Nofear

I was about to post this article. Not because I think Matthew L. Harris is exactly a faith promoting author, but neither do I shirk from history*. This article should also be juxtaposed with Elder Bedner's 2015 talk "Chosen to Bear Testimony of My Name" where he defends the gerontocracy of the Church. For my part, I side with Elder Bednar but if change comes I'm ok with that too. * Had a fascinating conversation with Gemini yesterday about the socio-religious norms among us LDS and using the cross. Apparently protestants weren't big into the cross (especially the crucifix) in the 1800s as part of an effort to differentiate from Catholicism. But it really came to be quasi-institutionalized when anti-Mormon Catholic Bishop Duane Hunt and Pres. McKay butted heads.

Indeed, there is much more to the plain and precious allusion which may or may not include this one aspect. Meh. Also, your skepticism of actual, real divine guidance is well known. /shrug

Certainly could be done. In the meantime, I'm quite willing to define the term more appropriately and contextually as I read the scriptures.

Believing that humans are fallible and that the narrative may have had that fallibility injected (read "plain and precious things taken away") doesn't remove the importance of the scriptures to me. Thankfully we latter-day saints have hedges and guardrails in place for such human failings. 1) personal inspiration and revelation, 2) prophetic guidance, and 3) scripture. When the three align with consistency that greatly increases one confidence that one is on the right track. Sola scriptura. Pffft.

I can totally sympathze with this. I'm not sure we always correctly attribute purpose or intent in divine action. The OT in particular has some post-hoc rationalizations, I believe. In general I align more with the Gospel Study article (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/curse-curses?lang=eng) where curses aren't anti-blessings.

Heck. Why have commandments at all? Or blessings? Or cursings? Why can't God just leave us alone!?

Naw. Policy and practice can be upheld and sustained not just because we think it is revelation. We can support the Church and its leadership knowing that many activities (local and general) are efforts of humans to do God's will. To the extent that God can uphold His servants, imperfections notwithstanding, so can I. That said, that doesn't mean there isn't also real revelation experienced in the councils of the Church at all levels, even for small things. There is.

Not a bad question at all. Alas, the General Handbook does not typically spell out the policies surrounding the general authorities and officers of the Church.

From a letter. 13.2.2.2 has been updated and affirms that if there are counselors the counselors should be the same gender as the president.

I almost wrote near 100% accuracy and that woud indeed have been better. Though the limit case is also considered by some. The point remains that how the predictor has that near perfect skill isn't relevant and thus can remain vague and poorly defined. You view it from it from a different perspective. Okie dokie.

That is messiness irrelevant to the nature of the problem that is trying to be illuminated. So, philosophers don't bother trying to explain how it might* be. It is sufficient to posit that the predictor has 100% accuracy. A reader who gets hung up on that is missing the point. * Or just put in some hand-wavy explanation that isn't intended to be serious or rigorous.

For this problem rational means getting the most expected money. Let's let box B's reward be only $10. The rational coice will be selecting both boxes. You will always get more. Let box B's reward be $1000. The rational choice is still choosing both boxes. Let box B's reward be $1010. Is tho rational choice still picking both? How about if box be is $1,000,000? Where does it change from the rational best choice to irrational? Logic holds there isn't any threshold. Picking both always gives you the more rational outcome (more money). But, as argued in the discussion, the most “rational“ choice is to make the irrational choice. To be rational you must be irrational. Hence the term “paradox”.

This video is about Newcomb's Paradox. In this problem there is a predictor and an agent (you) and two boxes. One box always has $1000 and is open and visible. The second box is determined by the predictor before you even enter the room. The predictor has past data on others and is really good at predicting. If the predictor predicted you would take two boxes it puts $0 in the second box. If the predictor predicted you would take only the second box, it puts $1,000,000 in the second box. Which option should you choose? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol18JoeXlVI You should watch the video to see how the rational actor changes his mind. However, why it is posted here is because one of the conclusions that is drawn but one of the philosophers is that the moral of the paradox is that "being rational isn't deciding what is right in the moment but deciding what rules you are going to live by". Theologically, we have the idea that God doesn't just decide what is right/best/good from moment to moment but as stated in D&C 130 20-21: There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. There are many who can object to the notion of God because of the reality of evil in the world. This paradox shows rationally why God has set up the situation He has set up.

A very interesting discussion from Don Bradley about the historical view point that Joseph Smith on scriptures that others used to justify slavery. TLDR: Joseph did not see it that way, anticipated Africans worshiping in the temple, thought Anglo-Native American interracial marriage was good, and some other fun things.

Jacob Hansen makes the case that in the content creator space, faithful LDS content creators are winning, but that they ought not to rest, and continue to press forward. Endeavor to set aside confirmation bias (pro or con)? Do you have or can you provide data to back up your assertion (pro or con)?