manol

Well I could agree that "do what is right, let the consequence follow" is somewhat simplistic, but I'd also argue that it's a really good starting point. "Do what is right but do it prudently" is probably more... um... prudent... but imo is less of a commitment. I aspire to "always follow the highest that one knows", which of course evolves as the person evolves.

Amen. If there are "greater laws" and "lesser laws", then it is absolutely no contest between the greater law of "love your neighbor as yourself" and the lesser law of "obey the laws of the land". Especially in the event that the laws of the land are at odds with "love your neighbor as yourself". I'm old-school enough to be in favor of re-enshrining "do what is right, let the consequence follow" as a worthy moral guideline.

Good for you, for doing your own investigation, and for including actual Mormons in it! For context, I am no longer LDS. In response to your question, and in addition to @SeekingUnderstanding's excellent response, I'd like to add this: Every week the most sacred part of the LDS church service is "the Sacrament", commonly called the Lord's Supper by other Christian religions. If you read the Sacrament prayers, you'll see that those who participate witness unto God the following: They are willing to take upon themselves the name of Christ, and to always remember Him, and to keep His commandments; and then they witness that they do (in fact) always remember Him. Links: Blessing on the Bread (churchofjesuschrist.org); Blessing on the Water (churchofjesuschrist.or And further, just about everything the Mormons do in a religious setting is done "in the name of Jesus Christ". Despite no longer being a member, I still find many profound teachings from and about Christ within the LDS church. As you know, Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a net which was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind. I fully believe the Mormons are one of those kinds. Jesus also taught that "by their fruits you may know them". So you might want to check out what the Mormon missionaries have to say. At some point, instead of saying "take our word for it for this and this and this reason", they will probably tell you to ask God directly. That's a lot of boldness and a lot of honesty and a lot of faith on their part. Whatever God does or does not tell you, you will come away from the experience understanding the Mormons pretty well.

I like this. I think whoever wrote it is saying that it's okay to hold what the text says up to our current standards: Is what the text says consistent with what we know about the nature of God and Christ? Is it consistent with what we get from other credible sources? And last but not least, what does God the Holy Spirit say to your heart and to your mind about it? The next two paragraphs, which I didn't quote, are basically saying "don't lose your testimony over scriptures that fail this test." Okay, fair enough. Imo there are parts of Section 132 which should be put to this test.

Here is a Christmas song by Jethro Tull. This might not be what you are expecting: As if that's not enough, here's another Christmas song:

I love it! Awkward straight-guy-to-straight-guy hug from me, my friend!

@Navidad, I don't know whether this is something you are already familiar with, or whether it would even be of interest to you, but many years ago an excellent article was written which identified two general categories of faithful members of the LDS Church: "Iron Rodders" and "Liahonas". Briefly, "Iron Rodders" are "by-the-book-and-by-the law" believers, and "Liahonas" are "by-the-feeling-and-by-the-spirit" believers. I think both types of faithful members are well-represented on this discussion board, but (if this is not something you are already familiar with) it might be useful for you to be able to identify which type you are conversing with in a given interaction. When I first read this article, nearly four decades ago, I was very much an Iron Rodder. The article helped me immensely to be more accepting of the few Liahonas in my life. Over time I became a Liahona, and my inclinations are still in that general direction. Here is a link: WhatTheChurchMeans.pdf (staylds.com)

I agree with you. Imo "polygamy is okay with God or even commanded by God" can be a very seductive concept. Agreed! Imo God respects our free agency to make mistakes, even pretty bad mistakes, far beyond the point where most of us (from our limited perspectives) would draw the line and say "no way!" And imo it would be a mistake to assume that just because something hasn't yet been "corrected", it must therefore inevitably be "correct". Agreed. Imo God plows with the horses he's got. That being said, imo right now God has a LOT of "horses" which are outside of the LDS Church. Good question! Based on the Biblical history as we "know" it, no. I cannot make a case for there having been a prophet or Apostle who led Israel, or the Church, astray, drawing from the Biblical text that we have. I don't share you assumption; I don't think that's how it works. I think God's policy is more "non-interference" than that. My guess is the things we assume would put souls in jeopardy are not the things God assumes would put souls in jeopardy. And my guess is that God has a backup plan for every contingency. I agree that there is a great deal we don't know about sealing. My opinion is that our associations in the next life will be in accord with what might be called "the law of affinity". Imo a sealing might be an affirmation of something which is already true, but I do not think sealings make true something which would otherwise not be true. (Imo Jesus' teaching on the subject in Matthew 22:30 was the higher law, and I wish somebody would have raised their hand and said, "Um... can you explain exactly what "as the angels of God in Heaven" means in this context?") Anyway whatever "sealing" may be, I do not think it is at odds with free will in the next life.

