FYI on LDS Creationism/Evolution history

[JVW]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

It has been about 20 years iirc since I have been able to sit long enough to trust I can last through an endowment session and I totally get my expectations might have caused me to miss this when I was attending, but my husband who has attended all along, disagrees it’s explicit.  He thinks it is a stretch.

I know we can’t quote language here, but I would be interested in hearing others’ interpretations of that part (hopefully we are thinking of the same part).

Just to be clear, I agree Lucifer mentions other worlds’s Adams and Eves being given fruit and I have seen a lot of discussion on how giving of the fruit at the right time is possibly the original method and if Eve hadn’t been suckered by Lucifer in this world, in time the Father or Christ would have given the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (whatever that means) to them.

What I am disagreeing on and I haven’t seen discussed iirc or didn’t catch at least if by chance you mentioned it here before is that Lucifer is saying he is the one who gave it on other worlds rather than just the process was there.  

I am going to find it very interesting if I am wrong on this.  Will be fun reshuffling how I connect everything.

I have a friend who has a theory about the Fall. I am still thinking on it (he's communicated it to me several years ago) and currently am unsure whether I agree with his views. He believes that the Fall is a priesthood ceremony and that when the Fall happens on any Earth it is God (or some other authorized servant) who gives the fruit to Adam and Eve. The reason why the devil was cursed was because he was standing in place of God when performing the ritual.

Edited January 8, 2025 by JVW

[Calm]

Added:  JVW edited his post so this part doesn’t apply any more, but leaving it up as a reminder….my rule of thumb is if you can find like language on the Church’s website, it’s a go.  If not, 👎

And if we hadn’t agreed to not post temple content on the board, I might be happy to quote it myself because I agree that isn’t part of what we covenanted not to share.  But other members may disagree plus there is the problem in the past with criticism of temple content taking away from the sense of sacred…

Whatever the reason, Nemesis has told us not to post temple content, which is why I have been trying to convey the language without too much detail.

Quote

Do not post sacred LDS temple content or links to LDS temple content

Probably would be a good idea to edit your post.  I don’t know if it is still the case, but people used to get banned for doing that.  I don’t think you would since you probably either didn’t read the guidelines all the way through or forgot or thought it wasn’t as restrictive (and maybe it isn’t anymore) and you aren’t doing so to criticize and no one else is speaking about it to criticize (at least not yet), we are just curious about meaning.

Just to be clear though, I think there may be a bit after that part where Lucifer explains what he did iirc along the lines of ‘I gave them something tasty to eat’ where I think that is where the ambiguity may exist.  I think Lucifer is only talking about what he did with our Adam and Eve and not others, but can see where someone could interpret it differently.

Edited January 8, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

34 minutes ago, JVW said:

I have a friend who has a theory about the Fall. I am still thinking on it (he's communicated it to me several years ago) and currently am unsure whether I agree with his views. He believes that the Fall is a priesthood ceremony and that when the Fall happens on any Earth it is God (or some other authorized servant) who gives the fruit to Adam and Eve. The reason why the devil was cursed was because he was standing in place of God when performing the ritual.

Then how would Adam and Eve commit the "necessary" transgression? The problem with this is that Celestial Beings would have a direct hand in using undue influence over Adam and Eve to "take the Fall." As I have referenced previously, God cannot organize a corruptible world.

[Calm]

Quote

He believes that the Fall is a priesthood ceremony and that when the Fall happens on any Earth it is God (or some other authorized servant) who gives the fruit to Adam and Eve. The reason why the devil was cursed was because he was standing in place of God when performing the ritual.

I would not be surprised if this is what is meant to be conveyed.  

The transgression is not the eating of the fruit, which is good.  It is in not listening to God and doing it the way he has appointed it to be done.  Good things done for the wrong/not appointed reasons even when those reasons are good as well, just inappropriate (English is getting in the way here, unauthorized is probably the most accurate term, but isn’t conveying what I mean well enough) can be problems.

If I am an employee at a bakery and I decide to give leftover at the end of the day bread to some families I know who could use a little help, I am doing a good thing for the right reasons, but because I don’t have the authority to do so, there may be unwanted consequences that could have been avoided (perhaps the boss has arranged the leftovers to go to a food bank that hands out food to those who have no food at all, where my families had enough food, hard up but not desperate and now some will go hungry because of my error).

