manol

^^^This^^^ ^^^And This^^^ By way of illustration - There's this concept called the Adam-God Theory, which was put forward by Church leaders who have access to the Light of Christ, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, the temple, the counsel of fellow members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, visions, angels, Jesus Chirst (as head of the Church and Source of the aforementioned Light), and presumably even God the Father. And this same Adam-God Theory was subsequently rejected and labelled heresy by Church leaders who have access to the Light of Christ, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, the temple, the counsel of fellow members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, visions, angels, Jesus Christ (as head of the Church and Source of the aforementioned Light), and presumably even God the Father. Thus we see that being able to claim multiple avenues and levels of divine guidance does not guarantee the claimants' conclusions are correct. Having access to multiple avenues and levels of divine guidance arguably increases the odds, but it is obviously no guarantee. Nor are there any guarantees that similar mistakes never found their way into the scriptures (regardless of whether Brigham Young or Spencer W. Kimball was correct on the topic of Adam-God). Imo one of the great strengths of the LDS paradigm is its emphasis on, justification of, and instruction in putting ALL teachings to an Alma Chapter 32-style test. With that lead-in, let's now look @MustardSeed's post: I think the laws of God are sometimes written with greater clarity in our hearts than they are in the words passed down to us as scripture, hence the wisdom of placing one's relationship with Christ first, and using that as a lens through which to interpret and apply scripture. But note that, the day will come when we follow the law that is written in our hearts, not needing any external teacher. As the Lord said to Jeremiah: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel.... "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34 Maybe we are actually drawing closer and closer to that day?

Thank you. I think that when we are not experiencing the presence of the Holy Spirit, usually we are the ones who have put up barriers or blockages of some sort, the exception being conditions which make it effectively impossible to "tune in" to the still, small voice. "We" and "our" = "humans"; at least that's what I had in mind. Imo, if nothing else, the LDS ordinance bestowing the Gift of the Holy Ghost has real-world value in that it EMPHASIZES and VALIDATES paying attention to and heeding the still, small voice. Whether the ordinance itself enhances a person's access to the Holy Spirit, and to what extent, I cannot speak to beyond my own experience, viewed through my own lens.

Well said. In my opinion - The Holy Spirit is like a radio station we identify by listening with our hearts instead of with our ears. And when we lose the station, it means we have shifted our tuning to a wrong frequency. The Holy Spirit is like a lantern gently illuminating enough of the path that our next step is within our field of view, but leaving the choice up to us. The Holy Spirit is like the wind, we can feel which way it's blowing at our location, but we don't know what it is doing elsewhere. The Holy Spirit is a teacher who can turn just about anything into a lesson, if we are willing. The Holy Spirit is our natural companion, and being in the presence of the Holy Spirit is our natural state. In the event of a discrepancy, God the Holy Spirit out-ranks all scriptures and all prophets.

When he was in the US Army during the "Cold War", Papa Lee was stationed in the Fulda Gap in what was then called West Germany. This is the gap that NATO expected the massive Warsaw Pact tank armies to roar through. IF World War Three had happened, Papa Lee would have had a very short and very exciting life. @Bill “Papa” Lee, thank you for your service way back when, and in so many other ways throughout your extremely service-oriented 66 years (and counting). I think there is something called "the ripple effect", like when a rock is tossed into a pond and the ripples spread out across the pond. I have never met you and yet you have "ripple effected" me, and I'm sure you have had a strong positive effect on hundreds of people, who in turn have effected thousands of people, who in turn have effected tens of thousands... There have been times when I might have disagreed with some detail in something you said, but I AGREE with your spirit!!

Joining in with your other brothers and sisters here in sending prayers. And... in my humble opinion, a "Zorro-like scar" is a feature, not a bug. I mean, with the "Zoro" reference you're already well on your way to inventing a much more interesting back-story for your scar, even if you never actually use it. I'm envisioning an epic tale wherein you and your first mate repel a boarding party, their cutlasses proving to be no match for your twirling winch-handles...

Thank you. I need to take a break and figure out some stuff for myself, some really basic stuff that most people have long since figured out. For instance “faith”, the topic of this thread... what that word encompasses is not (yet) obvious to me. Seems to me there's a continuum, and one region on the continuum looks like “hope for the best and expect the worst”, which is a rational, circumspect, protective, play-it-safe approach which very sensibly does not extrapolate beyond those facts demonstrably in evidence. Elsewhere on the continuum is “actively being a generator/radiator of far greater positive energy (or positive attitude) than can be justified solely by those facts demonstrably in evidence”. And I suspect such might have something to do with "having faith." I feel compelled to actually find out this (and several other things) for myself, one way or another and to whatever extent I reasonably can, instead of merely having a bunch of evolving/revolving theories. So I'm taking a break.

