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.

Yes! "Oneness" in the context of a band can happen when the musicians are all "in the (same) groove". I suspect there is a "groove" wherein our oneness with Christ and with God and with one another can be perceived and experienced. [Yet another Rush tangent] Here's a groove I'd love to see in the hymnbook, even if I'd have hard time singing along: Rush-Closer To The Heart (Lyrics) - YouTube [/Rush tangent] Perhaps more on-topic of this thread is "that which God does now reveal" about the nature of God through the intermediary of near-death experiencers. I get the impression that we're not yet equipped to comprehensively define "God", but that the definition would be pretty expansive. I get the impression that we are each a part of God, an infinitely loved part of God, perhaps even a vital part of God. I get the impression that "God is love" is a more fundamental and descriptive truth than has been generally appreciated... and if we are indeed made of the same stuff God is, then underneath all our baggage, we too are love. These people speak with far more authority than I can; maybe just watch the first one if you're short on time (I'm pretty sure he has an LDS background), it's only about five minutes, and you can do the captioning thing to make it easier to follow along: Stories About Meeting God - A Compilation of NDE's - YouTube

Agreed. Not that I'm fluent in Hebrew, but my understanding is that "Elohim" is grammatically plural, "Eloah" being the singular version, with the suffix "-im" being used for either an all-male plurality or a mixed-gender plurality. My understanding is that "Elohim" is normally used as if it is a singular word in Hebrew, as if it's a collective noun just as you say, like "team" or "band". [loosely-related tangent]For example, my all-time favorite band, Rush, is touring again, but some purists will use the plural verb: "Rush are touring again." The first considers Rush as a single collective entity, and the second as a group of individual members. Either way, it is purely coincidental that, in a thread about "gods", Rush is what came to my mind.[/tangent]

Agreed. I find greater utility in attributing counter-productive human behavior to human perceptions and motivations, and I aspire to see unwanted events as valuable opportunities for accelerated growth which would be impossible to have in a perfect world. So if there were no imperfect people (me included!!) I don't think there would be very many opportunities for growth down here. But if others find greater utility in attributing counter-productive behavior and/or unwanted events to something else, no problem.

I understand the concept of "playing it safe". It can be done out of prudence, or it can be done out of fear. For instance it is prudent to not step out in front of a moving bus, but such prudence does not require that a person live in fear of busses. I'm not a big fan of focusing a lot of attention on "the dark side", so to speak, and especially not fear-based attention. I believe our thoughts matter a great deal, and that one of the things we're here to develop is mastery in deliberately choosing the thoughts we think, from which eventually arise the attitudes we hold. I subscribe to the school of thought implied by verse 36 of D&C Section 6: "Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not." Maybe I misunderstand, but I think that's telling us to place our thoughts and our awareness on and in Christ, rather than permitting our minds to dwell on things at the opposite end of the spectrum, including doubt and fear.

@Ether93, I'm just muddling through this life, hoping to be "part of the solution" more often than "part of the problem". So this will all just be opinion, informed by my own limited and highly questionable experience, and highly unprofessional musings. I make no claim that any of this will be applicable to anyone besides me, and it's just a snapshot of where I am at this point in time anyway, so none of this is "carved in stone" for me either: It seems to me that, however unpleasant they may be at the time, trials are among the things that give me experience and are ultimately for my good (D&C 122:27; see also D&C 90:24 and Romans 8:28). Perhaps my weaknesses are actually opportunities for growth (Ether 12:27). Trials can show me where my behaviors have created or contributed to the situation, and often they put a spotlight on a counter-productive behavior pattern that has been showing up in my life over and over again. Trials offer me the opportunity to react with fear, anger, victimhood, self-hatred, despair, or something else. I aspire to react with “something else”. Practical steps have to be taken and that may include accepting changes I'd rather not accept, but practical steps alone may not get at the root problem. For myself at least, I think my behaviors arise largely from my beliefs, and therefore counter-productive behaviors arise largely from often very deep-seated counter-productive beliefs and/or default modes. I think we can pray for insight and expect to receive it. And even if we never know the underlying cause of a counter-productive belief or default mode, I think we can deliberately choose (and begin to incorporate) productive beliefs that, over time, may even result in productive default modes. So – purely hypothetically of course! - suppose avoidance is my counter-productive behavior pattern that keeps showing up, presumably arising from a deep-seated counter-productive belief. So what I need is, a new belief that will “get me over the hump” of using avoidance in order to self-soothe. I can prayerfully request to be shown a new and corrective belief which I can consciously and deliberately choose and begin to internalize through consistent use. Suppose what shows up is for me to state “doing this [the thing I'd normally avoid] is where I go to feel love” whenever I'm tempted to indulge in avoidance of whatever it is that needs to be done. Maybe that sounds corny, but at least I don't have to tell anyone about it. And in my limited experience it's not the words themselves, but rather the feeling invoked, that can and does make the difference. I'm not sure the words are even necessary, but for now they (or some variation or evolution thereof) seem to help. Hypothetically, of course. Again, I have no idea whether any of this might be of any use in the context of this thread; posting just in case it might. @BlueDreams and @MustardSeed, I welcome any correction either of you might offer.