I think there are numerous ways at constructing the story from levels of Adam and Eve being truly lacking in any knowledge of what was to come so they are clueless to the opposite option with them being symbolically innocent, meaning uninitiated but they are knowledgeable about the ceremony and what will come as they haven’t actually forgotten anything and have seen others undergo the ritual to other variations existing between the two extremes of awareness of what is to come.   

I think we are left to choose our own assumptions about context (what did God actually want them to do, what did they know, was it an historical event that took place in a real garden or a ritual in a temple that went off script or was the ritual enacted as it was meant to be, etc) to use the experience to access the Spirit in the way that works best for us.

Edited January 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, longview said:

As I have referenced previously, God cannot organize a corruptible world.

You have made a statement of fact that may be based on assumptions that may not be accurate.

Quote

God could not start with a fallen and corruptible world as it is not permitted by the eternal law of justice.

After all, he organized our spirits and in the end we can be corrupted.  Lucifer and other spirits in the preexistence were corrupted, were they not?

Quote

Then how would Adam and Eve commit the "necessary" transgression?

Sounds like something similar to Saul offering sacrifices he was not appointed to do because he got impatient and thought it a good thing to speed things up.

Oops…I just realized I misunderstood.  You mean how could a Fall occur on other worlds where there was no breaking of the ordinance.  Good question

If the Priesthood Ordinance of giving of the fruit always is symbolic of a Fall, perhaps the Fall is not not originally a Fall, but instead a progression to a new stage of development on other worlds.   If the creation act is giving of new purpose, a new function (thus the naming of things already in existence), creation of a new world could be similar to how we think of a new invention created a new world, it’s a new way of living rather than everything being destroyed down to the earth dissolving into particles to be reformed around us.
 

Going off to college for a first taste of independence from Mom and Dad is not typically a result of breaking the rules, but being successful in fulfilling them.

Edited January 8, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 hours ago, webbles said:

I've got a print out of the Endowment (the Tanners had published it) from pre-1990 changes.  It doesn't say that then.

As an evil exmormon, I don’t have any issues looking at the text and can confirm that post 1990, Lucifer does not explicitly state this. I guess it’s not ruled out, but a plain reading does not imply this. In fact I’d say a plain reading indicates that this was Lucifer’s first time. I stopped going before the more recent changes and have never seen them printed online. 

[Teancum]

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

When I was born, Heber J. Grant was the Prophet, and there were less than a million Latter-day Saints.  When I was baptized, George Albert Smith was Prophet and the LDS Church had one million members.  Charts of LDS Church long-term growth are readily available online and tend to provide a valid sense of perspective.  A CPA should be able to understand what that means. Instead, you speak as it the LDS Church is in freefall, dissolving before our very eyes. 

Wow!  Heber J Grant.  You have seen a lot of changes for sure. But no. I do not dispute the growth that the church has experiences at all.  And no, I have never argues the church is in free fall. In fact I have on other places argued with some that think the church is dissolving  before our eyes and cheering about it. I argue with them that the church will likely be around hundreds of years from now.  I just do not think growth wise and activity rate wise that it is thriving like it has in past years.  That could change. I personally don't think the church will ever see the robust growth is had from your birth to the early 2000s when the information age made it easier for people to research things that were not as easily available before.  I also think the church has really watered down its message and doctrinal claims that makes it stand out and unique and well, attractive to many.  Just my opinion though

 

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

There have always been Jack Mormons, and there has been drift both in and out of the LDS community.

Yes I know that. Since we are dating ourselves I was born when President McKay was president and I grew up in Utah.  My parents could be classed as Jack Mormons and I knew a bunch such in the then Sandy Utah 17th Ward. One was my scout master and he was a great scout master.

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

  A sitting Senator, Marco Rubio, who may be our next Secretary of State, was once LDS, but went back to Catholicism.  I have no problem with religious switching, nor people leaving religion behind entirely.  That is nothing new, and it is not causing the destruction of the LDS Church.

Ok but again I have not once argued that the church is headed for destruction.  Thus my comments that you are setting up straw men.

 

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You definitely lack a sense of perspective on all this, poohpoohing what the LDS Church actually does worldwide on the one hand, and then claiming that it has "vast resources," which should enable it to do far more. 

