Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't believe it was racist. I get that you and others do. 

For those who believe in a pre-existence, there are a lot of inequities, the least of which is race. Writing this off as racism doesn't really allow us to put the problem behind us; it is just the tip of the iceberg, and we have the problem of evil and the vast disparity in "my turn on earth" that all of God's children face. Racial heritage is a factor, but there are many others, and I don't think it's one of the bigger ones. 

Explain your views on how inequities are decided upon, what type of behaviour results in what general type of inequity or why please.

I know you have said this before…preexistence influences what happens in mortality, but unless you connect some dots tying it to inequities here, it has no explanatory value.  It makes as much sense to say it is random for most of us (save the ones needed in a particular time and place).

Added:  the problem with using the term “inequities” (lack of fairness) in this context is it implies people are being rewarded or punished for their behaviour.  Is this how you are using it?

Edited February 19, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you apply this mostly to the ban or generally speaking?

(My own position is God doesn’t step in unless asked to in the vast majority of our lives and even then it is in mostly a supportive role, as in “I am here, ‘fighting!’”***—though there are those who may not even be able to be aware of his presence through no fault of their own—as mortal life is a time for self exploration as much as it is a time to learn obedience.)

***https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paiting

 

I apply it to everything for all of us.  Many times we and church leaders are following what God has revealed and the feeling we attribute to revelation from the spirit is correct.  Many times what we and church leaders do makes no difference to God but we still attribute our feelings about it to revelation when actually God has said nothing.  Many times we and church leaders do and believe things that are wrong by God but we still attribute our feelings to revelation and God does nothing because those things will naturally lead to a point where they just collapse.  Sometimes and this is more rare, we and church leaders do and believe something that is wrong but after some time something inside us tells that it was wrong and we humble ourselves and truly ask for God's guidance and the spirit confirms it was wrong.

[kimpearson]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I am with you up till here and not actually contradicting outright, but simply adding the detail that our experience of Truth is always through our interpretations of it and therefore it may be our interpretations of all of the above that are screwing us up and causing conflict. 

Added: Plus there is the whole conflict between family, I bring a sword, wheats and tares  comments by Christ.  Conflict in Zion is not his desire, but conflict was going to happen because of the truth as well as lies.  I don’t think we can automatically assume because a teaching or policy creates conflict, it can’t be truth given conflict would naturally arise as truth is taught to replace past false ideas in and out of the Church.  Which position is the false one is what is being debated in my view.  Honest people trying to seek God will still have mistaken ideas that won’t suddenly disappear when exposed to truth and therefore conflict can occur.

And everyone needs to be humble if we actually desire to learn the truth from God…telling our leaders to be humble without including ourselves seems to be missing the boat to me. 

I personally believe the ban was not revelation based on the historic record of how it developed.  And it appears contrary to other commandments received, such as Reeve’s example of taking the gospel to every creature****.  My view on the other two is at minimum our knowledge of God’s truths in these areas are rather incomplete.  And I have no doubt that our attempts to fill in the gaps with our own reasoning fails drastically in most cases. 
 

****https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/68.8?lang=eng&clang=eng#p8
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/80.1?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/18.28?lang=eng&clang=eng#p28

There’s two more with that phrasing, but this conveys the point. 

Conflict in and of itself doesn't signify anything.  Conflict that is caused by preaching against things that hurt people like tobacco and drunk driving relates likely to a truth that those who don't care about others want to violate.  Conflict caused by teaching things that cause people to think others are less than them, or damage the self worth of others or denies others happiness and joy that takes away from no one else's happiness and joy, to me is a sign of an untruth.  Truth builds lies destroy and that is the conflict Christ was referring to.  Yes we all need to be humble but our leaders hold a sacred position as God's representatives and witnesses to the earth and its inhabitants.  Were much is given much is required.  I believe God and we members have a right to expect more from apostles and prophets.  God's harshest condemnations have always been against those who should have been representing Him but didn't not the sinner who was never in any position of power or influence.

