manol

Great reply @quietcanon, and I appreciate your taking my questions seriously. You have addressed all of my concerns. Very best to you.

I've been out of the loop for a while so your posts are the first time I've heard of anything like this. Imo it's prudent, and of course unfortunate that present circumstances make it prudent. Thirty-something years ago a man began calling our ward repeatedly threatening to show up and kill Mormons. Nobody else took his threats seriously, which was probably logical because nothing like what he was threatening had ever happened. I appointed myself "unofficial greeter", hanging around outside before and after meetings, and keeping an eye on what was happening outside and/or at the entrances as best I could during meetings both on Sundays and during the week. I was in the bishopric so my presence wasn't abnormal, and people just thought I was this cheerful little guy who liked to greet everyone. Nobody ever knew I was carrying, illegally because there was no other option in that jurisdiction at that time. Glad to hear there is now an actual plan in place, at least in some locations, and that actual trained personnel are involved.

A couple of weeks ago, just to mess with the AI's brain (it's not a sin to deliberately be a jerk to an AI, is it?), I started selecting ONLY wrong answers. I did this for well over a dozen different sets of images. Then... seemingly out of nowhere... it evidently concluded I was human and let me in! My guess is the AI figured out that only a human could be so intentionally obtuse as to consistently get ZERO correct. The AI being able to deduce that I was a human from my deliberate disobedience to its instructions is a bit unnerving. I feel like it out-smarted me. Not that that bar is set very high, but still...

Thank you for replying. I can see the utility of the hierarchy you advocate as a tool for resolving apparent contradictions within the canon, and/or between the canon and subsequent teachings and commentary, at least among parties agreeing to its basic assumptions. For instance, it would be interesting to open-mindedly examine plural marriage through the lense of the hierarchy you advocate, rather than starting out with “the answer” having already been determined in one's mind. Must admit that would be challenging for me! It sounds like you might have in mind limiting the scope of application for the heirarchy you propose to a particular type of discussion, in which case the following reservations don't apply: My first thought when reading your post was, what you're describing is all about the intellect. The hierarchy you advocate decrees how to go about making a reasonable intellectual categorization of scriptures and other teachings. It looks to me like this completely leaves out personal responsibility for connecting with God and receiving guidance. It's like a formula whose infallibility and exclusivity is assumed, such that progression within this paradigm becomes a matter of logical application of the formula. Does God the Holy Spirit have a primary role, or a secondary role, or any role, within this paradigm? Second, it seems to me the hierarchy you advocate decrees that God must communicate according to its criteria in order to be taken seriously. 2 Nephi 29:11 (arguably Class 1?) envisions God speaking through multiple channels in multiple locations: “I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them”. It looks to me like the hierarchy you advocate would not even notice, much less attribute any credibility to, communication from God which does not come exclusively through the channel it approves of. So right now God could be revealing “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” through one or more intermediaries other than Dallin H. Oaks and such would never be taken seriously. Third, applying the thinking the hierarchy advocates to the hierarchy itself, does it have more Class 1 scriptural support than any other competing paradigm? I understand that the hierarchy makes logical sense if we make a few foundational assumptions about the infallibility and exclusivity of what has made its way into the canon, but from within the canon itself, what are the scriptures that support it? And, applying the hierarchy's formula, are those scriptures more persuasive than scriptures which support any other paradigm? Is the priority the pursuit of truth, or the pursuit of correctly understanding the canon, or are the two assumed to be one and the same? As I said, the above reservations might not apply. To give some context to where I'm coming from: My personal belief is that we have the calling and the privilege of being the same manner of men and women as Christ. I think this would be “being filled with the pure love of Christ”. And I think being filled with the pure love of Christ is not primarily an intellectual pursuit; rather, it is something felt, something experienced, something embodied, something we are to deliberately return to again and again and again whenever we notice we've slipped into any lesser state of consciousness. (<- And for the record, that's all something I aspire to, rather than something I claim to do.)

@quietcanon, do you believe that "God does now reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God"? If so, how might we recognize them? And, how would they fit into your "canon first" theological hierarchy?

@BlipBlap seems to have forgotten that the Latter-day Saints have a scripture specifically instructing them not to attack other religions. D&C 18:20: "Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."

