Opinion Piece by Ty Mansfield: Managing "Tension" between Doctrines and Impact

[Stargazer]

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

Hyperbole.  I never suggested hourly, daily weekly, monthly.  Annually?  

I didn't say you suggested anything. I was just suggesting possible timetables. How often must revelations be received in order to say that the Church is guided by revelations? 

I'm quite sure you don't believe the Church leaders receive revelation anyway. I get that. 

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

Well that seems reasonable if Christ is actually running the Church.  When was the last time a revelation was officially recognized by the Church?  Was it 1978, Almost a half century ago? Or do you have an example of a later revelation?

You're conflating canonized revelation with frequent divine guidance. Peter received a vision to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and it appears to have been one of the very few instances of a canonized revelation from the top. Are we then going to disqualify the Primitive church because they didn't have enough canonized revelations? And by whose standard do we judge the sufficiency?

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

You think this applies to this situation?  

I do, yes. Or, at least it might apply.

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

You gotta explain how this fits with your argument.

Apparently, the subject was brought up before 1978, by President McKay. Maybe before that, too, I don't know. President McKay did not proceed, though he clearly wanted to, because he got pushback from some members of the Twelve. 

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

Evidently the 15 were not one on this issue for a century.

Obviously. Either that, or the Lord was delaying for His own reasons.

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

So the only way an apostle would be getting revelation is in your mind he would have to be a robot?  Since they are not robots, then they don't receive revelation on a doctrine that was around for more than a century?

You've walked right past my point without noticing it, apparently. What I was trying to say is that God does not operate His apostles like one might operate a Waldo, or a robot. He has chosen apostles due to their faithfulness, wisdom, experience, and amenability to receiving guidance and acting on it. But these men remain men, with the susceptibilities of men, the prejudices of men, and the faults of men. Perhaps with these susceptibilities lessened in many ways, but still men with imperfections. God doesn't have robots, and as a result the church isn't perfect.

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

Are you suggesting that God took out President Lee because he didn't accept a revelation when he was an apostle?  

First of all, it was a wild speculation. Second of all, I didn't say it might have been because he didn't accept a revelation. My speculation (which I don't actually believe) is that the Lord anticipated that He would need Spencer W. Kimball as President in order for things to progress as He needed them to. Which would include the rescinding of the priesthood ban, but surely not only that.

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

Seems like the time to take him out would be before he was President of the Church.  Again, your logic fails.

Logic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. If the only thing God had in mind was the rescinding of the priesthood ban, then maybe he shouldn't have let him have the office (assuming he was the main roadblock). But I'm pretty sure God has more than one thing going at a time. 

I seem to recall reading that President Kimball was rather perplexed that President Lee was taken from the church so soon after receiving the office. He didn't know why, but he himself speculated that the Lord did it because the correlation program, which Lee was instrumental in devising and introducing, needed a new leader for its further implementation who was not so personally invested in it. I wish I could remember the name of the book in which I read this, but he made a comparison between the engineer who designed and built a bus, and the person who was then assigned to drive it. If there were problems with the bus, the engineer might be tempted to stop the bus, tear it apart, and redesign and rebuild it. Whereas the driver would just do what was necessary to keep it operating and in good repair. Anyway, that was his speculation.

On 10/27/2021 at 2:51 AM, california boy said:

You are kinda proving my point.  Peter received a revelation from God.  That was it.  No hold out apostle stopping that revelation from becoming Church doctrine.

Don't be so sure. Do we have detailed minutes of the meetings of the Twelve from that period? No, we do not. You can't say there were no apostles opposed to that revelation, just because there's nothing written about it. The thing is, Peter went to eat with the gentiles who were seeking his counsel, which was counter to rabbinical doctrine, and when he returned from this event, he was criticized for what he did (see Acts 11:1-3). Was he criticized by any of the other apostles, or did they oppose the revelation? Acts is silent about this, but it isn't unbelievable to think there were apostles not happy about it.

But we do have a record of a council held to decide a difficult issue, circumcision. Read Acts 15, and in connection with it, Galatians 2:11-13. And there was disputation because there were opposing points of view. The compromise that was worked out seems likely to have been exactly that: a compromise.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Stargazer
Added link to "waldo"

[california boy]

On 10/30/2021 at 7:04 PM, nuclearfuels said:

I agree. 100%

I wonder though would plural marriage, re-institutionalized via polyamory being legalized, then be seen as apostasy by those advocating for marriage redefinitions?

