Nofear

I doubt the scriptures gave Lucifer's presentation a "fair" shake -- the winners write history and all that. I'm ok with that, having sided with Christ myself (then and now). But he was persuasive enough to sway a third of the host of heaven. Better to over estimate Satan than underestimate him (and this coming from somebody who has long held the irrelevance of Satan to the Plan of Salvation).

I personally find Hugh Nibley's position in his article Before Adam useful.

There is definitely the one Christ for all worlds or the a Christ for each world theories. I haven't heard so much the much this is the only world needing a Christ idea. Doesn't quite jive with my understanding of the Atonement, but I can see how some scriptural language could be interpreted that way. /shrug

My working "timeline": Part I: Heavenly Parents call a grand council of those ready to progress to the next stage (mortality). Plan of Salvation -- implemented on other worlds is presented by Heavenly Father Christ accepts plan Lucifer presents alternate plan which destroys agency for "safety"(not tried before on other worlds, while Father's plan had been done so countless times before) Lucifer's alternate plan rejected, Lucifer greatly annoyed (but no punishment so far, discussion was perfectly acceptable) Down but not defeated Lucifer goes for consolation prize, plan B, and vies for the position of Adam Jesus Christ picks Michael instead (not exactly trusting Lucifer, despite him having seniority to Michael) Plans A and B defeated, Lucifer rebels and incites many to boycott this earth as they picket the courts of heaven with signs saying things like "Earth no, we won't go!", "No Lucifer, no morning!", or "Agency is Dangerous. Choose Lucifer!" For this insurrection Lucifer and followers cast out (part of the whole point was that we and they couldn't stay home forever, but had to move on after all -- in some sense were were all to be "cast out") Part II: Adam and Eve placed on newly created world They receive instruction (and two commandments) and told to get acclimated to the new world and that further instruction was coming Lucifer intervenes before the promised further instruction and persuades Adam and Eve to initiate the Fall before they were properly prepared For this sabotage Lucifer becomes Satan and has his travel rights revoked (bound to this world, to eat the dust of this world only) Adam and Eve leave garden; history proceeds

I see this assertion as self-contradictory. Lucifer, one of the great ones, is able to convince a third of the hosts of heaven with his rhetoric but too stupid to see a simple strategic ploy that would frustrate God's plans? Naw. Completely illogical. Moreover, it is just one (the weakest) of multiple arguments against the necessity of Satan. Certainly a good position, relying on the scriptures and not on the arm of flesh. No where do the scriptures say that a Satan is necessary. That is a fleshy interpretation.

Grant Arnold wrote an article: War a Good Warfare Understanding Agency in the Plan of Salvation (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2001&context=re, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp47GOvBSBI). The Keystone youtube video adds some details only mentioned briefly in the article. Makes many of the arguments that I have made in the past on this board about the non-necessity of a Satan to the Plan of Salvation. But he added a new one that I think I'll add to my personal arguments. Assume the position that 1) A Satan is necessary for the Plan to tempt Adam and Eve and 2) that Satan wants to frustrate God's plans. If 1) and 2) than 3) the smart thing for Satan to really destroy God's plan is to not tempt Adam and Eve (or barring that, just sit out the rest of the earth's history and not be the negative influence). I think Arnold has a good point.

Linguistically faith has a fair bit of subtlety. In the KJV the word faith is only used twice (other versions have more instances). The concept of trust, loyalty, belief, confidence, etc. are ideas that are trying to be captured. I personally don't see "faith" as some mystical cosmic energy or anything like that. I usually conceptualize it closest to trust. (Gemini commentary on this.) If my trust is in a belief that correlates to reality or truth, then my faith in that thing is efficacious. If my trust is in a belief that correlates to that which is not reality or true, then my faith in that thing is not efficacious. Faith in God that He will respect my moral agency and support me in righteous endeavors = really good. "Faith" in God that He will solve all my problems without effort from my part = vanity and false. I put quotes in the second line because culturally we like to say that only "faith" that is in that which is true is faith and all other instances are not really faith. The scriptures (e.g. Alma) or the Lectures on Faith tend towards that approach and it has pedagogical merit. But pedagogical merit does not make faith a cosmic, primal force. That's God. And (correct) faith in God can bring His power into our lives.

Jacob Hansen presents an alternative or modified narrative of the Great Apostasy. Loss of priesthood authority, sure. But he points to something deeper: the Hellenization of Christianity.

The three dissenting judges disagreed with the sex reasoning but also sided that the stautory claims of the cases failed to meet title iX protections.

I haven't. But, I also try to respect the purpose, venue, and location of where I share my ideas (though, I'm not so out there that I really have to think about it at all).

I hold plenty of ideas that, while I consider most of them orthodox, are decidedly not mainstream. I've never been chastised, reprimanded, or even disdained for them. Do I trot out such during sacrament meeting talks? No. There is plenty to talk about that is beneficial and helpful and upon which we, as a people, largely agree. That said, I have presented new ways of thinking about things and I've gotten compliments of gratitude for the new ideas/approaches. At a recent stake conference during the adult session we had an unusually frank member of the Seventy leading a discussion. A member (of the high council) gave an insight that the Seventy disagreed with. Didn't chastise, belittle, or anyway reprimand. He simply acknowledged that sometimes we have different opinions about things and moved on. There is so very much more upon which we can agree that getting hung up on minor disagreements is counterproductive to the work of Zion. I suspect, and it is my experience, that is the position of pretty much every member (at least in theory for everybody and in practice for the vast majority).

