Calm

Stockholm Syndrome is most likely a myth, an excuse made by a psychiatrist who never even corresponded with the hostages for why the hostages weren’t willing to identify their captors and were angry with the police when it sounds like there were quite rational reasons for such reactions (police errors). The hostages and the captors suffered together, hardly surprising that the hostages became sympathetic towards th captors. Doesn’t require equally nonexistent brainwashing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-23/is-stockholm-syndrome-a-myth/102738084 If a nonexistent pathological condition is your best explanation for explaining why people might want to cower eternally in front of a monstrous God, then maybe you should consider your perception of how people view God could be wrong for most of them.

And how many people even in this day and age have a true opportunity to accept? As in they aren’t too biased so they can judge the faith accurately. How many more are perhaps too biased towards the faith because they were brought up in the Church and got baptized and thought that was all that was necessary because they supposedly choose the Gospel when baptized…but did they ever think of any other option and if not, was it a choice or instead inertia? From the other side, there are those who hear all sorts of things about how cultish the Church is, how politically in one step (which of course it isn’t, but that doesn’t stop people being told the falsehood along with many other misconceptions and even lies). Maybe they hear that we see Satan as Jesus’ brother and misunderstand that to mean we treat Satan as a god, etc etc. Missionaries who come to their door aren’t the best communicators and enjoy Bible bashing and end up trashing the person’s simple testimony of Christ because he also believes in sola scriptura. Or their parents were just killed in an awful accident and the family believes they are in Christ’s arms in peace and the missionaries tell them the parents are still in hell until they repent and accept baptism by proxy and deny the eternal value of the (very meaningful to the family) baptisms both parents went through as signs of their acceptance of Christ’s gift of salvation, but the missionaries clumsily label those sacred sacraments as just pretending to play Church (heard it from the pulpit one time and thought it sounded smart and would make the Church look better than other faith) or maybe more diplomatically as preparation for the real experience and that hurts the mourning family so much, thinking of their loving parents getting stuck in hell rather than in God’s bliss. Understandably the family can’t listen any more, so the door is closed forever. I can think of endless variations where someone’s life sets a person up to hear something quite different, something unacceptable when the gospel is taught them, even if they are lucky enough to be taught by great missionaries. I can think of endless variations where someone is so primed to accept the gospel for reasonings that have nothing to do with the truth of the doctrine so that they don’t think about the actual implications of baptism or other covenants. They haven’t accepted the gospel yet even with baptism and may never do so. My personal view is most, maybe even all of us are so limited in experiences even in these days and we are so shaped by our world views created by our very fallible minds and what few experiences we have been able to have, especially the traumatic ones in our childhood we had no control over, that there is no such thing as a true choice in mortality. That can only come once we are released from the massive walls our environment, minds, and bodies have raised around us and we have free and total access to the spiritual side of our nature as well and are therefore able to receive the knowledge, the awareness of God and what he is truly offering us

There is probably not one that isn’t depending on who you are hanging out with, including the absence of religion of atheists and agnostics; any kind of spiritual faith or anything that makes one different will be mocked by someone. I have heard people claim you can’t mock the Muslim faith anymore….as they mock it.

Was a louse

Toyota is getting sued for tracking drivers without letting them know and selling their info, including to insurance agencies, which may then raise rates. https://www.autobodynews.com/news/toyota-progressive-accused-of-secret-driver-data-sharing#:~:text=A recently filed class action lawsuit alleges,knowledge or consent of the vehicle owners. Toyota supposedly requires consent, but this guy discovered Progressive already had his info after he refused to give consent. (I heard about the lawsuit in another source that had that info.

If we have the nerve to request people write/type out “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” instead of “Mormon”, any Saint should be more than willing to drop the “the”. PS: I really don’t like the capital “The” in the middle of the sentence.

I find that reasoning beautiful, but it sounds very awkward not to have the “the” in front. It may take awhile, but if I can do it for Ukraine, no doubt I can manage Community of Christ.

