and my sense of safety/health in some way. I don't expect people to be excessively accommodating to mine and my daughters dietary restraints on the regular. I get that they're extra and may be limiting to the group. I don't have a need to show respect for other's choices that I don't actually value. I show respect by not insisting they live by mine, not enabling theirs. And I engage and support the parts of their lives that I can readily participate in. But again. That's just me. I should also note, gift giving isn't my love language at all to begin with. So some of this is purely hypothetical. I also am fairly independent oriented. Social acquiescence doesn't come naturally for me and annoys me. So validating others in their life choices when I don't really value said choices equally feels weird. With luv, BD

This may sound stalkery, but I do remember your story. It's something that still bothers me that they still remain a strained relationship at best with you and your partner. But yes, I wasn't kicked out of my family. It's a little harder to pull off to a baby. My mon did try to have me adopted out and it didn't work out. But that was largely for the single parent thing for what they tell me. So usually prejudicial stuff around race in family comes out differently. Either before one is born in the parents' interracial relationships, in off-hand comments or criticisms growing up, or when you begin dating and begin looking outside your family for another. I can pull out a bit of all three in mine. Most of them relatively light, though never comforting. I should note my family may have many many flaws to them, but they don't proactively shun due to the differences in race, religion, or queerness. So that particular wound will never be mine. They've had opportunities to do so with any of those areas. That's not to say they're always good engaging with those...but they're just not that variation of bad either. Pretending "perfect" image over imperfectly relating is a family choice mine didn't make. I really am sorry yours did. With luv, BD

Sorry this took a bit. It's a busy week in a busy period of life. Cuz of that, I haven't been able to read most the posts past this one. So if this is redundant, I apologize. As MS mentioned I don't think it's a waste of time to have you write what you did. It's a needed opinion/experience, even if there's points I may diverge on. If name calling has subsided that would indicate at least some change in attitude. Name calling infers some sort of derisive or derogatory attitude. I'm not assuming perfection or uniformity in this. But I do think that's shifted, slowed, and in many places become completely unacceptable. I would say that's not the only thing that's shifted. Talks have shifted, dehumanizing language has shifted, expectations on what one can and can't be has shifted, tolerance levels have grown too. Again, not uniformly and not perfectly. But definitely better. Because of that, to a lot of your questions I think the response would be dependent on the ward. I don't say that hypothetically, but based on the experiences LGBT+ members I've listened to. Of course, most (all?) of those were US based. I would expect even more variation based on where in the world they were meeting, reflecting the local cultural moors and values. Personally, if I had a magic wand, I would hope for kindness and a welcoming attitude in all of the questioned hypotheticals. Also, You may be confusing my experiences with notatbm's (I can't think of a gossip experience I've had related to race. I'm pretty bad at being aware of drama around me and am a bit of a wet blanket to it since I tend towards humanizing responses). This is the part we probably would diverge a little on. I've mentioned before (eons ago, I'm sure) that I don't think gay is the new black exactly. There's overlap, namely in that they're a group of people that have faced prejudice and limitations in our church. But there's key differences and those differences are probably going to effect how things unfold. For example, though I disagree or have concerns with our policies around LGBT folk, there's still more access points for service and integration into a church setting than would have been available to someone who looked like me pre 1978. There was nothing I could do "right" that would give me access to spaces that you at points likely did have and other gay/queer members do currently have. This was the severest cut based solely on who you are, not what I do or express. The limitations now are more expression-based. That doesn't excuse them as acceptable, but that shifts how we think of them and what it means in terms of policies. This issue will also stay relatively the same size within the church and can be both more personal or distant depending to one's access to family or friends who are some variation of LGBT. That's again, going to effect the pressures to change and engage differently. lastly there is several positive doctrines/practices that contradict with full incorporation of, say, a gay married couple. This is near the reverse experience for the black priesthood band, where there were clearer scriptural edicts that contradicted varying policies and interpretations that supported the ban. I think this will take a reexamination of how we think of a number of doctrines and practices that we currently have to meet that. It will likely be more complicated than the more simplistic policy that policies around African descended members took. I want to say more, but this is tangential and may be its own thread. Besides it's highly speculative on my end and I'm running behind. I also disagree with your timeline. Maybe? Who knows....Things can shift rapidly. And this may be on the list of things that rearranges to a better policy faster than we presume. With luv, BD

