Calm

This is the quote I am thinking of: https://bhroberts.org/records/06h81W-0JkXDS/brigham_teaches_the_saints_that_adam_was_not_literally_created_from_the_dust_of_the_ground_account_in_the_book_of_genesis_is_similar_to_baby_stories For me a baby story in this context is a narrative that is very simplified symbolic language teaching an eternal/cosmic concept or principle. I need to stop now, but will likely add more later if it’s not clear.

What does French or the French have to do with the topic? Like I said I don’t get the humor. I think if he had just done the first mispronunciation at the beginning, it might lead one to assume he thought Cabot Phillips was acting a snob (that’s the only thing I can think of why they were mispronouncing and talking weird), but the way they did both, stumbling around, especially the second one, simply made them sound uneducated and uninformed and lacking in civility if they were intentionally mispronouncing it as that’s juvenile and very petty mocking and I don’t see much difference there with many anti Mormon attacks that mock and ridicule. Not civil behavior at all. I feel ashamed by them acting as representatives of the Church in this way. Just confirms again for me Ward Radio is not something I believe contributes in positive ways to the discussion. If you are going to be aggressive, do so with intelligence. If you are going to have fun, then do it lightheartedly, not petty ridicule that ends up making you look the opposite of clever. Pyreaux’s criticism was done well, leading those who paid attention to be more informed. If Ward Radio had stuck with pointing out the hypocrisy, using their own weapon, the Boering quote against the Daily Wire, pushed for canceling subscriptions to underline that statement of ‘stop giving money to corporations that hate you’, that would have been witty, attention getting; a good soundbite. The rest was too much mindless clutter. Not impressive in the least.

CFR please.

Excellent

It does say “tried”:

It was Neeley though. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/introduction-to-state-of-new-york-v-js-a/1#transcript-0-1826

People refer to it as a trial. Maybe the researchers just did it as well because that was how it was talked about…though that’s not a strong argument. I do believe we should be careful drawing conclusions on limited info and be more “it’s unknown” where it is.

Why do you believe it was a trial and not a pretrial hearing? (Not challenging, I know only what little I have read, not gone into details on the differences.) I believe pretrial hearings may call witnesses and are before a judge. If it was a pretrial hearing, it is reasonable to say he escaped if it was before the trial where he would be convicted. It doesn’t make sense to say he escaped if he was acquitted at the end of the trial. That would be releasing him most likely.

Is this the end of the road or if they want to waste more time and money, what higher courts can they appeal to? Reading the article because they intelligently asked the same question I did and got us an answer: No way would the current USSC rule against the Church on this matter, imo.

Definitely by me.

By the way, either it’s a joke by them or someone is pranking them….I don’t understand the humor either way, his name is pronounced Kabot, not Sabot or Shabot (he says it himself) (see 11:20ish, he is pronouncing Cabot wrong as well, it’s Cab-ot, not Ca-bot). Added: for accuracy it’s “KAB-ət”, but I can never remember what the upside down e sounds like. AI says KAB is pronounced like the word “cab” and the upside down e is like u in but. Why is an upside down e called a schwa symbol if it sounds like uh? Pronunciation rules never make sense to me. This mispronunciation of his name bugs me because they trash him for accuracy. It took a few seconds for me to find out how to pronounce his name correctly (which I did from the beginning, but still doublechecked).

I hope they actually look like hundreds. I don’t do twitter or even X (are they still called tweets?), so can’t see for myself, so it comes across as hyperbole, but maybe it is really going viral. Got to admit it’s funny given it’s the Daily Wire guy who said stop giving your money to corporations who hate you. Doubt it will affect their bottom line much though.

And how does he know it’s “hundreds”? Have hundreds written him or posted to daily wire comments?

