manol

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.

Thank you for replying and giving me a chance to explain. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that God will never give up on anyone; that Christ's work is not in vain; that every single person will eventually do what they need to do; and that God will not turn them away when that happens. Not sure this is a real category, but I'm what might be called a "long-path universalist". I think we really do have to become the same manner of men and women as Christ, no short-cuts, no honorary degrees. I think it is a very long path and that every one of us is somewhere on that path.

Could something that can be called "eternal" from one perspective be "non-permanent" from another? Sometimes the scriptures don't use words exactly the same way we would. For instance, Alma did not remain permanently in "eternal torment": "My soul was racked with eternal torment; but I am snatched, and my soul is pained no more." - Alma the Younger, in Mosiah 27:29 In any event making that judgment call is presumably above my pay grade. All I can say is that I do not believe it is my calling to withhold forgiveness from anyone for anything. D&C 64:10.

I think you are absolutely correct. I think the Old Testament is not very trustworthy. Let me elaborate: Animal sacrifice is something else that apparently did not come from God. In the late 1800's a scroll was found which was evidently the oldest known copy of Deuteronomy and animal sacrifice is among the things completely absent from it. Here is the interview where I first came across this information; the relevant part starts at 8:34 and goes for another 5 minutes or so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyivXDVwJdc&t=514s For a deeper dive, look for interviews with Ross K. Nichols, who wrote a book on the subject entitled "The Moses Scroll". Imo this is actually far more earth-shaking than it may appear at first glance: If animal sacrifice was a self-serving invention of the priest class, then the teaching that Christ was the great and final blood sacrifice is called into question. Personally I have no problem with this, but Jesus being crucified as a blood sacrifice for sin is a core belief of many if not most Christian religions. Some road maps would have to be re-drawn; I think it would be for the better in the long run.

I was hoping @Stargazer would read and respond to my post asking whether Christ would succeed or fail. I still hope so. Imo @teddyaware's post is great, and must admit that I'm kinda thrilled he and I have common ground on this topic. Quoting from his post here: @bluebell, in response to your question I don't know either, but my understanding is that free will is always respected because the progress has to be real internal growth instead of an outward performance. I think the "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" thing is a manifestation of free will rather than coercion. So if Christ is to succeed then I think it likely that "given enough time [and teaching and love and therapy and maybe even learning everything the hard way] everyone would eventually choose to follow Him." But I do not claim to know the mechanism(s) by which this will happen. Maybe the right words at the right time from the right person, even if that time does not come during mortality. The Good Shepherd may have more ways to reach lost sheep than we have imagined. There is a scripture which indicates, to me at least, that Christ will indeed succeed. D&C Section 3 verse 1: "The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught." And there is another scripture which indicates, to me at least, that we really are all in this together, far moreso that is outwardly apparent. From Section 128, verse 18: "For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect." In the spirit of "in the mouth of two or more witnesses", one near-death experiencer described how much each person matters like this (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "It's as if we are each a grain of sand in a magnificent giant sandcastle, but if just one grain of sand isn't there, the whole thing crumbles."

I have no idea who you are, but want to acknowledge and thank you for so consistently being a peacemaker. You were not at all defensive when I came in with a criticism from way out in left field, and imo that stands out in stark contrast with the way internet conversations usually go. Returning to the Joseph Fielding Smith Standard: Seems to me its validity largely hangs on canonical “thus saith the Lord” statements being what they purport to be. Is the correctness of such statements ever evaluated, and if so, how? Or, is the correctness of relevant canonical “thus saith the Lord” statements simply accepted as fact, the context for the Standard's application being LDS religious studies? I can see that being the case since everybody participating will have (theoretically) accepted the same canon. I might be coloring too far outside the lines here, but it does appear to me that the system is closed, at least to some extent. Let me give three examples: 1. Suppose one or more Samuel-the-Lamanite-type individuals show up from outside the Church heirarchy, having been inspired to deliver a corrective message for the Church. 2. Suppose thousands of people die, experience a portion of the afterlife, are resuscitated, and return having been instructed by beings on the other side to share what they experienced. 3. Suppose one or more individuals outside the Church heirarchy receive communication from the Divine intended to be shared with a wide audience. In each of these cases it seems to me that the system is effectively closed to their input ever meeting the criteria for being considered "authoritative". I'm grateful for you and for the manner in which you have engaged with me. You have my respect.

Yes, it's possible that I'm not thinking straight. What is Christ's mission? My understanding is that it is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Do you think he will succeed or fail?

Okay, that makes sense. I can see the utility of having a tool such as the Joseph F. Smith Standard for sorting sources in a discussion about which teachings are or are not Church doctrine, with the in-context caveat that said Standard is only a Class 3 authority by its own standard. Imo the problem with making something like this Standard a yardstick for evaluating truth is that doing so can become formulaic instead of a spiritual quest. We can end up focusing on who said what when, where and how reliably is it recorded, what was their rank at the time, and if they are dead has someone of equal or higher rank said differently since then? And we can end up with a closed system wherein truth is only allowed entry via pre-approved channels, and can only rise to the level of authority permitted by the formula. If truth comes knocking by some other door, it may not even be noticed. Imo there's a good chance this is happening right now. I think the search for truth is supposed to be a spiritual quest moreso than a logical application of a flow chart. But I could be wrong! So in my opinion the Joseph F. Smith Standard can be useful in a discussion that presupposes its suitability for answering whatever the question at hand may be, such as whether a particular teaching is doctrinal, but I think it falls short in receptivity to truth-on-its-own-merits.

