manol

Create! We thrive on being creative, even if it's just something tiny. And we stagnate when we create nothing. In my opinion.

As I'm sure you're aware, the Book of Mormon apparently agrees with you that "it was managed somehow": "And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. "And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities." (Alma 7:11-12, emphasis manol's) Ime Mormonism isn't as comfortable conceding that something is a "mystery" as Catholicism is, but imo exactly how this was (is?) managed just might qualify.

I was friends with a fascinating man who was a history professor at the University of Tours (in Tours, France). He had researched the topic and believed that not only was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene, but that they had (iirc) two children, and that the royal lineages of Europe traced their geneology back to Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and through Jesus back to King David. He said this is the basis for the concept of "the divine right of kings", since God had appointed David as king. Regarding the account of Jesus and Mary's conversation right after the resurrection, he told me that under Jewish law at the time, family members were responsible for the bodies of the deceased. The two people who claimed Jesus' body were Joseph of Arimathea (after the crucifixion), and Mary Magdalene (when she thought Jesus was the gardener and asked him where Jesus' body was so that she could get it). He said that was an indication they were both family members. He told me the Templars believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that they built Notre Dame ("Our Lady") cathedral not to honor Mary the Mother of Christ, but to honor Mary the Wife of Christ. He said that was later changed by the Catholic Church to Mary the Mother. There was more, but my memory has grown foggy. I don't know. Maybe not, maybe so. Personally, I find more utility in contemplating the teachings of Jesus than in contemplating whether he was married and had children.

Amen brother. Imo this is an area wherein when we think we already know all there is to know, that's when we stop learning. And imo we need not wait until someone in a position of ecclesiastical authority gives us permission to seek greater light and knowledge. Imo "the system" has been deliberately set up such that that quest is one we choose entirely on our own.

Manol's theology, according to its one adherent, takes the view that the Second Coming of Christ includes an awakening and embodying of oneself as a literal manifestation of Christ, which usually happens over time for each individual, rather than it being a single spectacular geo-political event that could theoretically be livestreamed on social media. So the Second Coming of Christ is a participatory event which is spread out over time, and it occurs when we (first individually and then collectively) unreservedly show up as who and what we really are, without the baggage. This is why it has no single fixed date and time which would be knowable in advance by the participants... us. And, again according to manol's theology, this is why the Son doesn't know the date and time, but only the Father... we are that Son.

@the narrator, I've enjoyed reading your papers. I had not appreciated that prophets are usually called from somewhere outside the mainstream, and their message usually includes pointing out the discrepancy between how God wants the poor and oppressed to be treated, and how individuals and/or the religious establishment are actually treating the poor and oppressed. Thank you! I think that an underlying (but not articulated) concept may be something like this: Pursuing a superior outcome for oneself & one's family at the expense of others makes sense from a paradigm of separation ("we" are separate from "them"); whereas pursuing an equally good outcome for all, leaving nobody out, makes sense from a paradigm of oneness. It looks to me like Liberation Theology embraces a paradigm of oneness, though I don't think you put it that way. At any rate, I agree that we are not only to take upon ourselves the name (identity!) of Christ (King Benjamin & the Sacrament prayers), but we are to become in-this-life, here-and-now, manifestations of Christ (3 Nephi 27:27). If I may ask, could you clarify what you mean by the word "atonement", as used here: "God’s response to the problem of evil is the Atonement. Not an abstract or soteriological atonement, but an atonement that confronts the historical and material sins of the world: poverty and suffering. God shows that his response to suffering is not to justify or understand it, but to confront and end suffering at its roots." Thank you! Was this the experience you've mentioned, wherein you were told that God does not hate you and does not want you to hate yourself? Have you considered filling out the NDERF's questionnaire? Form Page: ShareNDE (nderf.org) (By the way, I think the near-death experiencer quoted in my signature area, Jeff Olsen, is also from an LDS background. No I'm not deliberately cherry-picking Mormon NDEers!)

