Calm

This rates AI treatment most likely, so here’s what it said: The claim usually combines several extraordinary assertions: A modern Catholic man has a birthmark in the shape of a Christian symbol (often claimed to be a cross or Chi-Rho). Catholic saints allegedly predicted centuries ago that a king in the 21st century would bear this exact mark. The prediction is supposedly part of a Vatican-approved miracle or apparition. The same source is said to have correctly predicted World War I, World War II, and other historical events. There are several reasons to be skeptical: No recognized Vatican-approved prophecy matching this description. I could not find any Vatican-recognized apparition or miracle that includes a prophecy about a 21st-century king identified by a specific birthmark. “Vatican approved” is often used inaccurately. In Catholicism, approval of a devotion or pilgrimage does not necessarily mean the Church has declared every associated prophecy or message to be supernatural or historically accurate. The Vatican’s current process is quite cautious. Predictions of WWI and WWII require careful dating. Many alleged prophecies only appeared in writing after the events, were edited later, or are vague enough to fit multiple outcomes. Historians generally require that: the prophecy can be shown to have existed before the event, the wording is specific, and it wasn’t substantially revised afterward. This issue has been discussed even for famous Catholic prophecies such as those associated with Our Lady of Fatima. If someone claims to have “proof via pictures,” photographs only show that a birthmark exists—they do not establish that: the birthmark was predicted centuries earlier, the historical documents are authentic, or that the interpretation is correct.

Not the Catholics I know, I bet.

As someone who has lived almost 7 decades, an observation or three….don’t look for a spouse to make up for your own deficiencies, to help you do what you aren’t willing to do on your own. Good chance even if they try, it won’t work. You need to be the mover of your own efforts, not someone else. Leaving it for someone else is setting up for resentment and massive frustration. I truly hope you are not waiting to work on living a healthy positive lifestyle until you meet her. As someone who sees a healthy lifestyle as extraordinarily important***, I wouldn’t want to start from scratch or have to fix the error filled ideas and preferences about nutrition of my spouse. Been there, done that and our kids are suffering for it because I also wanted a happy, loving home (got this big time) as well as a healthy one. My parents always worked together for as long as I can remember teaching us kids and being examples when it came to health (and many other things). That is what I wanted for my kids, but I thought it would come quick enough because it seemed obvious to me it was the better way. But my kids followed my husband’s patterns rather than mine when it came to health and there is still the store bought crap food in our pantry even after almost 50 years of marriage. I wouldn’t mind if it was saved for treats, but it’s the dominant eating habits (skip the veggies, salads, fiber). And this is even with a daughter who is diabetic, my husband was willing to stuff the healthy meals I made in the refrigerator (which I got to eat as leftovers so it wasn’t a waste of money) while he made them Kraft, hot dogs, ran out for fast food, etc. My guess is given his own childhood of having to eat whatever his mom (who was from Down Under and depended heavily on canned food) put in front of him (eight kids and not a whole lot of money), he didn’t want his kids or himself to feel cheated. So my kids never learned to try and like new things, learn how to cook stuff they didn’t like in ways they did like, etc. My husband provided a lot of good things for our children, including what I married him for (the kids would know they were loved and accepted and interesting as they were as well as how to have fun as my parents were very focused on projects, improving us, which was both good and bad). So for anyone who is concerned about health I would advise choosing someone who is pretty close to your own patterns already rather than assuming you can convert them even if they seem willing to be converted (they may think they are, but can’t give up what comforts them). I suspect these days if such is important to someone, they will assume it needs to be important to their partner It is easy to see these days what happens when partners have conflicting approaches to major aspects of life. Which means if someone wants a partner who lives a healthy lifestyle and can create a healthy home, that someone needs to be showing they are striving to do the same right now. All the above also applies to mental health issues. If a potential spouse is not actively working on their own emotional health in the here and now, don’t assume they will be able to adapt working with you in the future. There will be a good chance that whatever blocks that exploration now on their own will continue to block them once married. Go to couples therapy before marriage, not think of using it only if needed sometime in the future. And if you are the one desiring someone to heal you, start trying to get there on your own as much as possible. First off, why wait when you can gain benefits now? Second, you need to have worked the ground so the seeds will grow when they get planted or your spouse’s efforts will be useless. ***because of chronic health issues, it’s much more important to me than it was as a young adult and I grew up on cottage cheese and made from scratch meals, never had Kraft fluorescent macaroni until I was in college and have eaten it less than a handful of times in my life, was taught and involved in nutrition, exercise, etc since at least ten years of age as my mother was grinding her own wheat, storing almonds bought from orchard stands and driving over an hour to get to a health food store in Oakland when there weren’t that good of ones on the Peninsula yet, while my dad hit the wharf for fresh fish and crab and produce warehouses for the freshest fruit in bulk so Mom could fix it for massive fruit salads and could freeze it for smoothies.

