bluebell

Or maybe conflating infinite with never ending? (honestly not sure if I used conflating correctly in that sentence, but I'm going to let it ride)

Yes, that is our basic belief. Salvation through our covenants with God. We do not consider them to be Latter-day Saint ordinances though. They are God’s ordinances. Everyone’s only hope is to follow Christ. That is the guy in the woods only hope, and my only hope, and your only hope. It is not about being convinced in heaven which church was right. It’s about people deciding if they want to live the kind of life Christ lives (as a joint-heir with Him), or not.

I was at the Hill Cumorah site about nine years ago, and I don’t even remember the Christus. There’s a lot going on there, and it could’ve been that I’m so used to seeing the Christus at church sites that it didn’t make much of an impression.

It looks like this idea comes at least partly from his understanding of D&C 68:4. Pres. Tuttle quotes it further into the talk. “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” The power of God unto salvation is the power Christ, so if the speaker meant that we need living prophets to to communicate the will of the Lord to God's children as a group, and that our acceptance of such communication plays a role in our salvation, then I can agree. If he meant something else, I might not completely agree. It's not a statement that I remember hearing before and it doesn't make a lot of sense on the surface to me so I'm not exactly sure how to take it.

I can see how his quote could be interpreted that way. If that's how he meant it then I agree, it's a repulsive notion.

That is an interesting view. But there really isn’t any way to talk about the crucifixion without including the atonement. It’s not just the LDS view, it’s what Christianity as a whole teaches. I’m wondering if maybe Hitchens doesn’t realize that?

I guess the idea of inequality in polygamy isn’t a dealbreaker for me when it comes to mortality because I’m a woman. As a woman, the stuff that I have to suffer through and deal with for 50+ years of my life in order to have children for a few years is completely outrageous. In my opinion, this is especially true when you compared it to what a man has to do to have children. There’s really not anything more unequal in life than that difference, in my opinion. And yet it appears to be an inequality that God is completely OK with for now, for whatever reasons. i’m not saying it has to make sense to anybody else, but for me, as long as that inequality punches me in the face every month, I can’t use inequality as a reason not to accept that polygamy could be condoned by God. (maybe I could come up with some other reasons, but inequality is off the table as a valid one for me.)

I’m going off of specific social media accounts I see, which say that having kids is too much work and they’d rather focus on themselves. When they are married they refer to themselves as DINKS (dual income, no kids). https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/06/20/the-rise-in-dinks-sinks-dinkwads-kippers/ I’m sure there are people out there with too much anxiety to have kids, I just haven’t seen them on social media or as much in the news.

I relate to this so much.

That's where I've heard it before!

Is her story available in church sources? I feel like I've read it before. I can imagine how difficult it must have been for her. This is the aspect of polygamy that I struggle with. Not so much the sharing of a husband, but the unfairness of how the "sharing" often happened.

That's sad.

Could be. Though the Philippines tour wouldn't have anything to do with the Latin community. Who knows.

People aren't big on self sacrifice right now, I think you are right. It's the top reason that I see people give for not wanting to have kids.

I know they were in Atlanta Georgia last fall, in the Philippines last February 2024, and Mexico in 2023. So I have no idea what the timeline is for their world tour (because it seems like they are always touring but not on a set schedule), or how they decide where to go. It's kind of all over the place!

And he thinks that the people who are marrying now aren't trying to live a Christian life or draw close to God? (asking for clarification so I make sure I'm getting his complaint correct) Can I ask how old this friend is?

I'm so glad that she was able to find happiness in marriage in the end. Thank goodness for the ability to divorce. Her first husband had some explaining to do in heaven I think!

That would be so hard! Did she ever write or speak about how the marriage turned out?

I will watch the video when I get a chance, it looks interesting. The quote from David's friend also spiked my interest. I'm wondering if what era he is from. Was "used to be" back when wives were more willing to stay in marriages that didn't meet their own needs while meeting the needs of the husband? We will probably never know since we can't ask for more clarification on that, but I'm curious. In regards to polygamy, for me the most interesting aspect is that it polygamous marriage is a multiplication for the man and a division for the woman, and understanding why God found benefits in living two different types of marriages for His sons compared to His daughters.

I have a friend who is in the choir, and they were slated to do the UK and parts of scandinavia in 2020, but then covid happened and it got cancelled. She was so sad! I know she and others really hope that it got rescheduled. We haven't talked about it in over a year so I don't know if it ever did.

In 1997 the church did the "Mormon Trek", where whole families, oxen, teams of horses, etc. recreated the pioneers' westward trek on parts of the historic oregon and mormon trails. It tooks a few months if I remember right. It could be a photo from that experience too.

I don't think we should discount the importance of "wrestling" with the Lord over this kind of stuff. I can't think of any gospel knowledge that I have obtained that did not start out as a wrestle with something that did not make any sense to me. For me, it's the wrestle that takes a principle or doctrine from "learned" to "believe and/or know." The act of trying to get past the wrestle is where the vast bulk of my testimony comes from. Without questioning, disagreeing, being suspicious of things leaders have said, I would be much further down the ladder than I currently am. I do think we have to lean into faith and against our biases and doubt in our wrestles, because things can easily go the wrong way if we feed the wrong sources. But I don't see this discussion as anyone's unwillingness to be circumspect. I think most of the posts demonstrate a willingness to engage, and I think that's always a good thing.

When it comes to healing, I don't think they are different at all. Robert Millet taught this in a paper published by BYU: "What then is the difference between a man who holds the priesthood administering to the sick and a person who prays with great faith? We have seen often enough that the outcome may not be different at all: the sick are healed by the prayer of faith (see James 5:14–15; D&C 46:20), and the sick are healed by the power of the priesthood (see Mark 6:13; D&C 42:44)."

I think you are exactly right, that bolded part is the difference. But I like what Pres. Oaks has taught in the past about the topic (though in regards to a blessing of healing, not a father's blessing). I think this quote has already been brought up once but I'm going to do it again: “However, like most who officiate in healing blessings, I have often struggled with uncertainty on the words I should say. For a variety of causes, every elder experiences increases and decreases in his level of sensitivity to the promptings of the Spirit. Every elder who gives a blessing is subject to influence by what he desires for the person afflicted. Each of these and other mortal imperfections can influence the words we speak.” He then went on to explain that the words spoken within the blessing “are not essential to its healing effect. If faith is sufficient and if the Lord wills it, the afflicted person will be healed or blessed whether the officiator speaks those words or not.”