I disagree. Those who run the church, both the leaders and those who work for the church are very talented.  The fact that EPA has accumulated somewhere in the range of $100 to $150 billion in maybe a 30 year period is impressive.  Add to that the vast amount of land and property well the church is worth at least $280 billion.  But they are also a victim of their success because as many have argued here about this, deploying vast sums of money for relieving human suffering is hard.  And let's get one thing straight if we are going to discuss this. I am not for just throwing money at humanitarian need projects.  I am impressed with what the church has been doing and they seem to be upping their game here.  I think that they can do more and have some ideas on how they might responsibly go about that.

 

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

In fact, the LDS Church is a very small religious organization which maximizes it potential in ways uncommon to religious groups.  It's growth is not even close to being adequate to address the population growth of planet Earth -- which far outstrips LDS growth.

Yes ok.  So? 

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

  The LDS Church can only hope to provide a religious cadre for the end times, which is what the "LDS" in LDS Church is all about.  Why are you so angry at the Brethren for not immediately spending all those extra billions? 

Sigh.  Why do you keep killing puppies?  I am not angry at all at the brethren. A lot of my hard earned money went to the church and likely helped grow the EPA fund. By that is a sunk cost and I gave willingly and don't expect it back. I think these law suits by disaffected members that think they can be paid back free will contributions are stupid.  But because the church continues to accumulate massive wealth and while a few billion a year in human aid is not chump change it is small compared to what they have. So rather than help build the EPA fund I give my $$ where I am confident it will go to relieve human suffering.  Heck, Bill Gates and his foundation, while not perfect, does a heck of a lot more to reliever human suffering than the church. And at one point under President Monson, the church added relieving the suffering of the poor as a fourth mission. But the church can do whatever it wants and I lose no sleep over it. This is just a topic of interest to me.

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

You clearly do not trust them to take their orders from God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.  That tithing, after all, belongs to God.  It is not ours to withhold.

In my personal opinion, if there is a God and Jesus is his son, based on what I understand Jesus taught about wealth and relieving human suffering I do not think Jesus would be happy with His church being one of the most wealthiest organizations on the planet while there is untold suffering in the world.  The leaders of the Church are stewards of that money. It is not yours or mine or theirs.  So yea, if Jesus is real I think they are not hearing Him and what he would want them to do. 

 

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, for the umpteenth time, but you miss the main point, which is that a member in good standing need not pay tithing, and will not be audited and will not be punished for it.  I have known members in good standing who did not pay tithing.  Yet years later they were full tithe payers.  What happened to them in the interim?  The covenant path is not a rest-stop or house.  It is a path.  Where each of us is, on that path is up to us, and backbiting is never called for.  For many, hearing the Gospel preached and practicing repentance has the utmost value.  The fallacy of perfection does have a negative impact on some, as though, if everything is not immediately perfect, we must apostatize.  The Gospel instead encourages meekness, patience and long-suffering.

And for the umpteenth time you miss the main point that there are things a non tithe payer will be restricted from. Sure they can participate, take the sacrament, home or visit teach or whatever it is now called, and hold a lot of callings. But they cannot attend the temple, hold certain calling and may be limited in priesthood advancement. Do you dispute this?  A simple yes or no rather than a dodge. I have asked a number of times and you dance around it.

 

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I know of no Scripture which could support such an odd claim, unless of course you are asserting that the Kingdom of God Earth (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is governed by some sort of vow of poverty.

Oh brother 😐

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

The Mall you speak of was a very wise real-estate investment which is paying big dividends.  Just what Jesus called for in his Parable of the Talents.  However, you insist that the investments have done too well.  And that huge parts of such dividends should be spent now.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I just noted that was only one of two things EPA ever spent it money on. I did not opine about whether it was good or bad.

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The wise principle is very clear:  Judicious application of funds is always good, whereas huge sums of tax money expended to no good effect is irresponsible.  The most common mistake is to take care of short-term needs and never to deal with the long-term problem.  That is the failure of the Nanny-state.  Listen to Thomas Sowell sometime and he will explain to you how such failures have become endemic in America.

I am not a big Thomas Sowell fan and your comment above and the video is not relevant to our discussion.  And I think he is terribly wrong in a number of his conclusions.

On 1/7/2025 at 4:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

. I just noted that was only one of two things EPA ever spent it money on

That we are aware of.

I don’t know why this “two things EPA ever spent money on” keeps getting reported as a fact when it is clearly not.

