manol

@Emily, thank you for posting that this is AI-generated content. I think there are a fair number of posts on this site that are largely or almost entirely AI-generated content but there is no such attribution included, such that the poster is acting as if the AI-generated content is their own words. Pardon me for being a species-ist, but I'm far more interested in the actual thoughts and analysis of my fellow humans, as opposed to the word sequences generated by a large language model's algorithm. I would read and might even respond to YOUR analysis, whether or not AI is your background source, but I lack the attention span to read multiple AI-generated paragraphs.

Not that this is "proof" of anything, but here's my anecdote as a descendant of slave owners: First, a bit of background - I was probably about ten years old when this conversation with my grandmother, who lived in New Orleans, took place. This was years before my conversion to Mormonism, and she was not remotely LDS nor did she later express any knowledge of or sympathies towards Mormonism or Joseph Smith. Her grandparents had been slave owners in Kentucky, and after the war they had to sell their farm and move to Mississippi. Three or four generations lived under one roof so she grew up hearing about the war from multiple first-hand accounts. One day I guess she decided to tell me what would have averted the war. She said that if the Southern slave owners had been compensated for their financial loss, the Civil War would, or could, have been averted. For whatever reason that made an impression on me, and then years later when I learned about that aspect of Joseph Smith's campaign platform, it seemed to me that he was either inspired or wise or both. I'm not historian enough to argue whether my grandmother's opinion was right and whether Joseph Smith's plan would have worked. Was compensating the slave owners ever a serious topic of national conversation and debate, and thereby given valid opportunity to change people's minds? Again, I don't know. Seems to me it was an idea that really should have been given the best possible chance to win over support, and perhaps Joseph Smith could have provided it with that best possible chance even if he didn't win.

Agreed. And there are other yardsticks that might be used to gauge whether we have made progress. How much cruelty are we comfortable with, be it towards marginalized individuals or groups, or animals? We still have a long ways to go, but our trajectory is in the right direction.

Agreed. Neither the LDS Church nor any other individual, group, or religion is appointed gatekeeper. Christ employs no gatekeeper (2 Nephi 9:41). Nor is it the job of those who consider themselves wheat to decide who is wheat and who is tare. That is not our job, and ime our spirits rise a bit when we let it go. We are here to be lights, not judges. In my opinion.

Agreed. Wish I was allowed to "like" your posts. Agreed - good point!

Arrrgh meant to "edit" and instead "quote". Again. I have a long ways to go!!

Notice that he (or she) who overcomes sits with Christ in his throne, just as Christ sits with his Father in his throne. Not separate, nor in a separate throne. My point being, this scripture indicates that union (or perhaps re-union) rather than separation is what we are progressing towards. It doesn't say those who overcome get their own throne; rather, it says they sit with Christ, as Christ sits with the Father, in their throne. Maybe I misunderstood, but the paradigm I was presented with in the LDS Church seemed to be a paradigm of ever-increasing separation: First the premortal division; then the three postmortal kingdoms; then the top kingdom being further subdivided into three degrees; and perhaps this pattern is continued, with those who progress faster increasingly leaving the others behind. I'm no longer convinced that progression happens in the direction of ever-increasing separation; I think it more likely that progression happens in the direction of ever-increasing union (or re-union), in plurality rather than in sameness. From the 88th Section of the D&C, verses 12, 13, and 44: "Which light [the Light of Christ] proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space — The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things... He [God] comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things..." Imo there is a perspective from which, right here and right now, we may perceive Christ in everyone, and likewise we may perceive God in everything. Imo this is not about our fundamental reality being separation (despite the preponderance of telestial evidence supporting a paradigm of separation); rather, imo it is about our fundamental reality being union with God in/with/through Christ. Of course, I could be wrong.