Wilford Woodruff was in a rather unenviable position. The Church was under attack by an utterly irresistible force - the government and population and will and power of the United States, who pretty much had no other enemies at the time - for what had arguably become the defining doctrine of the LDS Church. How was he going to preserve the Church, or at least as much of it as he could? I'm sure he very sincerely felt that people's souls were at stake, and presumably he sought the outcome that would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of souls. Once he had decided on his course of action (whether by revelation or inspiration or desperation or some combination thereof), he pulled out all the stops. He was trying to turn the Titanic before it hit the iceberg, and he used every bit of rudder he had, including the claim (rightly or wrongly) that God would not permit him to do this if it was a mistake. In retrospect I think he was remarkably successful, even if I find that particular claim dubious.

Agreed. Agreed. Imo President Young is teaching what might be called "informed consent" (and certainly not "blind consent") to the guidance of Church leaders, with the "informing" being done by the Spirit of God. Let me ask you this question: Is there a point at which "follow the Spirit of God" takes a back seat to "follow the Prophet", or otherwise becomes redundant? The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins teaches that we each need to have our own "oil" for our own "lamps", and that we cannot borrow it from someone else. And imo that means we cannot even borrow it from a Prophet.

Does the second necessarily follow from the first? If so, that implies a belief infallibility. And imo it sounds like that state of blind self-security which is at odds with the thinking of at least one President of the Church: "What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Volume 9 Page 150, emphasis mine. Imo the place to put one's trust is the Spirit of God, rather than in men.

Thanks for replying. I think "leading astray" in this context would be "making a crucial mistake on something that really matters". Which still comes down to one's definitions of terms, but it does exclude small mistakes. Imo it takes some mental gymnastics to say that there has never been any "astray" coming from the President of the LDS Church anywhere along the way regarding the priesthood ban, the practice of polygamy, women giving blessings, the Adam/God doctrine, and so forth. Maybe these are not "things that really matter"... in which case, arguably, the correctness of Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto and the claims he made around it (including that quote) don't really matter either. And if we are going to cut this much slack to the teachings and actions of prophets, would it be wrong to cut the same amount of slack to Karen Hyatt? And yes I realize the two situations are not exactly analogous. True. But we have a pretty good idea of what he actually said, and any "leading" a prophet does is via his words and actions. Not his thoughts. Imo whether "the Lord will never permit the President of the LDS Church to lead the members astray" is a true principle is the sort of thing one can legitimately ask God about, if it's something that matters to you. Doing so is not demonstrating a "lack of faith"; quite the contrary, doing so with real intent would very much be an act of faith. In my opinion.

The exact quote is: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” Quite a bit hinges on that one doctrine being absolutely correct, doesn't it? What if God is no respecter of persons, and doesn't prevent prophets from making mistakes (big or small) any more than He prevents any of the rest of us from making mistakes? What if one of the lessons God wants us to learn is how to connect with Him directly and individually, rather than always giving the final say to an external voice (a prophet and/or a religion)? Before making the doctrine that "the Lord will never permit the prophet to lead us astray" a foundation of my belief system, I would want God to tell to me in my mind and in my heart that it is absolutely correct. I would want it to taste delicious to my soul. I would want it to consistently lead me to love God and believe in Christ. I would want it to lead me to love God without reservation and simultaneously love my neighbor as myself, no mental gymnastics required. Imo we are to be followers of Christ rather than followers of men, be they prophets or presidencies or quorums.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the Endowment Ceremony or before that we know of which obviously bestows Priestesshood on women. And yet the garment they wear (think of its name), the robe they wear (think of its name), the ordinances they perform (think of the names of things), and last but not least the claim or affirmation they make at the Veil (think of the wording), all the same as the male Priesthood holders, all indicate they are already Priestesses. Just as this would all be completely out of place for a male who is not already a Priesthood holder, likewise it would all be out of place for a female who is not already a Priestess. In my opinion.