He didn’t name it, his son in law did. Sometimes I think it matches JFS’s ideas about his own ideas (he was one who, imo, thought there was one way to read scripture and his interpretations followed that one way) and other times not (he was unhappy about the book in general). Bruce R McConkie very much admired his father-in-law and saw him as the voice of authority it seems…except when it came to publishing this book. Brother McConkie named his own book Mormon Doctrine against the First Presidency’s wishes, so he tended to be rather grandiose in how he phrased somethings. I am grateful that apostles are more cautious these days.

From 3DOP: You really don’t remember what church he has said he belongs to or talked about pretty much every time he posts out of two choices?

About 20% of the US is Catholic, so even if one assumes all non Catholic, nonLDS Christians don’t worship the Trinity or the Godhead—which is a big assumption I think is likely incorrect, it is still incorrect to say “the Christian world in America worships only Jesus” even if one only means it broadly speaking. I would agree there is a strong focus on Jesus among many denominations and nondenominational groups, but that does not mean there isn’t also worship of the Father and the Spirit as well. From what I have seen the Spirit is frequently mentioned. Perhaps a way to phrase it (and Navidad and other nonCatholics can correct me if I am wrong as there is a high probability I am) is that Jesus and the Spirit are seen as the more active members of the Trinity or whatever term one might use while the Father is the grounding, the ultimate source. Practically speaking perhaps it is easier to relate to Jesus as the Father may feel distant or more of an authority figure and the Spirit is more of an unknown, mysterious, but to push it to only worshipping Jesus and not the Trinity goes against most mainstream Christian groups’ doctrine or creeds. Added: okay, I may be wrong and/or really out of date about nonTrinitarians being a relatively small group. I want to know how they define Christian in this survey though. https://www.arizonachristian.edu/2025/03/26/new_research_reveals_most_christians_reject_trinity/#:~:text=Though two out of three,Christians—affirm this foundational tenet. Times have changed it seems if many Americans are getting their theology from political pundits. https://georgebarna.com/2025/04/most-americans-including-most-christian-churchgoers/#:~:text=Trinity - George Barna-,Most Americans—Including Most Christian Churchgoers— Reject the Trinity,Christians%2C believe in the trinity.

No, I would say ‘don’t trust, but use and verify and if you can’t verify, don’t use or use with disclaimer’….because you know, I don’t do ‘short and to the point’ that often. There are, imo, too many common errors to trust as in making stuff up about sources when the source doesn’t say or acting like there is a source and then when asked for one, there’s nothing. I don’t think I have had one not brief response without an error. That’s not trustworthy in my view. Or since it’s a ‘machine’, I should say not reliable. Very useful still. Most definitely

But the impetus for this thread is I don’t trust Chat so I want to get it from people who actually hold the belief of the Trinity. I appreciate your efforts and realize I was vague to being with so your first post makes sense to me, but asking Chat and getting similar info was what got me wondering in the first place. Chat can only regurgitate what gets put into it, it can’t tell me the lived experience, which is what I am wanting here. In the future, unless you are curious yourself and think others besides me may be interested, save yourself some work if I start a conversation with “I don’t trust Chat”. This means I have been using Chat, but don’t believe it’s giving me a complete picture or couldn't check its accuracy for some reason or it’s incapable of giving me what I want, the POV of an actual person. Iow, putting up a response from Chat—or wiki for that matter as personal POVs/impressions, etc are not supposed to be included iirc—is likely to get a bit of an eye roll from me when I say “I don’t trust Chat”. 2 A and 2 D came closest for me, but still not quite on target, but I almost didn’t read those two points because scanning through the bulk of it led me to believe it was irrelevant to my question clutter as I already knew all that. I can be patient for answers when I make special requests. People don’t need to post to make me feel listened to.

