Leaderboard

This feels like the mirror universe of that time I gizoogled the Church’s website.

I adore my assistant principle. She's a lovely woman and a good leader. She's also a transplant from out of the Mormon Corridor, very progressive-liberal and "woke", and as far as I'm aware has never been a member of the church (as in she now and then asks "dumb questions" about our students' beliefs). Anyway, today in the group chat to inspire us through the last day of school she shared a Jeffery R. Holland quote. It's fun to see good stuff being recognized all over.

I've never spent much time on their website and don't know that much about them at all. Sometimes being on this website doesn't feel right. I just chuckle when people dismiss some things they don't know anything about.

Here's what I don't get... (I'm not an expert on quantum mechanics by the way. Maybe one day I'll find time to study it "properly" and put to bed these issues, but for right now please accept my observations as the witterings of a rank amateur. OK here's the scenario: Alice and Bob, together at X, create a pair particles, each in a "coherent" state, with 50% chance of collapsing (if observed) into an up state or a down spin state. The two particles are entangled, so if Alice's collapses into an up state, then Bob's instantly collapses into the down state. Alice and Bob then move to A and B, which might be several light-years apart. They still do not observe their particles, so they are still in 50/50 superposition and still entangled. Then at a point A' (in the future of A) Alice looks at her particle and collapses it into the up state. At that same instant, Bob's particle (at B') must collapse into the down state. However, that means that a "message" (of sorts) must have travelled instantly from A' to B', which defies the "rule" that information cannot travel faster than light. Most YouTube videos at this point say "Weird, huh? Maybe faster-than-light communication is possible! Wouldn't that be cool?" before moving on to something else. However if Bob does not also observe his particle, he will not know anything about its spin state. Also, even if he did look at his particle and find it in the down state, he would not know whether he caused it to collapse himself, or whether it had already collapsed due to what Alice had done. The effect would be the same either way. Or to put it another way, Alice's action would have changed Bob's uncertainty from "aleatory" (uncertainty of chance) to "epistemic" (uncertainty of knowledge). So the only way Alice could signal Bob faster-than light would be to have Bob sit looking at the box containing his particle, and when he notices his uncertainty of the box's content changing from aleatory to epistemic, he knows that Alice has signalled. But how would he tell the difference? It is only when Alice and Bob come back together (at Y) and sees Alice's particle that he receives any information at all. One might say that the uncertainty was always epistemic: that the spin-states of both particles were decided at X, and it is only Alice and Bob's knowledge which is uncertain. But this (i) makes the whole thing even more boring and mundane, and (ii) requires the "local hidden variables" theory, which was (as I understand it) disproved by John Stewart Bell. So can "action at a distance" really have any impact on reality? If so, then how? And if not, is it really any more important than the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead?

I teach for a virtual charter which many consider to be homeschool-esque (don't get to pick the curriculum and I mentioned an upcoming potential issue elsewhere but you get to keep your kids home and you get to work with little old me.). I've always been a supporter of public schools and I would love to continue to be so, but it's becoming harder. If you ask me what to do about all those kids who don't have a good home life or real alternative options, I don't know what to tell you. It's a tragedy that I wish someone would figure out how to solve. I have a number of kids in my school who really shouldn't be schooled at home, the parents are so out to lunch or just plain abusive. But I can't think of many more options. We're at a point where a decision must be made. If you can't trust your local school, you have to pick something else and we may just have to stop worrying about the more unfortunate kids for the time being if we can't directly help them ourselves. The way I see it, there's a lot more education options that ever before, or at least made more accessible. We have the internet. You can look up anything on the internet, and a lot of it is free. Many states are becoming more reasonable in their expectations for homeschooling. Social media has made it easy to find homeschooling co-ops and mentors near you. Heck, with the right amount of being neighborly and haggling, you can even find a co-op or even another house you can drop your kid off at if you work/totally suck at teaching. Private schools are getting comfortable in offering possibilities for middle-class families. Some states have voucher options.

That seems to be how this is being handled most of the time. Gotta have the Spirit just to understand the truth behind the words of the Apostles and Prophets of the Lord. He who hath ears to hear, I suppose.

Elder Oaks rocks.

