5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians

[Eschaton]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

So you don't agree with the early Christians teachings on this.   Why do you suppose that the earliest Christians (those who lived closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles) taught that men become gods, but most Christians today don't teach those things anymore? 

 

Depends on what you mean by "early." I'm not aware of any first century sources that support this idea - it wasn't widespread and seems to originate in second century Christianity. 

I'm not aware of any modern Christian denomination that is all that close to any first century Christian sect. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Eschaton

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Depends on what you mean by "early." I'm not aware of any first century sources that support this idea - it wasn't widespread and seems to originate in second century Christianity. 

I'm not aware of any modern Christian denomination that is all that close to any first century Christian sect. 

The New Testament texts support that idea quite well.  But by "earliest Christians" I mean those who wrote earliest in the second century.  

The teaching that men become gods was widespread in second century Christianity.  I'm not sure why you say it wasn't widespread (it was taught by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus [quite extensively], Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Novation, and several other slightly later Christian writers).  But the introduction of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo at around 175 AD gradually changed the way that Christians viewed God from that point forward.  Eventually the teachings about other gods became incompatible with the new view of God.

Edited December 23, 2022 by InCognitus

[3DOP]

23 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The New Testament texts support that idea quite well.  But by "earliest Christians" I mean those who wrote earliest in the second century.  Aside from the New Testament, there aren't many first century Christian writings.  What first century sources other than the New Testament do you have in mind? 

The teaching that men become gods was widespread in second century Christianity.  I'm not sure why you say it wasn't widespread (it was taught by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus [quite extensively], Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Novation, and several other slightly later Christian writers).  But the introduction of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo at around 175 AD gradually changed the way that Christians viewed God from that point forward.  Eventually the teachings about other gods became incompatible with the new view of God.

What about Old Testament sources, InCog? Here is a favorite I have discovered in the last year or so, going back to it often:

"Blessed is the man whose help is from thee: in his heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps, In the vale of tears, in the place which he hath set. For the lawgiver shall give a blessing, they shall go from virtue to virtue: the God of gods shall be seen in Sion."

---Ps. 83:6-8

I don't know who else that is talking about except the brothers and sisters of Jesus, sons and daughters of His Father! Who could make up such a faith? This won't convince the skeptic, but for me, it is far too wonderful to be from anybody's imagination. And people think they hate Christ and His Church. They don't know what God wants to do for them. Lord have mercy. Like our Lady says:

"My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name."

---Luke 1:46-49

[InCognitus]

28 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

What about Old Testament sources, InCog? Here is a favorite I have discovered in the last year or so, going back to it often:

"Blessed is the man whose help is from thee: in his heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps, In the vale of tears, in the place which he hath set. For the lawgiver shall give a blessing, they shall go from virtue to virtue: the God of gods shall be seen in Sion."

---Ps. 83:6-8

I don't know who else that is talking about except the brothers and sisters of Jesus, sons and daughters of His Father! Who could make up such a faith? This won't convince the skeptic, but for me, it is far too wonderful to be from anybody's imagination. And people think they hate Christ and His Church. They don't know what God wants to do for them. Lord have mercy. Like our Lady says:

"My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name."

---Luke 1:46-49

Yes!   I was focused on the first century Christians, so I forgot to include Old Testament sources in that.

And don't forget Deuteronomy 10:17:  "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

[manol]

On 12/15/2022 at 8:14 PM, teddyaware said:

the Latter-Day Saints’ Lectures on Faith asserts that each of the three members of the Godhead are filled to eternal fulness with an uncreated spiritual substance called the  Spirit of Truth or Light of Truth.

This makes sense to me; at least the part that says all three members of the Godhead are made of the same stuff, even if said stuff is not precisely defined.

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Lecture Five teaches the father is a personage of spirit, the son of tabernacle and the HG the mind of God.

Very interesting.  I didn't realize this was LDS doctrine at one time. 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

... to be one with God we must know who is he?

Very interesting!!

