manol

In the context of this thread I can only speak for myself... I've “been there” to some extent, and survived. But I cannot begin to truly understand the complete context of what another person is going through. So this will be just a few observations about myself; whether there will be any utility for someone else, I don't know: I have observed that dwelling on grievances never brings me happiness, and it doesn't matter how big or small they are, nor how “justified” they are. They offer me nothing I really want. I have observed that the lens I look through changes what I see. And I have observed that I have the ability to significantly alter that lens by deliberate, focused, sustained, and yet inevitably imperfect effort to align my thoughts with the highest that I know of. Elder Uchtdorf put it this way: “Jesus taught, ‘Seek, and ye shall find.’ I believe this simple phrase is not only a spiritual promise; it is a statement of fact. If we seek reasons to be angry, to doubt, to be bitter or alone, we will find them too. However, if we seek joy—if we look for reasons to rejoice and to happily follow the Savior, we will find them. We rarely find something we are not looking for.” To those of you who have expressed the pain in your heart in this thread, and to those of you who haven't, with all my heart I wish you that peace which surpasses all understanding. And I do so with confidence, although I don't know what the timeline will be nor what your road looks like.

Agreed. How many times did Jesus cite priesthood authority, or any other authority, when he blessed and healed someone? How many times did he follow the format in the priesthood manual? None that I know of... the priesthood manual doesn't even mention spitting in the dirt to make mud and then smearing the mud on the person's eyes. Nor does it mention how to heal someone in a crowd who reaches out and touches your clothing without you even seeing them. My point being, there is something going on which, imo, is not controlled by the format nor by the wording. And (based on a fairly broad spectrum of experience) I believe it is the exact same something whether it's a priesthood blessing or a non-priesthood blessing or a prayer or a meditation or any other spiritual-energy-based deliberate act on behalf of someone. Now I DO believe that following the format in the priesthood manual has merit. This is because it reduces fear on the part of someone new to the practice of giving blessings: They may doubt themselves, but they believe in the Priesthood and they've heard of blessings given in accordance with this format working before, and this confidence can be stronger than their fearfulness. Imo the injunction "Doubt not, fear not" is telling us something about aligning ourselves to the Divine so that we can be unimpeded conduits for something greater than ourselves. And whether we call it priesthood or prayer or healing energy or chi or love or Spirit, it's the same stuff. In my opinion.

WONDERFUL to see you again!

Imo when you pray for someone, you're asking God to do something for that person. And when you bless someone, you are arguably more participatory to God doing something for that person. I don't see the one as being "better" than the other. Both are an application of your faith, spirit, energy, intention, whatever, for the benefit of another, to the best of your ability in the moment. Both are expressions of love, even if that word never comes up. My current (non-Church-approved) opinion is that anyone can bless anyone else, and that the format doesn't really matter. Consider this: Jesus said to "bless them that curse you". Obviously this did not mean "set them down and give them a formal priesthood blessing". I figure if it's okay for any of us to bless someone who curses us, then there really are no constraints on "who can bless who", nor on "how" (though of course it would be out of place for a non-priesthood-holder to claim priesthood authority). Personally, I like the "more-participatory" aspect of blessing someone, even in situations where it's done silently. So I am more likely to silently "bless so-and-so" than I am to silently "pray for so-and-so". And I think it does me good too; if I have some negative feelings towards the person in question, it's a bit harder for me to hold on to those negative feelings while I'm blessing them.

Imo your example of being totally unable to feel the Spirit due to medications may be an instance of someone who volunteered to do some graduate-level work. (Don't worry, I'm not putting you on a pedestal; I'm accusing you of pre-mortal optimism.) I can envision someone saying, "you know, for part of my Earth-life experience, I'd like to see how I would do with ZERO CONTACT from the Holy Spirit." And I also think that your having gone through this experience will be of immense value to all of us; in other words, I don't think your experiences are for you alone. Extrapolate this idea to everyone's Earth-life experiences and imo it really does all work together for the good of not just the individual, but of the collective.

Imo many (if not most?) Latter-day Saints do this as well. Notice how much diversity of opinion there is among active LDS on this board. (Though I admit this board isn't a representative cross-section.) Imo a potentially limiting factor that is usually part of the "package deal" of a religion is, its creeds. By "creeds", I mean formal beliefs, or statements of belief, or declarations of faith, which are useful up to a point but may then become hindrances. Creeds can become hindrances when they set a boundary which prevents a person from being open to higher or more advanced ideas and experiences. Thus the person is restrained from progressing past the paradigm of the creed. Here is an example, and obviously this is just my opinion: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." This creed is useful because it frees believers from the unnecessary burden of Original Sin. BUT is also codifies and enshrines the fear-inducing paradigm that God is in the business of dishing out punishment. Back when I was active LDS, I viewed any suggestion that God was not bound by eternal law to fully punish all sins (except for those properly repented of) as an insidious Satanic idea that would destroy souls. In hindsight, imo this became effectively a barrier which I was unable or unwilling to move beyond. And it made me fear God in a way that interfered with being able to love God. (Just for the record, I now think "natural consequences" is the way it actually works. By way of example, this quote from the Buddha: "You will not be punished for your anger; you will be punished by your anger." The difference is, there is no cause for being frightened of God! I also believe that [paraphrasing] "all things work together for our good", so for example if one chooses to wallow in anger, that's simply an instance of "choosing to learn things the hard way".) Yes it does!! And giving credit where credit's due, the yardstick I use comes largely from the Book of Mormon: Does this idea taste delicious to my soul? Does it invite me to do good and love God? Does it lead me towards truly becoming the same manner of man or woman as Christ? (If someone doesn't believe in God and/or Christ, then just substitute wording you are comfortable with. Imo it's not the specific wording that matters; it's the underlying principle of choosing that which moves us towards the light, to the best of our ability in the moment.)

