manol

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.

The topic is not race. I request that you not try to steer it in that direction in order to make a point. Edit: I like @The Nehor's reply better than mine. How many women and girls would need to be the victims of sexual assault before you could see the precautionary view that “all men are potential rapists” as justifiable and prudent? A 2025 study published by the CDC came up with 45% as the number of females in the US who have been or would be sexually assaulted at some point during their lifetimes. That number shocked me. In view of that number, how much tip-toeing around the feelings of easily-put-on-the-defensive men should women be doing? The above were both rhetorical questions, and perhaps rather edgy ones, so I don't really expect you to respond to them. But this question is serious: 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? What I'm saying is, don't portray yourself as a victim and women as the perpetrators of unfairness over the words used. You are not a victim. I have no control over how much offense you choose to take over the statement that “all men are potential rapists”. I choose to take none. Repeating my earlier serious question: 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? If you can come up with something that meets these apparently contradictory requirements, I think that would be worthwhile progress.

There is no part of me that feels attacked by the statement "all men are potential rapists". And to answer your question, here is why it is not “premature”: It is prudent for women to err on the side of caution. You would too if you were in their shoes. You are making women into “offenders for a word” when they are justifiably concerned about being sexually assaulted. Those two concerns are not remotely on the same level. You are a man. What other men have done to women and girls against their will, and quite often without any “warning signs” being manifest in advance, affects how women see us. Particularly when we are strangers to them. You would do the same in their shoes, whether or not you would go to the trouble to find wording that no one could find an excuse to take offense at. Stop finding excuses to take offense. Man up.

Is it possible that religions are incorrect about what this earth life is actually for? Is it possible that much of what you have been told was either skewed or invented by humans, however well-meaning they may have been? Is it possible that the spark in your heart which inherently knows right from wrong is more correct than however many thousands of years of religion and scripture? What would happen if you start all over and only allow into your belief system that which tastes delicious to your soul?

I'm more than happy to engage with you. Women have absolutely valid reasons to err on the side of caution when it comes to the possibility of being sexually assaulted, and here you are whining over their choice of words. You are not the victim. Stop trying to portray women as the perpetrators of unfairness against you. You're a man, and the actions of other men affect how we are seen by women, especially women to whom we are strangers, whether we like it or not. Let's man up and not take it personally.

Don't take it personally. Sexual assault is real and it happens often enough, and without warning enough, that women and girls have every right to err on the side of caution. You would too if you were in their shoes. You are more than welcome to call me a potential sexual predator. I won't take it personally because I know I'm not a sexual predator and have never been one.

Bluebell wrote: To which Danzo replied: So... @Danzo... it sounds to me like you are saying that the way for a woman to recognize behavior indicating a man may sexually assault her is if he does sexually assault her? What am I missing? Imo the level of apprehension and caution Bluebell and the other women in this thread have expressed is absolutely justified and prudent. Don't take it personally.

@rosenotes, thirty-something years ago when I was an active member of the LDS Church I suddenly wanted to understand my adopted heritage (I was a convert). Here are some of the books I found useful: 1. "Saints", by Orson Scott Card (author of "Ender's Game"). Imo superb historical novel set in the time of Joseph Smith. Plural marriage, or "the Principle", is one of the topics that comes up in the life of the main character, a woman from England who moves to the United States. This book sent me on a quest to find out if some of the things described therein actually happened, so I turned to several historical sources and found a lot of confirmation. 2. “Joseph Smith, the First Mormon” by Donna Hill 3. “No Man Knows My History” by Fawn Brodie. Often characterized as “anti-Mormon”, but I didn't see it that way. I also read two or three books which were collections of journal entries of early Mormon women. One of them was "Women of Nauvoo", but I can't remember the names of the other(s). I would characterize these sources as "plural-marriage-friendly" or "plural-marriage-neutral".

I agree with @teddyaware. Start with the Book of Mormon. I say this not as a faithful member (which Teddy is), but rather as someone who is no long affiliated with the LDS Church nor any other religion. And also as someone whose journey has included living as a serious investigator among two different groups that supported plural marriage. Whether you end up concluding that the modern LDS Church or some other group is the most authentic, it traces back to the Book of Mormon either way. And even today many of the teachings I encountered within the LDS Church, and in particular within the Book of Mormon, continue to inform my seeking.