I assume this is something Joseph Smith said.  I don't recall coming across this idea in this form, but I was probably reading through a different lens back then and wouldn't have picked up on it like you apparently did.  Can you point me to the reference?  

[Peppermint Patty]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Lecture Five teaches the father is a personage of spirit, the son of tabernacle and the HG the mind of God.

I was unaware of this. So several years earlier during the First Vision, Joseph recounts that he saw "two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness" but then several years later it was being taught that the Father is a actually a personage of spirit? What happened during those years from the First Vision to Lecture 5 that changed the Father from being a personage to a spirit?

[Calm]

11 hours ago, manol said:

This makes sense to me; at least the part that says all three members of the Godhead are made of the same stuff, even if said stuff is not precisely defined.

Very interesting.  I didn't realize this was LDS doctrine at one time. 

Very interesting!!

I assume this is something Joseph Smith said.  I don't recall coming across this idea in this form, but I was probably reading through a different lens back then and wouldn't have picked up on it like you apparently did.  Can you point me to the reference?  

What specific idea were you talking about as some of the post is just my own reasoning?

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I was unaware of this. So several years earlier during the First Vision, Joseph recounts that he saw "two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness" but then several years later it was being taught that the Father is a actually a personage of spirit? What happened during those years from the First Vision to Lecture 5 that changed the Father from being a personage to a spirit?

There is, iirc, debate on who actually wrote the Lectures.  They were viewed as lessons or theological explorations imo as opposed to revelations or commentary about revelation such as is in the rest of the D&C and that was why they were removed.  Joseph was inclusive as far  as others teaching and sharing their ideas, so he may have felt it appropriate not to edit out someone else’s ideas.  Perhaps he wasn’t settled in his mind yet about all the implications of the First Vision and it took later revelations to solidify them enough for him to correct others’ ideas.

Assuming Joseph had enough input to correct them if he disagreed, it may not have been clear that what Joseph saw was a being of physical form as well as of spirit. The Brother of Jared saw Christ in his personage of spirit only form and it reads as if nodifferent to his physical form, so how could Joseph tell without being touched or see God touch something else or otherwise interact with something physically. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, manol said:

This makes sense to me; at least the part that says all three members of the Godhead are made of the same stuff, even if said stuff is not precisely defined.

You are now a Trinitarian, unless the magic "substance" includes two human bodies an one spirit body, which is made of "refined matter".

 No, we do not adhere to substance theology and a "consubstantial" trinity

[Calm]

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Lectures_on_Faith#Lecture_of_Faith_5_teaches_the_Father_is_.22a_personage_of_spirit.22
 

Quote

The issue that continues to provoke the most interest relative to the Lectures on Faith is their authorship. Who wrote them? The available evidence tends to undermine the view that Joseph Smith was primarily responsible for them. It is unfortunate that some feel so strongly about maintaining Joseph Smith's authorship or responsibility for these lectures. This makes it difficult for other faithful Latter-day Saints to assess the evidence critically, and it also plays into the hands of critics of the church and Joseph Smith. Critics find much in the lectures and in the church's eventual exclusion of them from the scriptural canon with which to embarrass faithful Mormons.9 Insisting that Joseph was responsible for the lectures only makes the critics' task easier. For example, Lecture 5 provides Dan Vogel with his principal evidence for an evolving Mormon concept of God that in 1835 reflected "Sidney Rigdon's Primitivistic background and not the orthodox LDS view of three distinct personages in the godhead."

Opinions on the authorship and status of the lectures in Latter-day Saint literature have varied widely among both scholars and church authorities. Elders Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith both saw Joseph Smith as a principal author of the lectures and believed he had approved them in full, having revised and prepared them for publication.11 However, that view does not appear to have been generally shared by the church leadership that discontinued official publication of the seven lectures in 1921, allowed the copyright to lapse, and explicitly reiterated that these lectures were not scripture but merely "helps."12 The "Explanatory Introductions" of subsequent editions have included such explanations as this one from page v of the 1966 edition:

Certain lessons, entitled "Lectures on Faith," which were bound in with the Doctrine and Covenants in some of its former issues, are not included in this edition. These lessons were prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834–1835; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.