 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

This makes a lot of sense to me -- especially as it applies to the historical issue of race and priesthood. The challenge for me with this conclusion is that it suggests the possibility that we might still be harboring blind spots or have other things where we need communal repentance (maybe the other issues from Wilcox's talk like women and priesthood and gender roles or like LGBT issues).

funny thing the challenge to me is part of the reason I'm content with the answer. I think this is in part tied to a couple of experiences. The one most tied to this is the deep study I mentioned on racialized scriptures. It was about 8-ish years ago. Prior, over the years, I had been given, rejected, and adopted varying theories about these scriptures. They fell into 3 camps with several derivatives. Those who tried to stay as close as possible to old explanations or viewpoints (namely there was a literal change in complexion on previous peoples to make them undesirable). Those that tried to make a more quasi-palatable explanation (these varied a little more but often still used a framework to some degree that relied on race (like lamanites mixing more with the native population leaving a physiological difference and Nephites were a bit bigoted about that)). And lastly those who rejected the church or parts/all of these scriptures because they were racist...which also relied on the original framework just with an opposite conclusion. Any other idea was quickly dismissed as not really being "realistic."

None of these were great explanations for me. I fell into the second for a while out of lack of ability to see another way. It still left narrative holes in most of these books of scripture due to it and it still made these verses extremely uncomfortable to me. Then I listened to a different view, that made the idea that I could be wrong to maintain this framework more explicit and I decided to test out what it really looked like to read the scriptures without the assumption that these are racial passages of scripture. In effect, I wanted the scriptures to define the terms for me. And for the first time these scriptures started to actually make sense....not just make sense but be enriching to my understanding of repeating symbolic motifs, other scriptures I'd seen as unrelated, the temple, covenants, falling and repentance, and more. In short removing this blindspot and bias reinforced the truth of the gospel and made it more potent to me. And this process taught me a lot about both correction and was likely a part of what changed my dynamic around the church and its purposes. 

I learned that we can be really wrong about things...but that the core of the gospel and the truth claims will remain as we move past our wrongness. We do so relationally...both with each other and God. It's sometimes slow and methodical but often longer lasting as it's also more established.

I think that ties to the other 2 subjects brought up (and the patronizing one about non-members wilcox also threw in there). Right now we have a few basic camps of thought. The solutions given are fairly polarizing and have holes that I haven't seen fully addressed. I feel and sense a discomfort with these areas...that sense that I'm missing something and I haven't fully found the answer yet. But because this has happened before and I have found answers that are illuminating and whole....I trust in time these will become clearer too. It may take a while, but it will and in many ways already has. So I trust the process, messy as it sometimes can be. 

Prophets have a specific calling in this work...it's not more important than mine or yours, it's just larger in scope/responsibility. It's also limited by time, the directions by God, and the need of the whole community.  I question some that we infer or tack on about what it means to be a prophet. It seems too grandiose. To me I just picture the work as that tree slowly gaining strength. Depending what the Master sees, a prophet holds the tools needed to dispense with it's continued care. Sometimes it's to cut off something. Sometimes it's to graft another. Sometimes it's to hold still and nourish the tree to give the good time to grow. In the short term, these actions may not mean much to us. In the long term it pushes the tree to its fullest potential. 

 

Quote

I have observed elsewhere that the Church with its gerontocracy and its requirements of "unity" when making changes at the top seems very much inclined towards "conservatism" -- or assume communal repentance (change) is not needed until moved upon by a strong outside force/revelation.

Yeah, I don't buy that. It seems reactionary and still works with our temporal framework being the real truth. It would be the same to me as those who feel that the church is changing away from their more traditionalist takes on our faith as a negative sign of XYZ influence creeping into the church. They're different sides of the same coin and to me, both miss the mark.

 

Quote

And the revelation may not come until after the change/repentance, but will we be able to recognize what needs to change before the revelation can come?

In the end, I'm not sure how to incorporate this idea into my working model of prophets and scripture and revelation.

In my view, the revelation was already coming via change and repentance. It wasn't one monumental shift, but several small revelatory experiences that led to a bigger one. Because they're small, we often don't recognize what needs to change immediately. It's slowly shifting our sight to be able to comprehend it. Sometimes we don't see the purpose of certain shifts until we're well down the path.

