Calm

It’s not an all or nothing thing. We are on a path to eternal life. Our journey is not complete simply because we are baptized into the Restored Churcchh or even when we receive our endowment and sealing.*** Whatever has kept you on the path has, imo, been part of the Lord blessing you with eternal life, but there is more we need to do to access and make use of it, imo. Think of it as God giving you a car as soon as you first seek him out as a promise of what the future will bring, but the more we turn to him, the more we align our will with him, the better access we receive (keys to start it, fuel to make it move) and skills we develop (how to drive, how to care for it), so eventually at judgment, whenever and whatever that is, we get to drive off into the sunset happily ever after (whatever that means in the eternal sense). Or maybe a train is a better analogy as I believe exaltation is about journeying the eternities together. ***seems like Joseph taught it wouldn’t be complete until long after death: ”When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation.” There is nothing that indicates the rungs are in an identical order for each person as far as I am aware. A nonmember may have climbed up further than an member imo even if they haven’t yet crossed their rung of baptism for remission of sins while the member might have practically started their climb with that as one of their first rungs. Added: it occurred to me I needed to make a clearer point that LDS don’t see a blessing or ordinance as only exclusively coming from one thing, that blessing or ordinance, though that ordinance may be necessary to receive the blessing….but other things are as well. While baptism blesses us with eternal life, it is only part of the process, a step on the way. You may have a patriarchal blessing promising certain things, but other factors, choices you make in life may delay those blessings until the next life. Healings may not immediately come. Of course this can be said to be an excuse to cover up failures when promised blessings don’t appear, which is possible, but it also makes sense given our doctrine of agency, etc. that blessings are rarely that linear.

I don’t understand the reasoning unless Pres Kimball meant they actually believed they didn’t have the truly needed authority. Blasphemy seems to be intentional to me and believing one has any necessary authority for an ordinance one believes is proper hardly seems like blasphemy. Be interesting to see if he had the same belief as president of the Church. We discussed the quote here if you recall: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71519-a-spencer-w-kimball-quote-on-blasphemy/ I do believe sinning in ignorance includes not truly believing something is a sin as well as not being aware of the law.

To baptize him for a remission of sins, membership in his Restored Church, and unto eternal life…no, he had no authority to do so. Authority to baptize him as a testament of his belief in Christ, why wouldn’t he have that? I just don’t think LDS think of baptism in that way, but since we believe in different ways of testifying of our belief, why can’t baptism be one of them?

I do wish that we wouldn’t typically talk about others’ baptisms as meaningless or invalid, improper and only state other forms of baptism are invalid in a limited context, that of our authorized ordinance pertaining to membership in the restored Church, which ordinance contains specific forms of remission of sins (sanctification and purification occur in other ways as well even if this form is eventually necessary if seeking exaltation) as well as taking on Christ’s name in a specific way (others may take on his name in other ways, like declaring themselves to be Christian and testifying of him, acting as his hands in charitable works). We are so used to thinking of baptism in only one way for ourselves, forgetting we used to be rebaptized for multiple reasons, as a testimony of our commitment, for healing (maybe for other things I have forgotten or don’t know about), that we have taken the next step of insisting it is the only way to baptize for anyone…which leads to unfounded claims that ancient Jews and ancient Americans baptized in the same way as we do now if we hear of ancient fonts or purification rituals. Even if we claim your baptism is valid for the purpose for which you yourself claim for it, I am guessing you still wouldn’t be baptized in our faith for the specific purpose of our ordinance because of our claim it serves a salvific purpose (it is commanded of the Lord in order to receive certain blessings from him) because you see this belief as to fundamentally wrong. aside: I really don’t understand if any Saint said your baptism couldn’t serve as a testimony of Christ. Am I correct in believing even if rebaptism to join a Lutheran congregation is acceptable, rebaptism to join an LDS congregation (the global one) is not in your view? You said you would be baptized if joining a Lutheran congregation, but I don’t know the specific claimed nature of Lutheran baptism to be sure if the same sort of thinking could be applied to an LDS baptism.

Defining means creating and/or explaining the meaning of something in this case. 1) Do you see baptism as part of explaining to others what one’s relationship is with God? 2) Or do you see it as adding something to the relationship, adding meaning in some way? Being baptized does more in this understanding than just telling others what one believes, but it also does something to one’s relationship with God (as marrying someone changes the relationship to something more than just living together for most people). If you see it as adding meaning, how does baptism add meaning to the relationship in your view? Perhaps it does both 1 and 2 in your view?