 

That would be hilarious to actually watch happen.  One year later, members would be saying, "Hey, maybe gay marriage might not have been that bad to accept after all.  At least I wouldn't be commanded to have a gay marriage in order to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom."

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I didn't say you suggested anything. I was just suggesting possible timetables. How often must revelations be received in order to say that the Church is guided by revelations? 

I'm quite sure you don't believe the Church leaders receive revelation anyway. I get that. 

You're conflating canonized revelation with frequent divine guidance. Peter received a vision to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and it appears to have been one of the very few instances of a canonized revelation from the top. Are we then going to disqualify the Primitive church because they didn't have enough canonized revelations? And by whose standard do we judge the sufficiency?

I do, yes. Or, at least it might apply.

Apparently, the subject was brought up before 1978, by President McKay. Maybe before that, too, I don't know. President McKay did not proceed, though he clearly wanted to, because he got pushback from some members of the Twelve. 

Obviously. Either that, or the Lord was delaying for His own reasons.

You've walked right past my point without noticing it, apparently. What I was trying to say is that God does not operate His apostles like one might operate a Waldo, or a robot. He has chosen apostles due to their faithfulness, wisdom, experience, and amenability to receiving guidance and acting on it. But these men remain men, with the susceptibilities of men, the prejudices of men, and the faults of men. Perhaps with these susceptibilities lessened in many ways, but still men with imperfections. God doesn't have robots, and as a result the church isn't perfect.

First of all, it was a wild speculation. Second of all, I didn't say it might have been because he didn't accept a revelation. My speculation (which I don't actually believe) is that the Lord anticipated that He would need Spencer W. Kimball as President in order for things to progress as He needed them to. Which would include the rescinding of the priesthood ban, but surely not only that.

Logic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. If the only thing God had in mind was the rescinding of the priesthood ban, then maybe he shouldn't have let him have the office (assuming he was the main roadblock). But I'm pretty sure God has more than one thing going at a time. 

I seem to recall reading that President Kimball was rather perplexed that President Lee was taken from the church so soon after receiving the office. He didn't know why, but he himself speculated that the Lord did it because the correlation program, which Lee was instrumental in devising and introducing, needed a new leader for its further implementation who was not so personally invested in it. I wish I could remember the name of the book in which I read this, but he made a comparison between the engineer who designed and built a bus, and the person who was then assigned to drive it. If there were problems with the bus, the engineer might be tempted to stop the bus, tear it apart, and redesign and rebuild it. Whereas the driver would just do what was necessary to keep it operating and in good repair. Anyway, that was his speculation.

Don't be so sure. Do we have detailed minutes of the meetings of the Twelve from that period? No, we do not. You can't say there were no apostles opposed to that revelation, just because there's nothing written about it. The thing is, Peter went to eat with the gentiles who were seeking his counsel, which was counter to rabbinical doctrine, and when he returned from this event, he was criticized for what he did (see Acts 11:1-3). Was he criticized by any of the other apostles, or did they oppose the revelation? Acts is silent about this, but it isn't unbelievable to think there were apostles not happy about it.

But we do have a record of a council held to decide a difficult issue, circumcision. Read Acts 15, and in connection with it, Galatians 2:11-13. And there was disputation because there were opposing points of view. The compromise that was worked out seems likely to have been exactly that: a compromise.

I am always amazed at all the pretzel twisting members are willing to do to try and align history and what actually happened with their beliefs.  If I understand your position correctly, God wanted the priesthood ban gone in the 50's under President McKay, but a few apostles rejected the idea because they thought they new better than the prophet who they believed couldn't have possibly received a revelation from God that they wouldn't agree with.  God knocks each one of them off until there are finally enough apostles that believe the then prophet had a revelation to end the ban.  And this proves that God leads the Church by revelation.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am always amazed at all the pretzel twisting members are willing to do to try and align history and what actually happened with their beliefs.  

History is messy.  And incomplete.  Lots of unknowns and gaps.  Lots of flaws in our grasp of the data.  So we work with what we've got.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

If I understand your position correctly,

"If."

When you re-state the position of a Latter-day Saint, you rarely do so in an accurate or fairminded manner.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

God wanted the priesthood ban gone in the 50's under President McKay, but a few apostles rejected the idea because they thought they new better than the prophet who they believed couldn't have possibly received a revelation from God that they wouldn't agree with.  God knocks each one of them off until there are finally enough apostles that believe the then prophet had a revelation to end the ban.  And this proves that God leads the Church by revelation.