I hope this helps better explain what I see and sense. I think the shortest way to put it, is that I view it as no different from my own experience with God...just magnified in stewardship, not as much tool sets. Mine's messy, but has led to beauty. I've been wrong, but the journey to being more right has deepened me in ways a simple answer wouldn't have. I'm still learning and growing and will till the end of my days. It makes it easier to accept that on the larger scale.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

I largely agree with @bluebell's statement here. It keeps the integrity of Mormon prophets intact, and doesn't boil such an important things down to "they were just a product of their times, they are fallible men, it's unreasonable to think that God could/would make His will known about something this important until 140 years later," etc. Whenever there are knotty problems, the apologetic default setting is "fallibility" (cf. gospel topics essays), at the expense of daring to teach and believe that Mormon prophets can stand the test of time. This puts Mormonism and her prophets at odds with social currents and trends, and that makes some people uncomfortable. 

This just sounds like a reactive posture to the fallibility argument and doesn’t really note the holes…like how the essay specifically knocks down theories and assumptions that were intrinsic to the ban and taught by several prophets and apostles as false. So they were then right about the ban but wrong about the beliefs that led to and support the ban? At some point fallibility is in this story. Of course one could see the the gospel essay as a wrong move…but then you still have a problem of needing to recognize fallibility. 

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't believe it was racist. I get that you and others do. 

For those who believe in a pre-existence, there are a lot of inequities, the least of which is race. Writing this off as racism doesn't really allow us to put the problem behind us; it is just the tip of the iceberg, and we have the problem of evil and the vast disparity in "my turn on earth" that all of God's children face. Racial heritage is a factor, but there are many others, and I don't think it's one of the bigger ones. 

This argument works best for those who’ve never had a completely innocuous trait, that has no actual deficit to it, and is beautiful and pleasing to the eye of man and god…deemed an inequity. 
 

out of curiosity, what’s the rest of the iceberg to you? 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

This just sounds like a reactive posture to the fallibility argument and doesn’t really note the holes…like how the essay specifically knocks down theories and assumptions that were intrinsic to the ban and taught by several prophets and apostles as false. So they were then right about the ban but wrong about the beliefs that led to and support the ban? At some point fallibility is in this story. Of course one could see the the gospel essay as a wrong move…but then you still have a problem of needing to recognize fallibility. 

It also opens the question, if the reasons for the ban weren't true, and the reasons for the ban were why the prophets and leaders implemented the ban in the first place, then how did the prophets manage to use only false ideas to create true doctrine?

It's like using the a completely wrong math equation and ending up with the correct answer.  It doesn't make any sense.

Edited February 19, 2022 by bluebell

[CV75]

12 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Conflict in and of itself doesn't signify anything.  Conflict that is caused by preaching against things that hurt people like tobacco and drunk driving relates likely to a truth that those who don't care about others want to violate.  Conflict caused by teaching things that cause people to think others are less than them, or damage the self worth of others or denies others happiness and joy that takes away from no one else's happiness and joy, to me is a sign of an untruth.  Truth builds lies destroy and that is the conflict Christ was referring to.  Yes we all need to be humble but our leaders hold a sacred position as God's representatives and witnesses to the earth and its inhabitants.  Were much is given much is required.  I believe God and we members have a right to expect more from apostles and prophets.  God's harshest condemnations have always been against those who should have been representing Him but didn't not the sinner who was never in any position of power or influence.

 

This is a very subjective attitude toward truth, as well it should be. But bear in mind that the same truth that is viewed as edifying by some is viewed as destructive by others. Many in Lehi’s party viewed his teachings as life-threatening, undermining identity, robbing rights and materially ruinous. The judgements of God have always been against the proud, whether they were the prophets or, most commonly, wicked elements among the people they served.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I apply it to everything for all of us.  Many times we and church leaders are following what God has revealed and the feeling we attribute to revelation from the spirit is correct.  Many times what we and church leaders do makes no difference to God but we still attribute our feelings about it to revelation when actually God has said nothing.  Many times we and church leaders do and believe things that are wrong by God but we still attribute our feelings to revelation and God does nothing because those things will naturally lead to a point where they just collapse.  Sometimes and this is more rare, we and church leaders do and believe something that is wrong but after some time something inside us tells that it was wrong and we humble ourselves and truly ask for God's guidance and the spirit confirms it was wrong.

