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

[The Nehor]

On 8/14/2025 at 2:44 PM, 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.

It resolves some but creates some other pitfalls. For one it sounds way too much like how Catholics and Protestants say their church is guided which makes the necessity for a restoration more dubious.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It resolves some but creates some other pitfalls. For one it sounds way too much like how Catholics and Protestants say their church is guided which makes the necessity for a restoration more dubious.

If the purpose of the restoration was to restore priesthood authority and saving ordinances, does that concept of revelation shared by cujo still make the necessity for a restoration dubious in your mind?

[let’s roll]

On 8/12/2025 at 12:23 PM, Calm said:

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?

Hi Calm.  Thank you for the comments and sorry for the tardy response.  Each petition made by a son or daughter of God to Him has its own unique context because each of us is unique, both in experience and understanding.   And because each of us changes over time, both in experience and understanding, our individual petitions to God each has a unique context as well.

That being the case, there is not a single formula for successful Divine communion, nor does successful communion have a single outcome.  My experience has been that petitions that lead to a Divine response consist of a combination of desire, sincerity, humility, faith and resolve, not always in equal measure, with the proportions driven by circumstances/context and depth of spiritual understanding.  And depending on those same elements, the response to such communion may be as simple/straightforward as bathing in Divine love and comfort with a grateful heart or as complex as changing the entire direction of your life.

Edited August 17, 2025 by let’s roll

[Calm]

17 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Hi Calm.  Thank you for the comments and sorry for the tardy response.  Each petition made by a son or daughter of God to Him has its own unique context because each of us is unique, both in experience and understanding.   And because each of us changes over time, both in experience and understanding, our individual petitions to God each has a unique context as well.

That being the case, there is not a single formula for successful Divine communion, nor does successful communion have a single outcome.  My experience has been that petitions that lead to a Divine response consist of a combination of desire, sincerity, humility, faith and resolve, not always in equal measure, with the proportions driven by circumstances/context and depth of spiritual understanding.  And depending on those same elements, the response to such communion may be as simple/straightforward as bathing in Divine love and comfort with a grateful heart or as complex as changing the entire direction of your life.

I don’t disagree with this.  I do believe some Saints teach and expect a more formulaic process though.  And often assume if expected results don’t show up it is because of a lack, whether a lack in the petitioner or the lack of a deity to respond.

I think a response may also be the absence of anything the petitioner is able to be aware of through no fault of their own.  I base this on my observations of others plus my own experience of being unable to feel the Spirit as I had before (and did after) due to medication I had no option to but to take…unless I went with illegal drugs that is.

Which results in a very complex messed up picture.

added:  I should mention I do believe the Spirit always responds (purely based on my perception and faith of God’s live and intentions), but not always in ways we are aware of or even could be aware of even if we are trying to do everything “right” (I say “ trying” because no one is capable of succeeding in doing everything in the most spiritually correct way).  No one will be held accountable for something they have no control over, so in these cases since it’s not a rejection of the Spirit, there is no withdrawal of the Spirit.

Edited August 17, 2025 by Calm

[cujo22]

On 8/15/2025 at 9:21 PM, The Nehor said:

It resolves some but creates some other pitfalls. For one it sounds way too much like how Catholics and Protestants say their church is guided which makes the necessity for a restoration more dubious.

Yeah, I think people have to come to terms with that eventually. It puts the onus on each of us to weigh everything, learn all we can, to move towards God and try to draw close to him, and then with integrity make the best decisions we can. Catholics are doing that, Protestants are doing that, my friends who have left the LDS church are doing that. I mean, I can't know what's in someone's heart and mind, but nevertheless I accept that it's possible, that someone could weigh everything the best the can with integrity, and come to a different conclusion. In the midst of all that, we're all (hopefully) becoming more like God, our brains and hearts are growing. Doesn't that sound exactly like God's plan? Sounds like it's really working!! So I wouldn't get up in sacrament meeting and say that God led my friend away from the church (that's not really the place), but that's sort of what I think even if I can't get the words just right. It's part of their path to growing to be more like God. Somehow both my friend and I feel like we've grown.   

I don't disagree with you. Between family and church influences and personalities and whatever, some still envision other modes of communication. I mean, the fact that Joseph Smith edited the revelations makes it clear that he himself didn't set up the same paradigm that some today have. And this sounds more like the way Catholics or whoever claim, but that's the only way there is. It's crazy-making to embrace the paradigm that I need to try to hear voices in my head. That paradigm seems to work for some I guess, but not for me. And I do think it sets you up for disappointment eventually.