It has been many years since that handout was produced, so it is at least a decade out of date iirc.  That means many opportunities that may have been taken advantage of, especially since there seems to have been an intentional jump in humanitarian expenditures in more recent years.  

The conclusion from the handout may not have been accurate in the first place.  Perhaps the info provided was incomplete.  Perhaps the person who prepared the handout was not aware of all expenditures.

And the handout might even have been faked though I doubt it.  It did not come through official channels and I don’t see a fundamental reason to trust that it couldn’t have been created to cause issues for the Church…I just don’t think it likely was by Nielsen as it could be easily refuted though perhaps he knew the Church or EPA would never publicly respond.

I think saying ‘only one of two things EPA ever spent money on as far as we know’ is concerning enough and since it is accurate, less easy to dismiss with a “that’s not true” (though EPA had expenses it spent money on so maybe “invested in” is more accurate).

Edited January 8, 2025 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/7/2025 at 11:28 AM, Teancum said:

Ummm no. The tithing requirements and a heavy emphasis on complying is from the LDS church leadership. And you still seem not willing to answer the specific questions I ask about tithing. I am not arguing that one gets the boot for not paying nor am I arguing that a non tithe payer cannot participate in much of the things Mormonism offers. But one CANNOT attend temple as a not tithe payer in general. Though some bishops may be flexible. When a bishop I had a sister who had not tithed for sometime. Her husband was not a member.  She desired to go to temple had started paying tithing. I gave her a recommend and did not expect a catch up payment.  And also, once again, priesthood advancement and not being called to some higher positions in the church are restricted from non tithe payers. Do you deny this?

You still sound like a refugee from the Church of Scientology, where coercion and punishment are standard procedure (and they put you on the "box" and make you pay for it).  Failure to meet even minimal expectations can bring shunning among the Amish.  I have never heard of any such thing among LDS Church members.  I'm very happy that they are not so rigid and demanding.  The LDS Church has always been very loosely controlled, allowing members and visitors to find their own way, and that is its strength.  The harshly demanding LDS Church of control freaks which you describe is a fantasy.

Some MSSA members estimated in 2012 that less than half of LDS adults in Utah have temple marriages, while around one-third of LDS adults in North America have temple recommends, and Armand Mauss seems to agree that this is true in the American West.  Most of them found a Pew survey on this in error.  https://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2012/01/19/q-what-percentage-of-mormons-regularly-participate-in-temple-worship/#:~:text=Based on the above information,Stewart offered the following response: 

The demands which you place front and center don't seem to matter to most LDS members, without taking into consideration where on the covenant path they might find themselves.  Indeed, back in 2012 on this board, I confronted the late Bill Hamblin on his extremely narrow views:  I suggested then that it be well to adopt the very expansive and tolerant views of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, as enunciated in his March 4, 2006, PBS interview, transcript online at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html .  I have several reasons for that: 

(1)  Some members of the LDS Church may not behave in ways which seem to make them “worthy.”  To read them out of the Church, short of excommunication, may more likely prevent their eventual repentance and reactivation.  Indeed, they may express some very extreme views on this or that matter of doctrine and remain inactive for decades.  We must not give up on them.

(2)  Some members have been excommunicated, but remain active and friendly in some way.  We have all heard of the late Lavina Fielding Anderson, who continued to attend LDS services regularly and had for decades played piano in Relief Society meetings.  Another excommunicant regularly goes to ward socials with his family and is very friendly and gregarious.

(3)  Many members who are inactive were born into a Mormon family and consider themselves LDS.  They may have no particular beliefs, and may smoke, drink, carouse, and go to jail from time to time.  If they were in the military, it said “Latter-day Saint” on their dog tags.  If not deliberately read out of the Church by up-tight TBMs, they might well reform and become active.  I don’t care if we refer to such people as “Jack Mormons,” or something else, we need to treat them like brothers.  They need love, kindness, and caring.

I caught Bill Hamblin publicly, verbally attacking fellow LDS members for some of their beliefs (fellow scholars with PhDs).  I read him the riot act then and there.  We all need to take the high road.

Edited January 8, 2025 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/7/2025 at 12:48 PM, Teancum said:

So a non tithe payer can be a bishop? A SP? Advance in the priesthood?  Attend the temple.  ................

Hardly anyone becomes a bishop, and even less stake patriarchs.  Maybe a third of members attend temple -- in America.