I confess that I'm quite shocked at the idea that Church leaders hold a position about this or that because they think that opinion is correct. That it no way to run a theological autocracy. That Elder Christofferson made it to the Quorum of the First Presidency means stuff is going very wrong. "We have individual members in the Church with a variety of opinions, beliefs, and positions on these issues and other issues... In our view, it’s possible to have a difference on these kinds of subjects or some direct opposition to a Church position and still be a faithful member in good standing." -- Elder Christofferson

Thank you for the pleasant interaction. I don't mind push back to some of the theological ideas we have in the Church. Historically several practices clearly have been more traditional than necessary. I don't doubt but that some are still in that vein. It's also possible there are some practices that have much greater doctrinal depth than we currently realize from our limited mortal perspective and thus they are not afforded the gravitas they should hold. We try to progress in understanding the best we can. I think there is great wisdom is Joseph Smith quote "I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief." God seems to be very much tolerant of us not understanding everything and even being silly in some of our ideas so long as we act as our Savior would have us act.

I think of "getting blessings" as being more of an efficiency of gains. I don't think of it in a transactional mindset. Doing the right thing is always good. Doing the right thing with intentionality has a greater impact on one's internal change. Sometimes a proxy for that intentionality is "faith", hence scriptures like "without faith, it is impossible to please God". I suspect with have quite a bit of overlap on this thinking. The largest point of difference would be on the role that covenant making and keeping, our hesed, plays for the right here and right now.

I fully agree that the covenants themselves are not the thing that creates the necessary change. That doesn't mean they aren't necessary. I hold the somewhat radical opinion that I don't think God gives us any command but that we agreed to it through covenant.* God provides opportunities, behaviors, and guidance, for us to advance. When we agree to those conditions and abide by them we are blessed. Can one live the Word of Wisdom without covenant? Yes. Can one have many of the blessings of fasting but not have covenanted to obey it. Yes. Nonetheless, the fullness of the blessings are only available through covenant. See John 10:1. * Though, the first covenant we made was pretty broad based--before coming to earth we all covenanted to obey God. Understanding the the context of this is important.

I am also very confident that I'll have to unlearn a lot of things that I think I know. 🙃

Very good. We are in alignment with Genesis between local creation stories. As you point out, there are countless earths and Adams ... and Genesis is just an account of our particular Creation. That supposes God created the entire universe. There are interpretations of LDS theology where our Heavenly Parents are not the first exalted beings. Even if one doesn't subscribe to that, we hold that with exaltation we become full participants in the works of God, including Creations. Will that be creations of entire universes? I personally don't think so. LDS theologians expressly reject creatio ex nihilo. Saying God created the universe from extant matter is creatio ex nihilo-light. For if matter existed prior to the universe, why not call where the matter existed the universe? Thus "creating the universe" becomes a semantics game about what we mean by "universe". This same argument applies to our self-existent core: intelligence. I'm personally quite comfortable with the idea of God's eternal essence (and everbody's) being self-existent into an infinite past but that God, as an organized being, only having a finite past. While a heretical concept to many, D&C 19 makes it explicit that terms like "endless" and "eternal" should not be equated with infinite. Similarly, Moses was explicitly told that "countless" doesn't mean infinite. We are explicitly informed that the number of concurrent worlds of God's creation are numbered*. I view God's Creation as being the act by which He organized this neighborhood of the universe and galaxy to be suitable for His purposes. Our doctrine's orthodoxy doesn't require us to go any further than that. Creedal traditions have us doing so, but the Restoration does not require it. * One can have countable infinities, so "numbered" doesn't have to mean finite. I don't think God was using such mathematical semantic subtlety when He was explaining things to Moses. God was telling Moses that there are only a finite number of concurrent mortal worlds.

What we become is, of course, what really matters. I sometimes liken our mortal experience to schooling. We have various classes to take. There are too many to take all at once in mortality and some will be deferred until later. Not all courses are required by everybody. The class "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" is a required course that everybody will eventually take. Though, as Calm pointed out, the vast majority of humanity doesn't take the course in mortality. Same for Calculus. I think everybody will have to learn it. That said, the principles and goodness by faithful adherence to the covenants found in the Church is never a negative. It can be potentially problematic if somebody feels compelled to take upon themselves covenants that they are unwilling to keep. Not making covenants one won't keep is better than making covenants and not keeping them. God's highest priority is our happiness and progression. Progression to our fullest potential absolutely will require making and keeping covenants and that is true for everybody. No exceptions. Timing is an issue, and so I try not to judge. There are "classes" that I'll have to take later that others take in mortality. Everybody's "course schedule" will be a little different. I do not begrudge in any my opportunity to make and keep covenants here, now, in mortality. Taking the "class" now has been and is a huge blessing to me.

What Calm said. It's appropriate to read any particular verse in context. Yet, context is often the very thing that we mortals struggle with. Likewise, one of the things I most dearly appreciate about the Gospel is the context it gives me/us.

Your disaffection is understandable when we LDS have scriptures like this. "And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments." D&C 59:21

A very common refrain from those disaffected with the Church (on this board and elsewhere). "Sure, I recognize that [insert item] isn't really correct doctrine but I was taught that it was therefore [Church bad/false/etc.]." PS: Just a drive by post, not an attempt to engage (Kevin Christensen is doing just fine).

No. I both teach and believe in the Big Bang. Granted, there is still a lot of misunderstanding about it. Fortunately 2/3s of scientists have the correct view according to a recent survey (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.11058). Unfortunately, only 2/3s of scientists have the correct view. It's a process with a fair bit of social inertia to overcome. What I reject is the idea that Genesis and our other creation accounts are a description of the creation of the entire universe. Such an interpretation doesn't make sense historically, scientifically, or theologically.

Being very pro AI, I nonetheless very much agree with Elder Gong as well.

The remainder of the reasoning follows if and only if that supposition is correct. I personally do not believe it is.