I feel like missionaries would be easy targets as they would be very visible. It wouldn’t take long to figure out they weren’t home during the day or take much effort to rip off a backpack that wasn’t fully attached to its owner, so I can see value in keeping passports at the mission office. My brother’s apartment got broken into and everything taken not long after he arrived in Australia (first Spanish speaking set of missionaries there, which seemed very odd at the time) and for some reason he felt he had to deal with it himself, so made due with his one set of clothing he was wearing for way too long. I never carried my visa with me when in Canada and completely forgot we carried them with us when in Russia…or rather my husband mostly did because he wore the fanny pack, lol (Russians were not typically friendly unless introduced by another Russian in Moscow, so I didn’t go out on my own much, too nerve wracking just being stared at while I was trying to buy something with my few words and lots of pointing), so it didn’t occur to me now that they could be split up, one didn’t have to have both if stopped by police or for anything needing id.

Not me!

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you. I would also love to hear a Catholic POV (hint, hint @MiserereNobis or @3DOP or any other Catholic who drops by) In addition to that, I am looking for advice on phrasing…. In your view, is ChatGPT’s wording “God as a whole” appropriate to describe the Trinity? Is it too shallow or simplistic or is it sufficient? Or something else. I doubt if I will start using the phrase frequently, but I can see it might be useful in a few situations, but only if it can convey the correct sense. I don’t want to oversimplify the Trinity (is “God as a whole” even interchangeable with “the Trinity” or does it mean something else?) or perhaps the phrasing somehow demystifies the belief for me and that’s what is bothering me. Seems disrespectful if so.

I don’t know the thought processes that led Bruce R MConkie to choose that title, but I have always considered it to mean along the lines of teachings and beliefs that spiritually edify and educate rather than everything in it needing to be known to pursue the path of salvation. It was a edited compilation of sermons, letters, etc, so not systematically created by JFS even if BRM did systematize JFS’s ideas when he put it together (against JFS’s wishes iirc, but hard to say no to your enthusiastic son-in-law, I guess). So it’s a good idea not to assume even JFS thought much of the material was needed for salvation or comprehensive in any way, though no doubt he thought it would be helpful along the way or he won’t have shared his thoughts in the first place. The preface isn’t that helpful to pin down why Brother McConkie chose what he did and left out others: Formatting may be off. https://archive.org/details/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/page/n1/mode/2up

I want to get to nuances that don’t get conveyed in the wiki entry and likely can come only from believers as they talk because I don’t yet know the language for what I am thinking about. Also, this is about nonLDS Christians’ concept of Jehovah, not Jewish as I am focusing on the phrase Chat used, “God as a whole”, which is a new way of describing the Trinity to me and it feels off, like it is somehow diminishing how believers view the relationship between the persons of God in the context of the one being of God. “God as a whole” seems to be missing something that I don’t know, but only feel….thus lacking the language. I am familiar with the development of the name, that it was misinterpreted by Christians, etc, so no need to go into that for me, though interesting as was the info on LDS development, which I always think is a good topic to get mentioned. We need to remember our theology is developing and is not particularly systematic.

So sorry to hear this. What a harsh year you and your family are having. Will pray it ends with answers and what is needed.

I don’t trust ChatGPT, so asking nonLDS Christians here… I assumed Jehovah was the modern English for God the Father for other Christians, but Chat says that is not quite accurate, it is better to say it is for God as a whole, meaning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Is that accurate and if so, does this mean you don’t really differentiate God into the Father and Son when reading the Old Testament? Maybe another way to say it is ‘the focus of the OT is on God as “one being” and in the NT on the “three persons”’? If it’s not accurate, how would you say it? Is Jehovah another name for the Father or something else?

I assume your home is livable (since you are there), but likely not as comfortable as it was formerly yet as that takes time (and often way too much money unfortunately). And you say your wife is recovering (I had not realized it was so extreme, it must have been terrifying and heartbreaking for you both). What of your son? How is he doing?

So I am looking at the Best Picture (Oscars) list and realized I haven’t paid any attention to it since 2007 and missed a few before that, lol. Before that even if I didn’t see them eventually in some cut version on TV, I would at least try to find out the plot. I just read the last one’s plot on wiki (Anora) because I had never heard of it that I can recall, not even an ad, and now wished I hadn’t (looked up the plot).