At least some of the presiding brethren possibly held the view published later by Elder John A. Widtsoe, who believed they were "written by Sidney Rigdon and others."13 Three independent authorship studies conducted in recent decades and using different reputable techniques all conclude that Sidney Rigdon was the primary author of the lectures. Based on these studies, not a single lecture can conclusively be attributed to Joseph Smith.

My bold

[Calm]

Quote

Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God."^[3] Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication."^[4]

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Lectures_on_Faith/Removed#Question:_Who_wrote_the_Lectures_on_Faith.3F

 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, manol said:

Very interesting.  I didn't realize this was LDS doctrine at one time. 

From Lecture on Faith 5:

1 In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections and attributes of God. What we mean by perfections, is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature. We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh—and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

[manol]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

What specific idea were you talking about as some of the post is just my own reasoning?

The idea that to be one with God, we must know who he is.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are now a Trinitarian, unless the magic "substance" includes two human bodies an one spirit body, which is made of "refined matter".

What am I if I think we are also made of the same stuff the Godhead is made of? 

Edited December 23, 2022 by manol

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I was unaware of this. So several years earlier during the First Vision, Joseph recounts that he saw "two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness" but then several years later it was being taught that the Father is a actually a personage of spirit? What happened during those years from the First Vision to Lecture 5 that changed the Father from being a personage to a spirit?

The idea that the father was a personage of tabernacle did not come about till 1838.  See what I just posted from Lecture Five.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

There is, iirc, debate on who actually wrote the Lectures.  They were viewed as lessons or theological explorations imo as opposed to revelations or commentary about revelation such as is in the rest of the D&C and that was why they were removed.  Joseph was inclusive as far  as others teaching and sharing their ideas, so he may have felt it appropriate not to edit out someone else’s ideas.  Perhaps he wasn’t settled in his mind yet about all the implications of the First Vision and it took later revelations to solidify them enough for him to correct others’ ideas.

No.  This is the dismissal apologetic approach because the theology from the lecture conflicts with later doctrine on the Godhead.  The lectures were the first of what was to be a series of doctrinal exposes that would be the doctrine of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.  The Lectures on Faith were included in that editioni and voted on by the church and canonized. It does not matter who wrote them. They were accepted as part of the canon.  THey were removed in 1921, without a vote by the way, because they disagreed with Talmadge's outline on what the LDS church taught about the godhead at that time.  Interestingly McConkie loves the Lectures on Faith an wanted them put back in the canon and called Lecture 5 one of the best outlines of the Godhead and how the members of the Godhead are one.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Assuming Joseph had enough input to correct them if he disagreed, it may not have been clear that what Joseph saw was a being of physical form as well as of spirit. The Brother of Jared saw Christ in his personage of spirit only form and it reads as if nodifferent to his physical form, so how could Joseph tell without being touched or see God touch something else or otherwise interact with something physically. 

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, manol said:

The idea that to be one with God, we must know who he is.

That is just me and my logic.
 

How can you be one and ignorant of who they are?  Using my own life again, early on in our marriage, we had a fight and my husband needed comforting, so being kind and not as intelligent as I am now about such things I gave it to him and he thought sitting and cuddling was this great bonding time where we were growing closer while all I could think of was how pissed I was still and he was clueless about it so my reaction was we were getting further apart.  I realized then being one was going to take a lot more work than just wanting it or just looking at the surface. 
 

To be truly one, you have to understand the other and how can we do that if we don’t know who the other is?  How can we be one if we don’t align our hearts and minds and wills and we can’t do that unless we know that part of the other. The better we know them, the better we can align ourselves with them. 
 

I don’t think being in the general ballpark type of knowledge will be enough to be one with God. We have to open ourselves up completely and laid ourselves on the altar, as exposed as one can be. If he asks that of us, wouldn’t it be likely he is doing the same for us?
 