Very well stated, imo. I love the “covenantal anchor”. That’s the idea I have been looking for forever.

Rather than “improper”, I would use “non-procedural” or “non-authorized” perhaps because how can a baptism be “improper” if it achieves the purpose it was done for…in Navidad’s case, they are witnessing their faith in this way. Seems like the act is itself fulfilling that purpose, it’s proper for that purpose as would be any other baptism that is meant to stand as a witness of faith for the person being baptized. Even in infant baptism, seems like it would be proper if intended as a witness of faith of the parents.

Do you see baptism as defining in part someone’s relationship with God?

LDS don’t limit the Spirit to only these interactions, even the most restrictive interpretations. There are a few leaders I have heard teaching the Spirit will only witness to the truth of the gospel in regards for nonmembers, but they also talk about nonmembers being inspired, so it doesn’t seem very consistent. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is treated as a different type of relationship that is available only to those who have made the covenant, but even there they need to be righteous or humble to engage with the Spirit. The most common difference I have heard used is the Holy Ghost is our constant companion…but then the condition of it won’t be present if we sin is mentioned, so again consistency….there are definite gaps in knowledge on how it works imo. We also teach those who are righteous and seeking God can engage with the Spirit, not just the Light of Christ as long as they are righteous, so it doesn’t seem if that is all there is, there is much difference in time spent with the Spirit between members and nonmembers according to actual doctrine. So it seems to me there needs to be additional qualities when it comes to the Gift, though it is possible that practically speaking there may not be at our level much difference similar to how if you look at a nonLDS who chooses to live in a loving and honorable way, who happens to choose to skip alcohol and coffee and tea, premarital sex…from just behaviour there isn’t going to be significant differences in day to day nonChurch related life. We believe nonmembers can receive personal revelation and gifts of the Spirit, such as healing. We believe they can become more righteous through the Spirit’s influence (isn’t that being cleansed of sin?). Do we not teach that nonmembers who desire, seek, and work and live to receive the Holy Ghost will be visited by him and given spiritual gifts? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/holy-ghost-gift-study-guide?lang=eng So besides it being a covenantal relationship, not seeing much of a difference. That is a huge difference though, imo. Think of the difference between working with someone as a day laborer every day and as an employee under contact. Or a professor who has tenure and one who gets hired by semester. Maybe that worker or professor would do nothing differently, but it is still a different type of relationship. One is committing to the employer in a different sense. While someone may have the same intent, a contract makes a difference. There are also work responsibilities that must be done through authority. We want our police to be authorized representatives, not vigilantes even if the latter are respectful and charitable to those they are ‘policing’. We require restaurants to be certified as safe by authorized government employees, not some guy off the street though he claims to do a better job (don’t mind recommendations of course). Then there is the difference between a formal marriage (license or some form of contract) and common law marriage. Depending on the jurisdiction, common law can be seen as meaningless, an informal meaningful commitment (rights to inherit or require support if separating), or identical to a formal marriage relationship. What determines which one it is depends on what the authority, the government if there is one, allows. Christ chose apostles, etc. He instituted rituals (label them sacraments or ordinances or something else). I understand why there is a debate, but it’s not illogical or unreasonable to believe in God operating through humanity by both channels he gives some of his authority to and others that function without it given humanity’s needs are wide and varied. Scriptures can be reasonably interpreted imo for both institutional authority and not, depending on what part is emphasized. I think how we treat the different forms of marriage are a good example of how there can be a great deal of overlap, but also additional benefits to the relationships with greater authority. In our redemption of the dead, we accept common law marriages as identical to formal civil marriages when it comes to sealing eligibility. We don’t for the living because authorized versions are available to them. We accept legal civil and religious marriages as valid, couples are not “living in sin” and have access to all the government protections and some of the many blessings that marriage can bring. A civil marriage will not replace a temple sealing, whether formal or common law. For the specific blessings that only come through a sealing, the temple ordinance that creates a specific covenant with God is needed…not because some man said so in our belief, but because God told us it worked this way through his authorized representatives. It makes sense to reject this doctrine if you don’t believe God operates that way, but there should imo be recognition if someone believes it’s not men inserting themselves between God and the rest of us by having ordinances and defining authority as limited, but rather God defining a part of his relationship with us. Downgrading it as anything but God or Christ centered when someone acts out of obedience to what they believe is God’s will, imo, is misunderstanding how the relationship is viewed by believers.