I think because there has to be something somewhat new or unique to be really captured by movies now because we have sooooo many choices these days, they need those to stand out. And that means it will be risky. I was watching a FB commentary a few days ago that talked about how unusual it was for the Lord of the Rings to get made because the fantasy genre had never really produced a financial success before. The original studio iirc gave up on it when Jackson wouldn’t make a shorter and thus less expensive film. Plus technology has produced a lot of short cuts that can give decent results where before I think the separation between good and easy was much more obvious with bad graphics and bad writing, so so music….so again, if they can make quite a bit of a profit with much less time and/or money investment, why bother with investing more to attempt to make a great movie (which will more likely just be a really good movie). Though I suspect a lot fool themselves into thinking it will be a good movie to excuse their choices to focus on the buck.

Back to the original question… What type of LDS salvation do you mean when you say “required for salvation”? Do you mean what is required to complete the whole process, what is often called now the covenant path and used to be “the path of salvation”? Or do you mean to be saved in at least the Telestial Kingdom or perhaps the Terrestrial? Perhaps you mean saved in the Celestial Kingdom? Or do you mean receiving exaltation after resurrection? Or something else? If you don’t specify which type of salvation you are asking for, you will get different answers from different people and they may all be right and not contradicting each other even if it looks like it for you.

Salvation is sometimes used as synonym for the whole covenant path, which includes exaltation. Exaltation is the fullest expression of salvation and thus we sometimes use “salvation” interchangeably with “exaltation”. We also sometimes just use it as the first step, salvation from physical death. So depending on the context and what we are focusing on and our personal preferences, it could mean simply salvation from death or any step on the way to and including exaltation or the whole journey. InCognitus and zealous gave separate explanations for some of the ways we use salvation. Those of us who talk a lot with nonLDS typically figure out we use salvation in confusing ways and so separate them out or request the person define salvation first, so we can try and avoid using a a particular definition that is different than what they were expecting. That is why I believe zealous asked you to define “salvation”. I don’t think he was insisting on your own personal definition, I think he just wanted to start at the same point you were starting. Not having a shared starting point is (I am guessing of course) how you ended up confused by the answers given as they weren’t specific to your question apparently and why zealous is now possibly frustrated, but at least looking for a more specific question from you so he and others can better focus on what you actually want.

It happens with every faith I have studied…just making an observation it’s a human weakness, to attack as a defense, strike out…originally because of fear of some sort, even just embarrassment, but it can become a habit imo as it’s much easier than a solid defense. And because of that, I have seen a lot of LDS doing it over the years unfortunately, even among our leaders (though it’s usually a thrown away line). And often it’s not a particularly well informed criticism either, it’s more of a caricature of a faith…especially if the target is Catholicism, but also atheism and agnosticism. I am less able to judge criticism of Protestant thought as less familiar with it. So when I am reading the opening post, I am thinking how easy it would be to slip in “LDS”where “Protestant” is at the moment. And I was even thinking about how we typically attack the Trinity, including at times “studied apologists” with strawmen, lacking in understanding of actual established doctrine. Protestants tend to be easier targets being less centralized and less official doctrine over all, imo. Fundamentalists, including those who label themselves Evangelicals when they visit the boards I have frequented, who do attack LDS tend to open themselves up with their criticisms to the same claims being used against their own faith…not in every case, but frequently. Whether that is one reason many do not share what their own beliefs are or not, I couldn’t say, but it’s disappointing as I would much prefer to learn about their faith than hear more strawmen or repeated attacks on my own. I think I have learned much more about Catholicism because of the Catholic posters I have encountered who would share their own beliefs when contrasting with ours or just when relevant. Not only did they educate me, but they made me interested enough I borrowed a Catechism from a friend and it was my nighttime nonfiction reading for several months. OTOH, I don’t believe my knowledge of Protestant thought has expanded that much since I first joined the online community back in 2001.