My Recent Crash-Course in Modern LDS Thought 🧐

[ZealouslyStriving]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

And how would several ones be involved in one individual’s creation? Serious question, not rhetorical as I am curious about how you are thinking.

I can see avoiding it in group prayers if one assumes different individuals had different Heavenly Mothers, but why would it be a problem for an individual? It is not like we need to use an exact name to get the prayer paid attention to by God after all.  Surely each Heavenly Mother would know who her spirit children were.

You bring up a good point. Like I said these are random things I've mused over and am interested in other's opinions .

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Because it addresses questions people are asking now like "Are the Apostles aware of what's going on?" and "Why aren't they saying more about this?"

Elder Benson's talk brings up some excellent general principles to advance the kingdom of God despite contrary pressures. Not unusual for General Conference speakers and are still brought up today. But it was delivered in a 1978 setting and context, which superficially suggests, like the 2 questions listed, that its orator (and by extension, his counterparts today), are outdated and out of touch.

How does his talk from 1978 establish that the Apostles are aware of what is going on and saying enough about it? What is the "what's" in the first question? What is the "this" in the second question?

I am sure, whatever the answer for "what's going on" and "this" may be, General Conference talks can be pulled up to show that the Apostles address them. But let's see!

 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Following a rabbit trail 🐇since plural marriage was brought up...

Is it possible that we don't include Heavenly Mother in our prayers because- which one would be be praying to because several Heavenly Mothers were involved in our spiritual creation?

*Random musings I've had*

Well, Christ instructed us to pray to Heavenly Father, so it's pretty darned clear that there's not supposed to be any praying to heavenly mother.

You'll find a good number of true blue LDS posters here who will argue against plural marriage in eternity until the cows come home. And who strongly believe the church was wrong about polygamy in this life, even if they have a solid testimony of the church in general. Trust me: you can't convince them otherwise. You'd be better off leaving the topic alone.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, Christ instructed us to pray to Heavenly Father, so it's pretty darned clear that there's not supposed to be any praying to heavenly mother.

You'll find a good number of true blue LDS posters here who will argue against plural marriage in eternity until the cows come home. And who strongly believe the church was wrong about polygamy in this life, even if they have a solid testimony of the church in general. Trust me: you can't convince them otherwise. You'd be better off leaving the topic alone.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything, but I'm not going to sit in a corner like I've done something wrong by believing that way. I'm going to share how I believe in topics like everyone else.

I won't be cancelled!🥋karate CHOP!

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything, but I'm not going to sit in a corner like I've done something wrong by believing that way. I'm going to share how I believe in topics like everyone else.

I won't be cancelled!🥋karate CHOP!

Sing it and shout it till the cows come home!   

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Following a rabbit trail 🐇since plural marriage was brought up...

Is it possible that we don't include Heavenly Mother in our prayers because- which one would be be praying to because several Heavenly Mothers were involved in our spiritual creation?

*Random musings I've had*

Also are we sure we all have the same Father?

[MustardSeed]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, Christ instructed us to pray to Heavenly Father, so it's pretty darned clear that there's not supposed to be any praying to heavenly mother.

You'll find a good number of true blue LDS posters here who will argue against plural marriage in eternity until the cows come home. And who strongly believe the church was wrong about polygamy in this life, even if they have a solid testimony of the church in general. Trust me: you can't convince them otherwise. You'd be better off leaving the topic alone.

Not a lot of things are worthy of black and white, all or nothing thinking in this life.  Too much is impacted by human error.  Knowing and understanding this concept requires  lot of faith to remain plugged in to any ideology.  I’m ok with that. ❤️

[Ragerunner]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:26 AM, Smiley McGee said:

Just went to their website (and what appears to be their affiliate site ldsanswers.org) and boy was that a trip. Here are a few things learned:

• Joseph Smith only used the Urim and Thummim to translate the BoM; it's the fault of progressive historians (Bushman primarily) that the false narrative of a seer stone in a hat has taken off.
• Our modern culture wrongly seeks to "humanize" Joseph Smith and suggest he's just some "common man" (Bushman's fault because of Rough Stone Rolling)
• "Progressive historians" (Bushman) falsely claim that Joseph Smith dug for treasure. They debunk this with "real data" in a multi-part video series. 
• A little bit of fundamentalist Christian thought:
  • "Darwinism" is destructive to faith and contrary to the Gospel
  • The earth is no more than 7,000 years old
  • Carbon dating is garbage
• Under the section "Culture and Standards" the first two linked articles are "Recommended books on Christian Persecution"  and "5 reasons our family does not celebrate Halloween", tldr:
  • Reason #1: The power of Satan is real.  Never tell your kids witches aren’t real.
  • Reason #2: Satan causes extreme suffering.