Indeed, if tithing is really so important, why does the bishop not require pay stubs, bank statements, and IRS forms?  Why is the LDS corporation run so loosely?  You'd think that they would go broke.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/7/2025 at 1:12 PM, longview said:

So it is your belief that there was no transition from the Terrestrial State to fallen, corruptible human nature? You seem to think there was NO need for the FALL, that it is was NOT a historical event, that this was NOT a necessary event in the "Great Plan of Redemption" ? Why would simply consuming plants and animals that were "derived" from the dust of the Earth cause their bodies to become corrupted?

The transition from celestial, terrestrial, to telestial is beyond my comprehension.  The "nuts and bolts" must be amazing. None of us needs to know now, but we will someday on the other side.

On 1/7/2025 at 1:12 PM, longview said:

What are your thoughts of "intelligences" being invited by Heavenly Parents to become spirit children in the First Estate (so-called pre-existence) ? Is it your opinion that "spirit bodies" were taken from somewhere so that intelligences could take possession and become a "new creature" ? 

Whatever "intelligences" are, they are the only necessary part of our being (our eternal nature).  I have no idea how they are accessed and then incorporated into divine reproduction.  Would make a good sc-fi story.

On 1/7/2025 at 1:12 PM, longview said:

There are a few statements by Brigham Young that do NOT always square with the Gospel (such as the Adam-God assertions). BYU scholars have tried to research B.Y's statements but were unable to make sense of it (they say B.Y. has contradicted himself in those few instances). Therefore we would need to be wary of some of brethren's comments and consider them to be casual speculations or ill considered opinions. Even Orson Pratt felt the need to strongly counter B.Y. back in the day.

Brigham was backed up by subsequent Presidents, whom I quoted.  Orson did not oppose him on that at all.  Read Orson's expansive comments in his The Seer.

Orson attacked Brigham for his Adam-God notions and for racism and made it clear that denying Black members access to the temple, and Black men the priesthood was against the teachings and practices of Joseph.  Orson turns out to have been entirely correct on those counts.

On 1/7/2025 at 1:12 PM, longview said:

In the Endowment Adam and Eve are presented as being fully grown adults. It would NOT be "figurative" for them to be "under age". Their wrestle was real in that they had to commit a "transgression" one way or the other: 1- partake of the fruit; 2- remain "unchangeable" forever in the Garden. They could NOT obey both. Why do you discount Lehi's explanation?

..................................

In his latest book, We Who Wrestle With God, Jordan Peterson points out that the Bible is about you and me, not a bunch of stories about somebody else.  In the LDS endowment we are each adam & eve.  Each of us witnesses God bring order out of chaos, and each of us participates in a dramatic ritual initiation, making oaths and covenants.  Pure liturgy.  In no sense is it to be taken as historical narrative or a scientific text.  That is not its purpose.  As to Lehi's profound Law of Opposites, I might mention Dan McClellan's recent comment online about the word "difference" in Jude 22, which is misinterpreted by nearly everyone.  It refers to the distinction between opposing views.

Speaking about the purpose of William Shakespeare's plays, Frances Yates said:

Quote

To the cosmic meanings of the ancient theatre, with its plan based on the triangulations within the zodiac, was added the religious and cosmic meanings of the Renaissance church.  The Globe Theatre was a magical theatre, a cosmic theatre, a religious theatre, an actors' theatre, designed to give fullest support to the voices and gestures of the players as they enacted the drama of the life of man within the Theatre of the World.  These meanings might not have been apparent to all, but they would have been known to the initiated.  His theatre would have been for Shakespeare the pattern of the universe, the idea of the Macrocosm, the world stage on which the Microcosm acted his parts.  All the world's a stage.   Yates, Theatre of the World, 189, going on to mention the "cosmic allusions, a liturgical element in this drama."  Cf. Peter Arnade, Realms of Ritual: Burgundian Ceremony & Civic Life in Late Medieval Ghent (1996), for earlier public, theatrical rituals of power.

 

Quote

Are you inclined to agree with Bukowski (member of this board with at least two different avatar names) that the all scriptures are mostly ahistorical? Do you think that Jesus making reference to the story of Jonah and the Whale was being literal or figurative? The Book of Mormon does NOT need to be a college textbook but does contain plenty of historical facts such as names of prophets, kings, struggles of the people, and their warfare.