This is how things work with repentance, but the Spirit confirms that which is right, not wrong. Remorse of conscience comes from having denied the light (that which we knew was right in the first place), sometimes to the point of forgetting it, not from correction of ignorance, which is liberating and joyous. There is always far less sense of condemnation in the latter than the former.

[mfbukowski]

Is there somewhere that the recording of the fireside itself is still available?

 

[CA Steve]

18 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't believe it was racist. I get that you and others do. 

For those who believe in a pre-existence, there are a lot of inequities, the least of which is race. Writing this off as racism doesn't really allow us to put the problem behind us; it is just the tip of the iceberg, and we have the problem of evil and the vast disparity in "my turn on earth" that all of God's children face. Racial heritage is a factor, but there are many others, and I don't think it's one of the bigger ones. 

To make sure I am understanding you here, are you claiming that race is an indicator of inequality in any way?

If so could you give an example where race is an inequality?

Edited February 19, 2022 by CA Steve

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Is there somewhere that the recording of the fireside itself is still available?

 

This is a safe bet I believe. 

 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is a safe bet I believe. 

 

Thanks!

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks!

I just watched clear to the end. Something I didn't care to see is Brad during the closing hymn and then closing prayer and right after his talk, he was pounding his fists like he was triumphant but I shouldn't put my interpretation in, I may be wrong, but during the song he spoke with the person next to him on the stand, and then right before the prayer he grabbed his cell phone and wasn't even reverent during the prayer to God/Savior. I guess I need to cut him some slack, but shouldn't he be an example, was he "playing" when he testified of Christ?

[rongo]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Seriously?

21 hours ago, ttribe said:

Wow. That's...disgusting. 

You think that race is a more important factor than family placement and upbringing, era born in, geography, political system, cultural milieu, etc.? Granted, there is overlap between these, but I would say the single biggest of these is family. By a lot. 

[rongo]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Explain your views on how inequities are decided upon, what type of behaviour results in what general type of inequity or why please.

I know you have said this before…preexistence influences what happens in mortality, but unless you connect some dots tying it to inequities here, it has no explanatory value.  It makes as much sense to say it is random for most of us (save the ones needed in a particular time and place).

From what you wrote above, do you believe that the billions who died before the age of accountability, and indeed, everybody "save the ones needed in a particular time and place" (your words: "it is random for most of us") --- do you actually believe that? Or, are you just sparring and playing devil's advocate? Do you believe that all of the factors of timing, placement, families, opportunities/lack thereof are completely random for almost everyone, other than a select few?

I agree that the pre-existence is the key to explaining perceived unfairness in mortality, and that dots need to be connected to have explanatory value. 

I believe that, just as people are at different levels in spiritual development on earth, we were at different levels in the pre-existence --- and will progress at different levels in the hereafter. Everyone who came to earth kept their first estates (accepted the plan of salvation). Because we were at different levels, we all need different experiences and different things in our mortal experience. I believe all of the factors in when, where, and in which families we were born in are to give each individual what he needs. Untold billions die before the age of accountability and "punch their ticket" to the celestial kingdom, per our doctrine (I'll let you speculate on the different races that comprise high childhood mortality over the last 6000 years, and what we should make of that). Others are exempt because of inability to exercise agency (severely mentally handicapped), and are automatic heirs of the celestial kingdom. For those whose mortality is a test, they were sent to earth at specific times, places, cultures, conditions, and families. I believe that this placement is not random at all --- for anyone. 

Do you differ on that, or do you really believe that it is completely random for most of us --- that we could just as easily and randomly have been born in SE Asia, Africa, or wherever thousands of years ago --- that the pre-existence had nothing to do with us being born her in the latter half of the 20th century?

I look at the placement like the decisions to place missionaries (a very rough analogy). There are all kinds of reasons for where and with whom a mission president decides to place a missionary, and only some of these are "punitive." Certain companions are seen as being good for the missionary's development, certain senior companions are seen as benefitting from having this missionary as a junior companion. Some missionaries have profound emotional needs and need a companion of certain skills and demeanor. Sometimes the area factors in. And on and on. I think all of these pre-existence factors are similar. Sometimes perceived "advantageous" placement is really a hindrance (wealth and comfort, for instance). Some perceived "disadvantageous" placements could be because of strength of character and skill (like being put with a challenging companion --- it's really a compliment and a sign of great trust). I think that there is a "degree of difficulty" factored in, like in diving or figure skating --- that is, a person being put into very difficult circumstances is judged differently than a person being given all possible advantages. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I just watched clear to the end. Something I didn't care to see is Brad during the closing hymn and then closing prayer and right after his talk, he was pounding his fists like he was triumphant but I shouldn't put my interpretation in, I may be wrong, but during the song he spoke with the person next to him on the stand, and then right before the prayer he grabbed his cell phone and wasn't even reverent during the prayer to God/Savior. I guess I need to cut him some slack, but shouldn't he be an example, was he "playing" when he testified of Christ?