I was definitely not thinking of it from the point of view of the children. The main reason I hope leaders become willing to make multiple sealings for living women consistent with their treatment of living men, the rule rather than the exception, is so children can have that sense of eternal bond with their biological or adoptive/step father. I believe that seeing one’s family as eternal gives greater security/stability to children, which is beneficial. I don’t think it would be a bad idea to allow sealings to exist with any children one sees as theirs legally. I see sealings as a web of connections and the more the better. Also so stepparents can see step children as truly theirs and not just a temporary relationship. I assume that some hold back in opening themselves up to children they can’t be sealed to now and don’t expect to be later because they believe the sense of loss will be too painful when they have to ‘give the child back’, but I expect most of those who don’t relate to them like they do their bio children might not fully commit to a child because they don’t know how to understand what their relationship is simply because it doesn’t fit the ideal we talk about of two parents forever together with their biological children. Hope that mays sense. Obviously there are other factors that can cause a parent to view step children different.y than bio children. I am thinking of what is added to the family equation for LDS in contrast with the general population. Brain is cloudy today, so may not be that clear on the page.

There is some overlap with another thread (maybe two, I have lost track of where I have thought “this could be part of the God is Mean thread in the past few days). Since not many are posting in the thread where I posted this while thinking it was actually this thread, I am going to repost it here. The other thread had a subtopic of assuming there was misunderstanding scripture/prophets, intentional misleading or, not in the past. Section 19 deals with one quite significant case of men not understanding God’s Word correctly in the past. I found this discussion when I went looking for more than what was on the Church’s website (which isn’t much). This goes back to me to the question ‘is God mean or do we just perceive him as mean because we don’t have a fuller picture’. https://luthert.web.illinois.edu/blog/posts/235.html PS: the last thing I want to do is convey blame or trigger guilt because someone views God in certain ways different than I do. I am not trying to dump responsibility for seeing harshness in God’s behaviour onto the individual rather than on God, it wouldn’t be right given there is stuff like the destruction of cities at Christ’s death in the BoM and we typically treat scripture like a history text in the Church, even across the pulpit at General Conference, without including conditions like “speaking figuratively”. With the Bible LDS can claim precious parts were lost or errors crept in when stuff gets difficult (except when modern prophets use such as examples which implies they see such as historic rather than symbolic stories). With the Book of Mormon the errors rest on those we see as prophets, either Joseph or the authors of the BoM or most likely in my view, both and one needs to either accept the harshness of God’s actions or assume the prophets were way off and added too much as scripture what was actually filling in of gaps in what was revealed to them and if that was true then, why wouldn’t it be happening now? While some members are okay viewing our prophets and scriptures that way (and you can count me as one of them who believe prophets often fill in gaps with their own understandings and fallible interpretations), I can understand why most members do not view either scripture or prophets that way because that is not what typically comes across the pulpit. In my experience, my own and similar positions are more often reasoned out from teachings on fallibility that aren’t typically emphasized across the pulpit, but focused on individually. The Book of Mormon has Christ claiming he has destroyed cities in his own voice, not just that cities were destroyed so we could more easily choose to interpret that as the physical world’s reaction to the spiritual upheaval that likely occurred with Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection rather than what is clearly described as punishment from God for wickedness. It makes sense, imo, to see God as mean if one accepts that story as what actually happened and not an interpretation/ritual narrative meant to teach eternal principles that are inherently embedded in mysteries (meaning here what is unknowable for or beyond the comprehension of mortals) or ancient tales passed down through many generations and voices that Mormon mistakenly assumed were close to eye witness accounts (assuming he thought of them that way is also a big assumption in my view, maybe he conveyed what he saw as a temple play…symbolic history, not literal history). Just because my personal view of scripture is they are much less historical and more ritual or symbolic narratives teaching cosmic principles rather than historical events doesn’t lead me to think anyone who sees them as literal is lacking in knowledge or experience. I was exposed to different views of scripture when young and sort of just fell into this position, so I don’t attach any sort of merit to holding it (my language is lacking today in precision, maybe the best way to describe my point of view is I extend “baby stories” to all scripture, even modern scripture; not just the Creation story as Brigham Young did…I wish he had mentioned what other parts of the Bible he saw that way and if he saw any of the BoM that way as well). If anything, I wonder if I am taking the easy way out, lol, but it is what makes sense to me the most.