Transparency with each other is part of becoming one in this life and that is because Imo it is the only way to learn who we are, both in the sense of learning who the other is, but also there are places in ourselves we won’t really understand until we try and share them with others. In a sense they don’t exist in actuality, only in potential, until we act on them through interacting with others. To know who we are so we can share ourselves, we have to be sharing. The act makes the reality.

[Calm]

Quote

The Lectures on Faith were included in that editioni and voted on by the church and canonized.

CFR please as I would like to read the wording to see if one can tell whether or not it was indicated they were “theological lectures or lessons” and not revealed knowledge or if this was an assumption made in 1921 when they were removed. 
 

This is from 1838 and it seems to me it makes that distinction, lectures being lessons. 
 

Quote

The first part [of the D&C] contains seven lectures on Faith, but the second is of most importance, containing what are termed, “Covenants and Commandments of the Lord, to his servants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.” This part includes one hundred and two sections, ninety-seven of which are occupied by as many professed revelations

 

I don’t have the least problem with evolving doctrine, btw. I expect it.  I expect old beliefs to be mixed in with true revelation.  So if they were considered doctrine no big deal. Even if it was assumed they were revelation, it doesn’t throw a kink into my understanding of how revelation works (humans are involved, errors will be made including filling in gaps with assumptions already held).

Edited December 23, 2022 by Calm

[Eschaton]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The New Testament texts support that idea quite well.  But by "earliest Christians" I mean those who wrote earliest in the second century.  

What part of the NT do you think supports deification of people not named Jesus? 

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The teaching that men become gods was widespread in second century Christianity.  I'm not sure why you say it wasn't widespread (it was taught by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus [quite extensively], Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Novation, and several other slightly later Christian writers). 

Can you give me a few specific examples?

 

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 

But the introduction of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo at around 175 AD gradually changed the way that Christians viewed God from that point forward.  Eventually the teachings about other gods became incompatible with the new view of God.

Deification (of the righteous generally) was incompatible with the old (Jewish) view of God too, which taught that humanity's ultimate destination was the grave, not heaven. Even when resurrection was developed as a doctrine, the resurrected would stay on earth to live a human life. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Eschaton

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

because they disagreed with Talmadge's outline on what the LDS church taught about the godhead at that time. 

Because we had additional revelations after the Lectures were written, which they could of course not have included.   I would hope the Church would remove out of date teachings even if canonized if they are contradicted by revelation.  It would be a refutation of the belief in continuing revelation to insist that all the understanding we had originally had to be correct as is. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Calm

[Chum]

On 12/16/2022 at 2:47 PM, manol said:

Perhaps the journey itself, rather than an eventual arrival at the destination (solution to the mystery), is the point.

If a newly born soul who finds themselves in Spit Box Alabama, is that destination or journey?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, manol said:

The idea that to be one with God, we must know who he is.

What am I if I think we are also made of the same stuff the Godhead is made of? 

The Godhead includes the HG a personage of spirit.  THAT is the doctrine therefore "the Godhead" is NOT consubstantial.  Furthermore, it is said that the Holy Ghost will one day be incarnated.   I am not sure how that all figures into that, but consubstaniality without specification of what the substance IS, is meaningless.  Just think about it.  Carry every principle logically regardless of what some living human has told you and if there is a conflict, pray about it and YOU become the prophet on that problem for your own beliefs.

Alma 32: truth is what is "sweet" to you.   Don't follow humans except in terms of human logic.   There is obviously some kind of paradox in human logic here which makes discussion irrelevant as far as my concern is.   There are always details that get  missed in creating some kind of some aleged coherent metaphysical system.

Human paradigms are never perfect, you get the choice to either live with that and seek your own guidance or not!    I have no doubt that our gospel narative, though not perfect, is the best paradigm divised by humans to explain all this stuff.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Because we had additional revelations after the Lectures were written, which they could of course not have included.   I would hope the Church would remove out of date teachings even if canonized if they are contradicted by revelation.  It would be a refutation of the belief in continuing revelation to insist that all the understanding we had originally had to be correct as is. 