See?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

"Hey, maybe gay marriage might not have been that bad to accept after all.  At least I wouldn't be commanded to have a gay marriage in order to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom."

How do you know they won’t be so commanded?

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How do you know they won’t be so commanded?

You got a good point.  Honestly multiple husbands sounds way more heavenly than being married to a woman for eternity.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You got a good point.  Honestly multiple husbands sounds way more heavenly than being married to a woman for eternity.  

Nah, multiple husbands and multiple wives. If it is true what they said in the old days and it expands your glory then the best way to ultimate power is to marry EVERYONE!!!!!!

[Canadiandude]

On 10/28/2021 at 3:58 PM, BlueDreams said:

 I'm trying to remember how I initially thought about it. And I honestly don't remember. For context, Prop 8 happened while I was an undergrad. I remember some serious discussions about it with friends and such. I wasn't comfortable with the stance and didn't want a part with it but also was well aware that I didn't know what was "right" either. I don't remember personally finding the ordinance ban as a compelling comparison. I'd already done a lot of studying on it and knew that there seemed to be differences between them too. And I think the differences led me to think, if they're not a solid parallel is it right to assume it's taking us to the same end result? I also remember going to a very convincing lecture laying out the case for defining marriage between men and women (one that I remember wondering why proponents never showed...but one I also can't fully remember a decade later). I remember leaving the lecture knowing that the case for it in civil society was a lost cause because where we were culturally didn't mesh with it, even though it raised good points. But I don't know if how society goes is necessarily where we should entirely. 

Don't get me wrong, there were similarities. In the sense that something was off with how we taught things, practices around it, assumptions made, etc. But there were differences too...sometimes really big ones. So the comparison often led me to contrast the differences. For women's ordination for example, it often led me to wonder if that was really the only solution for gender disparities/problems in the church. The answer for me after looking for several people for this (think around 30-40 personal explanations) was no. In fact some didn't really address the underlying problems at all via ordination. That then led to a question of: is this really the answer or is there something else God would want for us in this matter? Because I could see the need for change, but not necessarily the changes being suggested by certain advocates. I sometimes feel that way in general around sexual orientation and the church.

 For SSM specifically, I think there was more of a "not enough data" to a lot of my thoughts. I still often feel that way to some degree. I sense I'm missing stuff and when I'm missing data points I'm cautious to move to an absolute position. It reduces your ability to learn IMHO. 

There were things I've had a solid belief in to the point that I have greater certainty in them. Usually from personal experiences. Such as I know there's something very sacred about family and that there are higher purposes to the connection between male-female relationships...even if I don't fully get why. I sense it in my own marriage and how we formed and in my mission especially, but there's other circumstances that it's come up. I don't think several current messages about sexuality, expression, and relationships in our current social atmosphere are correct or even fully healthy. This again comes from experiences of working directly with some of these concerns as a therapist specializing in sexual concerns. It can be a little too individualistic, casual, pleasure-focused, etc. But the opposite can also be said, I feel there's things we miss or over emphasize that are problematic to say the least.   

I don't doubt that prophets in the past held their own biases...they obviously did. I have a hard time saying it would be parallel to current ones because the cultural reference point is so different from us now that it likely manifested in very different ways. 
Last one, I'm curious what scriptures you're picturing that are commonly used against SSM. I see references to Moses 3 here, but were there ones you specifically had in mind?

With luv,
BD

Thanks for this, and apologies for my late response.

I’ve been dealing with some distressing medical news over a family member and haven’t been on here for a while.

Wouldn’t a sex-positive social climate that emphasizes consent, public health, and sexual and gender equality prove more helpful though in helping people live healthy, authentic lives?

So long as the actors involved are aware of one another’s preferences for long or short term relationships, the known particulars therein, and keep things safe, sane, & consensual, then isn’t that preferable?

As for the biblical passages I’m referring to, I’m talking about the biblical story of Sodom & Gomorrah. Contrary to being a story about homosexuality, this story seems to be more about peoples’ treatment of the poor & destitute; consent, and breaking ancient laws of hospitality.

Passages from mosaic laws re: homosexuality however seem are a lot more explicit about even consensual homosexuality, yet this is also the same Moses and cast of priests & prophets that condoned slavery, gender-based violence, and many other practices that are arguably immoral.

