Calm

Probably not if it never got posted at all or appeared to be stalled in saving mode. And definitely not if you had to verify you are human in some fashion shortly afterwards (though this doesn’t always happen to me). There is a glitch probably from the verification bot. Unless your posts need to be approved before they get posted for some reason. See bot rot thread in Social.

Every male in my family since my grandfather who has lived long enough has had that and lived many, many years afterwards. Prostate cancer is one of the most treatable cancers out there, especially when as early as you say. It is great to hear it hasn’t gone far. I thought Cyberknife would be robotic surgery, but it’s highly precise radiation treatment instead. Very interesting. Chat is saying it may even be outpatient. Sounds like a very good way to approach it. Good luck!

The King Follett Discourse is not canon. It was not created by Joseph, but by piecing together 4? different sets of notes that don’t agree on every point and somethings only one set of notes mention so there’s no way to really confirm it. Joseph never got a chance to review it to be sure it was remembered or interpreted accurately or to correct a misstatement. There are aspects that are part of doctrine now, but as a whole you shouldn’t assume this is even LDS belief. For example, one set of notes states Joseph said those who die as children stay children forever in eternity, which makes no sense given what other teachings are…my guess is it was misunderstanding Joseph when he was teaching parents would be raising their children who had died…raising them to adulthood and the full blessings of exaltation. Since exaltation includes eternal marriage, it seems unlikely that they would remain as children…unless physical form doesn’t matter that much to spiritual creation. *** https://website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/article_pdfs/The_King_Follett_Discourse.pdf ***I wonder if in a vision of the life to come Joseph saw such children…but if so, maybe he wasn’t told but just assumed they had that form because they had died at that age and never changed (it’s a reasonable assumption) and it was actually because as resurrected beings we have full control over our physical form and can be whatever age we desire. Maybe we get to be children again with a child’s delight in the world when the urge hits us. I think that would be wonderful.

This is from the board guidelines: Release for use: As a poster on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion you are granting us permission to use any material posted on this site whether it is multimedia or print and that you are the rightful owner of said material. Digital Millennium Copyright Act: We respect your intellectual property, if you feel that this site is violating your copyrights please contact us (Board Administration) by using this LINK. We do not host physically host any images here with the exception of avatars. Make sure your image is hosted here and not linked to another venue before making a request. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512©, to be effective, the Notification must include the following: (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit us to locate the material. (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit us to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an email address. (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. My suggestion is to contact nemesis through the report option; just report yourself in other words.*** You could ask nemesis for permission to use any material on the website and how they want it attributed. And then I would also contact the specific individual through the personal messaging option—or just on this thread if necessary as some posters don’t use the PM option—and ask their permission and how they want it attributed. As for me anywhere on the board, feel free to use anything I say without attribution as your own thought…because that is what it would be at that point. If you feel uncomfortable with that, just say something like ‘a friend said this’. It highly, highly unlikely I will ever publish anything personally beyond this board, so I feel no need to claim ‘original thinker’ on anything. Besides that probably wouldn’t be true anyway as likely my ideas come from others, just shaken up a bit ***This is not me telling everyone to use report if curious about something or to complain about some trivial thing. I would be careful on using it. Anyone using it for frivolous purposes or to harass Nemesis is asking to be banned imo.

I was right. This site loves me best.

I hope you get a chance to relax soon…or at least engage in activity that is rejuvenating for you. Seems like it’s been one thing after another for you for awhile now. And that your and your wife’s life has more joy and less struggle for you both.

I assume you are thinking given the women’s experience with church leaders, first pretty much ignoring complaints and substantial evidence and then the higher authorities placing confidentiality for the predators over resolution (healing) for the women who were their victims, that telling these women to “stay the course” when they likely feel the leadership hasn’t is problematic. Nude pictures were published and apparently not denied as fake or stolen. Why is that not definitive? (Serious question, not a challenge) added: never mind, I found an article that said he denied it, calling the claims and photos a political hit job. Maybe I missed that in the video: https://www.thedailybeast.com/home-wrecked-wife-slams-swinger-trump-endorsed-candidate-mark-lamb/ Kind of shocked there is no mention on his wiki page.

I never log out, so it makes sense it happens on occasion just to doublecheck. I might start logging out and in if it can guarantee only when I log in.. I am pretty sure I accept cookies from here.

Hopefully you will check back in but on the Bot thread Nemesis says….

Interesting. Never occurred to me to think of it that way***, but now you say that, I can imagine a lot feel as you do on this. ***I am guessing because for me “sibling” has never equated to “closeness” as outside outside of one sister in the last 35 years, my relationships with my siblings aren’t ones I see as “close” which I see as confidants, best friends. I have had very few close relationships in my life. I have always loved my siblings, but for the most part even as kids once we were going to school, we lived our own lives. Our interests have always been very different.

In what way?

