MrShorty

How about this random prediction for conference? With Sunday being Apr. 6, how many references will get for the 195th anniversary of the official organization of the church in 1830? I'm going to predict 3 such references on Sunday alone. I might even suggest that some of your conference bingo cards need a "On this date in 1830, the church was organized" square. Along the same lines, will any of the speakers follow Elder Bednar's example of 2014 and mention Christ's birthdate?

@Erick At the risk of urther TMI, after my own bout with a different cancer, I do the same thing -- regular underwear underneath garments. Like @NeuroTypical, I recall days when there was believed to be much more rigidity around how garments were intended to work with other undergarments. It's often difficult to know which directives were top down and which were bottom up. I'm just glad that we have reached a point as a people where we don't worry so much about how people choose to wear their underclothing.

A quick internet search leads to Isaiah 34:5, where the phrase is also used. From Biblehub's commentary (note that many translations translate "bathed" from the KJV as drunk or even inebriated.) Seems consistent with how Joseph Smith is using the phrase here. ETA: it appears you've already seen something like this.

I notice that your latest batch of evidences relies heavily on Zebedee Coltrin and Caleb Shreeve. I have seen these evidences critiqued in a few places. The B. H. Roberts Foundation website succinctly summarizes the critiques, thus: I will admit that I find your overall premise -- to demonstrate with some confidence that the priesthood and temple ban began with Joseph Smith -- to be an ambitious undertaking. As near as I can tell, the overall evidences and proofs are at best inconclusive. As the same mormonr website says: I'm interested to see the other evidences you present and how you interpret them compared to how others have interpreted them.

As I've been around the issue, the primary alternative explanation is that given by Dr. Paul Reeves as published by Deseret Book in Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood I reviewed the book here We don't have to accept Dr./Br. Reeves explanations and conclusions blindly, and we can't claim that the church officially endorses or accepts his narrative. It seems to me that, considering his credentials, any alternative explanations we provide will, at some point, come head to head with Dr./Br. Reeves and his research and conclusions.

I've been following with interest, since this is becoming a major part of my own faith crisis. I don't have any answers to contribute. The observation I want to make is how the church is seeming divided on this topic. I noted with interest the data from the B. H. Roberts foundation showing the church just about evenly split over the origins of the priesthood and temple ban. https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/how-do-members-explain-the-priesthood-and-temple-ban/ I wonder to what extent this will become a truly divisive issue in the church, or if we will figure out how to be (uncomfortably?) at ease with members believing different things about the ban. I would suggest that, if it is important that we as a church unite ourselves behind one side or another on this issue, it seems to me that we have a long way to go to realize that kind of unity.

to all. Thanks for your ideas. I want to add here that my consternations are not because I find all of these ideas without some merit. I just find, with Mason, that none of these ideas (alone or in some kind of aggregate) provides a satisfying explanation for the problem of evil. I'm confident that something about Christ's atonement allows God through Him to redeem all of the evils that come into the world. Some evils just seem so ...evil... that I find myself struggling to come to terms with them.

To quote Mason again, "responsible parents keep the sharp knives out of reach and the guns locked in a safe." Responsible parents do everything they can to stop siblings from brutally maiming each other. They don't sit by allowing one child to brutalize another while saying, "we're allowing this because we know an excellent doctor who will have no trouble healing all of these injuries." To quote Cluck from Disney's Chicken Little, "That's bad parenting, and I should know!" In many ways, it is similar to the criticisms I've seen for the penal-substitution model of the atonement. God allows sin in the world, then, because He allowed sin in the world, He has to further require some ultimate sacrifice from His Son before he can redeem the sin that He allowed in the first place. Something about that does not sit comfortably.

@JohnsonJones Sometimes I end up with similar sentiments, maybe ultimately ending up in such a "deistic" place, where God cannot/will not intervene because He already pushed the "start" button and is allowing the universe to play out without further intervention. The difficulty that I still see is trying to reconcile why God seems to intervene in some big and small ways and not others. I recently was driving along one of our many, beautiful mountain highways, when I was suddenly face to face with another driver coming towards me in my lane trying to pass the semi that was on my left. I look back and see so many little coincidences that allowed me to avoid the head-on collision, but I've been around these mountain highways long enough to know that not everyone faced with the exact same scenario avoids the collision. Do I end up believing that God didn't really intervene in my case, and everything was just good luck? Or do I need some deeper theology to try to understand the seemingly capricious way that God intervenes? In Mason's essay, this seems starkest to me as he talks about the small ways his journal from the spring and summer of 1994 would claim that God was intervening in the life of a comfortable high school senior in Sandy Utah, while almost a million people in Rwanda were being slaughtered by their fellow countrymen. I think your idea presents a solid question we might ask ourselves. How much do we really believe that God intervenes in the universe? Do we overstate the extent to which God intervenes?