Who’s to say these prophets weren’t also ‘men of their time’, or the record-keepers weren’t so?

New Testament accounts on the matter likewise sit alongside requirements that we would critically appraise, like for women not to speak in church, and for slaves to uphold systemically embedded slavery.

Furthermore we also must understand what forms of ‘homosexuality’ existed around  the time of the New Testament.

Pederasty among the Greeks (?and Romans) had a lot of problematic elements to it (again consent) that would understandably be concerning to ancient Christians. 

Even some Ancient Greek philosophers roughly 380+ years BCE, such as Plato, wrote pointed criticism of the practice; via Aristotle within the writings we     ?now call the Symposium. 

This exchange of sex for knowledge between young and old men likely was still practiced in the apostles’ time, and likely made the Grecian gymnastic arts (practiced by wealthy citizens at the time) an activity that the apostles felt to warn the saints about.
 

(If I’m wrong let me know, but I thought I remember reading something about this)

Finally, we now know a lot more on just how complex, and nonlinear the compilation of the Old & New Testaments were, in our present age; with a lot more contradictions & changes that are recognized than  is often appreciated by (most) contemporary Christians.

While it’s fair to say that the church’s doctrine of apostasy helps to explain this confusion, confusion nevertheless remains in what sections weren’t corrected, or explained as manmade. 
 

The presence of the ‘long ending of Mark’ in the BoM is one such curiosity. The temporal contradictions between the actual political status/kingship of Jerusalem and the BoM’s account of the same in 1st Nephi is another.

 

Simply put: the more I’ve learned about biblical history and historiography, the more skeptical of prophethood I’ve become as an authoritative source of truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Canadiandude

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Thanks for this, and apologies for my late response. 

I’ve been dealing with some distressing medical news over a family member and haven’t been on here for a while.

Wouldn’t a sex-positive social climate that emphasizes consent, public health, and sexual and gender equality prove more helpful though in helping people live healthy, authentic lives?

So long as the actors involved are aware of one another’s preferences for long or short term relationships, the known particulars therein, and keep things safe, sane, & consensual, then isn’t that preferable?

No worries, that is completely understandable. I often take long breaks from posting anything, so no worries either way. 

Sex-positivity is similar to a number of affirming shifts in our current culture for me. In that it goes a little far in fixing a previous problem. For example, let's go with body positivity. The other end of hyper-fixating on looks and certtain figures is not healthy. So it makes sense to assume the opposite position would be. And in the sense of reducing shame and self-loathing that is better. But it can come with its own detriment like ignoring signs that our bodies are struggling and need better care to be healthy. 

At some point you're going to hit a logical end where a specific philosophy falls short. sex-positivity at first looks better than the hyper-restrictive variation it was a response to. BUT it has limits. Varying forms of s-x come with trade offs and some of them are equally unhealthy. For example, there are a slew of problems around hook up culture. From blurring the lines around consent to the unequal pleasure to the small expanse of what s-x can be between people actually invested in you as a partner. It has no actual moral compass beyond what one feels and that can lead to inadvertently ignoring or downplaying when things are really unhealthy. Just the other day I was reading an article where this person showed all the classic sign of addiction (hiding/shame behaviors, increased risky behaviors, escalation in frequency and needing strong hits, loss of work/valued relationships to maintain the habit, etc). But because the addiction was to s-xual behaviors and not, say gambling, the article wanted to relable his s-x addiction as craving attention or other stuff that missed the big elephant in the room.  And it fosters IMO enabling of some cultural messages around s-x that aren't directly questioned in the positivity messages....including disparities in communication, gender power differences in assertiveness, unhealthy expressions, and a hyperfocus on one purpose for s-x above all others.

In short I think there's better focus of value centered sexual experiences. As in one's s-xual experiences are grounded and express one's values and meaning in life. When this is more congruent, people have more fulfilling experiences. When there's an incongruence people are more likely to start showing unhealthy beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes to manage the dissonance. when I'm working with people who hold different values than I, I'm looking to see what they do value and how that should guide their expressions. 

But for me, I'm very religious and spiritual. I personally think that all that I am is not simply mine to do what I want with, including my sexuality. Like all aspects of my personhood it's been refined and a source for better understanding God. It's been difficult at times and awakening in others. Obviously I don't expect others to view and value the same things I do and I give space for that difference. I just believe that I need to be seeking what God wants first in deciding my expressions. For me that moves past s-x being simply healthy or fun or connecting with a partner....it's sanctifying. 

