Mormon church now regards The Nauvoo Expositor as a “credible resource”

[Okrahomer]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

I never thought we had much agency once I studied basic psychology and childhood development.  So much of our behaviour, including (especially relevant to agency) our motivation, is formed in early childhood prior to the time when we are aware of such influences, let alone when we can actively choose to accept or reject such influences.  And even as adults, there are plenty of influences we are not consciously aware of and so cannot control.

I believe this world was designed to provide experiences that lead in the future to greater agency, just as kindergarten and elementary school don’t have much opportunity to learn any ultimate or even advanced knowledge, but can help lay the foundation for being able to learn more advanced knowledge later.  If one never learns to read, it will be harder and impossible in some cases to study and research advanced knowledge.

Even though it may appear to many we have more agency because we have more choices available to us, if our behaviour is as determined by outside influences as much now as in the past and given the impact of biological (genetics and the prenatal environment as well as the present physical environment around us…for example, the heat of summer has massive control over my behaviour 2-3 months out of the year) and childhood social influences on behaviour, my opinion is there isn’t much more agency in our lives than for previous centuries and millenniums.

But I see this life as more playacting in preschool than actual human adulthood as well, so the lack of agency at this time is not an issue.  I believe we are given the (mostly) illusion of agency here to prime our desire of it to help us be motivated to do the work that is coming according to Joseph Smith.  I believe the full endowment that Joseph taught will be comprehended only much, much later in our next stage of existence (see my signature) is the gateway to adulthood, some of us are given a shadow of it to create a sense of purpose and drive just as children look at the adults around and want to be someone cool or heroic or good when they grow up, which along with many other factors starts creating brain space for the needed knowledge and thought processes adulthood requires.  Others are given other shadows of things to come to develop abilities to accept the blessings/opportunities God has prepared for us as we grow into eternal human adulthood.

Your comment brings Galatians 3 to mind.  Life as we (my wife and I) knew it changed in an instant recently when we were hit by a car in a crosswalk.  Both of us sustained broken bones and now face surgeries and prospects of a somewhat altered life.  The experience has triggered a bit of fear as we look to the future.  I think I'm beginning to understand that Life -- all of it -- is a schoolmaster.  It wasn't just those unruly Israelites who had to be schooled in a lesser law, before they could move on to the higher law.  We are all in school, for the duration.  We might think we have learned it all, but we are only scratching the surface.  I guess Emerson (or whoever said it) must have been right:  It is all about the journey, and not so much the destination.

Edited August 12, 2025 by Okrahomer

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Do you think that personal revelation is less infallible than prophets claiming revelation?  

From what I have seen and felt, when it comes to actually knowing the will of God, it seems pretty messy and far from some kind absolute truth no matter who is claiming revelation/inspiration.

Always depends on the purported receiver.  Generalization would be speculation on my part.  I do feel confident in my experiences both with respect to answers to my own questions and inquiries re directions from leaders.  The latter hasn’t always resulted in affirmation.  I lived in CA serving in a leadership calling when leaders encouraged members to support certain legislation.  I prayed about it and felt confirmation that I could follow my conscience and thus I did not follow the direction of leadership.

[let’s roll]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Yes, but what happens if you receive an answer from Deity?  Won't there be serious accountability then?  It seems better to spend your time relying on critics and apologists to provide those answers.  If they turn out to be wrong, you can blame them.  All you need to do is decide who is more persuasive (and possibly charming) at the time.

I understand where you’re coming from but this is a bit too sardonic for me.  I prefer to think that everyone is trying to figure things out in good faith and that those who take the approach you describe do so more out of frustration than calculation.

[Calm]

16 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Think of someone with mustard seed faith who after asking for and receiving Diving guidance resolves to forever commit themselves fully to God

But that’s not what is required in other scripture imo.  Why bother with the test of good fruit vs bad fruit if we are required to commit ourselves fully no matter what before we even embark on testing?

