Calm

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.

So you are okay with cutting off breast tissue for a commonly benign condition to relieve “embarrassment”, “anxiety”,and “psychosocial discomfort”? Perfectly okay if it’s in the 30% of males who want to look more masculine even though it’s not a dangerous or particularly unhealthy physically wise condition (if you look at pictures of adolescents who have had surgeries, their breasts are typically relatively smaller than most women, so unlikely to affect posture much due weight, no need for bras. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3987263/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3706045/ (pictures include) https://www.lecontoursurgery.com/blog/gynecomastia-vs-pseudogynecomastia-whats-the-difference/ Appears the vast majority of these surgeries are done for emotional health, not physical health according to every I am reading about it. Are you okay with liposuction for those adolescents suffering from pseudogynecomastia when it’s biological males desiring to look more male as well? The rate is unknown as it gets classified with gynecomastia (apparently unnecessary to separate the two even though cause is different). Chat came up with solely liposuction*** masculinizing breast surgeries for biological males at 10-30% of all masculinizing male breast surgeries, so it looks like removal of healthy, if overweight breast tissue for boys is still done in significantly higher numbers than for removal of healthy breast tissue for biological females wanting to look more male. ***since it’s fat and not glandular tissue being removed, liposuction is the go to procedure for pseudogynecomastia. Apparently rarely paid by insurance as typically purely cosmetic, unnecessary for physical health.

Seriously? That would explain his apparent fixation.

Personally I use which ever sounds better when reading out loud when writing just for myself. But LDS language tends to differentiate between the two. Spirit is that part of us that existed before we were born (possibly formed around the eternal matter intelligence, possibly formed by intelligence, possibly identical to intelligence…quite a few different interpretations of scripture over the years). Soul is another word for the individual, it is usually the combination of physical form and spiritual form. So if a Saint uses “soul” there is a good chance they are talking about the person, not just the person’s spirit. But most of us know others who use “soul” as synonymous with “spirit” and if engaged with nonLDS, may use that definition. Best to ask for clarification if it matters. There is also recognition that scripture uses “soul” in multiple ways. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/soul?lang=eng “The scriptures speak of souls in three ways: (1) spirit beings, both premortal and postmortal (Alma 40:11–14; Abr. 3:23); (2) a spirit and a body united in mortality (D&C 88:15; Abr. 5:7); and (3) an immortal, resurrected person whose spirit and body have become inseparably connected (2 Ne. 9:13; D&C 88:15–16).” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/soul?lang=eng