The Bible in particular is filled with liturgy, poetry (Psalms and Prophets), legislation, wisdom, epistles, parables, and a great deal of historical narrative.  It should be read in its earliest available form by someone trained in literary technique.  If that is not possible, get a good study Bible with notes and read the adventure stories first -- because they are about you.  Even if they are parables, they are about you.  Same applies to the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses -- and even Joseph's First Vision.  They are stories about you.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/7/2025 at 1:56 PM, marineland said:

Was the Adam from that other planet formed from the soil of that planet or through
a procreative act of the first or subsequent mortal parents from that other planet?

I have no idea how Michael got here from his home planet, nor his wife.  He was not a Promethean "Engineer," but the sci-fi of Ridley Scott might be one way to look at it.

We may even be dealing with panspermia, which is looking more meaningful every year:  https://youtu.be/mO46CNftRDs .

 

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hardly anyone becomes a bishop, and even less stake patriarchs.  Maybe a third of members attend temple -- in America.

Indeed, if tithing is really so important, why does the bishop not require pay stubs, bank statements, and IRS forms?  Why is the LDS corporation run so loosely?  You'd think that they would go broke.

I don’t pay tithing through my Ward — I send it directly to Salt Lake City.  If my Bishop needed to confirm that I am a full tithe payer — other than my saying so — he has no way of confirming that I have paid anything at all; and yet I do have a Temple Recommend.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

..................But no. I do not dispute the growth that the church has experiences at all.  And no, I have never argues the church is in free fall. In fact I have on other places argued with some that think the church is dissolving  before our eyes and cheering about it. I argue with them that the church will likely be around hundreds of years from now.  I just do not think growth wise and activity rate wise that it is thriving like it has in past years.  That could change. I personally don't think the church will ever see the robust growth is had from your birth to the early 2000s when the information age made it easier for people to research things that were not as easily available before.

You may be right on most of those counts, but I don't believe that the LDS Church will "be around hundreds of years from now," unless you are speaking of the Millennium.  These are the end times, and everything is rolling up rather quickly.  "Latter-day Saints" hundreds of years from now would be an oxymoron.  Scholars already term Jesus a failed apocalyptic prophet.

I won't even mention the multiple singularities now facing humanity.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I also think the church has really watered down its message and doctrinal claims that makes it stand out and unique and well, attractive to many.  Just my opinion though

More evidence for the loose administration of the worldwide LDS Church.  Just one  more reason why a temple recommend is not central.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes I know that. Since we are dating ourselves I was born when President McKay was president and I grew up in Utah.  My parents could be classed as Jack Mormons and I knew a bunch such in the then Sandy Utah 17th Ward. One was my scout master and he was a great scout master.

Ok but again I have not once argued that the church is headed for destruction.  Thus my comments that you are setting up straw men.

Sorry I misunderstood your position.  I grew up in California, and held Utah in contempt as a land of hicks who talked funny.  I pretty much ignored the Church as a kid, and my scoutmaster and troop met in the basement of the local Congregational Church.  Only later, when I arrived at BYU did my eyes begin to open.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I disagree. Those who run the church, both the leaders and those who work for the church are very talented.  The fact that EPA has accumulated somewhere in the range of $100 to $150 billion in maybe a 30 year period is impressive.  Add to that the vast amount of land and property well the church is worth at least $280 billion.  But they are also a victim of their success because as many have argued here about this, deploying vast sums of money for relieving human suffering is hard.  And let's get one thing straight if we are going to discuss this. I am not for just throwing money at humanitarian need projects.  I am impressed with what the church has been doing and they seem to be upping their game here.  I think that they can do more and have some ideas on how they might responsibly go about that.

OK, I can agree on all that.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

...............................

Sigh.  Why do you keep killing puppies?  I am not angry at all at the brethren. A lot of my hard earned money went to the church and likely helped grow the EPA fund. By that is a sunk cost and I gave willingly and don't expect it back. I think these law suits by disaffected members that think they can be paid back free will contributions are stupid.  But because the church continues to accumulate massive wealth and while a few billion a year in human aid is not chump change it is small compared to what they have. So rather than help build the EPA fund I give my $$ where I am confident it will go to relieve human suffering.  Heck, Bill Gates and his foundation, while not perfect, does a heck of a lot more to reliever human suffering than the church. And at one point under President Monson, the church added relieving the suffering of the poor as a fourth mission. But the church can do whatever it wants and I lose no sleep over it. This is just a topic of interest to me.