Why present it as an either or situation?  Fully committed from the get go or a bargainer?

And what of those who had childhood situations that prevented them from being able to never waver or commit?  Who never experienced love in healthy ways or live with people it was safe to trust?  How can they grow the seed without the tools to nurture it?

We say those who haven’t the law aren’t accountable to live by the law…but what if that is everyone in some fashion?

Edited August 12, 2025 by Calm

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the best explanation is that the author was writing in wiggle room. You don’t get the answer that you should? Well of course that’s your fault.

Or that the promise incorporates the concept that we are accountable for following the light and knowledge we receive from God.  So a loving God knowing that a child’s seeking is motivated only by curiosity or rote and will not result in change, withholds light and knowledge so as not to condemn His child.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Both of us sustained broken bones and now face surgeries and prospects of a somewhat altered life.  The experience has triggered a bit of fear as we look to the future.

I am so sorry this happened to you.  I hope you will be able to figure out make life work well for you in the new ways you have to deal with. (I am having a hard time trying to put into words what I want to say.  It would be easier just to hug you….gently of course.)

[Okrahomer]

Just now, Calm said:

I am so sorry this happened to you.  I hope you will be able to figure out make life work well for you in the new ways you have to deal with. (I am having a hard time trying to put into words what I want to say.  It would be easier just to hug you….gently of course.)

Thank you so much.  That just kind of melts my heart.  But we are in the healing time now -- and healing time, is sacred time.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the best explanation is that the author was writing in wiggle room. You don’t get the answer that you should? Well of course that’s your fault.

It could also be that we are misunderstanding what the author meant by “unwavering”. It makes more sense to me that he meant to be firm in our desire to seek the will of God rather than meaning we must have perfect faith.

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Your comment brings Galatians 3 to mind.  Life as we (my wife and I) knew it changed in an instant recently when we were hit by a car in a crosswalk.  Both of us sustained broken bones and now face surgeries and prospects of a somewhat altered life.  The experience has triggered a bit of fear as we look to the future.  I think I'm beginning to understand that Life -- all of it -- is a schoolmaster.  It wasn't just those unruly Israelites who had to be schooled in a lesser law, before they could move on to the higher law.  We are all in school, for the duration.  We might think we have learned it all, but we are only scratching the surface.  I guess Emerson (or whoever said it) must have been right:  It is all about the journey, and not so much the destination.

I’m so sorry that happened to you!  And so glad you are both still here. 

[Okrahomer]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m so sorry that happened to you!  And so glad you are both still here. 

It could have been so much worse...there are no words to describe how happy we are to still be alive.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I judge them the exact same way.  To me, it's a moral constant that men shouldn't have sex with children.  It was wrong in the past.  It is wrong right now.  It will be wrong in the future.

I see no reason why we should shun away from applying our moral judgements on the past.  There's no reason anyone should make excuses for chattel slavery, the Holocaust, sex trafficking of children, and the myriad of other things that people in the past felt morally justified in doing, just because they didn't live right now.  My brain isn't superior to people who lived before me (if anything, it's a few rungs down), so there's no reason I should feel like every single person in the past had hobbled moral reasoning.  We can and should try to understand why and how their place in history and society caused their reasoning to become twisted in a way to make vile and abhorrent things seem acceptable (both to understand their worldview and to prevent us from adopting their reasoning[s]), but we shouldn't withhold judgement.

I agree that men shouldn't have sex with children.  Full stop. 

As an intellectual exercise (and to speak generally and not connect it to polygamy), can we agree that our current definition of children (as everyone under 18) is a contemporary construct that is tied to our laws and currant culture and is not tied to biology or morality?  For example, would there be any reason for a Sioux man in his 20s in the 1800s to view a post-pubescent female who is 14 or 15 years old as a child who it would be immoral to marry and have sex with?   I can't think of any, but I'm open to your answers.