This is going to be somewhat tangential; apologies in advance. I read @quietcanon's first paper. Here is a copy-and-paste from Section 3 of that paper (pasted between the * * *'s below): * * * Authoritative Scripture Hierarchy (Joseph F. Smith Standard) Joseph F. Smith’s 1897 private refutation of Adam-God established the principle: revelation-based scripture, not prophetic commentary, is the Church’s standard. The Book of Mormon demands it: “Have they not read the scriptures?” (3 Nephi 27:4-5). Class 1 (supreme): God’s words verbatim—“saith the Lord.” Inviolable except by God (D&C 1:38; 3 Nephi 24:1). Class 2: Messenger’s own words recounting visions/revelations—authoritative yet subject to later clarification (3 Nephi 23:1). Class 3 (lowest): Commentary, policy, and leader teachings—most error-prone and revisable.[8] * * * Reading this hierarchy made me think about what my personal “hierarchy of sources” might be. While scripture enters into the picture, imo the fact that something has been canonized does not make it automatically authoritative. So consider the following to just be a snapshot of one random fringer's opinion taken at one point in time; I make no other claims: Class 1 (supreme): That which enlarges my soul, enlightens my understanding, and is delicious to me (Alma 32:28); and/or that which leads me to do good and love God and believe in Christ (Moroni 7:13-16); and/or that which fills me with the pure love of Christ (Moroni 7:46-48); and/or direct experience of the Divine (whether or not it can be put into words). Actually I think all of these things constitute "direct experience of the Divine." Classes 2 & 3: Everything else. To repeat, I am by no means recommending that you or anyone else even remotely consider adopting something akin to this heirarchy, but @quietcanon I would like to thank you for making me think about it enough to spell it out for myself.

I like the idea of using time that would otherwise be wasted on boredom for being aware of and present to/with/in the Divine. Unfortunately as Pyreaux said, and @Rain also noted, this isn't (to the best of my knowledge) something taught in the LDS Church. Back when I was active in the Church, any mention of "meditation" as a practice was viewed with a mixture of consternation and disapproval. Imo going deep into the feeling of gratitude (just the feeling itself; no thought-intensive "name them one-by-one" necessary unless it helps you get there) is relaxing and rejuvenating and maybe even gently transformational. You might put it in your bag of tricks. Just don't call it "meditation", at least not out loud, and you should be fine!

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not inclined to use the word "truth" the way you describe because it SEEMS to me to suggest a claim that "what I'm believing/doing/living is the one and only truth and therefore, by implication, what others are believing/doing/living is something other than the truth." For me it least, that usage of the word "truth" implies a certainty I'm not willing to claim and makes an assertion I'm not comfortable making, especially not in the context of this forum. Let me explain why I say "especially not in the context of this forum": Back when I was a missionary, about a hundred years go, when we were in a difficult conversation (i.e. getting our butts kicked) and felt the need to bring out our "big guns" and score a win, we would bear our testimonies. That might not have registered on the other person as "wow, the Mormons just won that round!", but in our minds it was the one un-counterable argument we could always fall back on. However, on this forum, my understanding is that the etiquette/rules preclude making assertions along the lines of the bearing of one's testimony. This keeps the focus on actual dialogue instead of allowing "dueling testimonies", but it also means that devout members are not allowed to bring out their big guns, or at least not those big guns. So this applies only to me; I am NOT applying this to you: My usage of the word "truth" as a verb would, to me, indicate a claim of certainty and exclusivity that I wish to neither make nor imply.

Yup, I think you're right, he probably won't want a formal blessing. I have two transgender adult children and have good relationships with both of them. My suggestion would be to consistently err on the side of unconditional love and infinite patience to the best of your ability in the moment. Can you put yourself in your son's shoes, or close enough?

Absolutely! If we're supposed to bless even them that curse us, why would we not bless someone we love? If your son asks for a fish, would you give him a serpent? Of course not. So, if your son asks for a blessing, would you give him a refusal? I sure hope not. It is our calling and our privilege to forgive everyone of everything (D&C 64:10), including our children whose beliefs and/or choices are not what we want or believe. In my opinion. If I were in your shoes and my son declined my offer, then I would bless him without reservation in my personal prayers.