  • Reason #3: Halloween and other elements of Satanism mock God & His Priesthood

  • Reason #4: Engaging in Satanic rituals, witchcraft and so forth is condemned in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants & Pearl of Great Price.

  • Reason #5: I know the history of Halloween ("Our righteous forefathers refused to celebrate Halloween and similar festivals originating from Satanic worship")

Such a fascinating collection of ideas. Curious what makes this site a "place of sanity." 

This post deserves more likes. Many of the things they claim don’t align with today’s Church teachings and beliefs.

I would say they are the ones leading people away from the gospel.

[The Nehor]

On 3/9/2024 at 10:26 AM, Smiley McGee said:

Just went to their website (and what appears to be their affiliate site ldsanswers.org) and boy was that a trip. Here are a few things learned:

• Joseph Smith only used the Urim and Thummim to translate the BoM; it's the fault of progressive historians (Bushman primarily) that the false narrative of a seer stone in a hat has taken off.
• Our modern culture wrongly seeks to "humanize" Joseph Smith and suggest he's just some "common man" (Bushman's fault because of Rough Stone Rolling)
• "Progressive historians" (Bushman) falsely claim that Joseph Smith dug for treasure. They debunk this with "real data" in a multi-part video series. 
• A little bit of fundamentalist Christian thought:
  • "Darwinism" is destructive to faith and contrary to the Gospel
  • The earth is no more than 7,000 years old
  • Carbon dating is garbage
• Under the section "Culture and Standards" the first two linked articles are "Recommended books on Christian Persecution"  and "5 reasons our family does not celebrate Halloween", tldr:
  • Reason #1: The power of Satan is real.  Never tell your kids witches aren’t real.
  • Reason #2: Satan causes extreme suffering.

  • Reason #3: Halloween and other elements of Satanism mock God & His Priesthood

  • Reason #4: Engaging in Satanic rituals, witchcraft and so forth is condemned in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants & Pearl of Great Price.

  • Reason #5: I know the history of Halloween ("Our righteous forefathers refused to celebrate Halloween and similar festivals originating from Satanic worship")

Such a fascinating collection of ideas. Curious what makes this site a "place of sanity." 

LOL!

Witches? You mean the demonic pact witches that were created by Christian fan fiction by a priest who was angry because a woman made him look bad so wrote up a book and the Catholic Church basically said “witches aren’t even real”? The witches that then the Protestants for some reason decided were real and did all the weird stuff witchfinders made up and tortured people (mostly women) until they confessed to being carried through the air to unhallowed ground where they then do ridiculous sex acts with the devil to become witches? That is real?

That is where witches come from. Satan invented them only in the last few centuries. He showed remarkable restraint before then. The references to witchcraft in the English bible come from the King James translation. King James was convinced there was an international cabal of witches out to get Christianity and often him and his wife in particular. At the time belief in witches in general was under a lot of skepticism. King James wrote Daemonologie, a dialogue defending the existence of witches and their danger. Of course the scholars who translated the Bible for him backed him on witches being a thing.

Have a reading of his book in an approximation of their accent. It makes for good listening when you are doing physical chores.

This group looks to be just Mormonism as imagined by Puritan or fundamentalist American Christian converts who are holding on to their old beliefs. YUCKY!!!!!!

Edited March 10, 2024 by The Nehor

[CV75]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also are we sure we all have the same Father?