I agree that there is no reason to withhold judgement on historical practices, but I do think there are many times (not all times, but many times) that we can withhold judgment on historical people who are just as much a product of their time as we are of ours.  Your brain is working within the parameters of the culture that you were raised in, the information that you have had access to, and the people interpreting that information for you in authoritative ways you've accepted as authoritative.  You have arrived at your morals the exact same way that the people in the past arrived at theirs.  But often we are starting out from such vastly different starting places that the destination will also be vastly different.  

It is incredibly likely that both you and I are doing something today that a future culture will find immoral.  They will ask "how could they not have known!".  In that way we all have some hobbled moral reasoning. But, you and I can't know what we don't know.  Same goes for people in the past.  

To be clear, I don't think that means that our morals cannot change.  That we cannot believe something is moral and then realize it's not and no longer do that thing.  All of us can learn and grow as we get new information or new insights.  I also don't think it means that every historical person gets a pass on their behavior.  Most of the time, immoral people are immoral despite their culture and environment, not because of it.  In my experience this is true of people in all ages.   

 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm not sure why you quoted me.  I was talking specifically about the paragraph on Fanny Alger (the one I quoted).  Helen Mar Kimball was definitely 14 at the time of the sealing/marriage.  There is another 14 year old as well, Nancy Maria Winchester, though her evidence is a lot weaker.

Are you seeing somewhere in the church's articles saying that Fanny Alger was 14?

oh sorry.  I misread your post.

[gopher]

18 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I understand where you’re coming from but this is a bit too sardonic for me.  I prefer to think that everyone is trying to figure things out in good faith and that those who take the approach you describe do so more out of frustration than calculation.

I don't know what sardonic means, but I admit my comments may have come across as cynical or mocking.  The point is that you can only get so far in figuring things out on your own before you need to have some kind of reassurance or confirmation from Deity that it's true.

[MrShorty]

On 8/12/2025 at 5:44 PM, bluebell said:

But, you and I can't know what we don't know.  Same goes for people in the past. 

Off on another tangent, and I think I've said it before in this group, but epistemology is an important part of my own faith "crisis," and this is one of the things I find very interesting about our epistemology, especially when revelation from God is supposedly among the possibilities. I largely agree that we sometimes can't know what we don't know just like our predecessors couldn't know some of the things that they didn't know. While I'm not interested in condemning them for what they seemingly couldn't know, I think there is value in trying to understand why they couldn't know so that maybe we can figure out how to know some of the things that we can't know.

At some level, when direct revelation is considered a possibility, part of people not knowing what they can't know comes down to God's decision to withhold revelation. This eventually means that some of these questions ultimately become "problem-of-evil-like" problems, because God seems to have some "culpability" for people not knowing any better.

I find this to be incredibly challenging.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Off on another tangent, and I think I've said it before in this group, but epistemology is an important part of my own faith "crisis," and this is one of the things I find very interesting about our epistemology, especially when revelation from God is supposedly among the possibilities. I largely agree that we sometimes can't know what we don't know just like our predecessors couldn't know some of the things that they didn't know. While I'm not interested in condemning them for what they seemingly couldn't know, I think there is value in trying to understand why they couldn't know so that maybe we can figure out how to know some of the things that we can't know.

At some level, when direct revelation is considered a possibility, part of people not knowing what they can't know comes down to God's decision to withhold revelation. This eventually means that some of these questions ultimately become "problem-of-evil-like" problems, because God seems to have some "culpability" for people not knowing any better.

I find this to be incredibly challenging.

I can see what you mean.  I can tell you my thoughts on it, but I don't know that they will be of any help to you with that challenge.

From my perspective, it seems like God rarely (never?) provides revelation in a vacuum.  It seems like we always have to knock first, so to speak, when revelation is given.  I assume that that has something to do with the need for faith when communicating with the Divine.  Not that faith is a good idea, but that it is actually essential and necessary.   If that's true and the scriptures are right about that, then it's not really God withholding revelation but of Him working within the parameters of this fallen world.