I think you are correct! I think it's a state of mind, or state of being, far moreso than a geographic location. I think this same principle applies even down here: Two people can be in the same physical location, with one chosing awareness of the presence of the Divine, while the other lets their awareness default to whatever negative thoughts want their attention now. Imo our "surroundings" right now very literally include an unseen divine Presence here in the room with us and/or even within us. D&C 88:41. I think awareness of the presence of the Divine starts with acknowledgment of the presence of the Divine. Part of this mortal experience is that we cannot simply flip that awareness switch one time and it stays flipped, but I think it is possible for us to flip it as needed by placing intention and attention on doing so. I think this is a "muscle" worth developing.

I was referring to them not replying to me personally along the same lines as my inflammatory "man up" comment to them.

One of the nouveau fundamentalist groups I studied with had an interesting Adam-God-Theory-like take on who's who: Their ranking was God > Adam > Jesus, the idea being that the next step after being the savior of a world was being the father of a world, Adam (or more precisely Adam and Eve jointly) being the "heavenly father" (and mother) of this one. Not endorsing, just describing.

I came across something yesterday that made me think of you. If I understand correctly, the more intelligent a person is, the quicker and more effectively and convincingly their rational mind arrives at a skeptical conclusion. So it's not exactly rainbows and unicorns out on the tail end of the bell curve, at least not that tail end. Quoting from the blog post (by an NDEer) that caught my attention: "Doubt is a function of intelligence. This is what makes it so effective as a ceiling. "The voice of doubt sounds like wisdom. It sounds like discernment. "This doesn't make sense. Be careful." "Perhaps you have gone as far as reason can take you. And that last part is true, but doubt uses it as a reason to stop rather than as a signal to proceed differently. The smarter you are, the more convincing it sounds. The more skilled you have become at reasoning your way through life, the more naturally you will mistake this voice for your own best judgment. "What doubt is actually doing is protecting the architecture of what you believe is possible. Your definitions, your belief systems that make up the structure about what reality is for you, what experience can be, how far the inner life can actually go. "These definitions were built by the intellect, and the intellect guards them ruthlessly. Doubt is that guard dog in action. Every time you approach the edge of what you have defined as real, doubt meets you there with reasons to turn back. It isn't malicious. It is just doing exactly what it was built to do." There is more of course, as he goes into what "proceeding differently" looks like. Here's the link, in case you'd like to read the whole thing; it's maybe five minutes long: https://www.jonathanashford.com/post/doubt And if you might like to check out a perspective on "why we are here" that differs significantly (and imo favorably) from what religions have to say, from the same set of blog posts: https://www.jonathanashford.com/post/why-are-you-here Anyway cheers to you, court jester, from the other side of the bell curve.

Well put, thanks. Communicating well in a thread like this is a skill-set I lack. I do however retain my ability to forego learning things the easy way so that I can learn them the hard way. One downside of tossing in a gratuitous insult like I did is that it's a majpr distraction from the real issue. It invites the other person to engage on that level and reply in kind. A tip of my virtual hat to @Danzo and @smac97 for not doing so. I still disagree with them, but credit where credit's due.

Thank you. I could have, and should have, done so without indulging in an unnecessary and demeaning personal attack. I should have listened to my own advice and "put myself in the other person's shoes" to the extent that I could, despite our disagreement.

You're right. That was uncalled for, disrespectful, and demeaning on my part. Thank you for calling me out on it. I apologize to you and to @Danzo for that, and for choosing to see you both through a lens of separation that made using disrespectful language seem "okay".

I also think this is the only context in which I've used very assertive, even aggressive language in a while. I think there's a time and place for it, though I say that while recognizing that my judgment in this area is not the best. But to me the hurt feelings of men over the wording used (and @Calm has articulated why the language needs to be attention-grabbing) utterly pales in comparison with the very real possibility of being sexually assaulted that is an unspoken part of the lives of women and girls. Women in this thread have "said the quiet part out loud", the part we men pretty much never even think about. My link-embedding skills having apparently failed me, here's Calm's post I just referred to: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113398-troubling-allegations-against-former-sheriff-in-pinal-county-az-church-mbr/page/12/#findComment-1210272474 And anyone who hasn't yet, please read @Doctor Steuss's post, here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113398-troubling-allegations-against-former-sheriff-in-pinal-county-az-church-mbr/page/12/#findComment-1210272479 Let us be men of empathy, as you will see exemplified in the good Doctor's post linked above.

Thank you! Here is the updated version of my question to @smac97: "Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls, and just as effective in getting them to reconsider natural and programmed impulses to be passive and accepting before it is wise to be, and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?"

In that case, I hope you won't mind responding to the question I asked you twice in my previous post: Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint? It's not a trick question. There is no hidden "gotcha". This is an opportunity for "err{ing} on the side of caution... [which] aligns with common sense safety measures and situational awareness, which [you] have repeatedly and strongly endorsed”, and to do so using wording that you choose and are comfortable with.

Well I'd have a hard time arguing that self-aware rationality is the less rational choice. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating "pick the outcome you want and talk yourself into believing in it." Rather, I'm advocating being in conscious acknowledgement of a Divine Presence, and deliberately seeing everything that comes along as opportunity to choose either love or something else... and the greater the challenge, the greater the opportunity for growth. I think this perspective has utility, but cannot claim it to be the most rational approach.