In my personal opinion, if there is a God and Jesus is his son, based on what I understand Jesus taught about wealth and relieving human suffering I do not think Jesus would be happy with His church being one of the most wealthiest organizations on the planet while there is untold suffering in the world.  The leaders of the Church are stewards of that money. It is not yours or mine or theirs.  So yea, if Jesus is real I think they are not hearing Him and what he would want them to do. 

Yes, they are indeed the stewards.  Yet you are in the agnostic camp?  About Jesus, I mean.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And for the umpteenth time you miss the main point that there are things a non tithe payer will be restricted from. Sure they can participate, take the sacrament, home or visit teach or whatever it is now called, and hold a lot of callings. But they cannot attend the temple, hold certain calling and may be limited in priesthood advancement. Do you dispute this?  A simple yes or no rather than a dodge. I have asked a number of times and you dance around it.

I have replied "of course" several times, but always took a dig at your aggrandizement of a temple recommend (I have one by the way, even though I seldom attend nowadays -- age is catching up with me).  I had a stake president who said that doing genealogy was as important as attending the temple.  I follow his sage advice.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

..................

I am not a big Thomas Sowell fan and your comment above and the video is not relevant to our discussion.  And I think he is terribly wrong in a number of his conclusions.

Sorry to annoy you with that video.  It's just that, as a young man, I was an activist in the civil rights movement, marching with Dr King's SCLC and NAACP.  One of my close LDS friends was a Freedom Rider in the deep South (later he was one of Hugh Nibley's grad assistants).   It now breaks my heart to find the woke cult destroying the MLK legacy -- while pretending that they are doing something worthwhile.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I don’t pay tithing through my Ward — I send it directly to Salt Lake City.  If my Bishop needed to confirm that I am a full tithe payer — other than my saying so — he has no way of confirming that I have paid anything at all; and yet I do have a Temple Recommend.

Yeh, I understand.  I have also adopted paying online.  Same for filing tax forms.  Things have certainly changed since the days when I worked at H&R Block, and as a ward financial clerk.  Cash and checks predominated.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/7/2025 at 6:24 PM, longview said:

I don't remember if this is in the latest presentation of the Endowment but for sure in the past, Lucifer explicitly stated that he personally had been giving the "fruit to them."

Yes, he refers to past practice on other worlds.  Sounds very much to me like a dramatic ritual role for him.  Same for Satan in Job, which is another ritual dramatic performance:  Richard Medina, “Job’s Entrée into a Ritual of Mourning as Seen in the Opening Prose of the Book of Job,” Die Welt des Orients, 38 (2008), 199,

Quote

“Through stylized movements, acts and speech, they enter into the liminal state . . , decouple from the sphere of day-to-day life and adopt a transitory ritual identity.”

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, he refers to past practice on other worlds

Are you saying Lucifer is saying he did it on other worlds in the past or that is happened on other worlds in the past?

This is Longview’s interpretation:

Quote

It appears that on all the "concurrent earths" he had been giving the Fruit to respective Adam/Eves without consequence. When he got to "our Earth" he finally was punished for doing this act which surprised him.

I don’t think Lucifer did it on previous worlds nor do I think he was surprised he was punished.  I think he was a sulky teenager caught trying to pretend he was an adult, maybe like a 13 year old stealing Dad’s keys and totaling the car and then claiming it was someone else’s fault, he hadn’t done anything different than Dad did.

Edited January 9, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

God could not start with a fallen and corruptible world as it is not permitted by the eternal law of justice.

After all, he organized our spirits and in the end we can be corrupted.  Lucifer and other spirits in the preexistence were corrupted, were they not?

Intelligences have no beginning so they are co-eternal with the Gods. Thus God did NOT create/organize the intelligences. In the First Estate (pre-existence), they were offered spirit bodies to occupy which enabled them to enter into a more advanced state of being. Plus they were able to engage in some kind of progression as they gained more knowledge and practiced more skills. At this point, they fulfilled the measure of their creation as spirit children. All had free agency. Most progressed as they followed the teachings and commandments of God. Others started to take perverse delight in making contrarian choices. Thus wicked spirit children started corrupting themselves and became more alienated against God. It was NOT God's responsibility for the intelligences to abuse their own spirit bodies.

There was a war in heaven. Lucifer contesting the implementation of the Plan of Redemption. Finally the rebellious third of the host were cast out because no unclean things can remain in God's presence.