And... imo... Maybe it's less about punishment for our mistakes, and more about learning from our mistakes, than we have come to expect after a lifetime of trying to perceive the Divine through fear-tainted lenses.

I'll take a shot at it: We don't get to bring our sins with us. We have to leave them behind. It is the sins that are excluded, not the reformed sinners. We have to let go of our anger, our addictions, our grudges, our judgments, our withholding of love, our withholding of forgiveness, our pride, our fear, our lies, our hatred of ourselves and/or others, our looking down on ourselves and/or others, our thoughts of retribution, our every choosing of darkness over light. We don't get to take our garbage with us. But we... when we have ceased to value the valueless, when we have been purified of everything that is not who and what we really are... we are welcome. In my opinion.

YES!! If "God is no respecter of persons", and if "all are alike unto God", then Alma the Younger did not get a freebie that the rest of us can only envy. Likewise the woman caught in the act of adultery - she didn't get a lucky freebie for being in the right place at the right time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Good Shepherd has work-arounds none of us have even imagined. Let me toss out an example: For eighteen hundred years, far as I can tell (and I'm NOT a scholar), the Christian world did not have a strong doctrinal work-around for good people who died without baptism. Then along comes Joseph Smith and Section 128 of the D&C, and BOOM we have proxy baptism for the dead, AND even a scripture in the New Testament that mentions it! What is Christ's work and glory? (Moses 1:39) Will he succeed? (D&C 3:1)

This is great – you're making me really ponder what it is about “making and keeping covenants” that I have a problem with. And... it's not as simple as I thought: I actually don't object to making and keeping promises to God. But rather, it's that I don't accept the LDS Church as the necessary intermediary in order for my promises to be valid. I subscribe to the theory that Christ employs no gatekeeper (2 Nephi 9:41). That being said, I can also see the advantage of having a temple and a ceremony with temple clothing and words plus actions and witnesses to firmly implant the promises one makes into one's mind. And I like the idea of joining in a prayer circle. In fact earlier today I called up a temple and put someone's name on the prayer roll. Like @Rain, I do not see myself as rejecting God. But I understand and don't take it personally if you do; I probably would have when I was more or less in your shoes. By the way, I think "hesed" is a really on-point word in this context. Good call!

Some real common ground! Hurray! I'll pause for a moment and celebrate... ... ... Okay, back to it now: Fair enough. I've been known to hold a radical opinion or two myself. And you may be right, I certainly don't know for sure. Agreed. I have some familiarity with this perspective because it was mine for decades. I no longer think it's all about "getting blessings". I now think it's all about being the same manner of man or woman as Christ, and not in some far-off future existence, but right here and right now. I also think all things will and do work together for your good. I think God's hand is in all things in your life and in everyone else's, regardless of whether or not we can see it. (These arguably somewhat radical ideas are both from the Doctrine and Covenants.)

That's great! We are very happy for you!

Thank you for your response! Imo ordinances and covenants can assist in the journey of becoming the same manner of man or woman as Christ, but ordinances and covenants in and of themselves are not the actual becoming itself. The “mighty change of heart” spoken of by Alma is an internal thing. The “becoming” is an internal thing. And imo “becoming” might not even be the right word. Let me explain: I think your “taking of classes” paradigm is correct. I think the class that lies before us at this time, both individually and collectively, is something like “awakening to our Christhood”. I think “awakening” is a more accurate description than the word I have been using, “becoming”. I find “awakening to our Christhood”, or something like that, to be the underlying essence of “all that God does now reveal”. In my experience “all that God does now reveal” seems to be largely coming through sources and messengers outside of the LDS Church, and thus for Latter-day Saints it may lie in the “seek, and ye shall find” category. Regardless of the role ordinances and covenants may or may not play, in my opinion the path to awakening to our Christhood is continually being placed before us, and looks something like this: Every moment offers us the opportunity to choose love or to choose something else. The greater the challenge, the greater the opportunity for growth. Every time we choose love to the best of our ability in the moment, our capacity for love, and for choosing love, is expanded. And every time we don't becomes the opportunity to choose again.

^^^This^^^ Perhaps what matters most is that we each become “the same manner of man (or woman) as Christ”, and perhaps it doesn't so much matter where we are as we do so.