That makes sense to me. I think my only hesitation with fundamentalist is that it's used in the common context of the flds faith (which is obviously very very different). But it does better match the fundamentalist protestant movements at the time better. With luv, BD

Dude, you're whitesplaining racism to a biracial chic like this is a novel concept to me or something. I get it. You did dating "wrong" in the sight of your lily white community. I often was the wrong for others (first out-of-wedlock child born of a black man In a mixed and complicated family is not exactly a winning LDS pedigree over here). But I'm not really interested in playing racism olympics. What I see from you is that your experience is frozen in time and place. You're quoting something 40+ years ago from a book most now likely haven't read as if it equally applies today. And you're assuming what people thought and did half a lifetime ago has not shifted, softened, or changed in any meaningful way. Monson and Peterson aren't even alive anymore. They've been replaced by people from diverse backgrounds. And monson showed signs of shifting from his previous views well before he passed. This is also ignoring any evidence that maybe, just maybe, things have changed in 40-50 years. Dismissing the GA's and 70 in particular doesn't make any sense. They're often doing much the grunt work in guiding areas in the gospel, their voices are the majority of the messages given in GC, and it's often from this pool that leaders may pick a new apostle. On my mission, I never had an apostle come to talk to our mission. I definitely had 70's come though. They put a lot of trust in the running of the church in the 70's and they've purposely moved to try and increase regional representation. They've also expunged references to some form of condemnation of interracial/cultural dating, replacing them with several quotes disavowing seeing interracial marriage as a sin and labeling any form of racial prejudice as a sin that one must work out via repentance. But again, none of that counts because you've pigeon holed leaders into the quotes and views that hurt/disgusted you as a teen 40 years ago. That's not fair to them or you. It just fosters bitterness and it ignores the good that has replaced several of our bad fruits. Are we perfect? No. Many of the things you mentioned echoed experiences I had dating 10-ish years ago (married "late" by mountain west mormon standards). But it has improved. It continues to improve. I'm sorry you can't see that. Being stuck in the past is a painful way to live. With luv, BD

Thanks for the added context! I've read a couple history related books that touch on this a little, but I definitely don't have the fluency with this era to write what you did. I should add I do get why there's concern about a return to this time. It's had an extremely long influence in the church that gave us a culture and image of greater uniformity and deference than there once had been. And the more conservative (fundamentalist? Orthodox? You choose the word) take has taken a long time to balance out again as just a specific outlook in the gospel rather than THE gospel. Though of course, those most aligned or impacted with views of this era likely still see it as THE gospel. I don't think there is. All the books that I could think of that I've seen quoted or referenced on LDS podcasts were not from apostles. They're usually more scholarly or academic (ex. rough stone rolling, religion of another color, the givens' books, etc). I also don't know how much those have filtered outside the US and outside of English speaking areas in particular. It could be that the algorithm knows me and knows what I like and sticks with that. But overall I think we underestimate how much "the church" is an increasingly decentralized and local experience. How we interpret and engage with "the" church is dependent on what we were exposed to and view as valid/important viewpoints. Someone may have a very rigid, gate keeping, cautionary community/family/mentality and that becomes "the" church. Another may have a looser more exploratory relationship with religious doctrines and experiences in their local faith community/home and that becomes "the" church. Another may have a more pragmatic service orientation to it and that becomes "the" church. Etc. These varying expressions of our faith have varying streams of principles/voices that support and validate said views. But we often struggle to recognize that our way is only one way of engaging with our faith not THE way. Again there was a (long) period of time where a more uniform assumption about varying beliefs was common. That is not today. Nowadays a more simplified core doctrine is promoted (ex Christ as savior) and there's more diversity/flexibility in how that is expressed and what people find added value in. Where one finds that can be wide. From family, to a war/stake/branch, to a favorite podcast, to personal study and revelation, to a book, etc. Which again, is probably why I don't mind his calling. He's one voice in a sea. He's not the sea itself. With luv, BD