I've seen someone say that this might be one of Joseph Smith's greatest contributions to the discussion around the problem of evil. This idea that God is not "omnipotent" (at least in the classical sense that traditional Christianity imagined omnipotent)*. The biggest problem I see with this idea is how it leads me to sometimes think of God as small and weak. "Our God is good for helping people find car keys, and plodding through routine, mundane work-a-day evils, but He is powerless against the worlds real problems, so you will understand why I don't actively bow down and worship Him." one might say. I think Mason mentions even talked about this kind of difficulty with a God who seems able to intervene in the small things in our life, but seemingly cannot intervene in bigger things (ignoring, for now, the central sacrifice of His Son that ultimately promises to redeem it all at some future time). *BYU studies article that expounds on the idea https://magazine.byu.edu/article/joseph-smith-and-the-problem-of-evil/

I haven't had time to respond, but I will try to compose some responses today. @askandanswer I think you are right that it can be important to consider the proper place of death in the plan of salvation. I worry, though, that too casual of an attitude towards death makes it seem like God doesn't care whether people live or die. One of our most contentious issues (especially in election years) is whether God cares about pre-born children living or dying and the circumstances of how they die (especially the mother choosing to end the pre-born child's life and why she might make that choice). I agree that death is not the worst form of evil, but something about our beliefs around the sanctity of life suggest that we strongly believe that God prefers us alive rather than dead. I think it's also important to remember the other evils that exist. Genocide is usually accompanied by significant levels of hate and animosity. There is suffering and disaster. There is illness and disease. Estrangement from family and close friends. There are many facets to evil, and I think we ought to be careful not to minimize or become to casual about the different expressions of evil. "Being maimed or killed in a car crash is ultimately no big deal, so we don't need NTSB's, nor do we need to do research into building safer cars and/or safer highways." As I've studied different theodicies, one of the most compelling elements I find in a good theodicy is an expression of a desire to try (to the extent possible) to ameliorate or eliminate evil. It's a bit of a stretch, but I occasionally see a caution attached to soul growth theodicies, where our attitude could be, "I don't want to interfere with whatever lessons God wants to teach someone by the suffering they are going through, so I will stay my hand and not offer any support." I think what I might be trying to say is that part of finding and recognizing the "proper" place of evil in this mortal experience is, as you say, not catastrophizing evil. I also think it is not about becoming complacent about evil. Somewhere in the middle is the proper place of evil where we can endure evil well, but still do all within our power to make the world better than we find it.

Link to Wayfare's essay (it might be behind a subscription wall): https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/rediscovering-god-in-rwanda Link to podcast episode: https://faithmatters.org/rediscovering-god-in-rwanda-a-conversation-with-patrick-mason/