It loves me, I guess. I haven’t had to do it except for the first few days. I have to verify I am not a not a robot with a checkmark in the general vicinity of an alleged box (I often can’t see one) if I have not been posting or reading for awhile. I do still lose posts if I am too long in responding. Sometimes it’s in the buffer, sometimes I hit submit and it’s like it never existed, but it still doesn’t do the verification until a few more clicks. That is extremely frustrating. Do you stay signed in?

That may be because they want to avoid awkwardness (someone who doesn’t know them might misunderstand or it just feels too intimate outside of the context of church) rather than they don’t think of them as “brothers” or “sisters” for the same reason they call others that. It isn’t something I have discussed with other LDS, but just assumed though because of our constant referencing of everyone being a child of God. I act differently, more relaxed with my sister who I text with constantly, who stays with us whenever visiting Utah (we think of the spare room as pretty much her bedroom) than I do with a sibling who has pretty much disowned the family except for their own sweet children (none of us understand why), but both are still my family, so it’s understandable to me why there would be different comfort levels even as we see everyone as family. I suppose you could describe it as we most often use “brothers” and “sisters” for those of our greater family with which we are on friendly terms, but I speculate it’s mostly influenced by the church context. If someone comes to church, we get into the habit of calling them “brother” or “sister” and continue to think of them in that way outside of church…unless we use first names. added: somehow I missed several posts, including webbles’ which gives another POV than mine, I am now reading them. One thing I have learned over the years is while we members often assume we are doing and thinking the same things, there are often significant unseen differences. A lot of people in and out of the Church assume we are pretty much cookie cut when that is more a like a top layer of similarity, imo, because we are encouraged not to be contentious, to be loving and accepting and that gets interpreted into no questioning or debating (and given how debates occur in much of the public sector, it’s reasonable imo to want avoid them). I think based on my personal experiences of talking to other Saints here and elsewhere that a lot of us do the same things for different reasons and when it comes to nuances in our belief, quite varied even if the basic stuff sounds the same.

Perhaps Longview is thinking of the “one being” part of “one being, three persons”. That seems to be what most LDS in my experience focus on.

Would be helpful to know what then Elder Oaks meant by “a personal God”. I am assuming he means a God who is a person, meaning some sort of individual that interacts with humanity and other aspects of the universe. But apparently he is right according to Google (not familiar enough with enough faiths to not depend on “search”). Supposedly those who see God as more guiding principle, force or energy or something that does not intervene/interact with humanity include Christian Scientists, Christian Deists, some more liberal Quakers***; supposedly Process theologists do, though I want to check that as just because God changes as he interacts with the universe doesn’t need to require he be non-personal, just a redefinition of what personal has traditionally meant….seems like Google is confusing a rejection of some of the traditional beliefs about God with a rejection of all of them. (Yep, googled erred there, I am so shocked!!!…not) ***since Quakers have no creed, there is likely a huge variety of beliefs beyond the fundamental core beliefs held by various Quakers. From actual Quakers: https://quakerspeak.com/video/what-do-quakers-believe/ https://www.discoveringquakers.org.uk/blog/exploring-quaker-experiences-that-of-god-in-everyone

LDS would probably (meaning I say this and am assuming most of my fellow Saints would as well or at least agree if asked if true) say “God is bound by his own word, by his promises and his laws”. We might debate (I don’t know how many would agree or disagree with me on this) whether or not it is strictly his choice to be bound by laws though. (I lean towards it is his choice, but that is today…hit me tomorrow with the same question and I might say ‘God is God because he understands and obeys the laws of existence so well’). Are they his laws because he created them or his because he affirms and uses them so well to achieve what he desires for himself and others? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82?lang=eng&id=p10#p10

Everything in life ultimately does (channeling Mfb).

That would depend on what they believe “brother in Christ” means. To me, it’s another sincere Christian, whether they have the same covenants as I have or not, so there would be no need to cringe. But that is also not how I personally use “Brother” or “ Sister”. I don’t add in my head “in Christ” on to it. Would you cringe if someone spoke to you in Spanish (I am assuming you understand it even if you might be more fluent with English)? Why would you cringe if people say Brother or Sister with a different interpretation than you if you understood what they meant even if it’s not what you would mean if they said it? LDS think of all mankind as part of God’s family. I believe that is how we generally view why we call each other “Brother” or “Sister”. Any time I use Brother or Sister, it’s how I mean it…which means pretty much everyone who has ever existed fits that title. I think I might choose not to use it for sons of perdition, who knowingly have rebelled against and rejected God, basically disowning themselves from his family, but otherwise I feel comfortable using it for anyone as long as they are comfortable with me calling them that. Added: I don’t believe Joseph Smith limited his use of Brother and Sister to only church members, but I am going off a vague memory. Maybe someone else who is more familiar with his comments can confirm or correct me.

