Calm

Sure, when you ignore the patterns of Paul’s comments elsewhere.

It is interesting that he describes Junia as being in Christ before him while describing himself as the least here, not even deserving to be called an apostle. It would suggest he sees Junia as a greater apostle than he is, of higher ‘rank’ or prominence. And given the type of apostle he was…

Not understanding this addition.

A title perhaps? I dislike semiblindly clicking on videos even when recommended.

This, this, this… Also “astray” can mean anything from a stumble off the path and quickly turning around to regain footing on it, to running parallel to the path a short way thinking there might be better ground to walk on before realizing it’s best to keep to the path, to months of camping out within sight of the path because of curiosity but still feeling the call of the path, to years and decades of wandering far and wide but ultimately being drawn back on course, to cutting all connections with the path possible because one decided to move off to take permanent residence as far away from God’s way as one can find, forever lost because you don’t go looking for the way back. I wonder which Pres Woodruff had in mind when he said it. I wonder how he used the principle in his judgment of church leaders. I wonder what God had in mind if he inspired Wilford to remember it. I haven’t studied his words and actions. I wonder if he ever talked on the subject of infallibility or related ideas and if he made anything that looked like a course correction.

Well stated.

During what period? Prior to judgment when we exist as spirits or post judgment and resurrection?

No, the only Christian group represented in Heaven in scripture is Christ’s perfect, exalted Church of the Firstborn. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng Only on earth and only for the last days does Christ speak in scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints existing. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/115?lang=eng&id=p4#p4 The mortal organization The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the current vehicle for the currently available authorized ordinances that are part of the Church of the Firstborn. Christ will take that which is good and godly in The Restored Gospel and sanctify and justify it just as he will the individual members who choose him. I suspect there will be much that is familiar and more that is not to faithful LDS. Since as Joseph taught it will take a great while after death for us to comprehend all the principles of Christ’s Gospel to prepare for exaltation even with the likely accelerated learning available to God’s people (any who are in paradise no matter what path they took in life to get there), we (members of The Restored Gospel since this was who Joseph was speaking to at the time, but also all others on the ladder to exaltation) must be missing a very great deal in mortality about what is the knowledge and are the principles of the Church of the Firstborn. In no way is exaltation plug and play any more for LDS, even those with all ordinance work done who were faithful all their lives, than it is for nonLDS. And I don’t see any reason to reject the possibility—in fact, it’s a very high likelihood to me since it would follow the pattern of purification and ultimate exaltation that is used by God—that Christ will also take the other Christian faiths and take what is good and godly in them and sanctify and justify and exalt them and add their perfected forms to make the whole of his heavenly Church of the Firstborn as he will their individual members…and all else who turn to God. There may be many features of the Church of the Firstborn that were reflected in many Christian faiths, perhaps some features that were relatively unique to a few or even one nonLDS faiths since God can turn all things to his good and why would he waste such opportunities? Mortals have limited attention span and even more limited resources. So much of LDS efforts are invested into the ordinances of God, including building and filling the temples (as it should be since we are so commanded). Population percentage wise we are a small church. How can we manage to cover all that God intends to occur on earth and cover it well? God has called many laborers it seems to me at different times according to the parable. Some have been working a lot longer than just the last hours/days. Makes sense therefore that he has given commissions to other groups. We even speak of Christ visiting “other sheep” besides the Nephites and Lamanites after his death. Could he not have organized them to do his work just as he had done in the Spirit World? Just as he did with the Nephites and Lamanites?

It’s a valid view, imo. Just to be clear in case I wasn’t, I wasn’t challenging you, just presenting my own view, exchange of ideas kind of thing.

Since you told me to appeal to AI, here is what it told me when I asked it about the usage of apostle in general and the context around it being used for Junia specifically. It’s not quite “simply”, the term holds the nuance of being sent with delegated authority, the authority being of the sender (AI is so helpful ). In the case of Junia as with the other apostles, that would be Christ. And we have the context of Paul calling her and Andronicus his fellow prisoners (or captives together), meaning they are imprisoned for the same reason Paul is, having been sent by Christ on an apostolic mission. Paul uses the ‘together’ term in other cases as well for shared, bonded suffering for Christ. He even mentions they were in Christ before him, underlining the context and that their position is a religious one. Paul also refers to imprisonment in other places as evidence of a credential, authorized ministry. Again Paul calls Junia his fellow prisoner, indicating they are there in prison for the same reason. And his use of “in Christ before me” likely refers to an apostolic commission just as mentioning “notable among the apostles” at the same time links their imprisonment to the apostolic commission. As far as “among the apostles”, apparently Paul has the habit of clarifying when he doesn’t mean one of the outstanding apostles and only means ‘well known to the apostles’. And this is problematic if you believe the word can be treated as unrelated to the context Paul presents it in: 1) among the apostles, not clarified to mean well known, therefore meaning of the apostles 2) fellow prisoners…imprisoned with Paul because she was on the same commission, sent by Christ 3) in Christ before…meaning commissioned as an apostle by Christ before Paul