This suggests a council of heavenly parents taking turns in giving up their parental rights by choosing one among them to act as the father of an only begotten son in the flesh to be the one redeemer and father of all their premortal children’s spiritual rebirth, and ultimately return them to the only begetting father though the seal of the only begotten son and then expanding this seal to each set of original heavenly parents so that eternal relationships can be resumed post-resurrection. This renders nonspecific and potentially incorrect whomever Jesus meant as the addressee for the Lord’s Prayer since we cannot unitedly assume the "Our" part. Unless by grace we have been invited to worship a temporary, proxy heavenly person, to be sorted out later.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

This post deserves more likes. Many of the things they claim don’t align with today’s Church teachings and beliefs.

I would say they are the ones leading people away from the gospel.

That is correct -- they do not align. How many more do not align that merit our criticism?

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

How many more do not align that merit our criticism?

It’s not that the Stoddards et al have a different take on things, it’s that they presuppose that any scholar or leader who doesn’t align with them is actively seeking to contaminate the Gospel and/or is part of some larger effort to destroy the church. Church leadership, apologists, and faithful scholars do their best to give a faithful treatment to challenging issues but since they don’t provide some unsubstantiated, hagiographic fantasy, the JS Foundation writes them off as “progressive” enemies. It’s juvenile behavior and it will attract criticism. 

Edited March 10, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

It’s not that the Stoddards et al have a different take on things, it’s that they presuppose that any scholar or leader who doesn’t align with them is actively seeking to contaminate the Gospel and/or is part of some larger effort to destroy the church. Church leadership, apologists, and faithful scholars do their best to give a faithful treatment to challenging issues but since they don’t provide some unsubstantiated, hagiographic fantasy, the JS Foundation writes them off as “progressive” enemies. It’s juvenile behavior and it will attract criticism. 

I can top that -- I wrote off that website at first glance -- 2 seconds!

I did recently cull a few Googled historical quotes off it, so I'm guilty of that... but I repent! I repent!

Personally I don't engage in stuff like this, but i do enjoy critiquing ideas brought up for discussion on this forum.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

giving up their parental rights

This assumes perfect eternal beings care about having parental rights over others on their way to becoming perfect eternal beings.

Territory, including children as possessions, seems a very shallow concept to me to those who are truly one with each other and have all of everything as their dominion.

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is real?

So I misread the first reason as “never tell your kids that witches are real” and I thought “maybe it’s so when they read Harry Potter they don’t hope in vain for a letter from Hogwarts when they’re about to turn eleven?” But I love more that Hansel and Gretel is a cautionary tale of what can actually happen if you’re too young to wander through the woods by yourself. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

This suggests a council of heavenly parents taking turns in giving up their parental rights by choosing one among them to act as the father of an only begotten son in the flesh to be the one redeemer and father of all their premortal children’s spiritual rebirth, and ultimately return them to the only begetting father though the seal of the only begotten son and then expanding this seal to each set of original heavenly parents so that eternal relationships can be resumed post-resurrection. This renders nonspecific and potentially incorrect whomever Jesus meant as the addressee for the Lord’s Prayer since we cannot unitedly assume the "Our" part. Unless by grace we have been invited to worship a temporary, proxy heavenly person, to be sorted out later.

Or it means the Father is more than one person.

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

So I misread the first reason as “never tell your kids that witches are real” and I thought “maybe it’s so when they read Harry Potter they don’t hope in vain for a letter from Hogwarts when they’re about to turn eleven?” But I love more that Hansel and Gretel is a cautionary tale of what can actually happen if you’re too young to wander through the woods by yourself. 

A Puritan reacts to Harry Potter:

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This assumes perfect eternal beings care about having parental rights over others on their way to becoming perfect eternal beings.

Territory, including children as possessions, seems a very shallow concept to me to those who are truly one with each other and have all of everything as their dominion.

I would say that in my assumption, parental rights is a very deep concept to eternal beings who are truly one with each other and who treat each other and their children with great interest and care, on an individual, personal covenant basis where everyone has a place in the heavenly order. I'm assuming heavenly parents have a covenant relationship with their spirit offspring, which is as deeply immutable, inalterable and perpetual as the more physical, genetic relationship between mortal parents and children. Having such rights, each set of parents takes full responsibility for implementing the plan of exaltation for their family -- no escaping it, delegating it, sharing it, etc. The larger community of gods in my view would serve other functions.

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Or it means the Father is more than one person.

Yes, that would suggest the council of heavenly parents I mentioned, which I suggest serves other essential functions than surrogate and proxy parenting (where parenting entails the work of organizing and exalting offspring that requires one of them to perform the services of an only begotten son of the father).