So is he suggesting what Christ went through with the crucifixion was not as bad as what other mortals go through because he knew with certainty what would happen to him and the pain and suffering would be over with in a few days? If so, while I think that is an important point and it has been in my view for a long time one of the reasons why he could manage to do what he did, we also teach he experienced everything horrible that we experienced, which means to me not only the physical, but also the mental and emotional. Sure, the dominant part of his brain and spirit knew he would survive and that is likely how he stayed sane and was able to accept rather than revert to an animal, irrational state, but part of him was also experiencing all the doubt, despair and panic, even the lack of faith and distrust of God that dying and the rest of life’s suffering bring to humans. He felt all that, he wasn’t shielded from it. He could only place it in the greater picture his awareness of eternity gave him. And thank goodness he could or it likely would have been meaningless, imo.

In searching for other members’ views on that part of Sec 19 (since there is very little on the Church’s website), I came across this, which I quite like: https://luthert.web.illinois.edu/blog/posts/235.html The bolded part made me think.

Isn’t there also the possibility that the prophets taught correctly and clearly and those who heard them understood correctly, but those who came later, either the scribes or less inspired teachers whose writings survived removed the original info and wrote in their own beliefs? It’s pretty typical that anything not taught in the BoM that is different from modern revelation is explained that way in my experience while if the BoM seems to contradict later revelation it’s the line upon line explanation. Or that the prophets didn’t actually teach anything on that particular, but beliefs held by others were put in their mouths for greater authority. Not saying either is what happened in each and every case of difference between teachings now and then, just saying it doesn’t have to be only that scenario you so strongly dislike. I am not fond of that either. D&C 19’s “endless” discussion has always troubled me some. I assume the “it” here is Section 19, “express” meaning direct and clear and not ambiguous and therefore Sec 19 is meant to work upon the hearts of the children of men. Does anyone else here interpret it differently? I had heard on occasion a version the misunderstanding was allowed to stand as the fear of forever punishment would soften/work upon men’s hearts more, that God is explaining why he allowed the misunderstanding…but that ignores what “express” means. To me Sec 19 is not suggesting God is okay with previous misunderstandings. I am very glad to see the Elder McConkie quote claim “endless damnation” applies to everyone not exalted is not in anything but the archived, out of date D&C manual***, so hopefully that is a idea that will fade away**** as I think it is more confusing than helpful as people forget he equates “damnation” with eternal limitations, not punishment. Though he also confuses the issue because he links damnation with disobedience and lack of repentance and exaltation with obedience as if there are only two states of being after judgment. Since everyone has been purified of sin so as to be able to receive even a smaller portion of God’s glory in the Telestial Kingdom, I think it inaccurate to view the Telestial and definitely the Terrestrial inhabitants as disobedient. Maybe it’s accurate to think of Telestial as lacking in repentance since they choose to suffer for their sins to be purified rather than accepting God’s grace, but those in the Terrestrial and those in the nonexaltation state initially, possibly forever in the Celestial Kingdoms have repented surely. ***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-19-the-gift-of-repentance?lang=eng ****not saying the concept ‘the opposite of exaltation is damnation’ (rather than ‘the opposite of salvation is damnation’; sometimes leaders and others mix the two ideas even, which leads to even more confusion imo) isn’t taught by some church leaders, just that it is no longer in the manuals, so perhaps it’s intentionally not being perpetuated in our curriculum.

Got to admire him for not insisting he be the sealed husband since he could have (since she hadn’t been sealed before he died). I remember Hyrum Smith standing as proxy for the deceased husband his first plural wife, Mercy Fielding, the sister of his second wife (I say first plural wife as he was sealed to her for time and Mary Fielding was considered “first wife” in terms of plural marriage even though she was his second wife because Jerusha had died before any other marriages/sealings were performed). I wonder how common that was. I also wonder if that is still practiced at times, proxy sealing to first husbands who might not even be baptized before their deaths or if the remarried widow is counseled to either wait till death if she wants to be sealed to her first husband or to be sealed to her second, living husband instead.

