Calm

It is obviously because they were just starting out and hadn’t gotten the process down pat yet, so they only had a limited number of names. It has only been in the last few decades, 6028 years after it all started with Adam and the animals that here in Utah the ritual of naming has reached its highest form. https://youtu.be/BfIehCrO4Zs?si=YdML8JjzfEOyIo7J https://youtu.be/GXPrtJKPmB0?si=LBeJEXh_uDbVu9Tu

Same here, but very interesting stuff so far. Better than the usual stuff I see them do on the few times I have watched except for the ooohs and ahhhhs over the claim we only adopted the belief that Brigham taught it because of not fighting back against the critics, I would like to see that documented. People went apostate over the A-G belief whether it was Brigham’s original idea or someone who heard or read it (seems like reading might be more likely after what I saw of this video) and understood it the wrong way, so I am pretty sure it was known in the Church before the critics went after it. I hope the scholars publish on this stuff, especially Ben Rich’s version if it hasn’t been already (I don’t know if it shows familiar because I hear it before or it was an alternative reading I have seen discussed before) and the “or” in the manuscript rather than the “our”….heard about Father Adam and Son Adam plenty and have seen alternative punctuation, though I don’t think the three in a quorum example before. Haven’t made it all the way through as was listening as I made waffles….and forgot the melted butter. Thankfully I add yogurt which makes them tasty even without the butter…and easier to digest for someone with a queasy stomach as was the case today. I want someone who is an expert in Adam-God to evaluate it and make sure they have covered all possible sources for it. My memory says the Lecture at the Veil contributed to the belief and I thought Brigham reviewed that after Nuttall wrote it down….okay, now that I actually wrote it out, got to go dig that up to support my comment when I was trying so hard to be lazy, lol, because I really don’t want to do research today. Apparently it’s a compulsion though. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Brigham_Young_and_Adam-God_theory#Was_the_"Adam-God"_theory_ever_taught_as_part_of_the_temple_endowment_ceremony_as_something_called_"the_lecture_at_the_veil"? Putting this here so I don’t have to dig it up when I finish listening. On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts." The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence: In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the ony true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life—Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man—Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.) Brigham Young died August 29, 1877, shortly after introducing this version of the veil lecture. The evidence is indeterminate as to whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples or that it continued to the turn of the twentieth century. Buerger writes:

Very cringy, feels like high school and not the AP classes.

The problem is even that once is ambiguous because Joseph used “celestial” interchangeably at times with “heaven” as did many in his culture and even nowadays. It makes sense as either “in the heavenly glory, there are three degrees” meaning “in heaven, there are three degrees” which we have revealed as the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial or “in the celestial kingdom, there are three degrees”….I wonder if there is evidence of him using “glory” for the various kingdoms. Pretty sure there is indirect evidence as in the glory of the stars, the sun, etc. Unless he clarified, it is easy to see where confusion crept and it wouldn’t be the first time something was assumed and believed to be a revelation when it most likely wasn’t.

Which is the second biggest reason why I would be so disappointed (first is I want Pres Ballard vindicated). Nuisance suits that get settled are a thing though and the Church has settled before without admitting wrongdoing so they don’t have to open up records when there wasn’t a solid case in my view as the bishop had allegedly warned the mother not to take the man into her home and she chose to ignore the advice*** and allegedly chose to have him sleep in the same bed as her son for six months (assumption there as I don’t remember if the lawyers ever explained that was why they were settling and disclaimer I may be mixing up cases…added: I am not, Franklin Curtis case). If TB gets a judge who is willing to let him go on a fishing trip into financial and other confidential records even with the ridiculous claims (I don’t see it happening, but not a lawyer and iirc in the case above most lawyers commenting were surprised the judge ruled to require the financial records be made available because it wasn’t necessary until if the Church was found responsible or at least some of the case was presented), I can see the Church possibly going to a settlement if TB agrees to stop spouting off this particular fantasy. There are plenty of other conspiracies he can latch on to in order to keep the money rolling in. ***the advice was allegedly because of his advanced age, not history as the bishop claimed he was not aware of it, which he wouldn’t be through church records most likely unless Curtis had moved from the ward he had been excommunicated in and rumors were he moved around a lot. The bishop would as well need to be serving when Curtis moved into the ward if he came straight from the ward he was excommunicated in as the annotation of ‘call me’ would have been removed after one move with the former bishop notifying the new one of the history, but no official record according to the older procedure