Those parameters make a lot of sense to me, because knowledge thrust at someone in a vacuum would be really hard to work with.  It would have no context and come with no relevant experience to make it useful. People would end up being accountable for knowledge that they likely wouldn't be able to use or follow in their situation, and that would be unjust in my opinion.  

Since God does not condemn anyone for not knowing better (in fact, our teaching is that the Atonement automatically covers people who don't know any better), I don't personally find this issue to be challenging.  I actually find it to be very loving and merciful.

But I do think that a latter-day saint cultural tendency to focus on the purpose of earth life being to choose to follow the Gospel of Christ can make it challenging.  I think correlation and popular teachings have caused us to misunderstand some stuff with that. I don't hear it from the top that much; I think it's one of those teachings that gets passed around without people thinking too much about it, because it was a bullet point in a primary lesson that never got fleshed out and given more context as we got older.

I don't believe that is the main reason we are here, I don't pay much attention to that idea

[Senator]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

But I do think that a latter-day saint cultural tendency to focus on the purpose of earth life being to choose to follow the Gospel of Christ can make it challenging.  I think correlation and popular teachings have caused us to misunderstand some stuff with that.

You lost me with these couple of statements.  If you care to elaborate.. 

How does the, "tendency to focus on the purpose of earth life being to choose to follow the Gospel of Christ", "caused us to misunderstand some stuff"?

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Senator said:

You lost me with these couple of statements.  If you care to elaborate.. 

How does the, "tendency to focus on the purpose of earth life being to choose to follow the Gospel of Christ", "caused us to misunderstand some stuff"?

Sorry to be confusing. 

I mean that often in classes (and probably over the pulpit sometimes and especially to the youth) we teach or were taught that the answer to the question of "why are we here?" is to gain a body and be tested to see if we will choose to follow Christ.  But you only have to think about that for a couple of minutes before it breaks down because most of the people who have and will come to earth will never even hear the name of Christ, let alone have any kind of a legitimate chance to choose to follow Him.  If that really is the purpose of life than either it's not working or it's not fair. 

If we focus on the idea that earth life is all about choosing to follow Christ, then a lack of direct revelation from God to everyone is a real challenge.  

 

[Tony uk]

I have wondered, about people who are not familiar with Christ. Maybe these people, whoever, wherever they maybe. May still be guided by God, through the (Holy)Spirit, to be good, honest people. Who seek to do good, and to show concern for other people. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

I have wondered, about people who are not familiar with Christ. Maybe these people, whoever, wherever they maybe. May still be guided by God, through the (Holy)Spirit, to be good, honest people. Who seek to do good, and to show concern for other people. 

LDS have the concept of the Light of Christ.  Everyone has access to this.  Some people equate it with the concept of our conscience, but it’s much more than that.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng

Quote

The Light of Christ is the divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things. The Light of Christ influences people for good and prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost. One manifestation of the Light of Christ is what we call a conscience.

The Light of Christ “proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” It is “the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed.” This power is an influence for good in the lives of all people. In the scriptures, the Light of Christ is sometimes called the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, or the Light of Life.

The Light of Christ should not be confused with the Holy Ghost. It is not a personage, as the Holy Ghost is. Its influence leads people to find the true gospel, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Conscience is a manifestation of the Light of Christ, enabling us to judge good from evil. The prophet Mormon taught: “The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. … And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.”

 

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

I have wondered, about people who are not familiar with Christ. Maybe these people, whoever, wherever they maybe. May still be guided by God, through the (Holy)Spirit, to be good, honest people. Who seek to do good, and to show concern for other people. 

We also believe that everyone, regardless of where they lived or who they are, will have a chance to learn about the Gospel of Christ and choose to follow Him or not.  If that doesn't happen while they are alive, then we believe that it will happen after they die, before the final judgement.  Putting everyone--eventually--on an equal playing field (so to speak).   

[cujo22]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, it seems like God rarely (never?) provides revelation in a vacuum. 