As I understand the symbolism is as follows: 4 faces: The ability to see all things in all places (directions) and that nothing can be hidden from their view and understanding. 4 wings: Power over all things both seen and unseen. hands: The ability to accomplish and do work. This symbolism is consistent with most all ancient religions that connect to current religious of the world - including Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism and others. The Traveler

Adam and Eve knew and partook of the tree of life first, so knowledge of just how good it is was not attained or appreciated until they partook of the tree of knowledge. I was saying that the fuller knowledge of just how good the tree of life was did not not come to them until after they partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, even by definition according to the names of the trees. I think they understandably felt a measure of trepidation and guilt at first, and that this escalated to a spiritually unhealthy level of fear and shame at the behest of the serpent. I take this from Genesis 3 where Adam does not answer the question of who told him he was naked (verse 11), but given that the serpent beguiled Eve, I believe he also coached them both to hide from the Lord by telling them it was shameful to be naked (which was also a lie in contrast to Genesis 2:25). Eventually their fear and shame after partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was replaced with the hope of the Savior and the joy of repentance through His merits.

When it comes to the doctrines of justification and sanctification the scriptures seem to present an interesting relationship between them and the law. In 2 Nephi 2:5 it plainly states that "by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off." We also read in D&C 88:38-39 "And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not these conditions are not justified." To me this makes perfect sense because our inability to perfectly keep the law condemns us making us unjustified. It is only through the grace and mercy of God that we are forgiven of breaking his laws and thus become justified. Meanwhile, the doctrine of sanctification appears to actually depend on the law. D&C 88:21 "And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom..." and then in verse 34 "that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same." The way I interpret the two different relationships with the law is that while we are currently unable to keep the law perfectly, perfectly keeping the law is ultimately what is required of us. So the Lord extends his mercy to us when we mess up (justification) while seeking to strengthen us and increase our desire and ability to more fully keep the law (sanctification). Is that how everyone else interprets these verses and these doctrines in general or is it something different/more?

I agree with you that the purpose of this life is NOT to return to the Garden of Eden. To most in the Christian world Adam and Eve were already at their pinnacle and they blew it. And the current desire of many of these same Christians is to return to a paradisiacal state. So I guess if they end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom they will have achieved their desire. But the restored gospel teaches us that that level of accomplishment is as the moon to the sun in our potential. I also agree with you that obedience is the process of becoming sanctified. Consider what Pres Woodruff taught: Whatever law anyone keeps he is preserved by that law, and he receives whatever reward that law guarantees unto him. It is the will of God that all His children should obey the highest law, that they may receive the highest glory that is ordained for all immortal beings. But God has given all His children an agency, to choose what law they will keep. I would equate the word "preserved" as he uses it with sanctify. We will be preserved, sanctified, saved, to the extent that we obey His laws and will then inherit a kingdom of glory in accordance to the law we obey. The glory of God, and I think it's safe to say the glory of each kingdom, is intelligence or in other words, light and truth. D&C 88: 13 tells us that "the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things... is the law by which all things are governed..." So in other words we will inherit the kingdom of glory or light that we allow ourselves to be governed by.

I see sanctification as the process through which regular old stuff becomes sacred and holy. We sanctify the bread and water (or really whatever we have that can fit the bill), and it becomes something sacred that stands as a symbol of the flesh and blood of Christ. Justification and redemption seem related. Both takes fallen old sinful me, and somehow removes my failings and sins as obstacles in my path to return to God.

I wonder if one could go so far as to suggest that it is the act of keeping divine law that (in conjunction with God’s enabling power) changes us in such a way as to sanctify us—that when we talk about the purpose of the Plan of Salvation being for us to learn and gain experience, it’s specifically to give us experience in obedience and to teach us through obedience. In this paradigm, as I conceptualize it, we inevitably fall short; which not only constitutes a failure to achieve sanctification; but a fall from our primal state of innocence into a state of sin. This, in turn required God to play not only an enabling role, but a redemptive role. From a semantical standpoint, having sinned, we can’t really be restored to a state of true “innocence”; but we could at least be put in an analogous state called “justification” in which sin no longer has claim upon us, but in which we also haven’t (yet) really become what God through His plan intended for us to become (ie, sanctified).

I have been sharing this and pointing it out to people for some time now. Sadly, even these words taught during General Conference are insufficient to sway even some of our leaders.

I signed off my marks last night (I'm a teacher) and immediately worried I'd got them wrong and would have to the them changed by chair's action. Spent the whole evening worrying - especially while I was out shopping. Woke up several times in the night CONVINCED they were wrong. Mentally ran through all the scenarios of how I would explain myself to "the man". Told myself that I didn't care. Realised that I did care. Got to work early an hour and a half early dared not look at the marks. Got the Bible out and read the book of Joel instead. (Remember the locusts?) Finally bit the bullet and got the marks spreadsheet up... The marks were fine.