The righteous two thirds chose to participate in the Plan of Redemption because their progression as spirit children had tapered off. The Plan offered a new set of experiences that would greatly accelerate their progression by allowing their spirit bodies to be born into physical mortal "clay tabernacles" with the veil of forgetfulness placed over their minds. This is the Second Estate.

Then comes the Resurrection: 1- into glorious Celestial bodies for those who proved valiant in the testimony of Jesus and keeping all the covenants; 2- into the Terrestrial for the wishy-washy; 3- into the Telestial for the carnally minded and perverse.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, longview said:

Thus God did NOT create/organize the intelligences.

Right.  And the fundamental material God creates/organizes the earths from is also coeternal, is it not?

Edited January 9, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t think Lucifer did it on previous worlds nor do I think he was surprised he was punished.  I think he was a sulky teenager caught trying to pretend he was an adult, maybe like a 13 year old stealing Dad’s keys and totaling the car and then claiming it was someone else’s fault, he hadn’t done anything different than Dad did.

It was NOT a "sulky teenager" that waged warfare in Heaven as he tried to destroy the Plan of Redemption. He was filled with corrosive hatred for both the Father and the Lamb of God. What would have happened if Lucifer had succeeded in turning three fourths of the host against God? Would that have defeated the Plan?

[longview]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right.  And the fundamental material God creates/organizes the earths from is also coeternal, is it not?

We do not know what kind of "material" is used for forming Celestial bodies as opposed to Terrestrial bodies and to Telestial. They probably are profoundly unalike.

I believe that the matter we are able to examine consist of carnal elements such as protons, electrons, neutrinos and various other bosons. We are unable to examine spirit matter which (according to Joseph Smith) consist of much "finer" materials.

In my readings of science articles, I have learned that ALL carnal matter have a limited life span and are subject to eventual decay. Even photons will decay. I believe that decayed matter eventually flow into various other dimensions where they get transformed to other kinds of matter. This recycling is never ending. The temple Endowment does speak of "matter unorganized."

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

It was NOT a "sulky teenager" that waged warfare in Heaven as he tried to destroy the Plan of Redemption. He was filled with corrosive hatred for both the Father and the Lamb of God. 

 Lucifer who led the rebellion when he must have known it was hopeless in the long run so all he could achieve would be hurting those God loves and that was enough for him….yeah, that guy I take very seriously. 

But the story is told in many different ways and most times I encounter one I get a different reaction, though I never think he is anything but arrogant so am lacking in sympathy for him.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, longview said:

We do not know what kind of "material" is used for forming Celestial bodies as opposed to Terrestrial bodies and to Telestial. They probably are profoundly unalike.

Why not the same process for earths as for humans?  Or rather progression of stages?

If Adam and Eve had bodies that could be corrupted in the Garden, why doesn’t that count as God creating something that can be corrupted?  Why couldn’t the Earth also have a body that could be corrupted? Not saying he corrupted with the two humans or any earths, just that our creations included that possibility. 

Edited January 9, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, longview said:

In my readings of science articles, I have learned that ALL carnal matter have a limited life span and are subject to eventual decay. Even photons will decay. I believe that decayed matter eventually flow into various other dimensions where they get transformed to other kinds of matter. This recycling is never ending.

So you don’t believe our resurrected forms will be the same physical material that our mortal bodies are made of even though some scriptures and church leaders’ comment suggest that?

I currently frame my idea of the universe as all material goes through a similar process of development with some sort of intelligence that is clothed in spirit matter and then in physical matter, which physical matter is then somehow perfected so it no longer decays (spirit no longer will separate from the physical), but am very open to other ideas.

Edited January 9, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You still sound like a refugee from the Church of Scientology, where coercion and punishment are standard procedure (and they put you on the "box" and make you pay for it).  Failure to meet even minimal expectations can bring shunning among the Amish.  I have never heard of any such thing among LDS Church members.  I'm very happy that they are not so rigid and demanding.  The LDS Church has always been very loosely controlled, allowing members and visitors to find their own way, and that is its strength.  The harshly demanding LDS Church of control freaks which you describe is a fantasy.

Oh brother.  More straw men.  I have argued nothing of the sort.  I will conclude I win my points since all you seem able to do is build straw men and toss out  disparaging comments. 

Edited January 9, 2025 by Teancum