Thank you. The term doesn't bother me, I brought it up... and I think it's funny. But I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.

Thank you very much, that means a lot to me.

I apologize for mis-interpreting your intention on both accounts; obviously I still have work to do, and I appreciate you letting me know. Seriously. Ha! Maybe so. I tend to draw my “circle of inclusion” quite large, but in my even verbalizing that there's arguably an implied and divisive “... and you don't”, which is the exact opposite of my intentions. So again, I have work to do. I keep thinking about something you pointed out to me, that my “eclectic approach to the gospel seems inconsistent.” It does indeed. My participation here has been in hopes of integrating my LDS experience with my post-LDS experience in an amateurish attempt to circumscribe (or at least reconcile) what I perceive as truths from two different paradigms into the same (thus far incomplete) whole. The result is at best still a "mixture" and not a "compound", to borrow terminology from high school chemistry; which is to say that my attempt has been unsuccessful. I am a slow learner, hence it has taken me a while to accept what was probably inevitable all along. I thank you (and the other members of this forum) for playing a valuable and helpful role in my little journey.

Dictionary definition of "condemn": "To declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation."

I would call that "correction". Again, I would call that "correction."

Being prudent and protecting the innocent (even if that means incarcerating someone for life because that's the only way) are not the same thing as holding that person in condemnation. One reason not to hold another in condemnation is that there is a price tag attached: We have to lower our spiritual state in order the feel negativity towards another. It doesn't matter how justified we are - we cannot hold another in darkness without lowering ourselves into darkness too. No matter how justified, we cannot hate without lowering our energy into the state of "hate". So imo we do what is prudent and protective (and healing wherever possible), and sometimes that means removing a person from our lives (temporarily or permanently), but we would be wise to do so without going into hatred and condemnation because that carries a price tag and offers us nothing of value in return.

This probably doesn't need to be said, but... only if it really interests you. I think our interests lead us to inquire into things we can learn something useful from, and imo there's little point in putting a lot of effort into something that doesn't really speak to you. As a practical matter, my guess is that finding a medium who works for free and doesn't advertise or have a website is probably going to be a word-of-mouth thing. If you're interested in “real information about the afterlife”, imo in general near-death experiences are probably going to be more productive than mediums because the person who had the experience is on this side of the veil rather than the other side, and therefore can spend a lot more time communicating. Here is a YouTube channel with compilations of excerpts from near-death experiences arranged by topic: NDE Compilations - YouTube If you're interested in FIRST-HAND information about the afterlife (without going to the obvious and irreversible extreme), I suggest the Monroe Institute, which teaches out-of-body exploration techniques. If you don't want to spend the money to attend a Monroe Institute program or to buy their audio products, and/or if going out-of-body is not something you're okay with, then you might consider Bruce Moen's books. He teaches a technique for afterlife exploration which does not involve going out-of-body. If none of those work for your belief system or finances or temperament but you're still genuinely curious, then I'm not sure what your options might be. That being said, I do believe that "Seek and ye shall Find" is a generally-applicable principle.

At the risk of over-simplifying, imo there are only two thought systems, though each may take many different forms. One always results in darkness and condemnation, and the other always results in light and love. In one thought system, “judgment” is synonymous with condemnation, and condemnation is deemed to always be the proper response to any form of guilt. Since all are guilty of something, ultimately all are condemned, according to this thought system. In the other thought system, “judgment” is synonymous with discernment, and discernment is how we differentiate that which is of God from that which is not (see Moroni 7:15-18). Light and love and forgiveness are of God. Therefore, imo any interpretation of “righteous judgement” which calls on us to be a source of condemnation is incorrect. And imo any interpretation of "righteous judgment" which calls on us to be a source of light and love and forgiveness is correct.

@Pyreaux, thank you very much. I read the verses surrounding the passages in 3rd Nephi and Section 84. Wow. I see what you mean.

I'm not familiar with the term "the Great Condemnation". What does it mean?

Of course that would be a problem! Thanks for clarifying. I assume from your posts and @The Nehor's that there are some unsavory daytime TV shows and/or reality shows with or about mediums, and I don't think that's the best way to arrive at an informed opinion about mediums who are in it for the right reasons (and who would be unlikely to end up on such a show) . By way of example, there might be a docu-drama depicting the church or its members which presents a distorted view. Even as an ex-member I found "Under the banner of heaven" so distorted that I stopped watching after the second episode.