That has changed? I've been out of the loop for a while. What do the missionaries encourage investigators to do now? Edited to add: Back when I was active LDS, growth rates (in the US at least) supported the view that the LDS Church was the "stone cut without hands" rolling forth to fill the whole earth. My recollection is that, among US religious groups of significant size, the Pentecostals were the only ones with a similar growth rate. Today, my understanding is that, among those self-identifying as religious or spiritual or both, "spiritual but not religious" is not only the largest category (Evangelical Protestants being the second-largest), but also the fastest-growing by a significant margin. One might even posit that, for now at least, this category seems to fit the "cut without hands" part of Daniel's prophecy pretty well, as it has no leaders and no organization and no formal set of beliefs and no particular text. Ime it seems to be mostly just seekers seeking, which makes it a far-from-homogeneous category. My recollection is that there is a series of logical conclusions implied, or claimed to be implied, when someone receives a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. Something like this: IF the Book of Mormon is witnessed to by the Holy Spirit, THEN the Book of Mormon is true. IF the book of Mormon is true, THEN Joseph Smith was a true prophet. IF Joseph Smith was a true prophet, THEN Christ restored the one and only true church through Joseph Smith. IF Christ restored the one and only true church through Joseph Smith, THEN the modern LDS church is that church. And IF the modern LDS church is that church, THEN you should join it. Somebody please correct me if I've got that wrong.

There is a local family-owned business that is a shipping location for Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, and the USPS. The area is well outside of the Mormon Corridor. The husband called me "brother" the first time I came in to ship something. This was unexpected, and it felt very inclusive to me. I have no idea what his belief system is - does it really matter? - he and I are now "brothers".

The more I learn, the less I “know”. Many's the time I think I've arrived at the highest concept I can conceive of, and then the next thing comes along, and I have to re-draw my map, or at least that part of it. So at this point in my journey, I think in terms of “utility” rather than “absolute truth”. I think it would be a mistake for me to take any particular idea and carve it in stone; I do not want to become fossilized at that level of thinking no matter how enlightened it seems at the time. Imo this is the problem with a belief system based on a set of carefully thought-out creeds: Those same creeds can hold us back when we are otherwise ready for whatever lies beyond them. So I could probably list several ideas in which I find “utility” at this time, but I don't feel qualified to claim that they are the highest level of truth on the subject. Nor do I feel qualified to prescribe them as necessarily having similar “utility” for someone else, as I don't really know what anyone else's curriculum is, nor what classes they are taking at this time.

I'm not saying this concept is exclusive to Mormonism, but one of the things I like therein is this rather aspirational teaching of Christ, found in 3rd Nephi chapter 27 verse 27: “What manner of men [and women] ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.” So if Christ is the Vine and we are the branches, and if we are to become the same manner of men and women as Christ, then imo who we are to be looks like: The Vine showing up as Navidad The Vine showing up as blackstrap The Vine showing up as longview The Vine showing up as let's roll The Vine showing up as anonymous mormon The Vine showing up as manol The Vine showing up as JAHS The Vine showing up as Kenngo1969 The Vine showing up as why me The Vine showing up as Tony UK The Vine showing up as Tacenda The Vine showing up as smac97 The Vine showing up as calm The Vine showing up as MiserereNobis The Vine showing up as Rain The Vine showing up as bluebell The Vine showing up as Amulek The Vine showing up as Senator The Vine showing up as Pyreaux The Vine showing up as 3DOP And he hasn't posted in this thread yet, but just in case: The Vine showing up as The Nehor. I think these and however many billion other branches, all of us still Works in Progress, are ways in which The Vine is in the process of showing up. And imo our differences are “features”, rather than “bugs”. How boring it would be if we were all the same! Let us see and honor in one another the highest potential that can be seen.

Hope you don't mind if I pull a quote from your imo excellent article: "The Parable of the Sower teaches us that good seeds can yield good fruit in Catholic ground, in Protestant ground, among the non-Christian religiously devout, and even among the nonreligious. The Savior’s admonition to judge people by their fruits teaches a similar principle. His admonition to “ask, seek, and knock” tells us that His Father gives good gifts to all varieties of people who ask Him, irrespective of religion. The Parable of the Talents teaches us that the Lord is displeased only with those who fail to live the best they know how according to the light they’ve been given. Modern revelation teaches us that the more we have been given, the more will be required of us, and that we will be rewarded for the good we do, likewise irrespective of religion. John the Baptist’s warning to the Pharisees teaches us that we ought not become too provincial in our possession of truth nor too secure in our own salvation. And finally, early leaders of the Restoration remind us that, while much good can be found in the Church of Jesus Christ and among its members, we have no corner on “goodness.”"