The disappointment/pitfall you describe sounds to me more like the cost of being an adult. Yeah, things aren't crystal clear all the time. 

 

Edited August 18, 2025 by cujo22
changed "disappointment" to "disappointment/pitfall"

[manol]

3 hours ago, cujo22 said:

Yeah, I think people have to come to terms with that eventually. It puts the onus on each of us to weigh everything, learn all we can, to move towards God and try to draw close to him, and then with integrity make the best decisions we can. Catholics are doing that, Protestants are doing that, my friends who have left the LDS church are doing that.

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".)

 

3 hours ago, cujo22 said:

I mean, I can't know what's in someone's heart and mind, but nevertheless I accept that it's possible, that someone could weigh everything the best the can with integrity, and come to a different conclusion. In the midst of all that, we're all (hopefully) becoming more like God, our brains and hearts are growing. Doesn't that sound exactly like God's plan?  [emphasis manol's]

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.)

Edited August 18, 2025 by manol

[manol]

On 8/16/2025 at 11:05 PM, Calm said:

I think a response may also be the absence of anything the petitioner is able to be aware of through no fault of their own.  I base this on my observations of others plus my own experience of being unable to feel the Spirit as I had before (and did after) due to medication I had no option to but to take…unless I went with illegal drugs that is.

Which results in a very complex messed up picture.

added:  I should mention I do believe the Spirit always responds (purely based on my perception and faith of God’s live and intentions), but not always in ways we are aware of or even could be aware of even if we are trying to do everything “right” (I say “ trying” because no one is capable of succeeding in doing everything in the most spiritually correct way).  No one will be held accountable for something they have no control over, so in these cases since it’s not a rejection of the Spirit, there is no withdrawal of the Spirit.

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.

Edited August 18, 2025 by manol

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, cujo22 said:

So I wouldn't get up in sacrament meeting and say that God led my friend away from the church (that's not really the place), but that's sort of what I think even if I can't get the words just right.

I agree with most of what you said, including this. However, I feel to push a little bit back on it. Why do we not think that a sacrament meeting or fast and testimony meeting is not the right place to talk about the different paths that God seems to lead us down? One thing I see somewhat regularly in the "faith crisis" space is a sense of loneliness or solitude because people struggling or deconstructing feel like no one else at church understands or shares their experience. I saw a recent piece by Jared Halverson where he talked about the time a family member (mother-in-law, if memory serves) left the church. After the fact, she told him that part of why she left was that she couldn't find anyone to talk to who shared or understood or was interested in her experience. Halverson, of course, resolved to make sure that people around him knew that he was interested in sharing those experiences. I sometimes can't help but wonder how much of the "brittleness" of some people's church experience could be made more resilient if we had spaces (it doesn't have to be Sacrament meeting) where those with doubts, questions, or other "faith crisis" issues could find community within the church. It sometimes seems to me that our public worship and classroom settings are exclusively reserved for "yes-men" who believe and say and do all the right things, unintentionally pushing those with real doubts and questions towards the edges of our community.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, manol said:

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"

I completely agree.  I think the use of punishment falls in line with Sec 19 iirc where it says endless is not forever, but a title of God attached to words to indicate he owns or determines it.

I think “natural consequences” is a great interpretation of “God’s punishments” because the laws of nature, which are God’s laws describing the natural behavior of his creations, are what cause natural consequences. 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I agree with most of what you said, including this. However, I feel to push a little bit back on it. Why do we not think that a sacrament meeting or fast and testimony meeting is not the right place to talk about the different paths that God seems to lead us down? 

Leaders have really cracked down on the members understanding the purpose of testimony meetings in the last few years, reiterating that they are specifically for the purpose of declaring our beliefs related to Heavenly Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the true restored gospel.  

I'm guessing that's why most people don't believe that is the time to share beliefs that are unrelated to those topics (or opposed to them, even if they are sincere beliefs).

But I do believe it would be beneficial for members struggling to have a place to talk about their struggles openly.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, manol said:

an 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."

My motivation would be simple curiosity if my personality back then is like it is now, lol.  What would it be like?

