Calm

Cool

If you don’t want it, God won’t force it on you.

I actually think that’s a perfect response. Very in context. Very insightful I would even say when you think about it.

Would love to hear from those who believe in Satan and his devils tempting us how they see this happening, how they tell when it happens to them. I am serious, not mocking. I think it’s a possible explanation and it was the one I grew up with at church (one topic of our faith that didn’t get discussion at home) and definitely expected and visualized, but it just doesn’t feel orderly, ‘right’ in the way God’s actions in my life feel very solid, fitting….puzzle pieces that actually fit. I have sensed the presence of evil in my life once and it scared me big time***, but I never felt a sense of someone trying to tempt me to do wrong outside of those I could see and touch or thoughts that seemed alien to me while I have felt pretty constantly a caring presence I identify as God that makes me feel very secure. ***My guess is I was somehow aware of a peeping tom who was later caught in the neighborhood (not that night, several weeks or months later). The bushes by one of the windows of the basement I was staying in were flattened, but not broken as if an adult size body laid on them looking through the window…but I admit they might have grown that way for some odd reason.

Btw, I am not trying to convince anyone Satan doesn’t exist, do whatever works to keep you making good choices, but I know of those who do not view the existence of Satan as reasonable (who tempted Lucifer to become evil if he is the author of all that is evil?) . I find it more intelligent, rather than dump the idea of temptation, to view ourselves to being prone to fill the role of Satan ourselves, in essence we become Satan tempting ourselves and tempting others to increase our sense of power and glory, just as Lucifer did when he gave into his own evil desires becoming. I think it’s detrimental to dismiss the belief that we aren’t influenced by actual evil. I also believe there were those who rebelled against God in the preexistence. Certainly could have had a leader who was a son of the morning. I lean against the idea that those beings devote their entire existence to trying to tempt others, that we are surrounded by hordes of these trying to possess us, etc. Open to the possibility it’s more than an allegory for our mixed up, screwed up internal state, but don’t see it as required to explain reality. And it doesn’t come across as the act of a loving and reasonable God to me even if “opposition” is necessary for growth. Evil appeals to the natural man in many ways, covetous feelings are probably the biggest source of evil in the world imo and that comes from desiring what others have, including power, and believing we have a right to ‘have it all’ no matter what harm it brings to others (the ultimate arrogance imo). Some rather than working with each other so all can achieve ‘having it all’ in oneness with God, those who choose to listen to the temptations work only for themselves ultimately, even if they hitch themselves to others temporarily as short cuts to power or wealth. I think the world would be a much better place if we all got in the habit of asking ourselves first “am I harming anyone by pursuing this desire?”. PS: interestingly enough, as soon as I posted this post, the only two songs out of 20 referring to the devil came up (shuffled, but it’s not that long of a playlist as it’s only songs with a strong, consistent drum beat for distracting me from RLS sensations, so not saying it’s spooky odd, just fun odd). Both portray a devil to taken very seriously, even if internal. And isn’t Satan portrayed as whispering in our ear? What dialogue is more persuasive than our own destructive self talk? The first was Dance with the Devil by Breaking Benjamin, an allegory for the “destructive cycle of addiction”. It has some perfect lyrics, imo. ”I believe in you I can show you that I can see right through All your empty lies I won't stay long In this world so wrong… Feeling your cold dead eyes Stealing the life of mine.” Second was Awaken from League of Legends. According to AI: “It shows that life is fragile, forcing people to make hard choices when fate hangs in the balance”. (Lifeless description, but works) “The night beckons while you dream A life never lives in peace As you stand upon the edge Woven by a single thread And fate may fall down upon you While the devil is knocking Right at your door So all you restless Each night you hear the drums of war Awaken, awaken The voice begins to call you while you hunger A taste of destiny you're searching for Awaken, awaken The fight is at your door, take up the cause.” I find these portrayals as more intimidating, more arresting than the temple portrayals where honestly Satan came across as more self dramatizing blowhard to me. (Props to the actors who did their best with the context, they can’t do complicated subtle portrayals under such circumstances). I know how hard it is to ignore my self doubts and rationalizations while I find it pretty easy to dismiss others’ criticisms and flattery for the most part (except criticism from loved ones, but I never considered Satan in that category as he hasn’t earned it).

If the author of all evil is the natural man (not only the physical, but spiritual and emotional) that is part of our nature, the part we are taught we must overcome (Mosiah 3:19 iirc), seems to work fine in my view.

He is just following your logic.

I find this to be quite sensible.

Except I am not saying there is no devil, I am saying we all have parts of us that are devilish. I am for personal accountability of the evil we do, not blaming evil on someone else. I don’t believe scriptures are meant to be history books, but rather teach us about ourselves and God.

I would add one more, the Gospel Principles manual as it provides a very easy to read coverage of our doctrine, the closest thing we have to a catechism or manual for systematic theology. This edition trimmed some excess speculation imo and is more dependent on scripture for support than in the past. Still uses quotes from leaders, but not as much.