For context, I'm no longer LDS and not affiliated with any religion. Here are my thoughts, with the numbers corresponding to the numbered items in your post: 1) I'm not in a position to judge which baptism(s) are pleasing to God. I respect your beliefs on the subject, and I respect the LDS beliefs on the subject. 2) I think your fence-vs-well analogy is valid. Personally, I tend to think in terms of “circles of inclusion”, and favor a really big circle which does not exclude anyone, be they Christian or non-Christian or Atheist or whatever. 3) I can accept the idea of basic teachings being readily accessible while higher teachings are reserved, as the higher can be counter-productive if presented before a person is ready for them. 4) I too am uncomfortable with “othering”, whether the circle is drawn at the borders of Mormonism or Christianity or Theism or wherever. That being said, it would be laughably hypocritical for me to draw a circle that excludes those who participate in “othering”! That (and so much else) is simply part of our journey down here, individually and collectively. 5) My concept of life after death is dominated by the first-hand accounts of those who have been on the other side and lived to tell the tale, rather than by religious teachings. The impression I get is that how we behave towards one another is vastly more important than which belief system we subscribe to. Aha! You my friend are dangerously close to drawing a really big circle too! Agreed! Imo Mormonism produces very good people.

Thank you. Those names ring a bell, but the details of who played or did not play what role is the sort of thing I'm likely to have mixed up.

Thanks for the link. About three decades ago this topic was of great interest to me. One of the factors I came across wasn't mentioned in the video. This will be from my highly fallible memory: The Manifesto and the subsequent Second Manifesto resulted in a schism wherein a fundamentalist movement continued to practice plural marriages. They claimed valid priesthood authority for doing so and my understanding is that one or two Apostles had passed on this sealing authority to members within the fundamentalist movement. My understanding is that the mainstream LDS church did not dispute their claims of having received valid authority, but rather took the position that exercising this authority without the approval of the President of the Church was inappropriate and therefore invalid (as well as being grounds for excommunication). So the question was not whether the fundamentalists had been given the proper authority; the question was whether they could use it. The mainstream Church took the position that the priesthood lines of authority are what matters, and therefore the approval of the President of the Church is necessary. The fundamentalists countered with the example of LDS women giving blessings as evidence that the authority to act in the name of God was not constrained solely to the Church's priesthood lines of authority. So the practice of women giving blessings became a sore subject of sorts in the dispute with the fundamentalists over their use of priesthood authority to perform plural marriages without the approval of the President of the Church. It was in the interest of the Church's position on the outside-priesthood-lines-of-authority performance of plural marriages for the practice of women giving blessings to be downgraded or discredited, and discontinued. Personally, I do not think the practice of women giving blessings is or ever was "wrong" in the eyes of God, regardless of the then-current position of those in ecclesiastical authority.

Agreed on both counts. This person has interviewed many near-death experiencers and here she's warning us about fake NDEs: BEWARE: Fake Near Death Experiences are FLOODING YouTube - Here's How to Spot Them! - YouTube Briefly, you're generally safe with YouTube channels that have been around for a long time and that show interviews or video clips of the actual person speaking, especially if that same person shows up in other interviews on other channels when you search for them.

Actually there is an enormous body of information available in the form of first-hand accounts from those who have been to the other side but did not take up permanent residence there. In fact we are, to the best of my knowledge, the first generation in the history of mankind to have access to such a wealth of information about the other side thanks to modern medical resuscitation techniques and technology. Here are three YouTube channels you might find interesting: NDE Compilations - YouTube NDEs - Near Death Experiences - YouTube Coming Home - YouTube And if you prefer to read, at this site there are literally thousands of first-hand near-death experience accounts: https://www.nderf.org And finally, here is the website for the International Association of Near-Death Studies, they have many resources available and you can check to see if there's a conference coming up in your area in case you'd like to attend one: The International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS) In my opinion, the abundance of near-death experience accounts are a major part of "that which God does now reveal."

This is just my opinion of course, and it's not a response to that particular question; rather, it's a response to what I think the bigger question is: Your relationship with your wife is far, far, far more important than whether you are "right" or she is "right". Even if all the replies in this thread were unanimous as to "who is right", that information doesn't really heal anything, does it? The "healing the relationship" part still has to happen. People vastly more wise than me have commented on how to start the conversation that will lead to healing the relationship, so I'll just toss this out: Imo it is the responsibility of whoever is the most sane in the moment to take the first steps towards peace and healing. (Jesus did not say "Blessed are those who are always right". He said "Blessed are the peacemakers.")

