manol

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.

I just now read that talk. I did not at all get the impression that Elder Hales is saying anything like, "we are the only true Christians and the rest of you are not." Let me suggest a different reading of that statement than the one you seem to be using, my edits in bold below: "The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority. And this statement in no way precludes others from taking upon themselves the name of Christ through whatever means their beliefs call for." In my opinion.

Will do! Not sure if this would be of any use, but just in case: One of my family members was a career Marine. On rare occasions when he wasn't getting something that really mattered from his commanding officer he'd go to THEIR commanding officer. And he would do so not with just a complaint, but also with a SOLUTION. In theory your congressional representative is further up the chain of command. And it sounds like this is affecting multiple companies in their congressional district. Maybe contact their office?

Imo this controversy is not a bad thing. My guess is that there are people whose minds are not closed on the topic who will make some effort to reach their own conclusion as to whether the LDS Church is a Christian church or not. And I think that will work to the Church's benefit.

Thank you for that! I'd forgotten about that quote. It is fascinating to me how the same idea shows up coming from very different places, like the same truth being declared by multiple witnesses. A few days ago I was taking notes while listening to YouTube interviews of near death experiencer Jonathan Ashford. From my notes, and therefore a paraphrase rather than an exact quote: "Our attempts to intellectually define Love or God actually block out true understanding. God is experienced, but not by the intellect. Love with a capital “L” is experienced, again not by the intellect. It is the EXPERIENCE. It is not the definitions that our intellects attempt to put on the experience, and in doing so, lose it. Our identification of what we think IT is is the very thing we will need to transcend before we reach that space." To me that sounds like the same idea as in your quote from the Tao: "The Tao that can be explained is not the true Tao." I don't recall whether it was from this interview or some other, but here's a link just in case you might be interested in the NDE of a guy who would probably win an Orrin Porter Rockwell look-alike contest:

I can't think of any, but LDS is no longer my category. I sometimes say it privately, my understanding being that Christ told us to, therefore presumably it's beneficial. I see it as a way to quietly be in unity with everyone else who says it. And I tend to use Pope Francis' version, with "do not let us fall into temptation" instead of "lead us not into temptation".

I cannot speak for anyone else, nor am I sufficiently familiar with why other people have left the LDS Church to comment usefully. But if "secularization" means "separation from religious or spiritual connection or influences", then I don't think it has been part of my journey. That being said, I applaud your interest in understanding why people leave the LDS Church and what to do about it. Neither of those are questions I have good generalized answers for.

No, I was my unrestrainedly-weird self. Edited to add: And actually it was kind of nice to not feel obligated to post "in my opinion" disclaimers at regular intervals, even if my audience was an AI algorithm. There was a question about which is more important for exaltation, beliefs or actions. My reply was something like, "Our souls are not at stake, but our trajectory and therefore our timeline is. We are actually Love Incarnate and are here to wake up to that and to live from that perspective." Now I have been "out of the loop", so to speak, for a while now. If ^^^THAT^^^ ticks the current "orthodoxy" checkbox, then I need to reconsider my assessment of Mormonism!

I scored 69% Terryl Givens and 66% Progressive Mormon. Don't know who Terryl Givens is, but maybe I should find out. Edited a couple of hours later to add: I scored 100% "orthodoxy" and 0% "orthopraxy", the two being put at opposite ends of a continuum in the AI's analysis. I don't see myself as "orthodox", and imo pitting them against one another is a false dichotomy. Also, there is this lesser-known thing called "orthopathy", which would be "correct affections". "Orthopathy" seems to be an area where Givens and I have some common ground, so credit to the AI for placing me in the "Terryl Givens" category, even if its analysis did not explicitly include "orthopathy".

Thanks for posting. At the risk of over-simplifying: It seems to me there are two "plans of happiness" within Mormonism, the more modern and well-known being the Covenant Path. The other being the Pure Love of Christ, which is the culmination of Mormon's magnificent sermon (and arguably the capstone of the Book of Mormon's thought system), as recorded in the 7th chapter of Moroni.