Have you read the Tao of Pooh? Or the Te of Piglet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Pooh I need to get those off the shelf and reread them.

I wish we taught a lot more about how to see things from others’ POV. The missionaries I have been close to, I have always made a point of asking them to consider what they are asking the investigator to give up, how massive that is, not just what we have to offer them. It is shocking to me your experience is that there is so little curiosity about others in the missionaries you have met. I wonder how much is actual lack of interest and how much of it is the intensity of how much they want to be good at providing others with what they can give them when the other reaches out to ask or accept. So often we focus our concern on what we need to do to help others that we forget to pay attention to who they really are, which should be the first step in helping others rather than what our ‘job’ is to be. There was never a more loving, generous, and kind man than my father. We have had several people come up to us years later and share what my dad did for them that we never knew about. If he saw a need, he stepped in and filled it. Unfortunately there were a lot of missteps because he often didn’t take the time to ask if what he saw was the real need or if he might have misunderstood. He was right on the majority of the time from what I saw, so it was understandable why he was so confident in his own judgment, but it really hurt when he didn’t take time to listen first, especially when that was really the only thing I wanted him to do for me as an adult. I see the Church as operating in much the same way. We are a church of doers, of problem solvers. We wish to rescue people. We wish to limit suffering as much as possible, so we get right to work. And sometimes totally miss the point because of that too tight focus.

One of my husband’s favorites. I got him matching socks.

How is growing not changing?

I have a very difficult time trying to understand why anyone would interpret God in this way. I would hope there was no God before God damning people to infinite punishment based on nothing they did or could do. Even if for some reason I was confident I was saved, what of those who were not? How sad and awful an existence for them. Want to add I quoted that description and only that description to deal with that belief, not any other or any system of doctrine that belief might be part of or thought to be part of, including any Calvinists of any stripe. If someone wants me to comment on a particular faith, I would prefer they actually quote an official website of that faith rather than give a paraphrase of what they think k someone believes…because that is so often wrong in my experience.

In the sense of not wanting to exclude anyone, yes, I agree. But we don’t take them as they are, they must convert to who we are…though I see the conversion as pretty broad. But I believe that is what Christ intends, only his process is much more intensive. He is creating all of us into a ‘new man’, taking the best parts and making them better and purging the stuff that is holding us back from being who we want to be as we align our wills with his…which we want to do since God wants the best for us.

The board was very different. I greatly appreciate both versions. I do miss a lot of posters, so many I wanted to know better than I did.

I see what happened, clicked peacefully’s link while thinking it was bluebell’s post. But it does often work…using reader option will sometimes allow you to read an article, such as the Trib’s. I thought it was a glitch and felt guilty originally, but it’s been many years now, so it must be an intentional choice to leave that option, so I am going to use it.

You lost me, Ken. (Very easy to do these days.)

Why would it be? FAIR is not a department of the Church nor does the Church vet our stuff. Pretty sure Brother Parry does not claim his translation is anything but the work of a scholar, not a prophet.