On Gilbert's calling: I can understand and think there's probably some credence for concerns mentioned. Realistically I don't think he'll be my cup of herbal tea come GC. He's not the first in our current line up of apostles that I struggle to connect with in terms of their talks. I've had a number of experiences that have helped prepare me for that disonnance between believing their calling is of God....while also struggling to connect with their most accessible expressions of said calling and disagreeing at times with certain conclusions or assertions they've made at times. It's taught me in its own ways as to how I see their callings in comparison to my own or others in theirs. I also don't think he was the only one who could have filled the job. There's others who likely were as well prepared or capable who weren't selected for varying reasons i'll never be privvy to. I do assume some of those reasons are practical (ranging from access to visas and movement in and out of the US to language capacities to things the current leaders clicked with). I'm not expecting to be pleasantly surprised and really love the guy. I'm also not assuming the worst case scenarios I've seen people jump to. Both of those aren't realistic conclusions IMHO. One specific is having someone like McConkie or having disproportionate influence in the leadership/culture of the church. That seems unlikely considering there are others already there with greater seniority who have very different outlooks and methods from him. No offense to him, but if his SLTrib interview is any indication, he also doesn't have as much charisma and dynamism as say McConkie to gather that much influence. Most apostles serve their terms well...but fade from memory and view over the years as they continue to shuffle in and out. We've had a little over 100 apostles in our Faith's history....I can only name or recognize a handful that didn't live within my time frame. I assume most are about as well versed as I am on history of the apostles. Having prolonged, distinct influence is rare and likely more and more difficult due to the shifts in how the quorum functions. Likewise, the likelihood of him being a prophet at some point is also slim. He's the youngest, sure....but not by much and there are several close to age to him with higher seniority. And either way that's a problem for a few decades from now. Plus the context of influence in the church as an apostle has shrunk due by sheer size of the faith. Back in 1979, when McConkie was an apostle the church was roughly 1/4 of the size today, far more homogenous, and more concentrated in a few areas of then world. That allowed and supported more uniformity in views and it was easier to reinforce that assumption in that era. That is not our time now. Lastly what it means to be "Orthodox" has also shifted over the years. And how that's discussed and presented likewise has shifted in ways that's extremely unlikely to revert back to. One man isn't likely to move that flow. Silly example: this man obviously believed in having a big family. His is big, even for Mormon Gen x standards. I'd be surprised if he doesn't mention the importance of family and children in a few talks to come. But that likely won't shift most people's family planning....and it definitely won't return us to families of 5+ kids. So I'm not excited, but I'm not willing to jump to conclusions about him either. With luv, BD

Again. You're working in an American mentality that heavily assumes race/phenotype = ethnicity. That is by no means a universal construct and falls apart in latin American countries. Soares is Latino from Brazil. He has mixed ancestry. His life experiences will be shaped by a very different cultural experience from yours as a white man from what sounds like the mountainwest in the US. Dismissing that because he "looks white" is offensive. Particularly to mixed people who often end up having to defend their identity because they don't "look" the way other people expect. I'm not doing a country breakdown. You can Google too. "Far out number" is a major stretch. Yes, and when I was born my white rural idaho/oregon family still called my Nigerian father a negro. I was the first person of African ancestry said family met. My great-grandmother told me stories with a sambo doll in "black voice." My mother was the first one I knew IRL who confirmed a belief about the mark of Ham being Black skin....because she still believed it. I have witnessed and heard countless other stories around race and ethnicity in the church much of my life. Racial issues in the church has been just as, if not more, personal for me. Maybe because of it, I don't enjoy narrating "the church" with a singular and broad brush. Anymore than I would right my relatives in such tones. Nor am I going to hold people to what they may have believed 50 years ago. It sets up as much of a false narrative as it would to insist the church has never had issues around race and/or has arrived in terms of racial relations. With luv, BD

Seeking beat me to it....but seriously, your reactionary posts are shooting whatever credible critiques you have in the foot. It just makes you look like a stereotype of what it looks like to be jaded with the church in one way or another. For the Record, Soares does not "look german"* And even if he did and was ancestrally german (he's not), he would still be a latino (not hispanic). Brazil is not hispanic (ie. of Spain) but is undoubtedly part of Latin American. He thoroughly fits the culture and ethnic diversity as a caboclo (mixed ancestry indigenous/portugese in brazil). Asian members are approx 1.3 million in asia. But you probably meant, asian americans which is 1%. But there are still more people of asian descent than what you note to insist they're over rep'd. I have my concerns with the Church in terms of diversity issues. But representation has been improving. As has outreach. They could do more, but our past is not the only thing that informs our present. Let alone our future. There are things in the current LDS apostleship and general authority make-up that would have had leaders like Peterson absolutely uncomfortable in their day. And what I experienced has shifted so much from what I grew up with as a teen in the church than as an adult now, 20+years later. *as an aside, my son is a mix of European, African, and indigenous american ancestry. He has similar coloration to Soares (and his dad, specifically). Our daughter when she was young looked asian...so asian that people kept asking if either of us had asian ancestry and a chinese man asked us if we'd adopted her from china, in broken english. She now looks like her indigenous american heritage the most. I mean this lovingly as a mixed woman of mixed children: looks don't say sh*t about cultural heritage. Judging it based on that is heavily a US cultural heritage of racism and strict racial lines. And it's also deeply ignorant. With luv, BD