I lack the intellect, wisdom, experience, and/or spirituality to have a good "working hypothesis" that resolves the problem of the existence of evil. However I am encouraged by the accounts of near-death experiencers who don't find the existence of evil to be a conundrum. At the risk of being overly simplistic, based on their testimonials, I believe there is a resolution that makes sense, even if it's not something within my experience and understanding. By way of example, here are some excerpts from the near-death experience account of a woman named Chantal who happens to have an LDS background, taken from her responses to a questionnaire on the Near Death Experience Research Foundation's website. She doesn't directly address "the problem of evil"; rather, she describes a perspective from which it's apparently not the ominous and potentially faith-negating dilemma it can seem from our perspective: "I remember knowing everything. Not so much from an intellectual point of view. I knew what it was like to be a flower, to be an animal, to be an insect. All the knowledge of the universe was inside my being. I no longer felt as a separate individual. I felt as if I was part of a collective consciousness. I sense[d] billions and billions of beings and we were all One. The feeling of oneness on the other side is amazing!" "I sensed that everything alive and that had ever lived was part of this consciousness. It retained the experiences of each being in its collective memory. This is why I knew everything; the knowledge of this collective became mine. It is a different kind of knowledge though. It is not intellectual but experiential. Furthermore, it was not limited just to human experiences; I ‘knew’ what it felt like to be a flower and to be a stone." [emphasis manol's] "I stopped thinking in terms of ‘I’ and started thinking in terms of ‘we,’ we the collective consciousness." "When trying to explain this collective I usually use the following analogy: Let's pretend you are the water in a glass of water. You are contained in a glass. Then someone pours you, the water in the glass, into the ocean. You still exist, every particle of you still exists but now you are part of an ocean where there are billions and billions like you. You are now ‘one’ with the ocean. You are all One. On the other side you are a soul, a very old one, magnificent, wise, powerful soul and you are One with a collective. The sense of unity is amazing. There is no sense of separation like there is on this side." "I became One with all life, part of a collective consciousness and I knew everything. It was not an intellectual knowledge, like knowledge you acquire from studying facts. I knew because I had experienced being everything." [emphasis manol's] "Little did I know that, when you get to the other side, the veil of forgetfulness is removed and you remember everything and know everything. You don't need to ask questions." "In the state of total recall, you understand everything. Everything makes sense. Words like difficulties, challenges and hardships reflect a lack of understanding of the purpose of life. Those in the know, do not use these words." [emphasis manol's] "The most meaningful [part of my experience] is remembering being part of the collective that created the solar system. We were so excited to do so! We all wanted to come to earth to experience mortality. NO matter how difficult it would be. During my experience, I had total recall, I ceased to be Chantal and I remembered who I really am: a very old and wise and powerful soul. This collective consciousness that I became part of is God, or that is the feeling I got. It is a state of pure energy and pure love. Everything is energy on the other side. The Oneness on the other side is amazing! You become One with all life. My being always existed. This life is a just a play I am acting in. A small part of me has taken physical form. Love and energy is what the other side is based on." Here is the link: https://search.nderf.org/en/experience/6428 From the perspective she describes, there doesn't seem to be a well-nigh-intractable problem of evil. (Why would I allow near-death experience accounts to inform my views? "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." - Joseph Smith. I believe these are people who gazed into heaven for five minutes.)

Isn't the Covenant Path for those who "want to be like God"? My point being, in and of itself, "wanting to be like God" may not necessarily be wrong. Perhaps "wanting to be like God" at the expense of other beings is a part of what was wrong.

Wow, THANK YOU! And yes the links work for me. Looking forward to these, and in particular I want to read the lead-up to the part you quoted. I've copy-and-pasted it here for emphasis, as it doesn't show up when I quote your post: "God’s response to the problem of evil is the Atonement. Not an abstract or soteriological atonement, but an atonement that confronts the historical and material sins of the world: poverty and suffering. God shows that his response to suffering is not to justify or understand it, but to confront and end suffering at its roots. When we understand this goal, we also understand our own identity and purpose as Christians. According to Sobrino: "Christian spirituality is no more and no less than a living of the fundamental spirituality that we have described, precisely in the concrete manner of Jesus . . . [T]o be truly a human being is to be what Jesus is. To live with the spirit, to react correctly to concrete reality, is to re-create, throughout history, the fundamental structure of the life of Jesus."

You've posted some pointed and thought-provoking observations in this thread and others. I get the impression that you have thought things through and arrived at outside-the-box conclusions. If you are comfortable doing so, I would very much like to hear your "view of God in relation to the world", or however you wish to phrase it.

I've not read any of those, but think it's great that your canon is “extremely open”. Imo God is at work revealing greater light and knowledge right now. I can definitely see the utility of having a physical temple. I can also see utility in not needing a physical temple. Imo the presence of God is accessed by aligning our consciousness to God, whether or not a dedicated building and/or a formal ceremony is involved.