Perhaps you don't understand the tight schedules of visiting general authorities.

He might have been critical of his own talk as well.  Mind reading to judge others is seldom beneficial to anyone 

[rongo]

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

This just sounds like a reactive posture to the fallibility argument and doesn’t really note the holes…like how the essay specifically knocks down theories and assumptions that were intrinsic to the ban and taught by several prophets and apostles as false. So they were then right about the ban but wrong about the beliefs that led to and support the ban? At some point fallibility is in this story. Of course one could see the the gospel essay as a wrong move…but then you still have a problem of needing to recognize fallibility. 

I think that people have preferences for where they want the fallibility to be: "front-loaded," or "on the back end." For example, I would rather that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have not been in error, than later prophets. Others would much rather more modern prophets "got it right," and are more fine with the original ones "being wrong." 

Since even our current prophets aren't infallible, there is at least the possibility that the essay's "disavowal" of past explanations is in error, and not the past explanations themselves. If this possibility is rejected as impossible, at least in theory, then how are current prophets not infallible? 

I don't think anyone here preaches or believes infallibility. Most are loathe to give any possible examples from the current era, and are more comfortable with examples safely in the distant past. 

[rongo]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

To make sure I am understanding you here, are you claiming that race is an indicator of inequality in any way?

If so could you give an example where race is an inequality?

Race is an indicator of perceived inequality --- on earth. I think that increasingly, actual inequality is becoming less and less so (mileage may vary. I know 

An example? Isn't "systemic racism" the warp and woof of critical race theories currently in vogue? The whole state of the world, with its systems and institutions is one huge example, according to this. 

If the pre-existence is completely thrown out of court as impacting mortality at all, then there is a lot more inequality and unfairness, because people run the gamut of opportunities and disadvantages based on placement (sheer random luck, in the eyes of some, or with divine purpose in the eyes of others). Seen purely from that standpoint, life is simply unfair, isn't it?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

You think that race is a more important factor than family placement and upbringing, era born in, geography, political system, cultural milieu, etc.? Granted, there is overlap between these, but I would say the single biggest of these is family. By a lot. 

I don’t think race is a factor at all in terms of placement, but as far as inequities go…humans have turned race (a social construct even) into one of the major inequities of life, which is what I thought you were referring to, as in being dismissive of race as a factor in human made social advantages.

I think life is unfair primarily because humans make it unfair.  There are natural disadvantages, but many of these could be temporary or much less burdensome if we were all working to help others.  Just think how much better off everyone in the world would be if the resources invested in wars over eons had always gone into medical research, constructive technology, better food production, etc.  What  if all our societies had worked at raising everyone together or at least giving opportunities to everyone?

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

From what you wrote above, do you believe that the billions who died before the age of accountability, and indeed, everybody "save the ones needed in a particular time and place" (your words: "it is random for most of us") --- do you actually believe that?

I don’t know if God micromanaged our placements generally speaking or if we personally chose them or something else…maybe there was a lottery.  If everyone chooses to participate in a lottery knowing they could be saddled with either the best or the worse results or anything in between, isn’t it fair in the sense of what anyone draws?  What wouldn’t make it fair is if we had to live for eternity with only that draw as our set of blessings.  But since we don’t, since the Atonement allows everyone to get the best ever of what they want, which is tons better than any of the draws for mortality, since we have all chosen mortality, in that sense we all start off the same.