It is one thing to say one is pushing for their day in court in public, it is another to actually follow through. McKenna Denson comes to mind (my memory says once her cases in public started falling apart and her lawyers deserted her, she was ignoring deadlines for filing even while making claims she would push it through to the end for justice for her and all victims and in the end the case faded away because her lack of action iirc; this info was on Reddit, so doubt I could dig it up without a lot of work and I am booked for the day). If TB is guilty, it still is best to be pushing his innocence so strongly in public to keep his support that is still sending him money happy as long as possible as well as it works to intimidate or tire out his accusers. His attorney can contribute by looking intent on going to court by collecting all this evidence, but the actual purpose could be to wear out their opponents. (Hopefully his lawyer is a decent guy and just doing his job.) If I see him refuse a settlement from the Church (and I will be sooooooo disappointed if that happens for a couple of reasons) and actually end up in court and the evidence is also against him, then I will agree it was wrongheaded, but there is a reason why conmen keep lawsuits in their tool chest.

Let us assume that all these women are money grubbing liars and not one of them has a valid complaint against TB. They were also all volunteers that worked with TB, possibly very closely. Kind of odd that so many of the volunteers appear to think this kind of behaviour was acceptable or maybe a good business model (fraud or conning in essence). What kind of behaviour in an individual or organization attracts this type of person? Serious question. It’s outside my experience and I have never research anything even similar.

I don’t know why you are coupling sex with procreation here as if we can’t have one without the other. It’s not even necessary any more in mortality. It is definitely not comfort level with sex in my case. It is comfort level with speculation presented as doctrine. Since it’s not that logical (spirit does not appear to act consistently like physical elements and forces act, so assuming identical processes for creation is filling in way too many gaps without foundation) without revelation detailing it, I don’t see a reason to require it. I am fine with whatever happens in spirit creation, looking forward to further revelation on the matter and all things next life related. And I very much hope and believe that heaven includes an active sex life. And climbing mountains. And swimming lakes and watching stars and all those other many, many things I have enjoyed doing in this life.

I am pretty sure it was around long before that. Iirc Embraced By the Light by Eadie mentioned it (NDE that most likely was highly embellished to sell, was inconsistent in how she presented stuff, iirc). Not saying Eadie started it, I just think she contributed greatly to its popularity as I remember seeing it a lot more afterwards, especially with those who were into energy work as they expanded it to spirits attaching themselves on to people to try and get their addictions fed. But that could have been me just being more aware of that church hobby/obsession.

It does make more sense to me it’s emotional and mental habits that we will struggle with rather than physical because the physical triggers will be gone, but I also wonder how much of those will continue because emotion is very tied to physical state (my blood sugars are much more stable recently due to medication and my anxiety has plummeted down to almost nonexistent at times, which is something I haven’t experienced in decades and possibly since puberty hit, lol) and repeated thoughts create neural pathways that are strengthened the more they are repeated…so remove that pull towards habitual thought and what happens? I think the question (which can’t be answered at this time though some point to NDEs as evidence) is how much the spiritual body mirrors the physical. Seems like given the spiritual body is massively older and likely more developed than the physical body, which is less than a century old for most, the influence would tend to be more the other way. I am looking forward to when a clearer understanding of what addictions are and what causes them and keeps them going seeps into our community consciousness.

Thank you. There is something joyful for me when I hear others express this same belief in possibilities of full redemption and acceptance of Christ and Christ’s acceptance of us no matter what we have done as long as we are willing to turn back towards him. Even if we don’t always agree about how we are getting there, it feels like we are both expecting a grand family reunion, but with our best selves attending…better than our best selves because God has pulled us all the way in. And that just feels so right and good to me. I want others to have the same hope of the next life…or at least an equally joyous one.