It’s not an all or nothing thing. We are on a path to eternal life. Our journey is not complete simply because we are baptized into the Restored Churcchh or even when we receive our endowment and sealing.*** Whatever has kept you on the path has, imo, been part of the Lord blessing you with eternal life, but there is more we need to do to access and make use of it, imo. Think of it as God giving you a car as soon as you first seek him out as a promise of what the future will bring, but the more we turn to him, the more we align our will with him, the better access we receive (keys to start it, fuel to make it move) and skills we develop (how to drive, how to care for it), so eventually at judgment, whenever and whatever that is, we get to drive off into the sunset happily ever after (whatever that means in the eternal sense). Or maybe a train is a better analogy as I believe exaltation is about journeying the eternities together. ***seems like Joseph taught it wouldn’t be complete until long after death: ”When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation.” There is nothing that indicates the rungs are in an identical order for each person as far as I am aware. A nonmember may have climbed up further than an member imo even if they haven’t yet crossed their rung of baptism for remission of sins while the member might have practically started their climb with that as one of their first rungs. Added: it occurred to me I needed to make a clearer point that LDS don’t see a blessing or ordinance as only exclusively coming from one thing, that blessing or ordinance, though that ordinance may be necessary to receive the blessing….but other things are as well. While baptism blesses us with eternal life, it is only part of the process, a step on the way. You may have a patriarchal blessing promising certain things, but other factors, choices you make in life may delay those blessings until the next life. Healings may not immediately come. Of course this can be said to be an excuse to cover up failures when promised blessings don’t appear, which is possible, but it also makes sense given our doctrine of agency, etc. that blessings are rarely that linear.

I don’t understand the reasoning unless Pres Kimball meant they actually believed they didn’t have the truly needed authority. Blasphemy seems to be intentional to me and believing one has any necessary authority for an ordinance one believes is proper hardly seems like blasphemy. Be interesting to see if he had the same belief as president of the Church. We discussed the quote here if you recall: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71519-a-spencer-w-kimball-quote-on-blasphemy/ I do believe sinning in ignorance includes not truly believing something is a sin as well as not being aware of the law.

To baptize him for a remission of sins, membership in his Restored Church, and unto eternal life…no, he had no authority to do so. Authority to baptize him as a testament of his belief in Christ, why wouldn’t he have that? I just don’t think LDS think of baptism in that way, but since we believe in different ways of testifying of our belief, why can’t baptism be one of them?

I do wish that we wouldn’t typically talk about others’ baptisms as meaningless or invalid, improper and only state other forms of baptism are invalid in a limited context, that of our authorized ordinance pertaining to membership in the restored Church, which ordinance contains specific forms of remission of sins (sanctification and purification occur in other ways as well even if this form is eventually necessary if seeking exaltation) as well as taking on Christ’s name in a specific way (others may take on his name in other ways, like declaring themselves to be Christian and testifying of him, acting as his hands in charitable works). We are so used to thinking of baptism in only one way for ourselves, forgetting we used to be rebaptized for multiple reasons, as a testimony of our commitment, for healing (maybe for other things I have forgotten or don’t know about), that we have taken the next step of insisting it is the only way to baptize for anyone…which leads to unfounded claims that ancient Jews and ancient Americans baptized in the same way as we do now if we hear of ancient fonts or purification rituals. Even if we claim your baptism is valid for the purpose for which you yourself claim for it, I am guessing you still wouldn’t be baptized in our faith for the specific purpose of our ordinance because of our claim it serves a salvific purpose (it is commanded of the Lord in order to receive certain blessings from him) because you see this belief as to fundamentally wrong. aside: I really don’t understand if any Saint said your baptism couldn’t serve as a testimony of Christ. Am I correct in believing even if rebaptism to join a Lutheran congregation is acceptable, rebaptism to join an LDS congregation (the global one) is not in your view? You said you would be baptized if joining a Lutheran congregation, but I don’t know the specific claimed nature of Lutheran baptism to be sure if the same sort of thinking could be applied to an LDS baptism.

Defining means creating and/or explaining the meaning of something in this case. 1) Do you see baptism as part of explaining to others what one’s relationship is with God? 2) Or do you see it as adding something to the relationship, adding meaning in some way? Being baptized does more in this understanding than just telling others what one believes, but it also does something to one’s relationship with God (as marrying someone changes the relationship to something more than just living together for most people). If you see it as adding meaning, how does baptism add meaning to the relationship in your view? Perhaps it does both 1 and 2 in your view?

Very well stated, imo. I love the “covenantal anchor”. That’s the idea I have been looking for forever.

Rather than “improper”, I would use “non-procedural” or “non-authorized” perhaps because how can a baptism be “improper” if it achieves the purpose it was done for…in Navidad’s case, they are witnessing their faith in this way. Seems like the act is itself fulfilling that purpose, it’s proper for that purpose as would be any other baptism that is meant to stand as a witness of faith for the person being baptized. Even in infant baptism, seems like it would be proper if intended as a witness of faith of the parents.