laronius

If I remember correctly Hugh Nibley was a very stoic person in life and his family related that it was really only near the end of his life when he had bad health and was largely confined to his bed that his emotions really started to show.

So do you believe that suffering the will of the Father always entails pain? Obviously the atonement produced more pain than we can comprehend. But there were many aspects of His ministry that I imagine were quite enjoyable. Was he not "suffering" the will of the Father at these times as well?

What we call miracles are really just unexplained scientific events. As @Vortpointed out God is a God of laws and He perfectly uses those laws to bring about His purposes. This is how we can say all things bear witness there is a God because they are His works. So while some people may have different motives for seeking answers I think doing so can strengthen one's testimony if approached correctly. Of course being fine with not knowing when answers aren't readily available is important as well.

For those more scientific minded, is there a scientific explanation for the new star at Jesus' birth and the night without darkness in the new world originating from the same phenomenon? Or were there likely two different sources?

IMO they are correct, at least from an eternal perspective.

To claim that polygamy was not a commandment of God in the early Church it would not be sufficient to denounce Brigham Young. You would need to denounce perhaps a majority of all leadership top to bottom, in addition to a good chunk of the general membership. Do people really think the Lord would be okay with that? My guess is people just don't connect the dots on what that claim means.

When I said known source I was referring to what is known to us (though you are correct about the Abraham Smoot source, not familiar with Thomas Shreeve). Obviously they may have had additional information we are not presently aware of.

All of this is essentially based on a single known source, a statement made by an individual many years after the fact. That statement may in deed be 100% factual. But relying alone on it is generally not considered sufficient for establishing historical fact. I'm totally fine with the idea that it started with Joseph Smith. But it lacks sufficient documentation to establish it as fact in my mind. Regardless, the position of the Church seems to have changed over the years. So someone has to be wrong. But it's not an issue upon which anybody's salvation is dependent so it really doesn't matter who.

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Sometimes the logic and wisdom we use to try to connect the dots and fill in the blanks of God's dealings with man simply falls short of the full truth. Even if you can't see any other reasonable alternative to your well thought out interpretation of such things there is still a fair chance that you are wrong. That's not to say it's wrong to try to draw conclusions, just recognize the limitations of that conclusion. This is not a true apples to apples comparison but I think still instructive. Polygamy is a principle lived only when the Lord sees fit with a spiritual purpose as it's impetus: raising seed unto the Lord. But when the Lord commanded the saints to stop living it, it wasn't because "you have raised enough seed into me." It appeared to be more of a practical response to the circumstances of the times. A combination of external pressures, varying degrees of faithfulness among the believers, and of course God's eternal purposes, often factor into the why and what of His dealings with man and the implementation of His gospel. We see other examples of this as well such as implementation of the law of consecration, restrictions on who the gospel was preached to in Christ's day, and the allowance of divorce. Some may interpret these things as inconsistencies in God's dealings with us and a reason for doubt. But we only see through the glass darkly in such matters and need to recognize just how omniscient we are not. We also need to be okay with these seeming inconsistencies because there will likely be more in the future. They may in fact play a large role in how the saints are tested going forward.

There are a lot of promises we can and should teach in the scriptures. Such as Moroni 10:5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. The problem is when we add commentary. I think at times commentary can be helpful in unfolding sometimes difficult to understand scriptures. This is especially true when teaching young people or those newer to the gospel. But we need to be very clear in distinguishing between the doctrine and examples of application. And helping others learn how to be taught by the Spirit is something I don't think we put enough emphasis on at times.

There were others such as Q Walker Lewis, ordained by William Smith and once referred to by Brigham Young as one of the best elders they have. If by direct evidence you mean the journal entry of Joseph F Smith, I would not call that direct evidence. He was only about 5 when Joseph Smith died so unless he was in possession of documents we don't have there is no way to know what he was basing his assumption on. At the end of the day if Joseph Smith issued a ban it would have been recorded and to date nothing has been found.

It appears that there were some black men who held the priesthood in Joseph Smith's time. Unless that can be proven otherwise you cannot say the ban was in place then. You can say some of these ideas existed at the time but you cannot say there was a ban or that it was the policy of the Church at the time.

I have zero problem breaking it down into these elements. I actually like doing this with many aspects of the gospel. The problem though is we can lose sight of the big picture if we aren't careful.