 

Quote

As for the biblical passages I’m referring to, I’m talking about the biblical story of Sodom & Gomorrah. Contrary to being a story about homosexuality, this story seems to be more about peoples’ treatment of the poor & destitute; consent, and breaking ancient laws of hospitality.

Passages from mosaic laws re: homosexuality however seem are a lot more explicit about even consensual homosexuality, yet this is also the same Moses and cast of priests & prophets that condoned slavery, gender-based violence, and many other practices that are arguably immoral.

Who’s to say these prophets weren’t also ‘men of their time’, or the record-keepers weren’t so?

New Testament accounts on the matter likewise sit alongside requirements that we would critically appraise, like for women not to speak in church, and for slaves to uphold systemically embedded slavery.

Furthermore we also must understand what forms of ‘homosexuality’ existed around  the time of the New Testament.

Pederasty among the Greeks (?and Romans) had a lot of problematic elements to it (again consent) that would understandably be concerning to ancient Christians. 

Even some Ancient Greek philosophers roughly 380+ years BCE, such as Plato, wrote pointed criticism of the practice; via Aristotle within the writings we     ?now call the Symposium. 

This exchange of sex for knowledge between young and old men likely was still practiced in the apostles’ time, and likely made the Grecian gymnastic arts (practiced by wealthy citizens at the time) an activity that the apostles felt to warn the saints about.
 

(If I’m wrong let me know, but I thought I remember reading something about this)

Finally, we now know a lot more on just how complex, and nonlinear the compilation of the Old & New Testaments were, in our present age; with a lot more contradictions & changes that are recognized than  is often appreciated by (most) contemporary Christians.

While it’s fair to say that the church’s doctrine of apostasy helps to explain this confusion, confusion nevertheless remains in what sections weren’t corrected, or explained as manmade. 
 

The presence of the ‘long ending of Mark’ in the BoM is one such curiosity. The temporal contradictions between the actual political status/kingship of Jerusalem and the BoM’s account of the same in 1st Nephi is another.

 

Simply put: the more I’ve learned about biblical history and historiography, the more skeptical of prophethood I’ve become as an authoritative source of truth.

Funny enough, I just listened to a podcast about this. I'll probably respond later to it, but it's getting late and my brain's a little foggy now  

 

with luv,

BD

Edited November 8, 2021 by BlueDreams

[Navidad]

All of this conversation makes me ask this - In LDS thinking, how, in what way, and to what extent do non-LDS Christians receive revelation, both individual and for groups that go beyond the "Light of Christ?" Is there something unique or different about spiritual revelations received by Catholic mystics, Pentecostal bishops, Lutheran founders, John Wesley, etc. from those received by the LDS? One more thing, are there different possible responses to the Moroni Challenge, each of which is predicated on individual special revelation via the Holy Spirit?

 

[mfbukowski]

On 11/8/2021 at 5:58 AM, Navidad said:

All of this conversation makes me ask this - In LDS thinking, how, in what way, and to what extent do non-LDS Christians receive revelation, both individual and for groups that go beyond the "Light of Christ?" Is there something unique or different about spiritual revelations received by Catholic mystics, Pentecostal bishops, Lutheran founders, John Wesley, etc. from those received by the LDS? One more thing, are there different possible responses to the Moroni Challenge, each of which is predicated on individual special revelation via the Holy Spirit?

 

In my day, Catholic young men were encouraged to pray to know about their "vocation", ie: whether or not they would get married or become a priest.  It was believed that it could be revealed by God.

I went on a Seminary over nighter in 8th grade, to see if God wanted me to be a priest, and got a clear yes answer.  I also prayed about if I should marry and also got a yes answer.

I was confused.

Ironically in considering the Moroni Challenge, at age 30, I went to the same chapel wher I had the confusing experience and it became VERY clear that I could do both.

The Moroni experience is not the Light of Christ, the LoC is more like your conscience, it is not revelatory, as is the Moroni Challenge

And of course it is Doctrine that non members can receive full revelations, but it is said, not on a constant basis.

I personally believe in revelation in non-members, because otherwise how could anyone be converted?

I believe the difference is one of degree and how intense the feeling is

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/7/2021 at 7:11 PM, Canadiandude said:

... I’ve been dealing with some distressing medical news over a family member and haven’t been on here for a while. ...

Best wishes to you and to your family member.