That thought occurred to me as well and I see it as a possibility still, but I believe the more likely interpretation according to scholars is “do not hold on to me” or something like that as I am going from memory. Meaning iirc, that he couldn’t stay as she wanted him to and she needed to release him as he had others to visit as well, etc. added: I see Zealous already mentioned this

I have put the effort into presenting my beliefs and I have seen others do the same, but not many posters track the beliefs and sometimes even in the same thread something I have explained in detail previously doesn’t seem to have registered, so I have decided that’s not a good investment of my time and space when my purpose in a thread is not informing or persuasion, but figuring out what and how other people think. I may even agree with people I am asking the “why”, “what”, and “how” of because I want to know how they arrived at a belief or idea, including why they reject some ideas. I have a very strong trust based on my personal experience of what I see as core doctrines of the Gospel, but I also trust Joseph when he describes our faith this way: There are many other aspects of the Restored Gospel I am relatively certain about, but am open to modification of as I learn more (such as the possibility that with Joseph using intelligence interchangeably with spirit, our original nature as a person was as a spirit, not an intelligence though this does not change my rock solid belief I and every other person who ever existed on this earth is a child of God in the most ultimate sense of the parent-child relationship; I am not invested in how we got there, it only matters to me that relationship exists eternally). I definitely believe in continuing revelation, line upon line learning, building on the truth that we have, but that also includes correction even of the prophets as has been demonstrated in the past and accepted by prophets themselves (I love the story that shows Brigham’s humility towards God in a moment where he corrects what he spoke earlier in the day with a ‘that was Brigham speaking earlier’). In most cases, I see science and religion as two separate categories, but if there is influence, outside my core beliefs, science should inform religion, not the reverse, imo. Scripture is not a history or science text, but a look into spiritual world views of many very different people at different times in their lives. One reason I feel no absolute need to harmonize scripture, even if from the same person. If my spiritual understanding and therefore interpretation of revelation I have received changes over time, I assume that others may have the same experience. I consider it a possibility that in the moment of engagement with the Spirit at the level of prophets communing with God that we describe as “quickening”, there may be able to be a fully informed understanding…and so perhaps at that time someone could truly reject the Gospel. Perhaps this is what happened with Cain (I don’t see a reason to assume quickening can only happen with the very pure in heart as it seems to have happened to the Brother of Jared during a time he wasn’t actively seeking the Spirit and I consider Alma and Paul’s experience of hell and then redemption as a form of quickening). I find it very hard to believe that we have in normal every day life the ability to be true agents and reject the Gospel without ‘undue influence’ from our environment and physical functions given what I know of how people develop ideas, are motivated, form memories, etc.

To me the most satisfying of the unsatisfactory reasons had been similar to my reasoning why people might be assigned lower kingdoms and my reasoning of why no impure thing can enter the presence of God. And that is that which is impure will have pain of some sort in the presence of true pure. There was perhaps no physical shell or veil at that time that would have shielded their spirits from the full impact of encountering the Lord’s spirit. But perhaps instead to progress and repentance they needed to exercise some form of faith and if they had seen the resurrected Christ, they would have known the truth instead of having to learn to trust those who were missionaries and change their own hearts through accepting Christ with faith. And a third possibility…if hell and heaven are states of mind, then it is likely outside of the Celestial Kingdom, perception of exalted spirits (or soon to be) could be quite limited to those still experiencing Hell.