Thought some might be interested in this. I came across it due to Church Historian Press email (see link for their article below) that mentioned Spencer McBride’s short presentation analyzing the pamphlet. I was hoping they would include that, but unless I am blind it wasn’t listed. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/general-smiths-views-of-the-powers-and-policy-of-the-government-of-the-united-states-circa-26-january-7-february-1844 https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/article/newsletter/2026-july Here is a podcast McBride did on a related subject: https://mi.byu.edu/podcasts/maxwell-institute-podcast-132-joseph-smith-for-president-with-spencer-mcbride Here is a text of a nonLDS interview with McBride for his book: And a couple of positive reviews of his book (it’s been out for several years, I am just putting this up because I can’t find his analysis of the pamphlet recently done. I am assuming it is thoroughly discussed in his 2022 book): https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/of-prophets-and-presidents/ https://lawliberty.org/book-review/religious-liberty-put-to-the-test/ And found a different individual’s thesis on JS and religious liberty from Claremont:

Okay, that’s weird. Have those been confirmed as valid yet?

I think the sum total of the opposition we have towards God because of the natural man supplies sufficient opposition. 1000 1 kg weights are equivalent in weight to 1 1000 kg weight.

My choice…Lord, Is It Mine? by Supertramp Even in the Quietest Moments would be another good one except it is a bit ambiguous and could be either romantic or spiritual.

In this case might have saved the man’s life.

Loooove the analogy.

Unless “God” is both plural and singular or rather an individual and collective noun (sort of like “deer” or “sheep”, but not exactly that ); after all, we have God the Father and God the Son, both are God are they not? This is my POV, not doctrine… If the Father, Son, Mother, and Spirit are truly perfectly one with each other (whatever that actually means to God), then it also makes sense to see them as One.

I don’t understand how his comparison works then.

Surely water towers are given exceptions since they are both public utilities and height is an requirement for it to function. Neither is true for the temple.

Pure speculation: If Bullock was just taking notes and not attempting to do verbatim, then it makes sense that he might add his own thoughts of what it meant to add context. I remember doing this when taking notes in college classes, adding stuff the words of the professor triggered, not always just what he said. And there is a good chance I didn’t mark it as additions, relying on my then excellent memory to differentiate. Bullock phrasing it as speech could have been him thinking about how he would discuss it with Joseph later. Not pure speculation: I believe Wilford Woodruff may be another example of this as his notes on the discourse in his journal may have editorial comments, similar to what I am suggesting for Bullock. I don’t believe we have his original notes to compare, (I have seen this speculation by someone else), but he is known to have revised his notes when transferring them to his journal at least sometimes. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-2-july-1839-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff-a/1#historical-intro We even have the evidence of George Watts who is known to have added his own thoughts to stuff being published under Brigham’s name, not just in Watts’ personal notes. Standards of recording others’ comments for publication just weren’t as rigid back then unfortunately (and I do see it as unfortunate as I believe significant error crept in because of it). An expert’s opinion on accuracy of that time: https://fromthedesk.org/journal-of-discourses-shorthand/ Precision is the exception, not the rule. If they were typically willing to play around with shorthand where they had a chance to be precise, makes sense they were relaxed with longhand notetaking as well.

They can also cause skin irritation, especially if skin with the sap on it is exposed to sunlight…which makes using fig leaves to cover ‘nakedness’ not the best choice. 😛 Had to keep the title attached, lol I include this under “things that show just how evil Lucifer can be”…

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113398-troubling-allegations-against-former-sheriff-in-pinal-county-az-church-mbr/page/5/#findComment-1210271079 Since you appear to be explaining your process as part of helping me better understand your reasoning and comments, I am going to point out an example of how I often don’t feel listened to because you appear to respond as soon as you think of a response without further reading. This is not an issue in and of itself, I do this a lot. But then when I realize the point gets covered, I go back and edit my remark to reflect the additional information/comment. But it appears you on occasion at least don’t go back and remove questions or points that are dealt with later in my post even when you quote clarifications as well later on, so sometimes it appears you are not reading for understanding or maybe just not paying attention, ie “listening” to the rest of what I say once you form an idea about a specific comment I made. Could you clarify what you mean here? In the above link you quote my first sentence and then ask me to clarify it. But I already did that immediately following my question. “As in…” is a phrase that introduces a clarification. You then follow the request for clarification with a significant amount of response with additional questions that have nothing to do with my own point since I wasn’t talking about collective guilt, but a collective duty as is clear in my “as in” addition. My post that precedes yours that is linked above: Can you explain what is happening in your post as a response to mine? PS: I had brought up this behaviour before, but finding an example was too time consuming and I understand it can be hard to understand a criticism without an example of what is being criticized. I got sensible and kept track of one in case it came up again, so you would understand what I was talking about. I just have the one, so I hope it’s enough.

They can be both at the same time, like flags and clothing may be.

A major clue to whether or not someone is listening to engage or there to argue. I don’t find arguments that interesting. They tend to be repetitive lists of talking points that often are shallow. I find engagement fascinating and fun.

It would be a good idea if you were upfront about articles you are not trusting in this way as sometimes, I will be blunt, you come across as way too uncritical about some links you post, something I have in the past found surprising. I think everyone should be clear on what materials they are accepting as valid and what ones they have doubts on so others don’t waste their time or get sidetrack because they misunderstand the purpose of why someone posts something or gets the wrong impression that someone is more gullible on a topic than they really are.