[Olmec Donald]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The Moroni experience is not the Light of Christ, the LoC is more like your conscience, it is not revelatory, as is the Moroni Challenge

And of course it is Doctrine that non members can receive full revelations, but it is said, not on a constant basis.

I do not agree with the LDS doctrine that the Light of Christ is a lesser thing than the Holy Ghost, or the "Gift of the Holy Ghost".  I believe they are the exact same thing - communication from God - despite the use of different terms.

That being said, I can see enormous utility in the LDS practice of giving new members “the Gift of the Holy Ghost” first thing after baptism, as this ceremony validates and spotlights communication from God directly to the person's mind and heart, via the "still, small voice", without the requirement of any intermediary.  Of course most people rely on intermediaries to tell them what God would have them do (which is probably also a useful thing), but having received the “Gift”, members always have the option of seeking a highly qualified “second opinion”.   And because of the ceremony and the teachings around it, members are also primed to be aware of and to heed the "still, small voice" when it speaks unexpectedly.

By way of analogy, when the Scarecrow was given his diploma, it was really just the validation of something he already had.  

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I do not agree with the LDS doctrine that the Light of Christ is a lesser thing than the Holy Ghost, or the "Gift of the Holy Ghost".  I believe they are the exact same thing - communication from God - despite the use of different terms.

That being said, I can see enormous utility in the LDS practice of giving new members “the Gift of the Holy Ghost” first thing after baptism, as this ceremony validates and spotlights communication from God directly to the person's mind and heart, via the "still, small voice", without the requirement of any intermediary.  Of course most people rely on intermediaries to tell them what God would have them do (which is probably also a useful thing), but having received the “Gift”, members always have the option of seeking a highly qualified “second opinion”.   And because of the ceremony and the teachings around it, members are also primed to be aware of and to heed the "still, small voice" when it speaks unexpectedly.

By way of analogy, when the Scarecrow was given his diploma, it was really just the validation of something he already had.  

Wow.

You did it again- agree all the way!

Here's a question that would require whole thread at least, but we can keep it down low here. 

It's a biggie- Our Lady of Fatima.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima

Edited November 9, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

50 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I do not agree with the LDS doctrine that the Light of Christ is a lesser thing than the Holy Ghost, or the "Gift of the Holy Ghost".  I believe they are the exact same thing - communication from God - despite the use of different terms.

That being said, I can see enormous utility in the LDS practice of giving new members “the Gift of the Holy Ghost” first thing after baptism, as this ceremony validates and spotlights communication from God directly to the person's mind and heart, via the "still, small voice", without the requirement of any intermediary.  Of course most people rely on intermediaries to tell them what God would have them do (which is probably also a useful thing), but having received the “Gift”, members always have the option of seeking a highly qualified “second opinion”.   And because of the ceremony and the teachings around it, members are also primed to be aware of and to heed the "still, small voice" when it speaks unexpectedly.

By way of analogy, when the Scarecrow was given his diploma, it was really just the validation of something he already had.  

Am I correct then in inferring that the laying on of hands of the recently baptized 8 year old, is a symbol or representation of what he or she already has? It doesn't grant the Spirit, it is for the purpose of reinforcing what already exists in the mind of the child. If that is true, is it fair then to say the same thing for baptism? If so, it brings LDS and some non-LDS baptisms into symmetry with each other.

[Olmec Donald]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Am I correct then in inferring that the laying on of hands of the recently baptized 8 year old, is a symbol or representation of what he or she already has? It doesn't grant the Spirit, it is for the purpose of reinforcing what already exists in the mind of the child. If that is true, is it fair then to say the same thing for baptism? If so, it brings LDS and some non-LDS baptisms into symmetry with each other.

I agree with what you wrote there, BUT what I described is my OPINION only, and NOT (to the best of my knowledge) what the LDS church teaches.  I'm ex-LDS.  

Overall, there is a LOT that I like about the LDS baptism paradigm, especially the way they have as part of their doctrine a specific provision for anyone who didn't "get a fair chance" in this life, via proxy baptisms for the dead. 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Wow.

You did it again- agree all the way!

Dangit, I keep trying to draw you into a headlong fight and you keep out-flanking me.   I feel like Fezzik trying to fight the Man in Black. 

Well, lemme read the Our Lady of Fatima link and see if I can find something to squabble about there. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[JustAnAustralian]

Anyone can feel the spirit and promptings of the Holy Ghost.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is allows people to have these continually rather than only occasionally.