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would say that in my assumption, parental rights is a very deep concept to eternal beings who are truly one with each other and who treat each other and their children with great interest and care, on an individual, personal covenant basis where everyone has a place in the heavenly order. I'm assuming heavenly parents have a covenant relationship with their spirit offspring, which is as deeply immutable, inalterable and perpetual as the more physical, genetic relationship between mortal parents and children. Having such rights, each set of parents takes full responsibility for implementing the plan of exaltation for their family -- no escaping it, delegating it, sharing it, etc. The larger community of gods in my view would serve other functions.

Why would rights be even needed in a world where no one would threaten to remove them?

You don’t need a law against theft if no one steals anything.

When love and concern is the true foundation of a relationship, no one needs to appeal or speak of rights, especially when everyone is on the same page for what is needed, acting in unison.

It is opposition, competition, and conflict that create a need for rights.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

When love and concern is the true foundation of a relationship, no one needs to appeal or speak of rights, especially when everyone is on the same page for what is needed, acting in unison.

It is opposition, competition, and conflict that create a need for rights.

Very interesting observation!

Something else that imo will no longer be in play in a world where "love and concern is the true foundation of relationships" is, fear.

Notice how pervasive fear is here in this Telestial world:  Fear of physical harm in its many forms; fear of shame; fear of the government and/or law enforcement; fear of criminals; fear of whoever has power over us; fear of social pressure/disapproval/social backlash; fear of financial disaster; fear of rejection; fear of loved ones being in distress; fear of God's judgment and condemnation; fear of missing out on the highest exaltation; fear of war including nuclear war; fear of natural (or unnatural) disasters; fear of those other guys winning the election; fear of public speaking; fear of having our secrets exposed; fear of separation; fear of being trapped; fear of being cheated; fear of being "less than"; fear of change; fear of failure; fear of people who are too different from us; fear of loss; fear of making a fool of oneself; fear of sickness and/or aging; fear of the dying process; fear of death, ours and our loved ones'; fear that our beliefs are wrong... and fear that our beliefs are right.  Not to mention whatever I left out.  (I hope I'm not making a fool of myself!)

But apparently there is a very different level, a much higher level, a level where "love and concern are the true foundation of relationships".  One might even say, a level where "perfect love casts out fear."

Wouldn't that be wonderful?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if there really was nothing to fear?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if everything that came our way was an opportunity to progress, and was for our highest good, even if disguised as something else?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were completely free to love and be loved without anyone having to make a decision about it?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if the most fundamental and pervasive reality is love, and all we need do is lay aside our every barrier to the awareness of love's presence? 

Such might fall under the umbrella of "on earth as it is in heaven".

In my opinion.  

Edited March 11, 2024 by manol

[manol]

Oops... padding my post count (and making a fool of myself) again!

Edited March 11, 2024 by manol

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Why would rights be even needed in a world where no one would threaten to remove them?

You don’t need a law against theft if no one steals anything.

When love and concern is the true foundation of a relationship, no one needs to appeal or speak of rights, especially when everyone is on the same page for what is needed, acting in unison.

It is opposition, competition, and conflict that create a need for rights.

I rather look at the right as Abraham did (Abraham 1:2), and the law as Christ referred to Himself, as expressions of divine love and concern. I envision our Heavenly Parents operating in their eternal, holy order (the eternal order being a system and arrangement of law and rights) -- the same rationale that supports organized religion supports organized exaltation. I see the organization as one of heavenly parents intimately connected to their spirit children, including an only begotten son to serve as the spiritual father of their spiritual rebirth in the flesh and of their physical resurrection.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, manol said:

Very interesting observation!

Something else that imo will no longer be in play in a world where "love and concern is the true foundation of relationships" is, fear.