I guess this is why I had a negative (small, but present) reaction to your “which is not respect”. It seemed irrelevant to me in those moments. Therefore it seemed unnecessary to bring attention to the lack of respect. It only made sense to me if you were being critical of the lack of respect and therefore of reaching out to God in that fashion, which made me think you saw it as important that respect be present in all our appeals to God. But that would mean we would need to wait till we were more emotionally stable…but by then we may no longer feel the need to reach out. To me, God allows desperation and panic at times so as to open our hearts to him. Making any suggestion that appears to discourage reaching out in those moments is troubling to me. I am glad that was not what you were implying. I believe God is very okay if we approach him as little children might approach, unaware of what respect is, but knowing love and trust and fear and seeking the first from God and hoping for relief from the last through his love. I believe God even loves it when we approach him in anger and disrespect as long as we are not in rebellion, completely resistant to opening up. Better that than indifference, disinterest in establishing a relationship with him.

Why would it been seen as disrespectful to God to reach out when in despair or panicked? The scriptures do not treat such as lacking respect or awe for God. Alma the Younger reached out in desperation and panic, “the darkest abyss” (which feelings were triggered by the Spirit even), and had a wondrous experience.

I wonder if it’s more selfishness or more not feeling like one has enough control over one’s life to take the risks needed, especially with kids. If your experience is that often promised delayed rewards never show up, why would you be motivated to not only sacrifice in the moment, but set yourself and your kids up for a high probability of a difficult life when the rewards don’t come through. You can adapt to changing demands of life a lot easier without kids and who wants to put their kids in crappy situations when one knows early trauma and stress can actually damage kids. My guess is fewer adults are using “kids are resilient” to reassure themselves their mistakes, their own tragedies won’t impact their kids that much, once upon a time parents seemed to think their kids could still have decent lives even if the parents were really struggling, they were protected by the innocence of youth. People are likely more realistic now there is much more research on how childhood trauma can have significant negative life long effects to. Kids don’t just bounce back once parents find their feet again. Having kids early before you know your likely financial situation might end up with you never being able to afford a home of your own and having to live with Mom and Dad because the anticipated job never materializes or the start up company one was part of never really got going or the great entry level job that looked like the beginning of your career was pretty much the end of it as well. So many things can go wrong, the world itself seems to be changing in faster ways, harder to predict.

For me accepting comfort translates to ‘I am not trying hard enough’ because even if my parents weren’t workaholics, they verbally taught us using language that impressed me that way. “First work, then play” got translated to ‘I never had a right to play because there was always work’. I wish I had been better in some ways of learning from what they did rather than what they said, lol. It has taken me a lot to feel okay with not working whenever I have energy. A lot of the time it is simply busy work that doesn’t need to be done or can be done by someone else more easily. My dad also used to say I loved my comfort too much. At the time neither of us understood it wasn’t comfort, but protection from overstimulation I was doing because of the way my mind and body react. I have two girls who come over and clean my kitchen and vacuum, etc for me once a week and they are here right now. My sister, who is visiting, is freaking out a little because of guilt of not working whenever she can see others doing it. The work ethic is deeply embedded in me and my siblings, lol. Men are that they might have joy. I hope in years to come that becomes my family motto much more than “work first and then play”. ”think that maybe part of my issue with what God could put in my path if I follow Him is that I haven't exactly gotten over the trauma from the past stuff yet. So while I am certainly a different, and much stronger person now; because I haven't fully overcome the past turmoil God has inflicted on me then maybe I'm worried about not being able to handle future stuff” I think sometimes it can be harder to learn to trust ourselves than to trust God…and we often automatically blame ourselves when things fail and then that pressure pushes us to anger against God (we turn something that’s actually external internal and then back to external, but a different target again all while trying to feel safe). Maybe if we can learn to accept life as uncontrollable, but we will do what we reasonably can anyway and learn to skip the blame reflex, whether blaming ourselves, others, or God, we could be happier. I am always looking for causes so as to be able to understand and prevent future problems, but I think I take it too far a lot of the time.