Imo it is a privilege to "love our enemies". Among other things, that means it's okay for us to let go of our grievances against anyone and anything. And if we have the privilege of loving even our enemies, then presumably we have the privilege of loving everyone. What might that be like? Yes! One might even venture that this "event" is a "state of being", unlikely to become effortlessly permanent (at least not on this side of the veil), but which we can always return to if we so choose. I understand that universalism is not part of LDS theology. But let me toss out an idea: IF there is progression between kingdoms, and IF there is a true perspective from which all things (past present and future) are continually manifest, THEN it is at least theoretically possible that all separations are temporary. (And, arguably, from that true perspective, the separations which seem so obvious and self-evident to us here and now... are actually illusions.) [tangent] Recall the phrase connecting the First and Second great commandments: "And the second is like unto the first." Imo that little phrase can (and probably does) have multiple meanings. [/tangent] Agreed. A theology can help or hinder one's progression, or maybe even first the one and then the other as a person evolves, but ultimately it's not about which theology one subscribes to. Imo.

Yes. Absolutely. Agreed. Imo once a person has laid aside everything about themselves that is not of Christ, what's left will be a manifestation of, or an incarnation of, the Light of Christ. The Branch will have become a manifestation of, or an incarnation of, the Vine. In fact, right here and right now, just as we are, we have the calling and the privilege of aligning ourselves with that aspect of Christ which is already and always present within us (whether or not we have any awareness of it). For example: "Of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10). Who else but Christ would have the privilege of forgiving everyone of everything? Note that we are not required to understand why everyone should be forgiven; we simply required to forgive all anyway, and imo this even includes forgiving ourselves. (Is there any more virtue in judging and condemning oneself than in judging and condemning someone else? I think not.) Imo the sincere, sustained, and deliberate choice to forgive everyone of everything, without reservation or exception, to the best of our ability in the moment, can be transformational. As an experiment, the next time insomnia offers the opportunity to be alone with your thoughts, you might silently forgive everyone who comes into your mind, making no exceptions. And just observe what effect this has on you. The following is theoretical: I think that once a person has aligned themselves fully with the Light of Christ, they would still retain their personality, but without the baggage. In other words, I think the Branches retain their branchness; I think Union is a rich plurality rather than a boring sameness. Imo the Second Coming of Christ happens for each of us when that aspect of Christ which is already within us assumes its rightful place as Who and What we really are. What manner of men (and women) are we to be? The same as Christ. (3 Nephi 27:27).

Oops accidental double post... Pumping up my post count!

Well said. I no longer look to religion, at least not to its usage of threats and fear, when I want insight into how it all really works. Perhaps in 2nd grade something like this was taught: "The choice is between accepting and obeying, or rejecting and disobeying, this religion's beliefs and rules. Accept & obey and God will accept & reward you accordingly; reject & disobey and God will reject & punish you accordingly." Perhaps in a subsequent grade something like this is taught: "The choice is between love and fear. The effect of choosing fear is the creation of more fear, BUT the effect of choosing love is the creation of more love." Can you feel a difference between these two paradigms? Does one induce fear, and the other induce love? Imo if a person adopts the second paradigm, doing so would not prelude participation in their religion of choice, though it might modify what that participation looks like.

Yay!! Way to go Baby Bear!

Imo webbles gave you a really good summary. Yes there were testimonials in court of women who claimed to have been Joseph's wife "in every sense of the word", and yes the LDS Church leaders after Joseph taught that he had instituted the practice. On the other hand, Joseph's public stance was apparently anti-polygamy. So, either way there are arguably unsettling implications. Unfortunately it seems to me that the available information on this topic almost always comes with some bias (including this post of mine). In my opinion, if the Holy Spirit tells you that the LDS Church is the path for you, that is what matters most.

[that-reminds-me-of-something tangent] When I was a little kid, back during the Vietnam War, there were ads on TV for the Peace Corps, and I had the impression people generally thought quite well of it. Then I would overhear conversations about another such organization which was evidently rather controversial. It was called "Youth in Asia". It wasn't clear to me why some people were for it and others against it, and apparently strongly so. I figured it probably wasn't safe for the young people who signed up, considering that there was a war going on in Southeast Asia. Well as you've probably figured out, my vocabulary at the time did not yet include the word "euthanasia"... [/tangent]

I was never comfortable with the idea that a spiritual witness of something in the Book of Mormon equated proof that the entirety of the Book of Mormon is true, thereby proving that Joseph Smith was an inerrant prophet, which in turn proves that the modern LDS Church is the authentic continuation of Joseph Smith's work, and therefore is the one and only true church. This sort of reasoning seems to me like over-reliance on extrapolation. I am much more comfortable with this sort of approach. Regarding the topic of this thread, I have never been on an "Ex Mo" website or forum, and have zero experience with Christians trying to convert me. Hopefully I would not take offense.