I am with you in how I categorize my sources for my personal use. In discussion with others about the Church’s teachings and doctrines, I abide by leadership’s*** definition: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine (so they apparently changed the title of the article, but wisely left the url the same to avoid breaking links) ***yes, this is the newsroom and the PR dept is only overseen, not staffed by Apostles, so I don’t take everything that comes from the newsroom as the ultimate word on a topic. But given this article’s purpose and discussions around it, my assumption is this got vetted by not only the legal department as well as the higherups in the Newsroom, but also by actual apostles and highly, highly probable that the First Presidency was very hands on with it, given the article’s importance in presenting to nonLDS as well as LDS what counts as doctrine (if written poorly, that could have negative impacts on lawsuits as well as how reporters describe our teachings, etc).

And infinite points in between each value. However, that is not how the infiniteness of the Infinite Atonement is taught these days….limited to only the earth or this universe…unless other such beings from other creations do not qualify as human. My bold https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-and-doctrine-of-the-book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/lesson-5-the-infinite-atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng It is possible “created by him” should have been added to “all humankind”, but if so why was it added to the second case of “worlds” and not the first as would be usual practice imo. Why be precise for worlds and yet be vague for surely the more important and relevant to us “all humankind”.

I could have written this….though with a lot more words probably, lol.

Don’t we all…

The problem is whose interpretation of canon is this standard? For example, Joseph F. Smith, who you state promoted the standard you present, called Talmage and Widstoe, two scientists, and another apostle who was an engineer whose name I always forget. These three and the other apostles were directed to work closely with another scientist at BYU to study evolution and other scientific descriptions of creation with Talmage giving an address in the Tabernacle on the subject iirc that was then highly promoted by the Church at the time. At the same time Joseph Fielding Smith published an article in the Utah Genealogy Society’s magazine iirc condemning such teachings as false doctrine. This was the minority view among the Apostles at the time with three being anti evolution and the rest supported of a more scientific paradigm, not treating scripture as a science textbook, but JFS lived longer than the other apostles and his influence on this grew and survived longer. He even claimed Talmadge’s publication was unauthorized even though it had been published by the Church. Thus his view became the dominant one and was perpetuated as doctrine by him as well as Bruce R McConkie and their followers to the point there was some rather foolish nonLDS stuff (because Joseph Fielding Smith chose to depend on others and not fellow apostles for his beliefs about creation) printed in the Genesis section for the relevant institute manual and even today there are members who condemn LDS professors and BYU as a whole for teaching evolution, etc. https://benspackman.com/2023/08/the-power-of-good-historiography-or-how-joseph-fielding-smith-unwittingly-undermined-joseph-fielding-smith/ (I didn’t review this link and other articles by Ben before I posted the above from memory, so I may have some minor details wrong). How would you resolve this conflict in interpretation on what is our actual doctrine surrounding creation given the insistence of JFS there was only one plain interpretation of scripture all should arrive at from what had been revealed? BTW, I have not read your paper yet, I might if your answer to this question interests me and shows a less simplistic view than it currently appears to me you are promoting, which given the very limited data I have examined—just what is in this thread—I recognize I may be mistaken.

How do you establish “revelatory purity”?

Are you certain of that given how little we have of his life?

I was honestly wondering if the first one was satire.