Thanks for being so detailed, it makes it very easy to understand your thoughts. Not really going in circles though, just stuck at the end as I feel there’s a bit more to the story to be fully resolved. I want to know what you see as possible as the end result in eternity of someone who knowingly rejects the gospel. You have covered everything except the possible outcomes at judgment time after they have repented and turned to Christ and the Father. I did try to list the possibilities, that was apparently confusing, so I will keep to the simplest phrasing this time…I hope. But some people see it as justice that someone who rejects exaltation with sufficient knowledge (as judged by Christ) in this life to never get the chance to accept exaltation in the next life no matter if they repent and resume obedience. I am wondering if you are one of them and if so, your reasoning. So my question boils down to “can such people receive exaltation?” Think of it as step 16 where step 15 is “through obedience he has progressed as far as possible”. Your use of “the covenant path” makes me believe you don’t believe they are limited in any way since most consider the covenant path the path that ends in exaltation. Btw, I agree that your description is the current revealed doctrine on the process though I see hell and Paradise as more states of mind and ability to be one with God and each other than locations, not sure from your phrasing how you see them. I very much believe it is better to repent as early as possible to avoid unnecessary suffering and to benefit from the blessings one receives through obedience. Probably the only thing I might really differ with you on in this context is how much of an actual choice is involved with acceptance or rejection of the Gospel in this life appears to occur. On that I am undecided.

Not looking at the video yet, but thought maybe Chat could save me the effort and find the sources for me. Story not located, but there is a liquor merchant in Nauvoo who was listed as blind in 1850 census. His name was Pulaski S. Cahoon according to Chat…which makes things up to satisfy the customer. https://youtu.be/DP15Nh1Jew8?si=b3Mgd64pGrs1Z0vN Story in video is it’s Hyrum’s Book of Mormon he gives to Reynolds Cahoon, a fellow counselor, who gives it to his son, Pulaski. But it appears Hyrum sold it to him (they sold the book on missions rather than giving it away, so it sounds to me like it was a missionary copy rather than a personal copy of Hyrum since the inscription was “Hyrum Smith’s book” which could have been added by anyone if I understand correctly, not so cool as it being a personal treasure for Hyrum if so, it’s a bit odd if Hyrum charged Reynolds the going missionary cost if it was a personal copy as noted in Hyrum’s journal). The family who had the copy were emancipated slaves in Missouri of Pulaski Cahoon, the former tavern owner. Cahoon gave the family china, crystal, linens, etc along with the Book of Mormon when they moved north after they were freed, the report was the Cahoons treated their slaves as more like tenants. He didn’t go into detail on that story like he did the provenance of the Book of Mormon, so impossible unless another source is found to tell if the story was created later after Pulaski went blind or actually happened. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/pulaski-stephens-cahoon ” That best portion of a good man's life — His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and love. — Ibid. Pulaski Stephen was the third child of Reynolds Cahoon and Thirza Stiles. He was born Sept. 18th, 19th or 20th, 1820 at Harpersfield, Astabula County, Ohio. He assisted in the construction of the Temples at Kirtland and Nauvoo. He was married to Louisa Leopold, Feb. 9th, 1840. Louisa, daughter of Valentine and Elizabeth Leopold, was bom April 1st, 1822. The marriage of Pulaski and Louisa was solemnized Jan. 30, 1846 in the Nauvoo Temple by Brigham Young.* Pulaski was a merchant and early history of the Church tells us that at one time Pulaski wished to purchase the ship called the "Maid of Iowa", which belonged to the Church but Joseph Smith did not desire to sell it. Later, it was in this ship that Joseph and Hyrum left for the place called "Safety", previous to their death in the Carthage Jail. John Pulaski Cahoon, son of Andrew Cahoon of Salt Lake City, Utah, visited with the family of Pulaski Stephen and tells us that he had a carpenter and leathershop in Missouri and although blind, was still working at his vocation. Louisa, his wife, died March 17, 1890 and two years fol- lowing on Feb. 15, 1892, Pulaski Stephen passed away https://archive.org/stream/reynoldscahoonhi00shur/reynoldscahoonhi00shur_djvu.txt

Documentation please as this is a new one for me.

Even if they had good intentions? Such as they thought someone would be better off? Curious, not challenging as I believe there are consequences to not telling the truth though I wouldn’t phrase it as God punishes because I don’t see the need for God to punish us in most, if not all cases as natural consequences will eventually catch up to people, whether in this life or the next. Lying even with good intentions may prevent someone from having the close type of relationships they actually want because they can’t trust others because they know they themselves are not trustworthy on all levels, for example.