That's a much milder reply than I expected. I caught the sarcasm, and it's okay. And "seems inconsistent" is a fair assessment, so I accept that criticism. Regarding my pronoun usage, I was focused more on pulling a wide range of thoughts together and distilling them into a few paragraphs. So yes, I should have been more precise and said, "those members of the church who partake of the sacrament" instead of "we" (for the record, I'm not trying to sneak in through the back door). I'll try to keep that in mind in the future. Is there any other place in that post where my pronoun usage is objectionable to you as a member of the church?

Of course not! He was showing up in a way that would enable my mother to identify him based on her friend's description. Kinda like Jesus showing up with a hole in his side. IF (<- and that's a big "IF") such exists, would it interest you?

Thank you for writing back. And yeah I'm even worse than a cafeteria Mormon... I'm a cafeteria ex-Mormon! I may have been out of line about the word of wisdom, but I got the impression that rodheadlee was feeling condemned by it and wanted him to know that that's not how I see it, even though my vote counts for absolutely nothing, and even though he almost certain disagrees strongly with me about it. The worth of souls is great (got that one from the D&C!), imo too great in this case for me to keep my mouth shut... but maybe spouting off like I did was immature on my part. Imo the Gospel of Jesus Christ is primarily his teachings about who and what we are to be, such as: Love God completely and without reservation; love your neighbor as yourself; judge not; forgive without keeping score; love your enemies and do good to all; give without expectation; seek first the kingdom of God; be the same manner of men and women as Christ; love one another as Christ loves us; Christ is the Vine and we are the branches; etc. Regarding repentance: Our behavior arises from our thoughts; or to put it another way, our thoughts are CAUSE and our behavior is EFFECT. When our mood tells us that we have chosen wrongly, it is because we have perceived (judged) someone or something wrongly. Imo we need to think honestly about what we have thought that God would not have us think, and what we have not thought that God would have us think. From there we can search sincerely for what actions we have done, and/or what we have left undone, and correct our behavior accordingly. So imo repentance is to change our minds to think like God's to the extent we are able to. I am not convinced the church's ordinances in and of themselves have power beyond that which naturally arises from following the teachings they symbolize and/or convey. For instance, baptism symbolizes the death of the person we were and our rebirth as a new creature in Christ, washed clean, and THAT concept is something I absolutely believe in. But is baptism the ordinance in and of itself essential to enter the Kingdom of God? Apparently not, because if it were, then the Church would be doing baptisms for the dead on behalf of children who died before the age of accountability. Personally I do not believe the Light of Christ is "less than" the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I believe they are of the same Source and are not in competition with one another. That being said, imo the ordinance of conferring the Gift of the Holy Ghost is BRILLIANT because it legitimizes for every church member their having direct access to God the Holy Spirit. Imo the Baptism of Fire is a topic beyond the scope of this reply, but yes it is something I believe in. I do not think it is synonymous with the bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost following baptism. The sacrament - oboy. Once again, imo the ordinance, or the act of partaking in and of itself, is not the critical factor; rather, it is the incredible principles being taught. For now let's just look at the prayers themselves: In the blessing on the bread, we witness that we are WILLING to do three things: Take upon us the name of Christ; always remember him; and keep his commandments. Imo this is all about where our hearts and minds and intentions are - this is what we are WILLING to do. In the blessing on the water, we witness what we ARE DOING: We do always remember him. We are not witnessing that we keep his commandments, because we'd all be lying!! But the level we are supposed to be at is that we "do always remember" Christ. My interpretation is that at a minimum we always have a program running in the background, or we always have a tab open (so to speak), and that program or that tab is "Jesus Christ". When we are at the level we "witness" to in the blessings on the bread and water, we "may have his spirit to be with [us]". The Holy Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, so what does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit imply about who and what we are? "Enduring to the end" sounds frightening and stagnant and dreadful to me. For now at least I've put the concept of "enduring to the end" on the back burner... not that I have any intention of bailing out, but I do not expect it to be sheer unabated misery. I haven't figured out how to reconcile the words "enduring to the end" with a loving Father we have no need to fear, nor with a Savior whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light, nor with my experience of both. I expect to always have the option of choosing light over darkness regardless of the external circumstances, and expect that if I do, the light will have its effects. But I could be wrong. As for the specifics of exactly what it means to be "the same manner of man or woman as Christ", I'm still working on that. I think it has to do with the Vine being within the branch, rather than the branch becoming the Vine.