Mortal life itself is unfair, there is no way if we allow others agency we can make it fair even if someone was perfectly placed due to preexistence behaviour.  What if everything is perfect for their development until someone else makes the choice to drink and drive and renders them paraplegic, unable to take advantage of the opportunities they were born in?  One could speculate that God has factored in that to his calculations of placement, but do you seriously believe that a perfectly fair balance could be made for everyone who ever lived given the trillions of choices that affect our lives…factored for billions of lives in immensely diverse situations?  One burden just slightly heavier than needed by that person and you have destroyed fairness.

Fairness can only exist because of the Atonement, not because of how we are placed in mortal life.  I think it makes much more sense to say we accepted the unfairness of mortality because we wanted our agency for eternity more than we wanted fairness for less than 120 years (or whatever is the max length of mortal life. And if we were to have our agency, then everyone else would need to have it too.  Cost benefit choice.

I don’t believe mortal life ‘placement’ is a reward or punishment.  If our preexistence affects it at all, it is because we desire connections made there to continue in mortality and/or our abilities need nurturing and certain situations are better at it than others. Or we decide to help nurture others. I believe we are going to merge all our experiences (think of a library consisting of experience) at least at the level we can become one with God so that we will in essence all be able to comprehend everyone else’s experiences and progress from the learning that results, so it may not matter in the end who lived what life, just that someone did.  There is just no way one mortal life can provide enough opportunities to experience the consequences of our choices.  And if having a body makes a huge difference in how we make choices and experience life as it would seem from how we are taught about our physical natures, then somehow those who were limited in physical ways (which we all are if we look at the range of experience) must have a way to figure out the impact of physicality on our selves.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t know if God micromanaged our placements generally speaking or if we personally chose them or something else…maybe there was a lottery.  If everyone chooses to participate in a lottery knowing they could be saddled with either the best or the worse results or anything in between, isn’t it fair in the sense of what anyone draws?  What wouldn’t make it fair is if we had to live for eternity with only that draw as our set of blessings.  But since we don’t, since the Atonement allows everyone to get the best ever of what they want, which is tons better than any of the draws for mortality, since we have all chosen mortality, in that sense we all start off the same.

Mortal life itself is unfair, there is no way if we allow others agency we can make it fair even if someone was perfectly placed due to preexistence behaviour.  What if everything is perfect for their development until someone else makes the choice to drink and drive and renders them paraplegic, unable to take advantage of the opportunities they were born in?  One could speculate that God has factored in that to his calculations of placement, but do you seriously believe that a perfectly fair balance could be made given the trillions of choices that affect our lives…factored for billions of lives in immensely diverse situations?  One burden just slightly heavier than needed by that person and you have destroyed fairness.

Fairness can only exist because of the Atonement, not because of how we are placed in mortal life.  I think it makes much more sense to say we accepted the unfairness of mortality because we wanted our agency for eternity more than we wanted fairness for less than 120 years (or whatever is the max length of mortal life. And if we were to have our agency, then everyone else would need to have it too.  Cost benefit choice.

I don’t believe mortal life ‘placement’ is a reward or punishment.  If our preexistence affects it at all, it is because we desire connections made there to continue in mortality and/or our abilities need nurturing and certain situations are better at it than others. Or we decide to help nurture others. I believe we are going to merge all our experiences (think of a library consisting of experience) at least at the level we can become one with God so that we will in essence all be able to comprehend everyone else’s experiences and progress from the learning that results, so it may not matter in the end who lived what life, just that someone did.  There is just no way one mortal life can provide enough opportunities to experience the consequences of our choices.  And if having a body makes a huge difference in how we make choices and experience life as it would seem from how we are taught about our physical natures, then somehow those who were limited in physical ways (which we all are if we look at the range of experience) must have a way to figure out the impact of physicality on our selves.

and @rongo I believe we are placed in a way that gives us the clearest choices to “feel after him, and find him,” and from latter-day revelation this includes the spirit world.

Acts 17: 26 – 28: “26 And hath made of one blood all enations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we alive, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”

The various dispensations (not all of them had a fulness, and only this one has gone global) and apostasies had barriers that can only be overcome by the atonement of Christ and conversion in the spirit world.

Alma 13 speaks of placement in a way that puts us all on equal standing, the equalizer being faith and good works within the constraints of the dispensations and apostasies in which we live. We can become high priests forever in this world and the spirit world.