Ooops double post; was trying to edit. My beliefs about how to edit obviously are not yet correct. Or maybe the spirit is willing but the mind is weak.

Well imo, there's believing something about Christ, such as, that he was resurrected; and then there's believing Christ, which would be believing his actual teachings (including the more radical ones) and aligning one's life with them to the best of one's ability. Imo there is utility in both, and it's by no means either/or, but - speaking only for myself here - I prioritize believing and aligning myself to the teachings of Christ moreso than having the correct set of beliefs about Christ.

Good question! And, I may well be mistaken! My recollection is that some of @marineland's recent threads have been in the context of thoroughly preparing to teach a lesson, and I jumped to the conclusion that this was along the same lines.

Your question is about something I quoted from the NDE experiencer's description, so I'm not in a position to answer your question with certainty. My understanding is that the "collective consciousness" she's talking about consists of all of us. So, I think she's saying that it appeared to her that we all participated in the creation of this Earth. Here is the link to her NDE account, in case you'd like to read it in full: https://search.nderf.org/en/experience/6428 If you would prefer: I can try to describe what I think she means by "a collective consciousness" in more detail, but I think it will be different from the traditional LDS viewpoint, and I don't want to unnecessarily muddy the waters with non-Church-aligned ideas when you're preparing to teach a lesson.

Perfect. When I was a home-study seminary student I was accustomed to getting 100% on the tests given in our weekly meetings. The material was not difficult and I was intensely interested in the topics. I recall being stunned to only get 90% on an easy-peasy true-false test. Here is the question I got wrong (paraphrased from memory; this was about forty years ago): "True or false, When the prophet speaks, we should pray to find out whether what he said is true." As you've probably guessed I answered "true", which was marked incorrect. I never did agree with the teachers on that one.

I believe that we all were participants. As background for what I'm about to post, @Calm and I were discussing near-death experiences in another thread where she wrote this: "I believe continuing revelation is necessary. Multiple people sharing their experiences presents us with a fuller picture than we would receive if we considered revelation more one and done." So in the spirit of presenting "a fuller picture", I hope you don't mind me sharing a near-death experiencer's perspective. It is your choice of course whether or not to lend any credibility to it: "The memory of participating in the creation of the solar system was definitely the most unexpected! It sounds like a sacrilege just to mention it. And yet, the collective consciousness that I was part of willed it into being. "I am sorry I cannot tell you exactly how we did it. I remember that it was our collective will and focus that brought it into being. Matter simply formed at our command (one minute it was energy and the next it was matter). It formed in the shape that we willed it to be. I remember how important equilibrium was. Every particle had to be in perfect balance and harmony with the rest. All of the planets had to be in equilibrium with the sun and each other. There was great joy among us, for this creation had a purpose of the highest importance. It would allow us to experience mortality. I cannot tell you if every solar system in the universe was created the same way. I cannot comment about the big bang theory. All I know is that this solar system was created by a collective consciousness and this for a purpose of great importance. Each being of this collective consciousness asked to come to this earth to experience life knowing that each experience would benefit the collective. We each agreed to accomplish a certain mission... "Actually, I stopped thinking in terms of ‘I’ and started thinking in terms of ‘we,’ we the collective consciousness. We had willed it into being. There was a plan in place. We would take turns coming down into mortality and experience life in all of its aspects and bring this experience back to the collective." So according to what this person experienced, we created, or at least participated in the creation of, this earth and this solar system.

That all makes sense to me. Great example! I have tried explaining to my cat that the sequence of events which ultimately results in cat food starts with him getting off my keyboard so that I can meet a deadline. He just blinks at me. Yes! Great insight. The context is different, but in my day job "multiple good looks at something complicated" has been shown to improve comprehension of that complicated something. When the day comes that we each get a good look at everything from every individual's angle, I think we'll be equipped for whatever the next stage is. I heard (and used) the phrase "continuing revelation" quite often when I was active LDS. Where and/or how do you see "continuing revelation" occurring?