Thank you Tacenda. At one point I studied several different "energy healing" modalities, and one in particular left a bad taste in my mouth because imo it over-emphasized money changing hands and had a lot of ego-tripping and self-aggrandizement going on. I suspect the founder had something very different in mind but then it became a business after he was gone. Agreed. Very interesting. We lived in an old house for a while and there were several "ghosts" who seemed to have an attachment to the place. My wife sees them more than I do. One time she and my teenage son (by a previous marriage) interacted with a ghost that he could feel (with his hands) and she could see (confirming that he was indeed tracing its outline with his hands). I mention this incident because two or more simultaneous witnesses are rare. On the day that we moved out, my wife and I and two of my friends who had helped us load the truck had just about finished. The four of us watched a small object move about eight or ten inches "on its own", right in the middle of the four of us. My friends were kinda freaked out but my wife and I took it as our ghosties bidding us farewell. When I was in my early teens there was this young man my mother had introduced to the church. Mom gave a talk in church one day, and afterwards the young man came up to us and told her that there had been an elderly man in spirit watching her and smiling. From his description mom guessed that it was "Uncle Bob", and she went on to say that Uncle Bob had had cerebral palsy. The young man said, "Well that would explain something: His held his head tilted way over to the left." Yup, THAT was Uncle Bob! His head laid on his left shoulder when I had known him.

Last Friday Bernard Gui wrote: To which I wrote back: Bernard, I haven't heard back from you with the clarification I was asking for, so I'll just go ahead and reply to the part that was clear to me: I don't know whether the Book of Mormon is historically accurate and if so to what extent, but in my opinion it has many great teachings which stand on their own merits. The teaching that we should "be the same manner of men [and women] that Christ is" is one such teaching.

That's what I expected; your reservations are similar to what mine were (and still are to some extent). I'm more open now to someone being paid for a service rendered, such that there is a fair exchange, wherein each receives from the other something that is beneficial to them, even if the exchange is not "like for like". Why wouldn't free agency be fully in play, especially for spirits in a realm free from the constraints of linear time? (I'm not trying to be snarky.) I don't have enough experience with mediums to have a coherent picture of what it's like for any of the parties involved. But this thought comes to mind: Perhaps there is a gift or ability to "tune in" involved (whether innate or cultivated or both), which only a small percentage of people have or have developed to that extent. By this same reasoning, if someone is worthy enough for God to send them a message via a friend or a hymn or a bishop or a book or a sunrise or a patriarchal blessing or a scripture, then they would theoretically be worthy enough to hear it directly from God, whether in a vision or dream or deep impression. But for most of us the signal path involves someone or something else. That being said, I don't disagree with you that if a person is worthy enough to hear a message through an intermediary, they are worthy enough to hear it directly. But they may (temporarily?) have limiting perceptions which interfere with direct communication.

If you were Joseph Smith's non-member neighbor in the 1820's or 1830's, would you have automatically assumed he was just another scam artist and fraud? If not, why not? What might persuade you to consider the possibility that it's not always "just magic tricks"? I think I understand your aversion to the idea of the supposedly spiritual taking place in what appears to be a non-spiritual setting and for what appear to be mostly non-spiritual purposes. I don't have enough experience to address this aspect, but would you be less uncomfortable if money didn't change hands? In your opinion, are there limitations to our web-like interconnectedness which preclude the possibility of someone like @Tacenda's neice being legitimate? Could someone who is not a stake patriarch be able to tune-in to and/or through Spirit for the benefit of others?

While there were (if I recall correctly) relatively few things that we actually covenanted to never reveal, I was under the impression that virtually nothing about the temple was to be spoken of in specific terms outside of the Celestial Room, and even there only in hushed reverent whispers. Nor do I recall ever having an actual conversation, much less a discussion, in the Celestial Room. For me it was always sit or stand there silently for a few minutes, careful not to disturb anyone and having whatever internal experience I was having, then leaving for the locker room. I do not recall ever receiving temple-content-related instruction outside of the temple, nor ever being told it was okay to engage in temple-content-related conversation outside of the temple. But it's been a while so things may have changed. I'm not sure how representative of the church this board is, but I have both observed and engaged in far more specific dialogue about the temple here than in all my years as an active member combined. I get the sense that, on this board at least, the line is drawn fairly close to where the actual "never reveal" covenant language draws it. I am not in your target audience for this question, but imo the deliberate removal of old symbols is itself symbolic. I think it is symbolic of laying aside the unnecessary such that connection between us and the divine is streamlined. Agreed! With no formal instruction about what we're supposed to believe from our temple experiences, THAT part of our relationship with God is (imo intentionally) just between us and God. It would be out of place for me to tell someone what their understanding of this or that aspect of the temple should be. It would be even more out of place for me to claim or imply some sort of high ground based on my personal understanding of some aspect of the temple being different from theirs. Since no official interpretations are presented, our understandings of and reactions to temple content are inherently individualized and at liberty to evolve. Imo this is a feature, not a bug. Imo it would be appropriate for me to respect as sacred others' understandings of their temple experience... for all I know, their experiences and understandings fall within the umbrella of "all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole." (I never would have used that phrase out loud back in the day.)