@Ether93, you're not the first person to make a mistake that has unforseen and far-reaching consequences. The question is, how do you move forward from where you are now? Changing people's minds is probably not a realistic option. They are seeing through their lens and it is different from your lens. For instance, they may feel obligated to protect the Church from something they perceive as misuse of financial authority, and they may be taking an uncompassionate stance in hopes of preventing it from happening again. [Edit: I see now that @The Nehor has posted with knowledge of what official Church policy is.] Maybe you can appreciate that they have not chosen to involve the police, and that they are giving you time to pay the money back. Can you make small payments? That might shift the situation from you being at odds with the Church leaders, to you working with the Church leaders towards a common goal. A little bit of progress is quite a bit different from zero progress because it's a change of trajectory. God is far more forgiving than men are, in my opinion. I suggest you not allow your peace to be dependent on outcomes even as you navigate this situation in the best way you can. Let your peace come from having a real and present relationship with, and connection with, God.

YES! This is BRILLIANT! Its brilliance has to do with giving the ear/brain system the best possible chance to pay attention and understand clearly. Pardon me for getting a bit nerdy here, but some simple acoustics comes into play: The sound you hear in a room includes both direct sound (sound which travels directly from the source to your ears) and reflected sound (sound which bounces off of something before reaching your ears). As we move farther away from the source, the sound reaching our ears includes proportionally less direct sound and proportionally more reflected sound, which is the opposite of what we want for good intelligibility and (most important) good recall. When we are fairly far back in a large and somewhat reflective room, the direct sound is often so weak relative to the reflections that not only do we have a harder time understanding the words themselves, we also have a terrible time recalling them, and that is the problem. Let me explain the part about recall: We can usually still figure out what the individual words are even if the reflections are dominant, but we have to focus our attention on the words themselves in order to do so. So figuring out the actual words takes up time and attention we cannot spare! By the time we've figured out the word that was just spoken, the next word has already arrived, so the brain is always in catch-up mode. And our brain only has a limited amount of attention capacity that can be simultaneously devoted to different tasks. So if too much of that limited attention capacity is taken up simply trying to understand the words, there is not enough remaining for us to remember and recall them. So it can become quite difficult to recall the individual words for long enough to string them together into complex ideas, and then to put these complex ideas into long-term memory. The net result is the fairly rapid onset of fatigue, and maybe even a head-ache, along with boredom, instead of comprehension and retention of the ideas being presented. Public address loudspeaker systems make the sound louder for listeners further away from the front, but they can sometimes make things worse! Usually there are some loudspeakers positioned partway back on the side walls and/or ceiling, and the sound coming from those loudspeakers is delayed a little bit to compensate for the amount of time it takes for the sound to travel from the pulpit to that far back in the audience. Unfortunately this sort of system cannot provide optimum delays throughout the audience area, so there will be locations in the audience where the intelligibility is pretty good, and other locations where it is pretty bad. A really good solution is what @Stargazer suggested: Sit up front where the direct sound from the person at the pulpit is relatively loud compared to the reflections, and where we don't have to rely on the PA system in order for the sound to be loud enough. This way we don't reach burn-out in the first ten or fifteen minutes. Of course it's not possible for everyone to sit in the front, but if there are some open seats up there anyway, don't let them go to waste. This principle applies to classrooms as well, so tell your (grand)kids that there are valid acoustic reasons to sit in the front which will make a difference in their comprehension and therefore in their grades. For anyone wanting to take a bit deeper dive, here are the slides from a power point presentation by one of the leading researchers in this field (imo the most relevant slides are 2, 4, 5, 6, 30, and 36; slide 6 mentions a study wherein the students in the front half of the classroom did better than those in the back half of the classroom by an average of one letter grade): The-importance-of-attention-localization-and-source-separation-to-speech-cognition-and-recall.pptx (live.com)

Tank yah mi bredda! (An tank yuh too Google Translate).

And you're doing so in a most courteous and non-confrontational way! Thank you for pointing that out. And I acknowledge that animal sacrifice being absent from the oldest copy of Deuteronomy is not "proof" that it was a later invention of the priest class.

Agreed, those in a Telestial state cannot come where God and Christ dwell. <- I substituted the word "state" for "Kingdom", as I think it's more about who we have become. In other words, I think the state of the individual says which Kingdom they are a part of. And I think that once a person has progressed to a higher state than the Telestial, there are no barriers to them being in a higher kingdom than the Telestial. Of course I could be wrong. Again I could be wrong, but I think the controlling factor is the individual's state of progression. I don't think God is into holding grievances and turning away the repentant.