Revelation is a collaborative activity. That's how I like to think about. Probably I'd agree that there is a spectrum as far as how much God and how much me. If God wrote on a rock, then that might be far on the God side of collaboration (mostly God). Nevertheless, the human is ALWAYS part of it. 

I just think there are so many pitfalls that come from envisioning our communication with God the same way as a phonecall. Or the radio analogy... getting tuned... not very helpful at all. Our efforts should be to walk with God, to strive for God, to wonder about God and what the right thing, and to trust our that our thoughts and feelings are being influenced by God. That's how Joseph Smith though about it, same with Wilford Woodruff; they had no illusions that what they called revelations were perfect in some way like God writing on a stone at Sinai. No, they were very comfortable course-correcting, editing, whatever, along the way as they understood more. 

There are so many pitfalls that this resolves.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, cujo22 said:

Revelation is a collaborative activity. That's how I like to think about. Probably I'd agree that there is a spectrum as far as how much God and how much me. If God wrote on a rock, then that might be far on the God side of collaboration (mostly God). Nevertheless, the human is ALWAYS part of it. 

I just think there are so many pitfalls that come from envisioning our communication with God the same way as a phonecall. Or the radio analogy... getting tuned... not very helpful at all. Our efforts should be to walk with God, to strive for God, to wonder about God and what the right thing, and to trust our that our thoughts and feelings are being influenced by God. That's how Joseph Smith though about it, same with Wilford Woodruff; they had no illusions that what they called revelations were perfect in some way like God writing on a stone at Sinai. No, they were very comfortable course-correcting, editing, whatever, along the way as they understood more. 

There are so many pitfalls that this resolves.

I agree.

 

[manol]

5 hours ago, Tony uk said:

I have wondered, about people who are not familiar with Christ. Maybe these people, whoever, wherever they maybe. May still be guided by God, through the (Holy)Spirit, to be good, honest people. Who seek to do good, and to show concern for other people. 

Yes.  Absolutely.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

LDS have the concept of the Light of Christ.  Everyone has access to this.  Some people equate it with the concept of our conscience, but it’s much more than that.

[from Calm's lesson manual quote] The Light of Christ is the divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things... The Light of Christ “proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.”

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). 

Edited August 14, 2025 by manol

[CV75]

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Off on another tangent, and I think I've said it before in this group, but epistemology is an important part of my own faith "crisis," and this is one of the things I find very interesting about our epistemology, especially when revelation from God is supposedly among the possibilities. I largely agree that we sometimes can't know what we don't know just like our predecessors couldn't know some of the things that they didn't know. While I'm not interested in condemning them for what they seemingly couldn't know, I think there is value in trying to understand why they couldn't know so that maybe we can figure out how to know some of the things that we can't know.

At some level, when direct revelation is considered a possibility, part of people not knowing what they can't know comes down to God's decision to withhold revelation. This eventually means that some of these questions ultimately become "problem-of-evil-like" problems, because God seems to have some "culpability" for people not knowing any better.

I find this to be incredibly challenging.

I think the operative term is what they could and could not know on their own. Everyone has limitations on their own and can only find the “fulness” in and through Christ. This is why, whatever we ask of the Lord, comes by grace. What was true of those in the past is true of us today.

The doctrine of Christ (2 Nephi 31) is the means to knowledge of that which can only come by grace. He withholds nothing because what comes forth is the result of a mutual process of atonement and agency, and between Him and each of His children in a probationary estate. The probationary estate is temporary; the other elements of this dynamic are eternal. Discovering our limitations and God’s grace change our experience of the probationary, temporary estate until it becomes eternal. I know that must be too simple!

We can talk specifics (14-year-old brides) or generalities; the above is a generality.

[Tony uk]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

LDS have the concept of the Light of Christ.  Everyone has access to this.  Some people equate it with the concept of our conscience, but it’s much more than that.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng

 

The study manual is a very good resource for learning, and understanding.