(cross-posted at mormondialogue.org I thought I would like to get this group's take on Mason's essay) trigger warning: genocide -- specifically the Rwandan genocide of 1994 -- and some rather detailed descriptions of the memorials to those genocides. Be aware of your own tolerance for such things as you proceed. Faith Matters' WayFare magazine recently published an essay by Patrick Mason where he shares some thoughts about a recent school sponsored trip he went on with some students to Rwanda where they apparently spent some time studying the '94 genocides. Additionally, he went onto the Faith Matters podcast and talks about the experience. It was a bit difficult to read and listen to him describe these events, but I was interested in how Mason processes the problem of evil in light of something so "satanic" (Mason's word to describe these events). Mason describes the problem of evil this way: As he grapples with this question as a believer, he eventually comes around to talking about LDS theodicies. In the above quote, he mentions the big problem I see with "soul growth" theodicies, in that some of the evil that God allows seems to be "too much" to simply be about seeing how what His children might learn from an interesting puzzle. In a later part of the essay, he addresses the "free will" theodicy. He mentions Alma 14 (where Alma and Amulek witness the unjust death by fire of many believers, but Alma claims that God doesn't want him to intervene), and says that: As Mason wrestles with the question, "is it possible to believe in a loving, powerful God without making a mockery of Rwanda’s million dead?" he mentions three "lifelines:" 1) The "God who weeps" because God Himself condescended to come down to Earth and submit Himself to the unimaginable cruelty of the cross. "To Auschwitz, Rwanda, and all the world’s horrors, God does not offer full answers. Instead, he offers his broken body." 2) Faith that evil ultimately cannot win. That God redeems people out of their sin and suffering. In the podcast episode more than the essay, Mason makes a particular point about this "witness" over "explanations." 3) The third "lifeline" Mason talks about came from his experience visiting a "reconciliation village." Apparently, the Rwandans are experimenting with these reconciliation villages where perpetrators and victims (and descendants) are given homes if they promised to live together in peace. Something about these people's ability to somehow reconcile gave Mason hope that the effects of evil are not permanent, no matter how "satanic" the evil. I think I have mentioned before that some of the most compelling theodicies I've studied are those that emphasize human (Christian) action to prevent and alleviate suffering. Mason writes: Perhaps the best reaction to the the problem of evil is to look inward to identify our own evil tendencies and root them out and do our part to alleviate suffering, prevent injustice, and do what we can to overcome evil. In some ways, I feel there is a risk that we might see ourselves as more loving and righteous than the God of the universe (and that's a problem), but I think there is value in doing what we can to help people where we can. I still see no satisfactory answer or way to understand the problem of evil. I appreciated Mason's acknowledgment that satisfactory answers don't seem to be coming, but also appreciated his witness that God exists, and that God can redeem, and that we have power (however limited) to shape our world into something a little less evil.

I obviously don't know this person, but he reminds me of other allegedly faithful saints like Patrick Mason, Paul Reeves, Jim Bennett, and Scott Woodward who would all agree that God did not inspire the priesthood and temple ban. Someone like Carol Lynn Pearson would agree that polygamy is not from God, though she doesn't deny that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. The question of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis, and I think you can look back over some of my posts for a decade or so and see that I've had some of these same questions for a long time. I don't know when doubting our prophets' claims -- or even coming right out and saying they made a mistake -- becomes evil speaking or other problem that God will frown upon. That said, might I interject some ideas: 1) Separating a teaching/practice from the prophets/apostles/people who taught/practiced it. I've often observed that, when someone claims that belief/practice X was wrong, we have a tendency to jump right into defending the prophets/apostles/people who taught/practiced X. It can be difficult, but I find value in focusing my rejection to teachings/practices and not to people/prophets/apostles. In your description of your friends work, you suggest that he might be more focused on Brigham Young himself than on Brigham Young's teachings and practices. 2) I think it is closely related, but get clear about what is redeemable and what isn't. I think Scott Woodward and Stephen Jones's podcast discussion really highlighted this for me, as the two insisted throughout their discussion that, whatever mistakes the prophets/apostles/saints might have made related to race, God was able and willing to redeem those who believed false ideas about race and God was able and willing to redeem those who were turned away from the church because they couldn't believe that those beliefs came from God. I think the hardest part of this is that our high demand religion isn't always very comfortable with God's leniency, so I think we need to think carefully about what we believe about what is and is not redeemable. 3) In many conversations, it often seems that we try to prioritize something else above moral truth and goodness. Some will cite loyalty as a higher virtue. Others, obedience. Sometimes, in relation to point (2), sincerity is emphasized. Sometimes we even suggest that God orchestrates these morally questionable practices as a kind of loyalty or obedience test. I find that there are multiple considerations and nuances that we consider (but never seem to consider them all at the same time) when talking about mistakes that prophets/apostles make. It's my opinion that this is part of the most significant conversation that a church claiming to be based on the rock of revelation with a foundation of prophets and apostles can have. We have never claimed that our prophets and apostles are infallible. What does that really mean to us?

I am going to agree with @zil2, I tend to prefer written content over video content. But that could just be because I am a grumpy old man who is also a late adopter. I will say that I was happy to recently discover the Saints Unscripted podcast in my podcast app. I'm not sure if that is new or if I just never formulated the right search query to find the podcast feed there, but I found and subscribed to it. It's probably in the same vein as being morbidly fascinated by train wrecks and the like, but I have seen some rather pointed accusations that SU is "too woke" (I hate that word, actually), especially when they publish something like the recent podcast episode with someone like Ben Schilaty (spelling??). It could be interesting (in the same way that train wrecks are interesting) to see how this group would react to content like that. It's already in my podcast queue, because I have long followed Ben and Charlie's podcast and find their experience in the church fascinating and faith promoting. I also know that they can be polarizing. Does anyone want to start a reaction thread to this episode so MGF can see how this small internet community feels about it?