Clicking the reader option shows this

Schedule (I pasted it as plain text as it was massive otherwise, best just to use link): https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2026-fair-conferences/august-2026-fair-conference#Schedule August 2026 FAIR Conference Schedule DAY 1 – WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2026 7:10 PM – Scott Gordon: “The Church Has No Borders” This presentation explores the global growth of the Church and what it means to belong to a worldwide faith community. It highlights how the restored gospel transcends cultural and geographic boundaries. Scott Gordon has served as President of FAIR since 2001 and teaches business at Shasta College and BYU Pathway. He has served in many Church callings, including bishop and seminary teacher. 7:40 PM – Anthony Sweat: The Need for a Restoration This keynote addresses why a restoration of the gospel was necessary and how it fits within God’s ongoing work. It provides doctrinal context for understanding the Restoration in today’s world. Anthony Sweat is a professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU and department chair. He is a widely published author and artist focused on Latter-day Saint history and theology. DAY 2 – THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2026 9:10 AM – Mark Ashurst-McGee: Joseph Smith and Treasure Digging This presentation examines historical questions surrounding Joseph Smith and treasure digging, providing context and faithful responses to common criticisms. Mark Ashurst-McGee is a senior historian in the Church History Department and a leading contributor to the Joseph Smith Papers Project. 9:40 AM – Brian Hales: Joseph Smith: A Reluctant Polygamist This talk explores the difficult topic of plural marriage, drawing on primary sources to better understand Joseph Smith’s experience and motivations. Brian Hales is a retired physician and leading scholar on Joseph Smith and plural marriage, with multiple publications on the subject. 10:10 AM – Brett Dowdle: “Here is Brigham”: The Private Character of Brigham Young This presentation offers a deeper look at Brigham Young’s personal life through his correspondence, revealing insights into his character and leadership. Brett Dowdle is a historian in the Church History Department and has worked extensively on the Joseph Smith Papers. 10:45 AM – Gerrit Dirkmaat: Joseph Smith’s Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon This session explores the translation of the Book of Mormon and addresses questions about how the process occurred. Gerrit Dirkmaat is a researcher and speaker on Latter-day Saint scripture and translation. 11:15 AM – John Thompson: Framing the Facsimiles: The Book of Abraham’s Relationship to the Egyptian Vignettes This presentation examines how Joseph Smith interpreted Egyptian facsimiles and what that reveals about his prophetic role. John Thompson holds a PhD in Egyptology and researches ancient scripture and temple symbolism. 11:45 AM – John Gee: Book of Abraham Research Since the Pandemic This talk surveys recent scholarship on the Book of Abraham and addresses ongoing questions surrounding the text. John Gee is a professor at BYU specializing in Egyptology and ancient scripture, with extensive publications in the field. 1:15 PM – Casey Griffiths: Approaching Hard Questions in Church History and Doctrine This presentation provides tools for understanding and addressing challenging questions using principles of epistemology and historical method. Casey Griffiths is a BYU professor and co-host of the Church History Matters podcast. 1:45 PM – Thomas Alexander: The 1844–1847 Succession Crisis This session explores how Church leadership transitioned after Joseph Smith’s death and the role of the Twelve Apostles. Thomas Alexander is a renowned historian and professor emeritus of Western American history at BYU. 2:15 PM – Josh Coates: Black Saints and the Priesthood and Temple Restriction This presentation examines historical context and frameworks for understanding the priesthood restriction. Josh Coates is Executive Director of the B. H. Roberts Foundation and a former tech CEO. 2:45 PM – Janiece Johnson: Unravelling the Story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre This session analyzes the complex history of the massacre and how narratives about it have been shaped over time. Janiece Johnson is a historian specializing in Latter-day Saint history and the Mountain Meadows Massacre. 3:25 PM – Jasmin Rappleye: Sacred, Secret, or “Cultish”? Demystifying the Latter-day Saint Temple This presentation addresses criticisms of temple worship by placing it in ancient and biblical context. Jasmin Rappleye is a content creator and scholar focused on explaining Latter-day Saint beliefs and history. 3:55 PM – Keith Erekson: Which Sources Should I Trust? This session teaches practical strategies for evaluating information and navigating misinformation. Keith Erekson directs historical research and outreach for the Church History Department. 4:25 PM – Ron Rhodes: Understanding the Faith Crisis Industry This presentation examines organizations critical of the Church and how their messaging shapes faith crises. Ron Rhodes is the creator of Answering LDS Critics and a contributor to FAIR and Interpreter. 