But will he in the end as he goes through repentance and possibly have a change of heart be able to progress to exaltation as if he had never procrastinated or at least the Celestial Kingdom? Iow, I am unsure what you mean by less access to the power of the Atonement. Do you mean it will be harder for them until they become more accepting or that they will not be able to access the full Atonement even if they want to as they lost that Chance or perhaps they had proven their nature will never actually want to full power of the Atonement and they will stop at a certain point of progression because of lack of desire to progress more and that nature can never be changed even with eternities and infinite experiences to come (in essence they were born that way, to receive a certain level of progress and no more)? Or something else?

Broke you? If so, why would you want a personality trait that likely harms those who depend on or love you? (Serious question, you have a way of writing that often makes me quite curious about the way you think, no judgment of it being good or bad, just mysterious to me )

A better place for whom though? Themselves or others? Serious question, I haven’t studied any of them well enough to have an opinion on their motivation. With TB, knowing he has to have known the consequences of the way he goes about ‘saving children’ because of his background and the criticisms of his work he is obviously imo aware of (because of his responses) that include result data, I believe his motivation is his ego and pocketbook, he wants to make the world better for himself. Perhaps initially he cared about helping kids, etc (certainly hope so and in this give him the benefit of the doubt), but if he truly did still, he would be at the very least hesitant about some of the things he is promoting. Not ruling out possible mental issues including paranoia, delusions, etc. That would explain a lot if he’s going as extreme as it appears from your comments. Going with a more probable explanation that would be hard to prove or disprove would be better for him legally, imo, and keep him with more mainstream appeal. Julie Rowe prophesied herself out of a mass following because she started seeing herself as a messiah figure.

If one accepts that Scripture is not God breathed, but transmitted through men that get things messed up and can even lie themselves or who could just be clueless (for example, not realizing a scroll was not one story but two because those who saved the stories thought both had value and stuck them in the same scroll for safe keeping), one can believe God never lies, but still recognize that scripture has cases where men have presented him as lying. I prefer to approach scripture with the question “what might this teach me today?” rather than “what must I learn from it?”.

It helps to look at the Fall and other Bible stories as not one story, but two or more as well as it is humans interpreting what they have learned from others about God, anything in the Old Testament is not a story that came straight to us from a prophet’s pen, but it’s gone through a mass of editors, some inspired, others not. New Testament might have fewer editors between us and the original writers, but not all writers were who they claimed to be and not all the writings are necessarily inspired…even some of the authors state they are giving their opinion at times. Plus someone chose what to gather as the Bible and there is no guarantee that I am aware that all the choices were inspired, Therefore, don’t try to harmonize it, even in the individual stories, imo. Instead, accept the fractures and take each tidbit that inspires you on its own. The complete picture is meant to be you, not scriptures, imo. Scriptures are a path for the Spirit to reach out to you. Scripture doesn’t have to be inspired for the Spirit to inspire you any more than the mundane or traumatic events of our life have to be inspired in order for the Spirit to teach us through them. This isn’t to say all scripture is uninspired. I do believe there’s quite a bit of it that is, especially modern scripture, but even much*** of the D&C was pieced together by others besides Joseph. ***have no clue of the percentage or how much was done after Joseph’s death or what the approval process was as they didn’t have Correlation back then.

Or so you hope. As do I. Why would there be a special place in hell for them if God doesn’t punish you?

If you believe God lies, why would you trust that there is good reason to keep covenants? God might be a parent telling us what we are capable of using to progress, he may be limited by our nature rather than by his own…maybe there is no other way to mature our spiritual brains just as mortal parents can’t speed up a toddler’s neural development so the kid can comprehend why they shouldn’t do certain things and should do other things. Or God may be a very twisted entity who intends that we all suffer excruciatingly in the future because he feeds off of others’ pain and giving some of us hope is simply because it will intensify our pain. (Seems like if there was such a being it could do a better job at removing inconsistencies to remove doubt.)