As I've studied strategies for thriving in a mixed-faith marriage/family (my wife and kids have all left the LDS church), I have found several interesting ideas that may be interesting to you. My first thought is to recall something one author who studied the success/failures of mixed faith marriages who noted that the most difficult situations are those where one spouse is in a "high demand religion." He specifically called out LDS and Seventh-Day Adventists. Something about having a high demand religion involved seems to make these situations more difficult. Some key principles that I see talked about in making these situations work: 1) Mutual respect and trust. I can never find it when I want, but David Heyward (aka The Naked Pastor -- a big name in broader Christian deconstruction circles) drew a comic that features a couple reading in bed. One is reading the Bible, the other is reading something else (a Buddhist text, if memory serves). The caption to the cartoon says something like, "These two love each other enough to trust each other with their individual faith journeys." One of the biggest hurdles I see in your description of your wife and family's reaction is that they may need to learn to respect and trust you with your changing faith, while you will need to make sure to trust them in their choices to remain in their old faith and practice. It is important to view each other as peers and equals and not view one's self as the enlightened one while the spouse is deluded or deceived. 2) Learn to recognize and emphasize shared values. It seems that, in so many cases where someone deconstructs/reconstructs/changes their faith practices, focus is given to all of the ways that the different faiths conflict with each other and not enough emphasis is placed on shared values. You may need to find ways to talk about faith and spirituality that can emphasize similarities without necessarily minimizing differences. 3) Are you still committed to staying together? Sometimes it seems like the biggest predictor is the level you are committed to making it work. There will be some hard times ahead, but they are rarely insurmountable if you are both committed to finding your way past the difficulties. 4) You mention a 5 year old. Children complicate these situations as spouses need to wrestle with how to talk about their individual faith and beliefs. This is one of those places where it can be particularly important to see each other as equals, and also one of those places where a high demand religion like the LDS church can create some problems. I see a lot of recommendations to be able to talk about "Mom believes and practices _____ while Dad believes and practices ________. Neither is better than the other, but we respect and support each other in each of our beliefs and practices." Of course, an orthodox LDS person will usually want to promote a "our church has more truth than other churches" narrative, while some "anti-Mormon" stances will want to insist that LDS are not Christian or even worse than not Christian." A key challenge is figuring out how to navigate differences in faith while still allowing both parents to share their faith with the child on equal footing. Some resources you may find helpful. I've heard good things about David Heyward's book "Till Doubt do Us Part" even though it is written from an Evangelical Protestant context. I also recall that the church has published some anecdotal articles in the Liahona Magazine that deal with mixed faith marriages (if I can find specific articles, I will try to remember to bring them back here -- gospel library search engine isn't being very helpful right now). I also see many who encourage professional counseling -- especially if you find yourself unable to develop good coping skills on your own. Whatever comes out of your gospel study, I hope you can find a way to be true to your changing faith while also finding ways to be true to your wife and child so that you can all thrive.

For me, the first argument I think of is that space and time have a beginning point. If God exists within space and time, what is His nature before space and time exist (if that even makes sense)? How does He manipulate space and time in order to create them from with space and time? I can admit that mostly this might just be my own lack of imagination, but I find it much easier to imagine God outside of space and time creating space and time from outside rather than within.

This has been an interesting question to me for some time. 1) Coincidentally, my podcast list yesterday included The Bible for Normal People episode 270 featuring an Episcopalian (if memory serves) talking about the embodied God of the Old Testament and how that contrasts with the Greek-influenced Christian God. If you are interested in looking at Biblical (especially OT) views of God and how they portray God in embodied, anthropomorphic ways, you might find that interesting. 2) Several years ago, I started a thread here asking about the scope of God's creation ( ). In many ways, I see your question very similar to trying to determine whether God exists inside of the universe He created or whether or exists outside of the universe. The conversation ranged far and wide, but maybe some thoughts there will trigger some ideas. At the end of the day, as much as it creates a separation between me and God, I find myself leaning towards God existing outside of our universe, mostly because my puny mortal mind has trouble envisioning an embodied God who creates the universe from inside the universe. A fascinating topic, and I find very little concrete evidence to lead to answers. Mostly, I see lots of speculation. Perhaps somewhere in all of that speculation are ideas that bring us closer to understand God's nature.