This is essentially what I had in mind when posing the question. This is more than just a removal of the eternal consequence of our sin. I think your criminal analogy is an apt one. A felon may have paid his debt to society but is forever a felon. This is why we are born again and become a new creature in Christ. The old us, the one who committed the sin, no longer exists. And yet the scriptures generally use the word forgiveness. Perhaps they are two sides of the same coin, one describing the initial payment of our debt because it must be paid (justification) and the other describing our rebirth (sanctification).

In the LDS faith do we make a distinction between forgiveness of sins and remission of sins? The AI generated response to the question of what's the difference (not specifically LDS) says this: While often used interchangeably, "forgiveness" generally refers to the act of letting go of resentment or anger towards someone who has wronged you, while "remission of sins" implies a more legalistic concept, signifying the complete removal or cancellation of one's sins, often used in a religious context to describe the act of God "wiping away" sins through Jesus Christ's sacrifice; essentially, "remission" denotes a more absolute and final release from the consequences of sin, whereas "forgiveness" can involve a personal emotional process of letting go of negative feelings towards someone who has offended you. If we look up Remission of Sins in the LDS guide to the scriptures it kind of just equates it with forgiveness: Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance. But it seems like from our viewpoint we do make a distinction between simply saying that the consequences of our sins are removed vs the sin itself is in essence removed. Is there really a distinction to be made here? Are they just different ways of describing the same thing? Or is there a distinction but different terms need to be used?

Genesis 6:9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. There were actually a number of different words in the Bible that were all translated into the word perfect but each with different meanings. Even today the word "perfect" is often not used to mean literally flawless. Complete or thoroughly made is the original etymology of the word and remains a common use of the word. This doesn't prove Job is to be taken literally but it also doesn't disprove it either.

I appreciate this thought. There must be opposition in all things. If our sinful actions bring Him pain then acts of obedience, especially those involving helping others, must bring Him a feeling opposite of suffering.

Recently in pondering over how to make the process of repentance more heartfelt and efficacious I changed how I view the atonement of Jesus Christ and consequently my approach to repenting of my sins. Previously, with Jesus' atonement having taken place about 2000 years ago I kind of viewed it as something in the past that created this wealth of grace that I sought to draw upon as I repented. But as I thought about it, there is much about it that we don't understand, especially in relation to suffering for sins not yet committed. Then I considered how to God there really isn't a past or future, just one eternal now. And while I don't quite comprehend that principle I figured it allowed some leeway in how we view how Christ was able to do what He did. As such when I pray for forgiveness now I view the atonement of Jesus Christ in real time. I pray that Christ may suffer for my sins as though it had not happened yet. And I must say this approach has really added a depth of sorrow and regret to my repentance that wasn't there before. I have also found myself thinking during the day that I need to be careful because any misstep on my part comes with a price that Jesus will yet have to pay for. For me it has made it all even more real and meaningful. Maybe this is old news for some but for me it has been most enlightening.

An admonition from Pres Nelson's most recent conference talk: I call upon you to talk of Christ, testify of Christ, have faith in Christ, and rejoice in Christ!

I think that's a fair question. The fact is the law of Moses said more about the people than their God. When Jesus was asked about divorce He said this: Matt 29:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. What we see here is a good example of God altering the administration of His laws according to the conditions of the hearts of the people. In some cases God is stricter and in others more lenient. (Interestingly, this specific leniency is still in place though not God's optimum condition)

Even with all of the books of the Bible it still ended in apostasy and loss of precious truths. It's living prophets that keep us on the right path. Did any prophets survive your apocalypse?

The essay the Church put out says this: There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.” Having said that, our knowledge of the past changes as new sources of information are revealed. I think it was Hugh Nibley who said something to the effect that he doesn't hold himself responsible for anything he said more than three years ago for this very reason. I don't know what resources the historians had available when they made the above statement. Perhaps they would say something different now. But regardless I think there are still enough unknowns to say definitively when and why it started.

I don't think tribal designation was ever intended to dramatically influence our specific choices in life. The Lord knows what our mission is and if we follow His guidance we will fulfill our tribal responsibilities. Perhaps on the other side of the veil our choices will be more specifically driven by our tribe. Missionary work over there may in fact be somewhat organized after that fashion.

And then suddenly they jump to 90 or whenever they start taking pride in being older. There's a lot of living packed into that year.

There is a belief, which I lean towards, that the idea wasn't to build a tower high enough to physically get to heaven but that the tower was an apostate form of a temple. I have yet to hear a good explanation of how the language changed though. Might just be symbolic.