Joseph Smith also said (spelling per original)

Quote

Their is a difference between the Holy Ghost & the gift of the Holy Ghost, Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was Baptized which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost untill after he was Baptized, & had he not taken this sign or [or]dinances upon him the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God would have left him, untill he obeyed these ordinances & received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands according to the order of God he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil spirit to come out of a man & it obey him for the spirit might say to him as he did to the sons of Scava, Peter I know & Christ I know but who are ye

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-20-march-1842-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/4

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Am I correct then in inferring that the laying on of hands of the recently baptized 8 year old, is a symbol or representation of what he or she already has? It doesn't grant the Spirit, it is for the purpose of reinforcing what already exists in the mind of the child. If that is true, is it fair then to say the same thing for baptism? If so, it brings LDS and some non-LDS baptisms into symmetry with each other.

Notice that @Olmec Donald said he was disagreeing with LDS Doctrine in saying that, and I agree with him on both counts, meaning I agree with him in disagreeing with the church on that point, AND that it is in fact church Doctrine that one can only "occasionally" be inspired by the Holy Ghost before it is conferred upon him, after Baptism during the ordinance of Confirmation.

So technically baptism is only a prerequisite for receiving the Holy Ghost in the ordinance of Confirmation.

On the other hand I personally had a major spiritual experience when I was confirmed, but I had had similar experiences as a Catholic.

You said:

If so, it brings LDS and some non-LDS baptisms into symmetry with each other."

Not really because the LDS teaching is NOT about baptism, but confirmation.

Edited November 10, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Olmec Donald]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's a biggie- Our Lady of Fatima.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima

I read that article and then looked up the seven Prayers of Fatima given through the children, to read them for myself.  Imo they are all good stuff.  Some of the wording is not what I would have chosen, but then I'm not an angel speaking to a Catholic audience.  There might be some hidden gems in there. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fátima_prayers

I see the visions and those Prayers leading believers in the right direction.  I have no problem with more advanced beings, be they Mary or Moroni or whoever, delivering whatever message their audience will benefit from in whatever way makes sense to them from their perspective.  

(One of the things that draws me to Mormonism is that it offers excuses for believing some of the things I would like to believe.  2 Nephi Chapter 29 seems to justify the belief that God can and does speak through many mouthpieces:  "For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them... I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.")

The apparent emphasis of the visions on specifically blessing Russia is imo very interesting.  Mother Russia may play a bigger role in the fate of Planet Earth than we are accustomed to thinking.   Sting wrote this song at the height of the cold war:

 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I read that article and then looked up the seven Prayers of Fatima given through the children, to read them for myself.  Imo they are all good stuff.  Some of the wording is not what I would have chosen, but then I'm not an angel speaking to a Catholic audience.  There might be some hidden gems in there. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fátima_prayers

I see the visions and those Prayers leading believers in the right direction.  I have no problem with more advanced beings, be they Mary or Moroni or whoever, delivering whatever message their audience will benefit from in whatever way makes sense to them from their perspective.  

(One of the things that draws me to Mormonism is that it offers excuses for believing some of the things I would like to believe.  2 Nephi Chapter 29 seems to justify the belief that God can and does speak through many mouthpieces:  "For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them... I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.")

The apparent emphasis of the visions on specifically blessing Russia is imo very interesting.  Mother Russia may play a bigger role in the fate of Planet Earth than we are accustomed to thinking.   Sting wrote this song at the height of the cold war:

 

 

Regarding Russia, my impression is that belief in religion is on the upswing. Haven't look it up yet

And it is said that the Lady predicted the crisis in Catholicism.

I have no reason to believe that the visions were not from God.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Anyone can feel the spirit and promptings of the Holy Ghost.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is allows people to have these continually rather than only occasionally.

Joseph Smith also said (spelling per original)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-20-march-1842-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/4

Are you aware of any evidence in the New Testament that any of Christ's 12 disciples were baptized by water by anyone? Did they have the gift of the Holy Spirit, or just the occasion feelings and promptings? We know they baptized others according to John 4:1 which also seems to indicate that John never saw Christ baptize anyone. Was the water baptism performed by the disciples the same kind of baptism for the same purpose that is performed in LDS chapels today, or was it a different kind of baptism? I am also interested in the "continually versus occasionally" paradigm. I am not sure how that works in one's every day spiritual life? If I tell you that I feel the ministry of the Holy Spirit in my life daily, is that continually or only occasionally? Inquiring minds need to know!