I was unable to get pictures, but we drove up into southern Idaho, and were treated to an impressive view. Edit to add: I'm seeing reports in some astronomy groups of people as far south as St. George being able to pick out the aurora.

Just got home this morning from my own eclipse trip to central Tx (hill country). Clouds cleared at just the right moment to capture this shot with my telescope. I arrived a few days early, and left a few days later, so I never had to fight any traffic.

That particular TR question is an interesting one, isn't it? Before Pres. Nelson rewrote the TR questions, the explanation around that question was that it's specific purpose was to try to prevent polygamous offshoots from getting people to infiltrate our temples and ordinances. I'm not likely to move in the right circles to hear them, but has anyone really heard anecdotes of people being denied temple recommends based on that question? It seems that every anecdote I've heard over the years involving supporting LGBTQ+ family members, or supporting political causes, or whatever have always been adjudicated in favor of giving the recommend. It seems that, whenever the question of "does that TR question apply to this scenario?" comes up, the conclusion is always, "no, that TR question is not aimed at that scenario." except for situations involving polygamy. I'm not entirely sure I know what scenarios the church has in mind for those questions around supporting something/someone contrary to the church, but it seems that they are really only interested in the most egregious offenses. The kinds of scenarios that average, well-intentioned LDS encounter to we think might apply don't seem to be the scenarios our leaders are looking for.

As an outsider, I'm not sure I can really say what they believe or don't believe. I observe that, up through Pres. W. B. Smith in the 1990's, they wrote their "revelations" in the D&C as if it was the voice of God speaking. Sections added by Pres. McMurray and Pres. Veazey are more circumspect and less obvious about being in the voice of God. I don't know what that might mean for the tangent we are on, but I make the observation.

As an outsider looking in, I kind of agree that they place less emphasis on the Book of Mormon and on the unique things of the restoration (though I would add that I have seen someone representing CoC say that they mostly just dislike the Nauvoo era stuff, but are just fine with most of the Kirtland era stuff). But I think it is a gross misrepresentation to say that they do not believe in modern revelation. Their D&C has 165 sections, and the most recent one I see was dated 2006. As I have watched their rhetoric around choosing Pres. Veazey's successor, they have emphasized their desire to seek God's direction as a prophetic people in making this important choice. We can argue until we're blue in the face over which revelations are "true" and which aren't, but it seems pretty clear from my vantage point as an external observer that they clearly believe God guides and directs them through revelation.

If it might interest anyone, this short (3 minute) video features Apostle Lachlan Mackay of Community of Christ sharing his feelings regarding this transaction. I'm not sure why this seems important to me. Maybe just to remind us that, while our branch of the Restoration is celebrating today, another branch of the Restoration is probably experiencing some mixed emotions.

Speaking of speculative speculations... I recently came across a new one (at least to me). It was in a youtube video put out by some seminary teacher or similar grass roots CES person. I doubt I could find it again (you are welcome to search if you want). In a nutshell, this theory alleges that this prophecy is fulfilled by Patriarch Eldred G. Smith, the last Smith (and, allegedly, a descendent of Abel) to hold the position of church-wide patriarch. The theory claims that, when the church decided to discontinue the position of church patriarch in '79, that was the point when Abel's descendants had fully received their portion of priesthood and so the curse on Cain's descendants could be lifted. As noted in the church essay, the church has disavowed (whatever that really means) the theories proffered to justify the ban -- including theories based on ancient Biblical lineages -- but these theories persist. I think I've said before that perhaps the most interesting part of the history of the priesthood and temple ban is what it shows us about how the church receives revelation. In this vein, I find Elder Petersen's '54 talk to religion teachers (available from Fair, if interested) an interesting data point. In this talk, Elder Petersen expresses the belief that any of these "prophecies" about the removal of the curse were pure speculation unsupported by scripture. A quarter century before the lifting of the ban, one of the apostles who would live to see it seemed skeptical that the ban could ever be lifted, based on his understanding of scripture and these alleged "prophecies." Clearly something changed in that quarter century, and I'm unaware of anything that details how Elder Petersen's opinions changed, but Ed Kimball's history (focused on Pres. Kimball) provides insights into when and how his views might have changed. Whatever conclusions and speculations there are about the priesthood and temple ban, I find it interesting that somewhere in the process of revelation to the church is a process where an apostle can be skeptical of "prophecies" given by "early brethren" to later change and be part of fulfilling those same prophecies he was so skeptical about years earlier.