I think God desires our closeness, in our hearts if not in physical proximity, and I think it's wonderful that Catholicism has a way for its members to experience the Presence of God in both ways. My understanding is that the Divine is present where two or more are gathered in his name (no mention of a requirement that they agree about everything), and perhaps that gathering "place" can even be an internet forum.

Yeah, I can't see gloating being a thing that anyone does in Heaven. And it's not that I'm thinking those looking forward to gloating are going to be disappointed and therefore I'll get to secretly gloat about that! I just don't think we will be seeing through lenses that show us something to be gloated over. Imo we don't even have to wait until we die to see through a lense that shows us love instead of judgment, and kinship instead of separation.

Beautiful message in those lyrics indeed, THANK YOU Navidad! Below is a link to a blog post by a near-death experiencer writing about love. He does not come from a religious background, but he ends up in a similar place to where Frederick Faber takes us in that inspired hymn. Here's a quick quote, as a preview: "Love everyone where they are. Not where you wish they would be." Love (jonathanashford.com)

I agree with you. I think Christ is more interested in how we perceive and treat one another than in whose religion is the best. The accounts of near-death experiences have found their way into my personal "open canon", and the following is from notes taken while listening to one of them: On the other side there are no lines of separation. On the other side we are all family. I aspire to see that way down here, and @Tony uk I think you set a wonderful example. Thank you.

I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of how creation happened, or is happening (maybe it's not over yet?), but as a thought exercise: Suppose God exists in a realm where thoughts are, or can be, energy. From there, it's not a huge leap to envision a sufficiently advanced "celestial technology" (for lack of a better term) converting this energy into matter; in fact, down here in the physical we even have an equation describing how much physical-world energy it takes to create matter: E/C^2 = M Now down here in the physical world we have conservation of matter and energy, such that the total sum of the two remains constant in the physical universe, but maybe that is not the case for the non-physical universe. For instance suppose you become filled with the pure love of Christ. Is there now less of the pure love of Christ somewhere else in the universe(s)? I don't think so; I think you have actually increased the net amount of the pure love of Christ in the universe(s). I'm not saying the above two paragraphs are descriptive of how creation happened; what I'm really saying is, I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind. If one's paradigm is correct, it will survive open-minded encounters with other paradigms. And if one's paradigm is incorrect, it will be corrected by open-minded encounters with other paradigms (assuming one of those is more correct). Imo this is a topic where there is vastly more we don't know than what little we do "know".

What are we here to do? We are here to become the same manner of men and women as Christ, which means we are here to develop and embody and radiate the pure love of Christ. The pure love of Christ is a state of being that fills a person and if unimpeded it shows up in everything they do. Now it doesn't require much growth to love someone if they agree with us about everything that matters to us. But we came here to grow. Therefore... People we disagree with, and especially people we disagree with strongly about things that matter to us, are giving us a wonderful gift: They are giving us the opportunity to develop spiritual muscles that would otherwise go unused. They are giving us the opportunity to love where love does not come easy. They are giving us an opportunity to develop the pure love of Christ. This goes for those who stay in the Church as they look at those who leave, and it goes for those who leave the Church as they look back at the Church and those who stay. We are each on the same journey towards becoming the same manner of man or woman as Christ whether that is presently our focus or not, whether we are even aware of it or not, whether we are learning the easy way or the hard way, regardless of how many mistakes we make, and regardless of how different all outward appearances may be. In my opinion.

Sometimes it's not the years, it's the mileage.

I like this. And I'm curious about the moniker you have chosen, if at some point you feel like elaborating.

Agreed. I'm agnostic about the literal existence of Satan, but acknowledge that that's one possible explanation. Very interesting! That feeling of "a caring presence that I identify as God" does not, and never has, come naturally to me, at least not in this life. It is not (yet!) my default mode, though I hope someday it will be. Awareness of what could be called a "caring presence" is a relatively new experience for me. It is something I have to deliberately work at via intention and attention by consciously choosing what occupies my mind. I have to deliberately tune (and re-tune) my "radio" to that higher "station", but it IS becoming easier for me to do so, and to do so when circumstances make it difficult. For me, that's an "opposition" that is (apparently) helping me to develop in an area where I (apparently) need to do so. And it is very encouraging to me to hear that the caring presence you identify as God is pretty much constantly present for you. Seriously, hearing that makes me very happy for you. And it shines through; your presence here is very much "caring". Going back to the radio analogy: We not only receive but also broadcast on whatever "station" we are tuned-in to.