How open is your canon? I mean you personally, not the LDS Church. Are you truly open to "the possibility of a new revelation or a contradictory revelation" that comes from outside of the LDS Church's "tradition"? Are you open to the possibility that "all that God does now reveal" includes revelation through sources other than the leadership of the LDS Church (see 2nd Nephi 29:11)? And if so, how would you recognize something originating outside the LDS Church as deserving a place in your canon?

I don't think that's an unreasonable thought arising from a faithful LDS perspective. My current paradigm is not at all war-centric. But I'm not saying that makes my paradigm “better”; imo we may each have embraced the belief system which best enables and facilitates our individual progression at this time. (And I realize that idea may not have a place within your paradigm.) Speaking only for myself here: Whatever warfare may have taken place in the past, I do not find the path which leads me towards the light to include war, or even thoughts of war, verbal or otherwise. I think my job is to choose those thoughts which bring only peace, and which align me to the consciousness of Christ. (<- Easier said than done! But I think it's possible.)

Got it. Is that how you see it too, @teddyaware?

Thank you for explaining your perspective. So if I understand correctly, you see a parallel between the war in heaven and the verbal conflicts you engage in here on this board. If I have that wrong, please correct me. If I'm in the ballpark, well that helps me to understand you better, for which I am grateful.

Do you see this discussion board as a battleground? Do you see yourself as engaging in battles of will, mind and heart?

Excellent insight, thanks! Imo we have the calling and the privilege of forgiving everyone (D&C 64:10). I don't think we can enter into a Celestial state while we are withholding forgiveness from anyone. And I think that even includes ourselves.

Amen, brother! I think what you are describing is pretty much the process of becoming Christ-like. I see becoming Christ-like as being, or entailing, a shift in consciousness, such as what you just described. I see the “list of Christ-like attributes” as being what shows up as we align ourselves to the consciousness of Christ. And, I think that becoming Christ-like, or aligning oneself with the consciousness of Christ, may well be the main thing we are here to learn, each in our own way. And that includes our “enemies”. Take, for example, the Sacrament prayers. I think they are about aligning oneself to the consciousness of Christ. Those who partake of the bread are witnessing three things: They are willing (← state of consciousness) to take upon themselves the name of Christ; they are willing (← state of consciousness) to always remember Christ; and they are willing (← state of consciousness) to keep his commandments. And then those who partake of the water witness that they do always remember Christ (← again, state of consciousness). Circling back to one of those concepts: To take a name upon oneself is to claim an identity. So, perhaps, we are to align ourselves not only to the consciousness of Christ, but also as the consciousness of Christ. Anyway I think you're doing great, JVW, regardless of whether or not we agree on all of the issues that come up on this message board. There would be no challenges and therefore no growth in this life if we all agreed about everything. I think you're doing absolutely great.

To me, this verse is talking about those who overcome being granted union/oneness with Christ, as Christ is in union/oneness with the Father. I think the term "throne" herein is about a state of being or state of consciousness or state of presence, rather than about a big chair. And, I don't think this verse is about each of us getting out own separate thrones and kingdoms.

Perhaps the shooter's family, as recipients of this go-fund campaign's proceeds, will donate generously to the shooter's actual victims.

Many years ago I thought about what it would take for me to become President of the Church. There was a clear, albeit improbable, path: If all the other men in the Church died, then I could theoretically become President. My first act would be to ordain women to the Priesthood. Then, I would retire. Alas, I am now too far out of the loop for that plan to still be viable.

Good answer!

Does this include Nazis, and/or those accused of being Nazis? (Just to be clear, I'm not defending Nazism. I am advocating for that aspect of classical liberalism.)

My guess is that next Sunday there will be men who make the eyes-wide-open choice to discreetly violate Church policy and state law. What was once a far-fetched hypothetical is now considerably less so.

For many years I was a gun guy. There was a time when I felt it was prudent to carry (illegally, because there was no legal option) after a man repeatedly phoned in threats to shoot up our church. This was before caller ID. Nobody else took his threats seriously. So 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. Everybody just thought I was this cheerful little greeter guy. I wouldn't have lasted long against a well-armed ex-Marine in a pickup truck on a suicide mission. Imo hiring a police officer would be a much better solution, as a cop in uniform is DETERRENCE.