Weird? Not so much among the rich, famous and/or powerful. Just need to look at the White House, Trump was 58 when he married a 34 year old. Harrison Ford was 67 when he married a 22 year old. Michael Douglas 56 married Zeta-Jones 25. Steve Martin 62, 26 year old bride. Teens marrying at all is much less common today and that would not likely be seen as acceptable now even among public figures who were in their 20s. Back then teens married much more often, though a very wide age gap was not usual. Besides, pointing out significant age gaps existed in monogamous married as well as plural ones is hardly attempting to try and normalize plural marriage, it is just being accurate and supportive of focusing on what was really peculiar about the institution…multiple wives. I think attempting to normalize plural marriages would be something more like pointing out men often had multiple mistresses or went to prostitutes, something that has been used to justify plural marriage in general by some. I don’t see using examples of immoral practices the morality of somewhat related practices as that great of an argument myself. It shifts the justification in this case from religious dedication to encouraging weakness in some men rather than encouraging those men to actually change gain self control. A better secular justification for plural marriage if religious dedication is seen as irrelevant (since religious belief is subjective) is not to try and normalize it, but to show it was effective for spreading the wealth some given there was a pattern for immigrant women without family to support them to actively seek out plural marriage when arriving in Utah, getting engaged and marrying in less time than non immigrant, etc. in monogamous marriages (Kathryn Daynes showed this for at least one area, unfortunately FAIR doesn’t have her presentation up online for reasons beyond our control). I think a better option would be to have a social support system that did not require marriage to make use of it, but that’s not how cultures operate for women typically when the majority is living closer to subsistence.

It reads that way to me as well as in someone who works for the store that is mentioned is going online to drive up traffic, but then rereading some of the other posts in the thread I considered they may just be offering some experience to help set up emergency plans in wards (small chance, but possible). Though the issue is how they found a dead thread if not looking to post a specific topic. And if looking for a specific topic leans more to spam though maybe they were doing research on emergency plans in wards (very small chance I am thinking). @wesleygraham, how about sharing how and why you found this thread and posted your post?

That wise and wonderful reason could be simply because it’s fun. Play is serious business in my view. “Man is that he might have joy.” There is great joy in creation as artists and other creators may be able to convey to you if you haven’t experienced it for yourself.

It’s possible. It’s also logical that she was the first that the Father assisted to reach exaltation so he would be complete since LDS do not see completion until one is part of an eternal couple, sealed in marriage and therefore her path was unique as possibly was the Father’s. It is even logical that they worked together as one to become the first Creators rather than the Father reaching the heights completely on his own, thus establishing why exaltation requires eternal companionship of male and female.

I want my early 20s, back when my body felt almost normal and I could sleep through the night.

Thanks for the cue up.

If they are comparing other spirits to Jesus’ age, then that’s mid30s. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-15?lang=eng Couple that with the teaching our bodies mirror our spirits, it is logical to assume resurrected bodies will age to their late 20s, mid 30s, male and female and then hold there (if one assumes our eventual eternal appearance is unchanging, which I don’t).

What made Nauvoo and the Utah territory unusual was the plural marriage, which was certainly unusual enough. The range of the age of brides coupled with the age gap was not so unusual in and of itself. Of course when you have an older man who already had an older wife who then takes a young wife as well, that does add a connotation to it that is definitely not there with a simple traditional marriage between an old man and a young wife. My memory of the appearance of age in the resurrection is that it was taught minors would grow to their full stature and then stop at the place all others were at, which suggests full development, full maturity, in their prime years, which earliest would be 20s, it seems to me. I will see if I can find the reference.

By whom?

This… Very troubling given any transgender kid singled out by her probably got targeted.

Btw, cleft palates are not a comparable condition as those do interfere with physical functionality. A birthmark is a closer comparison or a mole. Or let’s say having an extra finger as that has inherent dysfunction, but does not align with typical body type with excess tissue and bone. Are you okay with chopping off a heathy sixth finger?

But it only needs to be “corrected” because of our culture’s standards of beauty, our judgment as to what is excess and what isn’t. It doesn’t interfere with anything physically typically.. In other cultures when higher weights were a sign of prestige or strength, such appearances would have judged as normal and no need for correction. Just because something isn’t “typical” doesn’t qualify it as needing to be corrected, otherwise a lot of our sports celebrities who are outliers when it comes to height, size, or strength would be viewed as needing correction rather than others wishing they had their build….which demonstrates the subjectiveness of judging something that doesn’t interfere with movement, etc as need to be corrected. Even today, in some contexts such appearances are “normal”.

Autism is not a disorder for most who have it, it is a different way of seeing and processing the world. Treating autism as inherently unhealthy reminds me of when women were seen as incomplete or defective males or menopause a mental and physical disorder. Dysfunctional forms of autism exist, of course, just as dysfunctional forms of masculinity in males can exist due to narcissistic or antisocial personality disorder.

But there is typically no physical necessity for such surgery, only emotional distress. So it amounts to what emotional distress you believe is worth the risk of surgery for adolescents and what emotional distress isn’t…a pretty subjective measure, imo.