I take the phrase, “many of the noble and great ones” from Abraham 3 to refer to those who are considered noble and great in this life, according to the “times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation,” and include secular as well as spiritual giants who are foreordained. Not all of them remained or turned out “good” in this world: I find the qualifier, “many,” interesting because it indicates that some were not foreordained, and some did not meet their foreordained potential or mission.

Are skin colors and ethnicities foreordained, or the byproduct of natural physiological and social laws? I believe the latter. We believe that Israelite lineage or assignment is foreordained (as pronounced in a patriarchal blessing, going as far back as Jacob’s blessing upon his sons), and not subject to natural physiological and social laws. Likewise, the patriarchal pronouncements made upon the descendants of Abraham, Noah, and Adam.

The blessings are disrupted by cursings, which are not foreordained. The children of Laman and Lemuel still have claim on Lehi’s blessing upon the remnant, and Joseph’s (and Jacob’s and so on backward in time) blessing as well. The immediate generations following Cain, Canaan, Lamech, Laman, Lemuel, and Amalicites, etc. had foreordained blessings of salvation (Alma 13 style) upon their heads that were disrupted by their disobedient fathers. Undoubtedly some of the noble and great ones were among them, Pharaoh for example, who was righteous, wise and just. And cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood, at least in this life.

Was he, and Cain’s great-great grandsons foreordained to come to the earth through a cursed lineage? I think not; the intention was that these lineages retain covenants and traditions that allow the children of God to “seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him.” The agency of some otherwise noble and great ones disrupted that.

Edited February 20, 2022 by CV75

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I believe we are going to merge all our experiences (think of a library consisting of experience) at least at the level we can become one with God so that we will in essence all be able to comprehend everyone else’s experiences and progress from the learning that results, so it may not matter in the end who lived what life, just that someone did.  (Emphasis Donald's)

^^This.^^

All wounds will be healed, such that what remains from our mortal experience is wisdom and understanding.  All things will have worked together for not only our good, but also for the good all.

Rather than condemning one another for our mistakes, I think we will be grateful to one another for the roles we played. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

You think that race is a more important factor than family placement and upbringing, era born in, geography, political system, cultural milieu, etc.? Granted, there is overlap between these, but I would say the single biggest of these is family. By a lot. 

Uhhh, we are talking about your interpretation of an alleged doctrine, not mine. My current belief is largely irrelevant to that given I am 99.9% sure there is no such thing as a god. You like to divert attention to other factors such as family, geography, culture, but each of these things is highly correlated with race as well. You are perpetuating a harmful bit of speculation that an entire swath of humanity was cursed, held-back, disadvantaged and underprivileged because of some combination of the bad acts of an ancestor and/or being 'less valiant' in a now forgotten pre-Earth life. That is the very definition of racism. It has all the hallmarks of coming up with an explanation to fit and justify the oppression of a segment of humanity based on the color of their skin.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

we are placed in a way that gives us the clearest choices 

to “feel after him, and find him,” 

So how does this work with those never expose to Christian teachings, who grew up in extremely violent surroundings, whose interactions with others were all abusive?

Serious question, not rhetorical…I want to understand how you see that as working in the more limited environments.  I think I probably agree with you in your above comments.

I am toying with the idea mortal life is more like a lucid dream for our eternal selves, so that there is a part of us that can see the whole picture even while it is happening.  The veil is like a one way mirror, though I dislike talking as if we are two beings or two minds when we are all one…but is the finger aware of what the hand  is experiencing or the hand the body or does our mind collect and integrate all the different ‘experiences’ happening to our bodies and we can live the individual experience of a finger slammed in the door while simultaneously live as a complete body, reacting to the damage of the finger as well as what else is happening.  The complete self thus can recognize the hand of God in our lives and is learning a multitude of knowledge even if our conscious minds are not that much, if at all.  Thus even if the mortal side of us is reduced to even just an animalistic existence of pain, our greater self is still having opportunities of learning by watching how others interact with us, whether they are contributing to the pain, trying to help, or could care less.  Our minds that we are aware of are a subset of our total mind/spirit/awareness…perhaps part of us are lost in the theatrical parts we are playing while another part is critiquing our performance and adjusting in response to that and the behaviour of other actors in order to keep the play on track, while death brings us fully back to our senses, so to speak.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm