Just_A_Guy

D&C 76 is in many ways a response to the Gospel of John—it is thick with allusions to and quotations from that book of scripture. 76:24 reflects John 1:3 and 12; but with an important modifier: whereas John says Jesus gave us power to become children of God, Joseph Smith clarifies that actually we’ve been children of God all along.

1) Elder Oaks himself explains: The different soils on which the seeds fell represent different ways in which mortals receive and follow these teachings. Thus the seeds that “fell by the way side” (Mark 4:4) have not reached mortal soil where they might possibly grow. They are like teachings that fall upon a heart hardened or unprepared. I will say nothing more of these. My message concerns those of us who have committed to be followers of Christ. What do we do with the Savior’s teachings as we live our lives? In other words, he doesn’t feel that particular group concerns his particular audience in light of the broader points he is trying to make in that particular sermon. 2) Mr. Collins’s view of the role of birds in the parable of the mustard tree is intriguing, but it’s worth noting that in similar allegories of trees that give shelter to birds (Ezekiel 17, Daniel 4) the emphasis seems to be on the virtue/usefulness of the tree itself. I see the appeal of Collins’s interpretation for folks who hate Catholicism or are otherwise predisposed to find corruption in a church; but from what I can gather, his interpretation seems to be very much a minority view among scholars. 3) The parable of the sower was not, I think, intended as a doctrinal exposition about what actions lead to a person winding up on what kingdom of glory; and I’m not sure how useful it is to try to overlay it onto the LDS doctrine regarding the kingdoms of glory (and frankly, I have some concerns that the way you lay out the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms aren’t quite scriptural—can you provide a link to the source you’re citing?). The primary LDS scriptures that apply to the topic are D&C 76 and 88, which say what they say and place our individual salvations within the context of a broader divine plan (and frankly, to my mind, more properly describe potential degrees of ultimate reconciliation with God rather than promising the magnitude of one’s reward or punishment). Christ’s parable, by contrast, is less about other people’s destinations, and more about how to foster attitudes and behaviors that establish our trajectory towards our destinations.

I agree with, like, 75% of this; but the context we’re omitting is that nearly identical tactics have been widely adopted by leftist groups for going on ten years now—not only Antifa/BLM-related riots and physical assaults, but attacks on federal and state government buildings that have significantly disrupted the work of the entities that met in those buildings. This isn’t just “whataboutism”—when you’ve got the Brown Shirts and the Red Front brawling it out in the streets, and *all* the newspapers and radio shows are saying it’s exclusively the fault of those dastardly Red Fronters even though you’ve seen the Brown Shirts in action too—at some point one starts wondering whether there’s a Goebbels pulling some of the strings; and you wonder what else he and his associates are planning. Even this hand-wringing about questioning electoral results—yes, it’s socially and civically toxic; but have we forgotten that others spent four years attacking the 2016 election as somehow fraudulent? That many from that same side even now condemn the constitutionally-ordained electoral college as “illegitimate”? Yes, the former American value of accepting electoral results without question and submitting to the authority of elected officials we disagree with is pretty well shot at this point; we’re over the Rubicon now and in a heap of trouble, and Trump and his acolytes had a yuge role in piling on the straws that ultimately broke the camel’s back. But this suggestion that it’s exclusively or even primarily the Trumplings’ fault is, again, the kind of “me-or-your-own-lyin’-eyes-ism” that evokes the agendas of others who told “big lies” in ages past. 2. I deal with some of Jacobson’s distinctions here; and let’s bear in mind that the Jacobson majority was joined by a certain SCOTUS justice who would later approve forced sterilizations of disabled people on the grounds that “three generations of imbeciles is enough”. In terms of evolving social values, we may as well appeal to the moral precedent of Dred Scott as Jacobson. 3. Absolutely, 100% agree.

You and me both, brother; you and me both.

Maybe; but I’ll bet you like them. And I wouldn’t overthink the distinction between those two terms. The Church, in some ways, is linguistically behind the times—we developed our doctrines in Victorian days, following the lead of people reading scriptures written in Jacobean English; and we still use terms like “love” in ways that were popular then, but not so much now.

Do we really, truly believe (not just in the abstract, but in practice) that life is better when one loves God and Jesus Christ? Do we really, truly believe (not just in the abstract, but in practice) that life is better when one avoids various forms of sin? If so, inviting someone to repentance should be at least as natural as inviting someone to try a new restaurant.

Frankly, there’s such an alphabet soup of agencies involved here that it’s hard to know what real, tangible action might result from this letter. In most other eras of American history, the letter as-worded would be innocuous (except insofar as it points out to a vast slough of federal agencies whose existence wouldn’t even have been contemplated sixty years ago). Of *course* threats are bad, and should be investigated. And frankly, there *is* a certain stripe of conservative that seems to have an affinity for getting into physical altercations, and threatening more of the same. We’ve had a few of those kinds of folks on this very board, in the past; and a high school principal/former bishop in my ward whose school recently drew the attention and public scorn of Eric Moutsos has run up against a bit of that himself. And January 6, while certainly overblown, casts a shadow that is very long indeed. That said: it seems these allegations of threats are primarily anecdotal in nature. I don’t know that, statistically, it’s an issue worth the FBI’s concerted attention; especially in light of the kinds of things they’ve largely let pass over the last two years and some spectacular failures of late that raise serious questions about their overall competence. I long for the good old days when the main thing the FBI fought was crime—and when they were actually somewhat good at it.

I don’t think it’s quite accurate to suggest that foundations ordinarily need to be redone periodically (though I imagine most city codes contemplate buildings with lives of decades, not centuries). The impetus for the SL Temple project (and the Tabernacle project before it) wasn’t that the foundations were old per se; it was that when these structures were built, we just didn’t know how to do foundations that could stand up to the sort of seismic activity geologists now know is possible in Utah.

Prediction: A GA will reiterate some totally elementary doctrine, and a bunch of progressives will act all outraged over it. Here’s a graphical representation: https://tenor.com/Q5p5.gif

Did someone say “Lemon Squeezy”? Another pet peeve—and maybe I’m just getting jaded because of my profession—but the ratio of people who invoke the phrase “for the children!” versus the people who are actually willing to do hard things for the welfare of those same children, is something on the order of ten to one.

The Saratoga Springs temple is right on the border between SS and EM. Apparently once that and Orem are done, AF will be closed for renovations (including removal of the cafeteria).

I’m not saying this will be announced anytime soon—AFAIK the Church doesn’t even own the land—but I was chatting with a Lehi (Utah) city official who says their planners/zoning officials anticipate that “someday” the Church will build a Lehi temple up by the Micron campus (close to the Alpine border).

Yes, but with the caveat that I believe most of those traditions insist that their gods basically created them on those particular lands. It is politically inconvenient to suggest *too loudly* that fundamentally, the so-called “first nations” were just as much colonizers as the Europeans were.

Soon, what? The U of U will win a football game?

It’s interesting how terminology can make such a big difference. I blanch at the idea of suing the Church (and I think it’s normal to want to be extra charitable/give a pass to an organization when you support its overall motives and accept that its members and agents generally are acting in good faith even when they foul up); but I’d have no problem going up the pecking order to figure out how to file an insurance claim against the Church. The Church doesn’t need to pay punitive damages or reimburse me some inflated/bogus “pain and suffering” figure—but if I’m out a couple grand for an insurance deductible for an injury that a sloppy Church officer caused, I have no problem asking the Church to financially make good on that.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it doesn’t matter at all; but I don’t think there’s a problem with asking a trusted friend or sibling to do the blessing instead of someone in the traditional stewardship/line of authority (husband or father or home teacher or whatever).

I sort of agree, and yet something feels “off”. When I take my wife out on a date, I’m not necessarily seeking to have a “romantic” or “bonding” experience or whatever. I am trying to build a relationship, and I have faith that over time me taking her out on a lot of dates (and doing other activities like earning an income, tackling my “honey do” list, spending time with our kids, doing little extra acts of service for her, etc) contributes to a pattern of behavior that allows that relationship to grow and blossom over time. And along the way—of course there will be “bad dates”, planned activities that go awry, words or gestures that somehow get misinterpreted, plays and concerts that get cut short by a babysitter calling us to report that Kid 1 is chasing Kid 3 with a knife and can we please come home right now, and periods of prolonged silence while we eat our meals in silence because both of us are just too tired (or too shellshocked) to make much in the way of conversation. On the other hand—because I have committed to my wife and am bound to her by covenant, I don’t have to drive myself batty over the phobia that an individual experience may not always turn out the way I want it to. Because I know I’m trying, and I know there’s always tomorrow, and I know she’ll be there with me as long as she sees me doing my part. Likewise, for spiritual experiences: I think the focus should perhaps be less on chasing the experiences themselves (or defining exactly what those experiences should look like); and more into doing the activities we know will build the relationship and trusting that in time the experiences will come and that we will recognize and value them when they do (understanding that there will be some common denominators, but that the Spirit also may engage with us in a way that meets our individual expectations, which in turn may to some degree be products of our own culture—which I think is why the Church in some times and places is more likely to have Pentecostal-type spiritual manifestations, whereas in other times or places the focus is more on the “still small voice”). But in most ways “seeking spiritual experiences” versus “building a relationship” is a distinction without a difference, because the things the Church teaches us to do to “seek spiritual experiences” are exactly the same things that we do to build our relationship with God: scripture study, fasting, prayer, church and temple attendance, service, et cetera. So even though I think agree with your paradigm, I worry that some might pervert it into a sort of cop-out or justification for not inconveniencing themselves or otherwise really doing much of anything in their quest for the divine; the way most of those “I’m spiritual but not religious” dorklings tend to do.

Nephi often (I hesitate to say “always”) uses “Jews” and “Israelites” interchangeably, particularly when describing events after the fall of the Northern Kingdom—after which time any self-identified “Israelites” who were left were clearly under the hegemony of the Judahite kings, even if they individually traced their ancestry/inheritances through other tribes. I don’t quite understand your question about what is considered the “beginning” of the record of the Jews. Insofar as it contained the Torah, including some form of Genesis, it could be said to have an account from the beginning of the world.

I don't think Mormonism has ever really preoccupied itself with the supposed "sovereignty" of God in quite the way many other Christian denominations seem to have. We're quite comfortable, in principle, with the notion that there are some things that God just can't do. For example, we believe the Atonement of Christ was necessary because God was obligated to bridge the gap between/satisfy the demands of both justice and mercy--He couldn't save us unless He was willing to sacrifice His own Son. And while it's not "officially" doctrinal, we also speculate heavily on the notion that God was once a mortal as we are now--a supposition which which suggests that He had other mortal peers, some of whom may have attained godhood as He has, but over whom He presumably has no dominion. I don't think we really subscribe to the idea that our God must be the only/mightiest God in all the eternities and the infinite universes that ever have or ever will existed. Nor does our faith require that our God be absolutely all-powerful within the realm that is His own. Really, we envision a council of gods who are each supremely mighty within their own spheres (and only One of which with whom, as Brigham Young put it, "we have anything to do"); and it is enough for us that God is spectacularly more powerful than we are and that He invites us to become as He is. As for humankind's "free will" or "agency" (and frankly, I think within Mormon discourse we often conflate those two concepts, but that's another discussion): God, like any parent, has kids who develop independent consciences and wills; and who can only be controlled in accordance with certain principles (and even then, only to a limited degree). In fact, in Mormonism, the kernel of each individual's identity--the "intelligence"--is co-eternal with God Himself. God can organize and refine intelligence, but He cannot create it. The will of the intelligence (or, in its later states, the spirit or the human) is subject to God's power, but is not really subject to God's will unless the intelligence/spirit/human chooses to become so. Within Mormonism, I think the more intriguing question isn't whether our "free will" is bound by God's omnipotence, but whether it is bound by His omniscience. If He can see all things past, present, and future as "one eternal now", as Joseph Smith taught--then in a sense, is my future already written? Am I just pantomiming a role in a play whose ending is already known? In my experience, that's the question that tends to keep philosophically-minded Mormons up at night.

I continue to disagree. Driving without headlights is an affirmative action—you chose not to take the precaution of turning on your headlights; but before that you chose to get into a car and drive; and you could have made another prior choice that would have rendered the precaution unnecessary (take a bike, walk, public transport, etc) Theres no antecedent to the choice to avoid the precaution of vaccination, except perhaps a choice to stop existing.

I think in general, the argument that “you’re killing people just by existing, unless you proceed to do exactly what I say” is a tremendously dangerous argument to make in a democratic republic. Conceptually, my answer to your last question would be “yes”; but I don’t think I have to know precisely what the danger threshold would need be, before asserting that a disease with under 5% mortality doesn’t justify a significant government penalty for the mere offense of existing-while-unvaccinated.

To me, it seems like the answer to a question like this is a product of trying to balance the potential ill effects and efficacy of the vaccine itself, versus the ill effects and mortality rate of the disease the vaccine is supposed to protect against, and factoring in the severity of punishment imposed upon those who refuse to comply with the vaccine. That's the calculation that a lot of the folks who are citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts for the proposition that "heck yeah, the government can force you to take a vaccine" are missing: a) the disease in question was smallpox which IIRC had 30%+ mortality amongst European-Americans (and far higher amongst Native Americans), b) the defendant failed to provide any technically-admissible evidence as to why he, specifically, was an unfit subject for vaccination, and c) the penalty imposed against him for noncompliance was fairly minimal (a $5 fine, equivalent to less than $200 today) In the hypothetical you offer: Ebola, I understand, has a mortality rate that averages around 50%; and I will presume that "90% effective" means "90% of the people who receive it neither become symptomatic with, nor spread, the disease thereafter". I will further presume that the evidence that this hypothetical vaccine is harmful is statistically sketchy at best, and that it is impossible to take any particular individual and make a sound medical argument as to why this individual would be better off remaining unvaccinated. And so in that case, I'd say "sure, let's do a mandate". But let's remember that when it comes to COVID-19: The disease's mortality is somewhere on the order of 5% or less (possibly *much* less; I'm too lazy to look up the stats and refresh my memory); It has been demonstrated that at least a few people have good medical reason not to receive some particular versions of the vaccine; The penalty being bandied about is, effectively, your employability--your ability to support yourself. While I freely support the right of individuals and corporations to associate with and disassociate from whomever they please, I believe that should be a grass-roots process rather than the result of government effectively hanging a scarlet letter around your neck. And frankly, based on things "mainstream" wags like Jimmy Kimmel and others have said lately, there seems to be a spreading perception that "we really don't mind if these unvaccinated rubes just die off altogether"; which is downright scary. While (last time I dug into it) there had been good evidence that the various COVID-19 vaccines could limit one's likelihood of being infected with/spreading some earlier variants of COVID; my takeaway at present is that with the Delta variant the traditional indicia of "effectiveness" for the various COVID vaccines have been seriously compromised (significant portions of the vaccinated can still get it, and it appears a majority of the vaccinated can still transmit it even if they don't "get" it themselves). The one overwhelming remaining benefit to vaccination seems to be that it appears COVID-19-infected folks tend to manifest less-severe symptoms if they had been vaccinated prior to infection--which is a great reason for you to get the vaccine; but which really has very little to do with me. Now, all that said: I think COVID vaccination is a good thing; I am inclined to think most of the arguments against vaccination are overblown; I am upset that so many people shillyshallied about getting it back before the Delta variant became a thing. And I support the right of overloaded hospitals to triage their ICUs and, if necessary, give preferential treatment to patients who did get the vaccine. But, would I want to see the unvaccinated jailed, fired from their jobs, or forcibly exiled from the rest of society? No. I think the punitive regimens that are being bandied about at this point impose penalties that are disproportionate to the misbehavior they seek to address, and most likely represent a White House that is lashing out at an enemy it thinks it can beat after having just had its clock cleaned by the Taliban.

Yup. IIRC, the Federalists under Washington and Adams wanted to build a navy to fight back, whereas the anti-Federalists under Jefferson wanted to keep paying them off. The federalists got funding for some frigates (the USS Constitution among them) rammed through Congress over the objection of the Jeffersonians; but President Jefferson ended up using the new navy against the pirates to great effect (earning a line in the Marine Corps’ hymn about “to the shores of Tripoli). I believe that in their late correspondence, Jefferson even congratulated Adams in having been right all along about the need for a navy where Jefferson himself had been wrong.

I agree. I just think it renders one a little more vulnerable to possible exploitation, if one doesn’t have a clear set of boundaries and a firm understanding for where ultimate accountability lies.

Perhaps; but this is an age of weaponized compassion. There’s a reason the Savior combined “harmless as doves” with “wise as serpents”. And in certain circumstances, I think it’s useful and maybe even healthy to just be able to say (not accusingly, but in a matter-of-fact sort of way) “no, he’s crazy and I don’t owe him anything.”