Agreed.  This is the system's releif valve to keep it from overheating AND proves its compatibility with postmodernism.

It is impossible to avoid ambiguity in human language.  THAT should be indellibly impressed into everyone's mind who seek infallibility created by any living human anywhere.

Science can't do it, religion can't do it.  Our languages are "confounded" and obviously the whole story of Babel is about that.   Men try for a stairway to heaven but it never will work.

There's Wittgenstein right there in the bible!   Dang that book is infallible!. 

Somebody named Calmoria said that below in my siggy- we have to CREATE language that works- but even that is impossible, but I believe we can come close.

I mean what difference is it if the HG is consubstantial with the Godhead or not?  I can see it both ways easily depending on what those words mean.  It's a question of logic and clarity.

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by mfbukowski

[manol]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

If a newly born soul who finds themselves in Spit Box Alabama, is that destination or journey?

The context of my statement you quoted was different from the context of your question, BUT imo your question is totally valid.

My understanding is that the purpose of everything that happens in our lives is the development of our souls ("all these things shall work together for your good"), therefore imo Spit Box, Alabama, would be part of that journey.
 

On 12/22/2022 at 4:19 PM, Calm said:

Yep, we believe in continuing revelation, so no surprise here, right?

Imo not all "continuing revelation", or in other words not all that "God does now reveal", necessarily and exclusively comes through the leadership of the LDS Church.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

That [to be one with God, we must know who he is] is just me and my logic.

I think Joseph Smith would have approved.

Imo near-death experiences constitute a source of "continuing revelation", and in particular continuing revelation about "who God is".  Here are a couple of compilation videos on the subject which imo offer insights into "who God is" which go beyond what the Sunday School manual has to say.   You might watch the first clip in each one; I'm pretty sure the guy in the first clip on the first video is LDS:

Stories About Meeting God - A Compilation of NDE's - YouTube

"It was Not the Image of God I Expected to Meet!" | Near Death Experience Compilation 1 - YouTube

"Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." - Joseph Smith

"One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."  - Joseph Smith

[Saint Bonaventure]

The quotes from St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasias that are in smac97's original post, are both referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, paragraph 460), as is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas:

Quote

 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4): “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God” (St. Irenaeus, adv. haeres 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939). “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (St. Athanasius, De inc., 54, 3: PG 25, 192B). “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc., 57:1-4).

 An expansive, but understandable Catholic treatment of this topic can be found here:

Are We Gods? | Catholic Answers

Catholics believe CCC 460 (or at least we Catholics should; with over a billion people there's bound to be some variance). I share the link to this article because I think it explains Catholic teaching on this topic very precisely, and because I'd enjoy a conversation on this, and related, topics. I apologize, though, that the article does reference "Mormons" in an apologetic tone.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[manol]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The Godhead includes the HG a personage of spirit.  THAT is the doctrine therefore "the Godhead" is NOT consubstantial. 

God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all spirit(s).  So are we.  ("Consubstantial" is a new word to me.)

My impression is that Mormonism emphasizes distinctions and separations ("the parts of the elephant", if you will), and imo separation is a construct of this telestial world moreso than of the higher realms.  I'm not saying separation isn't a useful construct, but I do not believe it characterizes the Celestial Kingdom to the extent that it characterizes this planet.

Imo "the vine and the branches", to borrow another metaphor, is more about the higher kingdom(s) than about the manifest reality we experience in this one.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Alma 32: truth is what is "sweet" to you.   

Agreed, but sometimes the sweetest fruit may not be visible from within the walls.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Human paradigms are never perfect, you get the choice to either live with that and seek your own guidance or not!   

Agreed.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no doubt that our gospel narative, though not perfect, is the best paradigm divised by humans to explain all this stuff.

Imo there is benefit in takings one's talents out into the marketplace of ideas, i.e. outside the walls of the LDS narrative, and possibly adding to what one has already been given. 

That being said, I do respect the LDS narrative a great deal, and perhaps it is the "best paradigm devised by humans to explain all this stuff."

Edited December 24, 2022 by manol