I would not, without a second thought, report someone I think is undocumented in some way. No matter what the law says.@Calm noted qualifications that would make it more palatable. Knowing US history and current rhetoric, I wouldn't trust that those qualifications would have been met. I would absolutely find it immoral and unjust. Our canon holds a lot of teachings that I would feel bolstered in with. Namely the highest laws of love your neighbor as your self, that compassion and care determines who is your neighbor....not borders and status, that I am to exhibit to the fruits of the spirit - including long-suffering - and that against these, there is "no law." Etc. Questions like these have not been far away from my mind and heart for me for several months now. Realistically I have been balancing what I aspire to be to what I know I'm called to be right now. I haven't found a balance yet. I don't know what that will look like in the future. I value varying peoples at varying points who stood and fought for something better. To move a little away from a polarizing example, I find myself thinking a lot about the civil rights movements. The ones proactively in it. But I've also thought of the pragmatists who pushed a better life for their children and families by leaving the worst parts of the US....or the US entirely to give immediate advantage to their children. I should note, this also happened in europe during WWII as well. And likely any period of time where there is growing pressures that make a space untenable or unsafe. Personally those two options flirt in my head regularly: active engagement or leaving for a better future. Currently I choose engagement in my small ways. I don't know if that will be my choice tomorrow. I feel like I'm learning unspeakable lessons the last few years. Ones that people don't want to believe or think about. There's so much complexity in what's right or wrong. With luv, BD

No. Why? It's none of my business. I also wouldn't if I found out if they drove a little over the speed limit or have jay walked recently. As a therapist I don't need to do so for other things like drug use. So I wouldn't put a different/more rigid standard on my personal life than I'd have for my professional one. As long as they're not harming someone or putting others/themselves at risk, I really don't feel a need to tell on someone. As an aside, I also attend a spanish ward. I assume someone in my ward has overstayed a visa or something. Being here "illegally" is an extremely common experience and easy to fall into.

We don't claim to know an individual's experience in the after life for the most part. There's a few exceptions. Like we believe that anyone not fully accountable in one way or another are in paradise (babies, young children, people with severe mental impairments). We generally have a more universalistic tendency in framing the afterlife. More mercy and far less punitive oriented in terms of etiology. So spirit prison is more about correction and accountability than it is the classic vision of hell in mainstream orientations (as far as I'm aware of that). You can read a brief summary of what we generally know here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/spirit-world-study-guide?lang=eng I would note that wicked and righteous are not synonymous with LDS and not in our theology. At no point is religious affiliation really mentioned in any of these descriptions or scriptures. That's not how we define righteousness and wickedness.** It's about what you knew and what you did with that knowledge. Did you honor the light of Christ given to you? Were you receptive to receiving more when you felt the call for such? Those are questions that can't be answered by denominational affiliation. Lower down it also mentions that even those in paradise could be described as somewhat inprisoned. Not in the way that they're being tortured or in something hellish. But in the sense that there are limitations to their existence still. (Namely the continued separation of the body and spirit...within LDS theology we are not fulfilled until we are resurrected). What follows is just my personal beliefs and opinions based within an LDS context and my personal experiences. The 2 most formative experiences around this topic includes my grandfather and my twin girls who were born too early and passed. My grandfather was not a good man by any definition of that word. Let's just say he committed sins that scriptures talk about millstones and necks and oceans in reference to. His death, I assumed would be uneventful for me as I'd written him off years before then. Instead it taught me about God's love for Their children. I can to understand the love and deep sorrow and pain he caused them. And I learned that even for him there is redemption. But that must come with accountability and purging of said sins. It was humbling to realize God's greater capacity for forgiveness to my own. With my girls I came to understand the Joy that is heaven and the great mercy God has for all of us when it's difficult to accept God's will more than our own. That transcendant mercy has fundamentally shifted how I view others around me who struggle to change, grow, or let go of things that they need to. Including myself. Knowing God a little more from these experiences makes me firmly believe that most people will be gently welcomed home when they past. That they will be lovingly cared for in the corrections and healing we'll all need. And that even the worst, will be given chance after chance to let go of their sins and wrongs to find peace. I don't know what that means for an individual, but I trust that eternal loving balance. **I should note that I'm sure there are people who would disagree with me and interpret doctrines differently from me. They may even be pretty adamant about it. That doesn't make them more right or more of an authority. I mentioned this earlier, but it may have gotten lost in the posts. So I'll say it more explicitly. I don't believe we'll all be Mormon in the CK. Said less crassly, i don't believe we'll all be members of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints in heaven. Beyond just dc 1:30, I think of Jacob 4 a lot (it's a passage describe God's peoples as a vineyard of olive trees), I think of the Zion community described in the BOM after Christ's coming that led to the people to stop identifying via groups and to be known by Christ. We will one day find place and space in the kingdoms of God, those in the CK are part of the "church of the Firstborn." To me, the work we do in temples is similar to the mud and spit Christ used to heal blindness. And who it heals is not simply the dead. It's to bring us all together as one. Not under the unity of a specific earthly church but under the unity and wholeness found in Christ. With luv, BD

Realistically, that would be extremely hard to enforce and likely a little theologically circumspect. On the pragmatic: which decendant gets final say on an ancestor they likely have never met and what they want on the other side now? My great-grandmother likely has 1-200 direct descendents running around. Getting permission from all of those is untenable and if just one of those said no that would curtail everyone else who would have happily said yes. And the further out you go the more descendants you have to figure out with less real investment in the actual person and more investment about the presumed idea. I don't know my great great grandparents. I don't know most of my great-granparents. I would not feel comfortable saying I know what they wanted in their life...let alone what they want now in their afterlife. Theologically it feels really wrong. Remember that a baptism/endowment/sealing for the dead is at best a glorified invitation. It's not really a baptism like a person receives in any faith community here. No one is forcing the ordinance to be accepted on the other side at all. Some people may receive impressions that the work was accepted, but those aren't then put in a record book or something. Because we can't truly know here and now. This is likely tied to our beliefs in personal agency (everyone chooses their own fates basically). No one can or should be forced to accept an invitation. So we don't presume we can. For a simplified analogy, this is similar to someone knocking at someone's door as a missionary and inviting them to be baptized. It doesn't make the invited person a member all the sudden. We also believe that people can and do continue to grow and change on the other side. That includes ourselves. We do not believe we have a monopoly of eternal knowledge and becoming here on earth. That anyone really does. Even if at times we've acted like we do. Effectively what's being asked is that a family member ignore someone on the other side forever because a living descendant's discomfort with the invitation. And that we lock people into what they were and believed here forever or be locked into what their decendants believed they should be forever. Personally that makes me extremely squirmy. I presume I'll grow and change and expand in the next life. I have no clue what that means or looks like. I don't want someone else here to dictate what it should look like. Lastly we all know that the work we do here is imperfect. There's a common idiom that we have the millennium to fix up the mistakes and errors and misses. Because in the end we believe everyone should have full access to choose and become as they want and desire. Here or there. Whenever or never. So again, exceptions are rare for a reason. That said I do have my annoyances with how it's done. I had someone reach into one of my lines via some distant relative and start doing work for them. It wasn't even an actual relative, so when I corrected the tree the ordinances reset and were effectively voided. It's sloppy inviting, even though it's also pretty astounding how much of a data base they maintain. I should note, I hesitate to send this. I know right now especially, emotions are raw and untamed. Grief is a long long journey and experience that doesn't fully leave us. I'm certain it's there with you today. So If any of this offends you or hurts too much please just ignore it. It's not that important. With luv, BD