I find your insight into the distinction between "plural marriage" and "polygamy" enlightening. The working hypothesis I arrived at some years ago (and have not revisited) is along generally similar lines, though lacking that insight. So this is not me disagreeing with you; this is me hoping to learn from you: My recollection is that Joseph specifically opposed something called "spiritual wifery". Now I don't know exactly what that term meant in the context of the day, but at a glance it seems to imply something similar to the definition you ascribe to "plural marriage"; i.e., a sealing but without the couple having a physical marriage relationship. Am I mistaken about that? What are your thoughts on this? Am I missing something obvious, or perhaps something non-obvious? (By the way, I find it plausible that Mormon women lied under oath about the exact nature of their relationships with Joseph Smith. My understanding is that during the US Government's crackdown on polygamy, the prosecutors would question Mormon women to find out who was the first (and therefore legal) wife, as she was the only one who could not be compelled to testify against her husband. The women would be deceptive and say things like they couldn't remember who was the first wife, and/or which child was from which mother, which of course were lies, but it did throw a monkey wrench in that avenue of attack by the Government prosecutors. I am under the impression that lying for a good cause was considered a virtue, with Joseph Smith's public denials of polygamy being (imo wrongly!) considered a justifying example thereof.)

"Thunder Perfect Mind" is part of my personal canon (and for the most part the Pauline epistles are not). Imo there are texts which teach great principles and enlighten the reader's understanding, and there are texts which lift the reader to a higher spiritual energy level even if the exact meanings are elusive, sort of like listening to beautiful songs sung in a foreign language. "Thunder Perfect Mind" falls into the latter category for me; I read it for the elevation of my spirit rather than for the education of my logical mind. The first few stanzas, from Anne McGuire's translation: Thunder Perfect Mind I was sent from the Power And I have come to those who think upon me. And I was found among those who seek after me. Look at me, you who think upon me; And you hearers, hear me! You who are waiting for me, take me to yourselves. And do not pursue me from your vision. And do not make your sound hate me, nor your hearing. Do not be ignorant of me at any place or any time. Be on guard! Do not be ignorant of me. For I am the first and the last. I am the honored and the scorned, I am the harlot and the holy one. I am the wife and the virgin. I am the mother and the daughter. I am the members of my mother. I am the barren one and the one with many children. I am she whose marriage is multiple, and I have not taken a husband. I am the midwife and she who does not give birth. I am the comforting of my labor pains. I am the bride and the bridegroom. It is my husband who begot me. I am the mother of my father and the sister of my husband. And he is my offspring. I am the servant of him who prepared me and I am the lord of my offspring. But he is the one who begot me before time on a day of birth and he is my offspring in time, and my power is from him. I am the staff of his power in his youth and he is the rod of my old age. And whatever he wills happens to me. I am the incomprehensible silence and the much-remembered thought. I am the voice of many sounds and the logos of many forms. I am the utterance of my name. * * * * In my opinion Joseph Smith was moving in the direction of women being openly acknowledged as Priestesses when he was killed. Women were already blessing and healing the sick. Joseph Smith's journal entry of April 28, 1842, includes his preface to Eliza R. Snow's notes from the talk he gave to the Relief Society on that date (from History of the Church, Volume 4, Page 602), emphasis mine: "At two o'clock I met the members of the "Female Relief Society," and after presiding at the admission of many new members, gave a lecture on the Priesthood, showing how the sisters would come in POSSESSION of the privileges, blessings and gifts OF THE PRIESTHOOD, and that the signs should follow them, such as healing the sick, casting out devils, &c., and that they might attain unto these blessings by a virtuous life, and conversation, and diligence in keeping all the commandments; a synopsis of which was reported by Miss Eliza R. Snow, as follows..." The text of Eliza's notes can be found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith starting on page 223, but the foregoing preface from Joseph Smith's journal, which indicates his intention, is missing. Ignore the section headings in TPJS; they are not part of Eliza's notes. In my opinion the Endowment Ceremony indicates that women are ALREADY Priestesses, no ordination needed.

Maybe this new concept of Christ doesn't necessarily destroy; maybe it fulfills. Then again maybe it is "new wine" which would burst the old bottle, i.e. the old paradigm. I don't know where Christ might call you or anyone else to be of service. I think it could be precisely where you are. But regardless of where the path takes you, recall that we are "required to forgive all men" (which is a particularly Christ-like function!), and imo that includes those in positions of authority whose actions fall short of the expectations we placed on them. Ha! I've been called worse. I'm not affiliated with any group; I just happen to speak "Mormon" more fluently than other dialects. If I had to pick a category, I'd call myself a "long-path universalist". And imo Christ is the path. The Way. The Truth of who and what we are. The Life-Form that we are. The Tao. Ime "God does now reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God". But imo that is happening mostly through channels other than the leadership of the LDS Church. Ime if we seek, we will find. I do not think the term "Second Coming" appears anywhere in the scriptures. Imo we should have been calling it "the Coming of Christ" rather than "the Second Coming of Christ" all along. If there is anything to the concept of "we are called to literally be the Coming of Christ", other witnesses will show up besides some random guy on an internet discussion board who puts his spin on a few quotes. If there is anything to it, it will begin to taste delicious to your soul. If it is in the ballpark, it will lead you to love God and to believe in Christ... in a new and more participatory way. And if not, well I've been wrong before and will undoubtedly be wrong again.

Imo “the next level” of teaching could still come through the President of the LDS Church; the LDS Church's “open canon” concept leaves that door open moreso than it is for most belief systems. Personally I think “the next level” will be the Teaching of the Coming of Christ. What might that look like? Maybe something like this: “Brothers and sisters, all are alike unto God. Joseph Smith once said that if he told us who he really was, he would be accused of blasphemy. Likewise if you were told who and what you really are, and who and what every single person really is, you would probably call it blasphemy. “At one time Christ said, “I am the light of the world”. At another time he said, “you are the light of the world”. He was telling us who and what we really are. “When you take the Sacrament, you take upon yourself the name “Christ”. The Sacrament is an affirmation of who and what you really are. “Christ teaches, “I am the Vine and you are the Branches.” He is telling us who and what we really are. “The Coming of Christ happens one person at a time. It is as if you keep your first name, but find out that your true surname is actually “Christ”. And so is everyone else's, even the least of these, whether they know it or not. “The Coming of Christ begins with deliberately aligning oneself to Christ. One deliberately chooses to think only those thoughts that are aligned with Christ, to the best of one's ability in the moment. It is not necessary to know in advance what those thoughts will be; the intention itself invites the Consciousness of Christ. “This is a process which takes time and effort, but to the extent that a person becomes a vessel for the Consciousness of Christ, Christ has come. At first just for an instant, and then another, and then another...” Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Joseph Smith. He brought forth some imo life-changing teachings. Whether everything he did was "right" I don't know; and whether he actually said or did everything attributed to him, I don't know. In my opinion the description "prophet, seer, and revelator" applies to him. Warts and all, if need be. Imo there has not been another President of the LDS Church like him. Maybe there hasn't needed to be.

My recollection is that I carried my passport with me at all times in case we were stopped and questioned by the police. It came in handy for that more than once. [anecdotal tangent] I became pretty good at managing police stops. This was in a rather secular European country. I would go into "pushy missionary mode" (reserved only for occasions like this) and boldly say to the lead cop: "We are missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ. We have a message about how you can be with your family forever. When can we come to your home and teach you and your family how to be together forever?" Of course they would refuse, so I'd follow up with, "Don't you want to be with your family forever?" Worked like a charm. They couldn't get away from us fast enough. I also carried my ticket home in my wallet. Let me explain: There was only one other adult member of the LDS Church in my extended family, and most of the non-members were horrified by the thought of me being a Mormon missionary. My non-member grandfather gave me a company credit card that had a two thousand dollar limit (which was a fair amount of money forty-five years ago) and told me to use it to come home anytime I wanted to. In other words, he wanted me to have the POWER TO CHOOSE to come home at my fingertips. I really appreciated that. Never used the card, but somehow having it in my wallet made it all the more "my choice" to stay. Speaking of the "my choice" aspect, my non-member step-father unexpectedly gave me a large amount of money in the lead-up to me going. He said to me, "I know you're thinking about going on a mission, and I know you don't have the money for it. So here's a thousand dollars so you at least have the CHOICE to go if you decide to." Back in those days the missionary and his family were expected to pay for the missionary's expenses. Between that and money I earned in the next several months I was indeed able to make the choice. I was then, and still am, extremely grateful for the members of my family who were not members of the LDS Church but who wanted me to have the freedom and power to choose whether to go and when to come home. [/tangent]

I'm a universalist, small "u", as I'm not a participant in any religion or similar organization. So I'm not really qualified to use the word "we" in this context because I don't really know what other universalists believe, capitalized or not. Anyway I would agree with you, in that the universalist perspective I hold at this time doesn't give me anyone to hate, exclude, "other", or look down on for any reason, including those I disagree with on internet discussion boards. I believe it is my responsibility to be prudent, but I do not believe it is my privilege to pass judgment on anyone, nor to withhold forgiveness from anyone for anything. Nor is it my privilege to respond to darkness with darkness and not have it affect me. Or to put it another way, imo we are to be simultaneously wise (as serpents) and harmless (as doves). Please don't interpret these lofty ideals as me actually claiming that that's where I'm at; I fall far, far short of my ideals and am still very much a "work in progress"... except for those times when I'm a "work in regress"... I lack @The Nehor's knowledge and understanding of the historical context of universalist thought. And I cannot tell you what any universalist-leaning faiths tell their congregations. My belief is that Christ is the vine and we are already the branches; we don't have to become something we're not. But one of the things we have to learn and choose is to no longer value the valueless, because doing so is an impediment to seeing the vine - seeing the Christ - in everyone.

@Pyreaux, this is going to be an off-topic question. As you can see, I've quoted several of your posts. Those posts appear to me as if they are largely copied-and-pasted from somewhere. Maybe from a book, maybe from an artificial intelligence engine, maybe from somewhere else. Or maybe I am mistaken and what I'm seeing is your exceptionally well-organized writing style. Can you please clarify? Are these posts (and your many other similar ones) entirely your work, or are they largely the work of someone or something else? The reason I ask is, I am much more interested in reading YOUR words than in reading someone, or something, else's words. And if it's the latter, I would like to know. Thank you.

I pray they hired a good engineer and that thing doesn't fall down!

I agree, it's harder to ignore something that's in the D&C. Can we put something in the D&C on the back burner until we understand it? Sometimes we gotta plow with the horses we got, and if one of those horses is not useful to us at this time, I think it's okay use the ones that are. Here is one yardstick for gauging utility in this sort of situation: Does embracing this idea cause me to love God completely and without reservation, and does it cause me to love my neighbor as if my neighbor were myself? ← These are the first and second great commandments, upon which all the law and all the teachings of the prophets hang. They describe the state of consciousness that everything else is supposed to lead us towards. And if an idea leads us in a different direction, then either it is mistaken or incomplete, or our current understanding of it is. In my opinion. (I no longer look through the lens of how to get the outcomes I want. I look through the lens of how to align myself to, and with, and in, and as, the consciousness of Christ. Whatever shows up in my life presents me with the opportunity to do so to the best of my ability in the moment. Easier said than done!)

I don't think a “transactional” interpretation of “the law” is telling the whole story. It might be useful in some circumstances but it's incomplete. Consider this: A gift given grudgingly is counted the same as if the gift was never given. But, if one is unable to give yet says in their heart they would if they could, it is counted as if they did. So the key element is not the “transactional" aspect. The key element is aligning oneself to the consciousness of Christ. If this wording doesn't work for you, then substitute wording that does. Or to put it another way, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God” puts seeking to align oneself to the consciousness of the Kingdom of God ahead of seeking this or that vending-machine blessing. And where is the Kingdom of God? The Kingdom of God is within you. It's already there, but obscured when we align ourselves to lesser spiritual energy states for whatever reason. Ime the most powerful prayer is just two words long. It asks for nothing. It goes like this: “Thank You.” Try it and see if you don't feel a shift towards alignment with the consciousness of Christ (or whatever wording you prefer).