More like I believe all dictionaries, lexicons, and anything else that tries to summarize the meanings of words in any language to be incomplete. They are limited by the expansive nature of language, especially languages/cultures that rich in symbolism and possible shadings to words, used by those who excel at storytelling (and there were a number of excellent Greek storytellers and poets, which means they likely had fun with words) who apparently liked a lot of wordplay, including using words with multiple layers of meaning or using words in ways that reverse their meaning (“the last shall be first”). Some authors enjoyed making readers work for it. (I had a great AP English teacher in high school and took a Greek literature course in college as I loved reading Greek storytellers because of the mythology.) I don’t know much about Greek itself having only read translations, it may be the driest, most uncreative and precise language out there and it’s only the interpreters who have actually played with it, but somehow I doubt it. I do know about English and how the simple things in it often just aren’t. Did you know that the very “simple” word run is seen as one of the most semantically complex words in the English language by some because it has so many distinct meanings, over 60 core meanings and hundreds if one counts idioms and phrases it is used in (like runout, runoff, run-in, run-over). It is also quite flexible when it comes to grammar, playing all sorts of roles, different types of verbs, nouns, modifiers. You know some other highly complex “simple words”? Get, take, set, go, make…. The word set hold the record for most definitions at around 439 distinct senses.

Red flag alert.

And where is this spoken of and does this apply to any or even all mortality? Because I know of some bishop’s wives and family who might see it as God is practical when it’s necessary rather than insistent that a certain order always be followed no matter what.

Btw, if you would be willing to, I will open a new thread for it if you will be comfortable enough to do so. The biggest reason I visit and post on the board is I want to see new ways of looking at things and that can only happen when people do challenge old ways of my thinking, whether intentionally or not.

But since this is the likely (haven’t taken a poll, so just using “likely” but from my experience it seems to me to be the majority interpretation) perspective of most LDS, it shouldn’t be confusing to anyone why we assume most will accept baptism if we are right and so why should we give much thought to those who won’t? Those who won’t we are told will be in the Terrestrial if good people who have repented of sins and in the Telestial if wicked and who repented, but likely still didn’t love others enough to care to try and be good. Some people believe in progressing through kingdoms if outlooks change in the eternities, so that likely means less and less over time in these kingdoms. Not sure what you think we should consider outside of the teachings above. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if many had thought about what living in the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms would be like in the eternities, but since such would be speculation and not teaching, most would also not share it with others as not seen as helpful to understanding us. Or perhaps you mean during the Millennium? If so, I have heard quite a bit of discussion as most I have talked to seem to see it as an extension of of mortality without natural disasters, etc and also corruption because the wicked perished and Satan is restrained on one hand and on the other much less suffering without illness and living to a good age and more light and knowledge available to all because Christ and his messengers will be working openly. — The way you wrote your comment and other comments makes it appear you are critical in some way that we make this assumption of most accepting Christ’s way. I am curious if this is true and if so, why. Why wouldn’t we still assume this even if we put in lots of thought to what is going to happen? I have put tons of thought into likely afterlife scenarios including where we are wrong a d other faiths are right as well as there is no God and each time when I use the assumptions of LDS doctrines and belief, I come out believing even more that most will choose baptism primarily because I do believe that once we remove the hangups of mortality, the majority of humanity will want to know what truth is out there when we understand it is available to us if only so we can trust that our choice is what we actually want for ourselves (others will love truth itself and still others love God and want to know more of him, there may be many other great reasons for desiring to know the truth and willingly embracing it).. People with relatively healthy mentalities want to belong, to love and be loved, to be safe and to believe in themselves and that imo means they will want to seek God who can provide all that and more.

Google AI is unlikely to understand the nuances of Biblical Greek and other ancient languages. It has enough of an issue with modern language (there is a massive reason why AI should never be used for therapy and that is because it misses nuances like sarcasm, downplaying, dismissiveness, etc and also accepts biases/stigma as standards). https://hai.stanford.edu/news/exploring-the-dangers-of-ai-in-mental-health-care

Except being a countervoice this may help boost attention and income for awhile (being used as a outlet to express frustration, anger, or hatred towards the Church by supporting someone seen as their opponent/enemy). If the Church takes them to court, then they will be in the news driving up revenue as well. Short term gains even if longterm decline if they lose. Actually losing the name would be a major hit for it, but is that likely to happen? I have wondered if taking the name off of our own brand for the most part, if that would still allow us to maintain it given its cultural significance. Is there anything the Church h owns that still carries the name (it accepts the usage of “Mormon” for historic places such as the Mormon Trail, but the Trail isn’t owned by the Church). The “I am a Mormon” YouTubes are still on the Church’s YouTube channel, which should help.

