Calm

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?

If apostles were primarily defined as “special witnesses of Christ” “sent out” from the Church to witness of Christ, I think it would be relatively easy to appoint women as apostles while reserving (assuming no revelation had come to give priesthood office to women at the same time as naming them apostles was revealed since I don’t see a change with the label except through revelation) membership in the 12 for men ordained to the Priesthood.

Definitely the second. There will be those who end up in the Telestial Kingdom imo. But I also believe there is progression between the kingdoms if anyone over time has a softening or opening of their heart and want to embrace Christ and his grace and God’s love more. (While it seems from the way some leaders talk they believe there is no progression, I am pretty sure the Church does not have a position on it; there have been leaders who said they believe there is.) Not sure what you mean by the first unless you mean they accepted the baptism, but did not work further on accepting the Gospel and the Atonement. Generally it’s talked about as accepting baptism as hand and hand with accepting enough of the Gospel and Christ’s atonement to join the community in paradise, so I am not sure there would be a case such as you describe where they accept baptism but have no desire to enter paradise. Paradise is not viewed as the ultimate destination, but more of a waiting/learning and serving place till judgment and one’s resurrection. Personally I have thought of accepting the proxy baptism as received after accepting the Gospel and therefore being worthy of paradise even if perhaps they don’t press on to fully accept Christ’s Atonement and all the blessings God offers them culminating in exaltation during the period where they are in paradise and learning more of the meaning of the endowment and other ordinances (as Joseph said it would be a long time before we comprehended such things, see quote in my signature).

I forgot I wanted to respond to this earlier. More like baptism and ordinances are like a learner’s permit, a necessary but not sufficient requirement to first learning how to drive and then there comes the part of actually choosing to get in the car and go somewhere (though for some it’s probably retroactive since the choice and journey have occurred to a great extent already)

I suspect if you had experienced this, that is not the metaphor you would choose, lol.

I think it’s better than giving the impression we believe they are infallible. Look at what’s that has done to our own community. I am not making any judgement about the will of God except perhaps he is willing to let us stumble at times while finding surer footing on the way.

Yes. I was concerned you might just be pointing members to the CES letter because you felt in one area it was useful, but that opens up the whole letter as a source to them. Seems unlikely someone would stop with just one. Your approach with the letter is good. I have found it useful to find out what criticisms are out there, but it would always be the beginning of research for me as I know enough about it (including that he changed his story from how he presented it in the beginning to make it appear like sincere questioning rather than a critical challenge, I don’t know if you can still find the conversations of him crowdsourcing finding issues on reddit or not) not to trust it. I would never suggest it to a person unless I knew they were a decent researcher and wouldn’t be satisfied without doublechecking the sources etc.

Explain the difference please.

For what reason would you hand it out if any and how if there is one?

Not a trick question. Something you said made me wonder how you applied your standard (iirc one prophet in error was one thing, more than one was another, I see the Ban as more than one prophet being in error, but because later ones followed the first who made the mistake). I thoroughly believe the Declaration removing the Ban was revelation. Now we have documented evidence of how Brigham Young approached limitations of priesthood and lack evidence that Joseph instituted it except from a man (Coltrin) who most likely lied about the details, the timing and place of announcement, what was going on that likely impacted it, Brigham’s actual language, as well as the numerous debates of leadership about it that went on for decades, I see the Ban itself as something thought to be in accord with revelation as in not contradictory, but not revelation itself and then because details of the origin of it got lost, was assumed to be revelation.