4:55 PM – Robert Stephenson: Representations of the Church in Media This talk explores how the Church is portrayed in modern media and what trends are emerging. Robert Stephenson works in the Church Communication Department coordinating with external faith-based organizations. DAY 3 – FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2026 9:10 AM – Meagan Kohler: Joy in Discipleship vs. Happiness in the Church This presentation explores the difference between happiness and true discipleship, helping attendees navigate disappointment while remaining rooted in faith. Meagan Kohler is a writer for Deseret News who focuses on faith and modern culture. She is a convert to the Church and lives in Utah County with her family. 9:40 AM – Walker Wright: Nourishing the Roots: How Temple Recommend Questions Can Reground Faith This session examines how focusing on core beliefs can strengthen faith and provide stability amid doubt and complexity. Walker Wright works in academic program leadership and teaches as an adjunct at BYU-Idaho. He writes on economics, religion, and public policy for both academic and popular audiences. 10:10 AM – Wendy Ulrich: When Loved Ones Leave: Maintaining Faith and Relationships This talk offers compassionate guidance for maintaining both faith and relationships when loved ones step away from the Church. Wendy Ulrich is a licensed psychologist, former member of the Relief Society General Council, and author of several books on faith and personal growth. 10:45 AM – Matt Roper: Accidental Evidence for the Book of Mormon This presentation explores how past criticisms of the Book of Mormon can, over time, become evidence supporting its authenticity. Matt Roper is a researcher and writer for Scripture Central with extensive publications on Latter-day Saint scripture and history. Paul Fields: Authorship Attribute Analysis of D&C 132 This session uses statistical analysis to examine authorship claims about Doctrine and Covenants 132 and addresses questions about its origin. Paul Fields is a statistics professor with decades of experience in data analysis and authorship attribution studies. 11:45 AM – Michael R. Ash: Shaken Faith Syndrome This presentation provides practical tools for navigating faith challenges and responding to criticism with confidence. Michael R. Ash is a longtime FAIR contributor and author of multiple books addressing faith, doubt, and apologetics. 1:15 PM – Matt Grow: “A Record Shall Be Kept”: The Mission of the Church History Department This talk explores the role of the Church History Department in preserving and sharing the history of the Church. Matt Grow is Managing Director of the Church History Department and a general editor of the Joseph Smith Papers and Saints. 1:45 PM – Jennifer Roach Lees: Doctrinal Differences and “Heretical” Teachings This presentation examines differences between Latter-day Saint beliefs and other Christian traditions and offers strategies for better dialogue. Jennifer Roach Lees is a licensed therapist with expertise in religious dynamics and interfaith understanding. 2:15 PM – Kendall Buchmiller: What is (and is not) Doctrine This session explores how doctrine is defined in the Church and how understanding those distinctions can strengthen faith. Kendall Buchmiller is a religious educator and researcher whose work focuses on theology, psychology, and faith development. 2:45 PM – Jeffrey Thayne: By What Measure? Why the Same Doctrine Looks Different to Different Saints This presentation teaches how to recognize faulty reasoning and cognitive bias, especially in discussions about faith. Jeffrey Thayne holds a doctorate in instructional technology and studies the intersection of the gospel and culture. 3:25 PM – Brant Gardner: Can I Trust the Book of Mormon? My Half-Century Quest to Answer that Question This session reflects on decades of scholarship and research supporting the Book of Mormon as a foundation for faith. Brant Gardner is an anthropologist and author specializing in Mesoamerican context and Book of Mormon studies. 3:55 PM – Neal Rappleye: A Beginner’s Guide to Book of Mormon Apologetics This presentation provides a structured introduction to defending the Book of Mormon using modern scholarship and resources. Neal Rappleye is a researcher and co-host of the Informed Saints podcast, with extensive publications on Book of Mormon studies. 4:25 PM – James Perry: Historical and Contemporary Patterns: European Latter-day Saints, 1837–Present This talk examines patterns of Church growth in Europe and offers insights into how faith is measured beyond numbers. James Perry is a Church History Area Manager for Europe North and holds a PhD from Lancaster University. 4:55 PM – Daniel C. Peterson: Why Apologetics? The Case for Defending the Faith This keynote presentation explores the importance of apologetics and why defending faith remains vital

Sorry, been spacing out on way too many things lately and didn’t notice this till now. Realize this may be too late for many. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2026-fair-conferences/virt_2026-nt/fair-art-contest

Is any theory given by Carmack? I understood Skousen to be reluctant to theorize in the past, but haven’t been tracking more recent stuff. To me when something seems both novel and odd, it makes sense to try and gather as much data as possible before theorizing, so a lack of an explanation at this point doesn’t bother me. I see this in a later post, so it seems it’s still at the collecting data stage. ”It is kind of hard since there isn't a "grand theory" but just a bunch of data points.”

Did they get anything from him?

Seems like the law company somewhat misrepresented the case on their website or perhaps I just am not that familiar with legal writing (it does say “portion of the case”, but doesn’t it imply as written that is a portion of the 2.38 billion meaning it was more than the father involved, it was also the Church?