Sincere, very curious question. Assuming a vast amount of time (possibly longer than 1000 years, but at least over ten lifetimes) and access to God’s messengers and the Spirit (and likely Christ I believe if they are sincerely good people who have repented of any wickedness) to share and teach them the Gospel and answer any questions they might have with probably complete understanding and clarity (I assume the problems of inadequate and therefore confusing mortal communication are mostly if not totally absent), for what reason do you believe these good people would have for choosing to reject what they are being taught and much of the evidence of their own experience? They don’t have to decide at first exposure but have possibly at least 1000 years (till the end of the Millennium if we choose to think of it in concrete, literal terms). They can see the experiences of those who do choose to accept baptism and the other ordinces. They can communicate with the Spirit and possibly face to face with Christ (I assume they can since he would be present for them in the Terrestrial Kingdom, but perhaps that won’t happen until they are resurrected and until then they communicate with the Spirit and Christ’s messengers. There are no stumbling blocks of misbehavior among those who are teachers to confuse or make others wonder if those teachers are honest or righteous. At that point, why would someone in your view choose not to accept the ordinance knowing it could take them closer to Christ and the Father?

Have you read Esther, the Old Testament, or studied those cultures? No dirt needs to be added to get there.

1) Unless he was just waiting for a truly sincere believer with a mind open to receiving him to come to the Garden to announce his resurrection and she was the first. It was perhaps important to appear first in the Garden to make a direct connection to the Tomb for symbolic reasons or to help combat the naysayers by making a more progressive, step by step type of story. 2) There were other women with Mary at the Tomb originally, so he could have appeared to the group assuming they were all sincere believers, but perhaps he wished to comfort Mary as she was exceptionally heartbroken and he needed her to be in a different frame of mind because he had work for her to do. 3) He needed someone to witness to the apostles to prepare them to see him (perhaps their minds were in such a state of confusion they were not receptive to the Spirit that was needed) and Mary was on her way to tell them the Tomb was empty 4) it does seem likely there was a special relationship between the two and given the culture that seems most likely to be either mother (a position already taken) or wife.

That would depend on the individual and the culture using the text and what they value, so in many cases historically speaking the answer is a definite yes.

One more post (25) and you can edit

Great memory. Yep, Dad drove her up to Yosemite and parked her with a trailer for a couple of weeks iirc (might have been longer, but food would likely have become a problem) and it was just her and the park ranger in the camp ground to begin with iirc. I should check with my older siblings about the details. She went on retreats quite a number of times, I went with her a few of them. That was the only time it was pretty much just her and nature (others were time share condos in the mountains or health resorts where she would take a couple of potatoes and water and walk the mountains in Southern Utah all day).

While I definitely agree there has been great damage done by those who speak out against the prophets, since we can’t know what the Church would have been like if the Ban had only been temporary or rather the First Presidency and the 12 had come to a decision earlier that the time to end it had come, all this type of judgment can be is opinion. Not saying you are wrong either. I can’t say what went on outside the history and there are gaps in the records, though not as many as there once were. My own opinion is it appears that Brigham did not give the Ban as revelation even if he thought it was grounded in/supported by revelation and there was debate while he was still living as well as afterwards on how it should be applied (questions about the Ables as well as Jane Manning and others). At least one of the explanations used to support the continuation of the Ban was found to be a lie (we have documentation of Able’s ordination being done with Joseph’s knowledge and Brigham did not declare his priesthood as invalid even if he was not able to receive his endowment as he had his washing and anointing). I am happy with just the Church releasing the info and the public acknowledgment of the actual record, such as this below, through the research supported by the Church and with that available for study, letting people decide the why it happen for themselves, including letting it sit on the shelf until somehow we know more. I certainly have no problem letting any judgment rest in God’s hands to be revealed when he so chooses, but ignoring the record, pretending contradictions aren’t present within it will not benefit the Church nor increase confidence in our prophets imo and it seems to me the Church agrees since it gave access to scholars and published the Gospel Topic on Race, calling it a policy, not a revelation and citing the long history rather than any doctrinal justification for requiring a revelation to lift it. https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/blacks-and-priesthood-temple-ban-timeline/ http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history

Do you mean a leadership calling because LDS interpret being missionaries as a calling and I don’t see why it couldn’t have been the same initially, as in before being sent out they were ordained to the work?