This may relate to your life or be completely off track since I don’t know much about your internal life and only have my own experience and watching others around me with my own biases to use here really…. It can be pretty natural if you have had traumas in your life from what I have seen and studied to always be feeling like there is another crisis just around the corner. And while it doesn’t impart a great sense of control, some of us still attempt to feel like we have some control by figuring out how to anticipate them by assigning reasons to why we are going to get slammed again. My reason for anticipating the next doom to descend is pretty nonsensical, but it still is embedded in my head….my body is out to get me, sabotaging my efforts to live a useful life (too many times something like a tooth getting chipped or vertigo hitting happens just as I feel I have reached some sort of breakthrough). I am not saying you are wrong about anticipating things will get harder for you if you commit fuller to God. They may. The scriptures and conference are not exactly full of stories of life getting easier with greater commitment (though sometimes we hear tithing stories that come across that way imo), so your anticipation is reasonable in our belief system (where mine is not). But they also may not. Christ said his yoke was easy and that can be translated into life in multiple ways…an actual easier life (I have seen this on occasion), a sense of peace overall so one’s responses are less hard on one’s self (this seems most common), greater insight into how to respond, and probably others I haven’t had the chance to notice yet. Therefore, you might want to consider maybe your assumption that troubles will come is not inspired by the Spirit, but by old patterns of trauma in your brain. And even if they do come, you may be able to handle them because you have new ways of looking at life through your working to gain a greater connection with God. So whether it’s a new way of feeling or a new way of addressing issues, they just may no longer be as traumatic as they could have been. Since that is a possibility, maybe spending less of your mental and emotional energy on anticipating troubles to come isn’t the most helpful approach. Though since you seem to process thought through talking to others, maybe this is your actual intent here…being open about your worries and fears here is your way of processing those emotions so you can put them aside and stop investing resources into them, resources you will then be able to use elsewhere for actually improving your life. But if that isn’t your intent, maybe thinking about trying that way out, that it could help lighten your burden of worry a bit if you reframed it that way. Life is full of ups and downs naturally for most people, I believe. Worrying ahead of time may be helpful if you are motivated to prepare for harder times (possible ways to prepare could bebe financially secure as much as possible, don’t let paperwork pile up so you lose track of your situation or have to scramble to find documents, keep up on doctors and dentists’ appointments, prune possessions if needed so you easily keep on top of things on most days and if things go wonky for a bit, it’s relatively easy to get your home back under control when you get a breather), but once you have prepared in reasonable ways, it may be better to step away from anticipation of the negative. This is from an obsessive worrier (me in case it wasn’t obvious) based on decades of observing myself and fellow worriers (it’s a family trait). Life has gotten easier for me as I have managed to let go of some, though not all, of my habit of worry. My attempts to anticipate the worse so I am not overwhelmed have backfired by freezing me rather than freeing me as well as made it so I chose work over play and drained joy from my life. Hopefully it’s not that way for you, but if it sounds familiar maybe accepting worry is wasting some of your life could be helpful in starting a new worldview.

I am showing my age and the brain deadness that always hits in the last hot days of summer…. First error: When I was in school, Spanish was an official language in the Philippines (dropped in 1987). I was not aware it wasn’t ever that popular even if the language of the government and rich back in Spanish colonial days. I just assumed it was a quite common language back in Spanish rule days and still like in Central and South America, I had a poor history teacher in high school though he was lots of fun. I had a great American History teacher in college (he was Canadian), but if the Philippines were discussed I have forgotten, lol. It made sense to me the Church would take a show pitched towards Spanish speakers to the Philippines. (Last census has 8.4% Spanish speakers in Georgia, I was guessing in trying to figure out how Georgia fit in that the percentage of Spanish speaking is likely higher among LDS than nonLDS given the strength of Baptists in the South, but from the news article, maybe it was more of a networking connection that led them there for 9-11). Second error: I substituted “Latin” for “Spanish speaking” without thinking because it was shorter. For some odd reason, I have no problem writing long, endless even posts, but sometimes writing a longer word or phrase is just too annoying to me even if the prior or next sentence has a long word in it. It is like when I shortened my name to Calm instead of Calmoriah because it was annoying to type so many letters when I logged in even though I probably wouldn’t have to log in again for month’s or years…though I have the excuse of being high on painkillers post surgery for that at least.