Edited August 19, 2025 by Calm

[cujo22]

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree with most of what you said, including this. However, I feel to push a little bit back on it. Why do we not think that a sacrament meeting or fast and testimony meeting is not the right place to talk about the different paths that God seems to lead us down? One thing I see somewhat regularly in the "faith crisis" space is a sense of loneliness or solitude because people struggling or deconstructing feel like no one else at church understands or shares their experience. I saw a recent piece by Jared Halverson where he talked about the time a family member (mother-in-law, if memory serves) left the church. After the fact, she told him that part of why she left was that she couldn't find anyone to talk to who shared or understood or was interested in her experience. Halverson, of course, resolved to make sure that people around him knew that he was interested in sharing those experiences. I sometimes can't help but wonder how much of the "brittleness" of some people's church experience could be made more resilient if we had spaces (it doesn't have to be Sacrament meeting) where those with doubts, questions, or other "faith crisis" issues could find community within the church. It sometimes seems to me that our public worship and classroom settings are exclusively reserved for "yes-men" who believe and say and do all the right things, unintentionally pushing those with real doubts and questions towards the edges of our community.

Eh, I see your point. Maybe talk about it in some way. If I could figure out how to phrase it so it is exactly what I mean to say, that's the hard part. I'm not going to stand up and say, "I know that God led them away from the church." I don't think that really furthers the mission of the church, which is ultimately to help people move towards God. I think it most appropriate in church to focus on what is clearly true. Simple truths. It's a church meeting, not my meeting to self-indulge or whatever, a chance for me to say something clever. So many people in so many places at a church meeting, it's really not a place to get cute with what is taught. 

 

Edited August 19, 2025 by cujo22

[Senator]

1 hour ago, cujo22 said:

Eh, I see your point. Maybe talk about it in some way. If I could figure out how to phrase it so it is exactly what I mean to say, that's the hard part. I'm not going to stand up and say, "I know that God led them away from the church." I don't think that really furthers the mission of the church, which is ultimately to help people move towards God. I think it most appropriate in church to focus on what is clearly true. Simple truths. It's a church meeting, not my meeting to self-indulge or whatever, a chance for me to say something clever. So many people in so many places at a church meeting, it's really not a place to get cute with what is taught. 

 

Clearly?

I get what you are saying, but if testimony meeting is to be  " I know this church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.  I know God lives, and Jesus is my  savior" repeated for 45 minutes, then what's the point?  Personally I'll pass on that kind of meeting. I want to hear the "why" to all those statements. (or even the "why not" if someone is searching)

Edited August 19, 2025 by Senator

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Senator said:

Clearly?

I get what you are saying, but if testimony meeting is to be  " I know this church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.  I know God lives, and Jesus is my  savior" repeated for 45 minutes, then what's the point?  Personally I'll pass on that kind of meeting. I want to hear the "why" to all those statements. (or even the "why not" if someone is searching)

Me too.  A short story or example of why they believe the testimony they are sharing makes it so much more personal and meaningful to me.

[Tony uk]

I do not have much personal experience of giving testimony. However, I imagine it can be a positive experience, people gathered together sharing their experiences of faith and life.

[The Nehor]

On 8/18/2025 at 11:49 AM, cujo22 said:

Yeah, I think people have to come to terms with that eventually. It puts the onus on each of us to weigh everything, learn all we can, to move towards God and try to draw close to him, and then with integrity make the best decisions we can. Catholics are doing that, Protestants are doing that, my friends who have left the LDS church are doing that. I mean, I can't know what's in someone's heart and mind, but nevertheless I accept that it's possible, that someone could weigh everything the best the can with integrity, and come to a different conclusion. In the midst of all that, we're all (hopefully) becoming more like God, our brains and hearts are growing. Doesn't that sound exactly like God's plan? Sounds like it's really working!! So I wouldn't get up in sacrament meeting and say that God led my friend away from the church (that's not really the place), but that's sort of what I think even if I can't get the words just right. It's part of their path to growing to be more like God. Somehow both my friend and I feel like we've grown.   

I don't disagree with you. Between family and church influences and personalities and whatever, some still envision other modes of communication. I mean, the fact that Joseph Smith edited the revelations makes it clear that he himself didn't set up the same paradigm that some today have. And this sounds more like the way Catholics or whoever claim, but that's the only way there is. It's crazy-making to embrace the paradigm that I need to try to hear voices in my head. That paradigm seems to work for some I guess, but not for me. And I do think it sets you up for disappointment eventually.

The disappointment/pitfall you describe sounds to me more like the cost of being an adult. Yeah, things aren't crystal clear all the time. 

 

If I end up coming down on that side I am more likely to just not care much about moving towards God or His plan in general. If religion has to be watered down to this extent to be drinkable I think I would rather just drink water.