Hi Navidad. My compassion is towards you and your wife as you navigate the journey of grief you both are currently on. It is a strange and transformative experience to lose someone so close. I wish you peace and wellness in it. I haven't had enough time to read this whole thread. So what I say is likely to be redundant. If it is, feel free to ignore it. First, it's very very likely your son's work has NOT been done at all. Most people have to wait a year to be able to do work for the dead in the temple in any way, shape, or form. If they did, I would personally consider it void since it falls well out of the parameters and policies set in place by church leadership in charge of said work. It also does not live up to how the powers of heaven are to be used in dc 121. After the year mark, anyone doing your son's work would need to be a direct relative or have direct permission from you. Again without that, I would personally consider the work null and void for the reasons mentioned above. I saw that someone mentioned sooner or later the work will likely be done for him too. I get where they're going. On that...but later could be a ton later. Like after you and your wife are passed as well sort of later. With feasibly it happening way way way down the line past that too. Cuz again, you'd need a close living relative to sign off on that work if the person is recently deceased. I can't remember how recent off hand, but I know that it's recent enough that I can't do my great-grandmoth's work because there's living directly descendents that are closer to her in lineage than me who I don't have easy access to to ask (they live in Nigeria). I can't just do a hypothetical friend's work without some version of permission from their living family or theirs directly, before they passed. So again, a long wait at best. Also, if someone asks, you are not obliged in any way to say yes. "No thank you" is a perfectly reasonable response. Kay, that's mostly policy related stuff...this is just a couple doctrinal related stuff that's sprinkled with more personal opinion than anything. I personally don't think your son is being taught by "LDS missionaries." I think that's a common oversimplified vision of heaven that doesn't fit the revelations we have of heaven in D&C. For one, I don't think there's the delineation between say Adam, eve, or Moses, Paul, Phoebe, and Timothy, and Joseph Smith and President Nelson. They would all be part of the body of Christ. Or as d&c calls it the church of the lamb of God. Or similar to how there became no more -ites in the book of Mormon after Christ came. Baptism and other ordinances given in the temple does not make someone a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. What does it do? Based on what I experienced with my grandmother I think moreso, if it's wanted and accepted by the deceased, it just seals who they are and what they received in this life to Christ and to each other. As in I'm tied to my ancestors and they are tied to me in the same ordinances that tie us to Christ. I'm writing really fast between what my baby and meetings will allow, so if you want that explained a little more I hopefully can a little later. Again I wish you both peace and love in a difficult time. With luv, BD

No offense. But when I see this idea I think people have a simplified vision of what a prophet is. Let's take the BoM. There's actually not that many big prophets. You've got, Lehi, nephi, Jacob, jarom, enos in the early years. Of those, I'd debate that only Lehi and Nephi meet a Moses sort of level. Jacob corrected some stuff and quoted scriptures. Enos prayed for a lot of people and encouraged (fruitless) missionary work to the lananites. Jarom recorded some history and handed it on to his son. Then you have a HUGE gap of time where at most the book gives tiny blurbs from prophets (?) till you get abinadi and the Alma's. After them, the biggest prophets are probably Samuel and nephi/Lehi, Mormon/moroni. That's most of them in roughly 1000 years. It wasn't that there weren't prophets. It's just that their job was largely maintenance rather than some form of transition/transformative labor. and that's boring...so it barely gets mentioned. Most prophets simply aren't Moses level cool. Periods of massive transition IMHO need to be short if one wants to have sustainable growth in the long term. I think this may be part of why I don't have a fave prophet. To me the work is just another calling, no more or less important than the work I have or that you have. The stewardship may be more generalized....but it's a calling to help continue the work and community. What's been my favorites aren't individuals but the people who figured out a Zion society in one way or another. Of those few groups, the anti-nephi-lehites are my favorites. With luv, BD

I honestly don't think I have one. Not even a scripture based one. Funny enough, If I have spiritual witnesses for the apostles or prophets in their callings.... it's been for the ones that I end up struggling appreciating the most. With luv, BD

I don't disagree with you on this. Just said it differently.

Pretty sure I was either aware or am confusing him attacking dan with another guy he's gone after in the past. Either way...not surprised.

Do generally agree. The difference between Hanson and McClellan for me is a) actual credentials and b) I've learned things from McClellan. Hanson was more entertaining debate than educational for me. FWIW I also slowed on videos with mclellan because they were getting repetitive and I wasn't gaining much in terms of new info from him. But he still had a very singular lense/narrative for looking at the bible in particular. Useful and informative, but still limited and singular. Once I gleaned what I felt that I could from it, I haven't been super interested in listening to much more and I'm full on my roster of podcasts...so I don't get to that very often either (read as it's been months at least). I prefer variety in views over a uniform perspective anyways. I think the net positive is when both can be recognized as members of the church and realizing that there's a broad umbrella of practitioners within the faith. But I'm not a fan when a side encourages, even subtly that this is the more true way to be a latter-day saint. I know there are views and experiences that are skeptical of people like me "truly" believing or "really" representing the faith. And I'm not a fan of that. I think that can inadvertently become a net drag as it promotes a view that alienates people who will not see or engage with faith in a more standard member fashion. With luv, BD