Notice how pervasive fear is here in this Telestial world:  Fear of physical harm in its many forms; fear of shame; fear of the government and/or law enforcement; fear of criminals; fear of whoever has power over us; fear of social pressure/disapproval/social backlash; fear of financial disaster; fear of rejection; fear of loved ones being in distress; fear of God's judgment and condemnation; fear of missing out on the highest exaltation; fear of war including nuclear war; fear of natural (or unnatural) disasters; fear of those other guys winning the election; fear of public speaking; fear of having our secrets exposed; fear of separation; fear of being trapped; fear of being cheated; fear of being "less than"; fear of change; fear of failure; fear of people who are too different from us; fear of loss; fear of making a fool of oneself; fear of sickness and/or aging; fear of the dying process; fear of death, ours and our loved ones'; fear that our beliefs are wrong... and fear that our beliefs are right.  Not to mention whatever I left out.  (I hope I'm not making a fool of myself!)

But apparently there is a very different level, a much higher level, a level where "love and concern are the true foundation of relationships".  One might even say, a level where "perfect love casts out fear."

Wouldn't that be wonderful?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if there really was nothing to fear?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if everything that came our way was an opportunity to progress, and was for our highest good, even if disguised as something else?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were completely free to love and be loved without anyone having to make a decision about it?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if the most fundamental and pervasive reality is love, and all we need do is lay aside our every barrier to the awareness of love's presence? 

Such might fall under the umbrella of "on earth as it is in heaven".

In my opinion.  

I would say there are many emotional and mental states establishing many kinds of relationships. We often use the word “true” to convey “perfect,” “whole,” or “complete.” Because we are currently focusing on heavenly relationships, I’ll refer to how this is addressed in the New Testament.

Love makes loving relationships and heavenly attributes make heavenly relationships: “We love him, because he first loved us” (John 4:19). The One who loves first and perfectly has no fear: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear…” (John 4:18), and conversely, “fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” So, the one who responds to Christ’s heavenly love must overcome fear also, and we are made perfect in love after responding to the One who loved first and loves perfectly. In this way, and expressed by this formula, love is also a law, or there are laws that govern love to bring it about, make it perfect and infuse it into perfect, heavenly relationships.

Covenants (arising within a system or order that includes laws and rights) are also foundational to loving, perfect, heavenly relationships. So, I would rephrase the proposition that "love and concern is the true foundation of relationships" to “love and concern of the godly or heavenly order are part of the foundation of perfect relationships.”

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I rather look at the right as Abraham did (Abraham 1:2), and the law as Christ referred to Himself, as expressions of divine love and concern. I envision our Heavenly Parents operating in their eternal, holy order (the eternal order being a system and arrangement of law and rights) -- the same rationale that supports organized religion supports organized exaltation. I see the organization as one of heavenly parents intimately connected to their spirit children, including an only begotten son to serve as the spiritual father of their spiritual rebirth in the flesh and of their physical resurrection.

And rights make sense in an environment where there are those who have things and those who don’t…but if Abraham had lived in a culture that had already given him the blessing he sought, there would be no need for him to call out a right to have it given him…it doesn’t make sense to request or demand something you already have.

A right that everyone has and everyone gets doesn’t not need to be identified as a right.

No one speaks of experiencing gravity as a right in our world because everyone experiences it and currently it is not something that can be taken away.  When something is inherent in the world, one does not have to demand or request it or do anything else to ensure one gets it, which is the purpose of defining something as a right.

Quote

our Heavenly Parents operating in their eternal, holy order (the eternal order being a system and arrangement of law and rights) -- the same rationale that supports organized religion supports organized exaltation.

We have to discuss and organize religion in mortality because it is not automatically present in our lives.  We have to actively seek the Spirit out and nurture it by creating vehicles of interacting and expressing it.

I think a good analogy is the difference between those who are raised in a language and those who learn it at school.

The vast majority of babies will learn to speak just by absorbing what is around them, observing what is natural behaviour in their families.  They don’t need structured lessons to learn, they just need to live the language like everyone else is in order to develop their ability.

A perfect baby wouldn’t even need to go to school to learn to fine tune language because they would be aware enough of the exceptions, etc due to the perfect communication that goes on around them.

Quote

I see the organization as one of heavenly parents intimately connected to their spirit children, including an only begotten son to serve as the spiritual father of their spiritual rebirth in the flesh and of their physical resurrection.

And this organization is the natural outcome of a loving relationship.  There is no need to artificially set up and impose a structure on the relationship like we need to do with our Church because mortal, fallen creatures don’t already have the knowledge and authority perfect Gods do.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm