CV75

“Promote” would be to use the fictional narrative to advance a moral ideology in the real world. Motives might be (as pointed out in the thread): to cater to popular demand, appease readers’ expectations and loyalties, a platform for the author’s views, and oppose another party’s views. Readers will decide on the motives. This thread focuses on doing that vis-à-vis popular and Church standards. This might include “gay characters doing gay things” which is a matter of literary license and taste, and it might include subtle or straight-up advocacy, which is a matter of clout. As to your question for all: I think the hiccups that have been expressed are about the latter.

When an author through his writings promotes activity that is considered as morally objectionable to his faith community for the sake of accommodating the tastes of his broader audience (as the OP suggests), is this similar to someone working in or profiting from certain aspects of the gaming/hospitality industry, for example, in Las Vegas: gambling, "adult-oriented" entertainment, providing alcohol, cigarettes, recreational marijuana, low-proof beer etc. in hotels/motels for the sake of meeting a demand? is it similar to playing or watching professional sports on Sundays? It does not matter whether someone does these things to make a living or profit or not (allowing for those who enjoy these activities as an avocation or as a mans to promote their social cause).

I'll defer to the wishes of the OP or the decision of the mods determine that one. If no one addresses the question I posed, that is fine with me also.

Who is "he" -- Sanderson? I stopped referring to him /book content and readers since Posted yesterday at 04:51 PM, which was in principle according to the representation made in the OP anyway. I still have the same question I originally posted, and anyone interested might reply.

I guess He did answer a question with a question on occasion. But I still pose my question about accommodating x-y-z in order to make a living, which, while each must answer for ourselves (does that make it rhetorical?), is the kind of question often posed on a message board like this for the sake of discussion. I don't think how someone made a living determined whether He sought them out or rejected them, though it seems to often affect whether someone sought/seeks out or rejected/rejects Him, as represented more graphically in earlier versions of the temple drama. And of course people can repent.

This brings up a question for me -- is accommodating a broader literary audience idea/cultural/ideological preferences like employment in the gambling industry such as Las Vegas (and why isn't prostitution treated differently?); or "adult-oriented" (euphemism) theatrical audiences; or selling alcohol, cigarettes, recreational marijuana, low-proof beer etc. in hotels/motels across the land (wherever permitted); or engaging for a living or entertainment in professional sports on Sundays?

This reaction/assessment is why I think he is more more likely to lose fans than gain new fans among his accustomed circle.

I'm not judging his motives. I don't think I've ever heard of him or his work before, either (well, I may have in passing). I'm sharing my thoughts the actions as described in the OP and how I have seen this play out as Church members react to other accomplished saints in the art/literary/entertainment/blog/etc. spheres that enter similar dynamics.

This is kind of my point .... "full woke" already ain't hip no more. This is kind of my point, also .... (doesn't impress the masses, only a flash in the pan for their peeps / homies)...

As with most Church members (that I've seen) that try to publicly get hip, it’s usually too little, too late, too low quality, etc. to impress the masses and be more than a flash in the pan outside of their home town, and they quickly get kicked to the curb with no erstwhile backer backing them up.

Yes, all commandments are spiritual. But commandments given in one sphere or estate may be superseded by those in a higher restate, transgressed in order to attain a higher estate, or added upon as a higher estate is attained. Sometimes "temporal" simply means "lesser." For example, the law of Moses is referred to as "temporal" because it is lesser than the New Testament Christ taught, and operated under a lesser (Aaronic, not Melchizedek) priesthood authority. It had a lot to do with the physical activities of the the chosen people of God, but nevertheless taught spiritual principles and were thus fundamentally spiritual, as is the power of the Aaronic Priesthood. Many prophets between Moses and Christ held the Melchizedek Priesthood, but the law of Moses fell under the Aaronic. Another example is that tithing and the United Order of Zion are both spiritual laws of consecration, but tithing is "lesser" than the United order of Zion (10% not 100%). Adam and Eve were given commandments fit for life in Eden (e.g., not partake of the forbidden fruit), commandments fit for life in exaltation (multiply and replenish the earth), and commandments fit for life in Eden, mortality, and exaltation (stewardship, dress and keep the garden, other forms of life, and the physical world). All are spiritual but some are "lesser" than others because God has higher spheres in which we are meant to act. The commandments for Eden were designed for transgression so that His children would pass through mortality, and onward and upward to exaltation through The Savior. I think had Adam and Eve not heeded the serpent, the transgression of Edenic law (eating the forbidden fruit) would have still somehow occurred, and the devil and his angels would still be on earth where they had already been cast down, waiting for them.

I take it as a similar metaphor as "the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven." The sword represents the word of God, which is itself a symbol of Christ and His power, protection, authority, strength, courage, etc. "Bathed in heaven" means Christ brings everything in heaven to earth, or exaltation (and any other immortal kingdom) to mortals. ETA: seeing the comments on Isaiah 34, justice and vengeance would be a couple of applications of divine authority, strength, power. The D&C refers to "the earth to tremble and to reel to and fro as a drunken man," which is a reasonable reaction for someone unable to handle the living waters that is coming upon them! We also have mercy, love and grace, and as the sword is yielded in one direction, it has its opposing effect as well.

The Father’s responsibility is reflected in D&C 93:30-31: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man…” So, the extent of anyone’s agency changes with the estate in which they are placed as determined by God. My perspective is, that by virtue of authoring and sustaining the Plan of Salvation in all estates, the Father has assumed the responsibility of redeeming us in each estate through which we progress. I think there are many reasons the Savior is Jehovah/Jesus Christ. Simply put, He was the only one willing and able to carry out the task to the divine and humanly-impossible extent required. The Father was not willing and able because He is not willing and able to cease to be God who can author and sustain a plan of salvation. A statement like this might invite the “omnipotence paradox,” the efficaciousness of which is impractical if we lack the empirical means to absolutely scrutinize matters of faith. But perhaps a good common-ground start for a discussion on why Christ and only Christ is able to redeem us and fulfill every whit of justice might be this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-3-jesus-christ-our-chosen-leader-and-savior?lang=eng What questions does this chapter bring up?

Here is a good treatment of the subject: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/View_of_the_Hebrews_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship

Since the Father is just, He cannot be culpable. Because He is merciful, He provides the Savior for those who are. Because He is perfect, He cannot become "entangled (either finding it difficult to escape or impossible to disconnect) in the responsibility." The Savior aligns His will to the Father. Adam and Eve and the rest of us who are unjust, unmerciful and entangled need the Savior to condescend into our world (actually and metaphorically) and raise us up.

By this reasoning, it would not be Jesus, but the Father who is “culpable” given His preeminent, active governing and commanding role in Eden in relation to Jesus, Adam and Eve. But it is not possible for the Father to be culpable because He is perfectly just and merciful. It is just and merciful for Him to have done all the work to set things up for Adam and Eve to fall because they could not on their own have exercised agency, either perfectly or imperfectly, or either in the pre-existence, Eden, mortality or exaltation. Likewise, it is just and merciful for Jesus to suffer grace for grace for Himself and in our behalf, because He could and chose to. Had Jesus been in Adam’s “shoes”, He would have approached the dilemma in Eden differently, but would have still transgressed the laws of paradise to enter mortality and enter the path to the laws of exaltation, and would have done so in a just and merciful way, without “culpability”, as He already had the capacity to do so.

Is this the "Gospel of Mary" you are talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary - https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelmary.html#google_vignette - https://www.gospels.net/mary It comes across as primarily Gnostic in orientation, and the "Mary" comes across as Mary Magdalene. So, it seems not -- please list your sources with links if able. Thank you.

Do have something that shows the argument that Section 132 is a forgery?

You are still projecting ...! It does seem you wish to bicker, and I haven't anything to bicker about.

What are the implications if we are? And can you determine when incest first became a matter of morality and criminality?

Not at all, and you are committing a strawman logical fallacy. I am writing off your efforts in modern discourse as "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" as evidenced throughout this thread.

Straw man logical fallacy.

The covenant path is Baptism, Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, Priesthood ordinations, Receiving the temple endowment, and Being sealed in marriage. I would say that this path entails keeping the commandments, including following and heeding the prophet, one of many aspects of discipleship no matter the dispensation or administration under which we have the privilege to live. It has nothing to do with poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology as I described above. It requires only a willing heart to observe the path. It has nothing to do with Church essays, either, as much as they reflect good scholarship, good logic and sound theology. Many people keep the path without reading them, though they can support one's efforts to stay on the covenant path.

The covenant path does not require poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology, though it does accommodate those who do because the Lord enables anyone to repent of spiritual and moral issues and improve upon their other limitations. This should address your concerns about debating whether the Church was led astray and the basis for faith in and sustaining the prophets. Specific to conclusions other than yours, they abound in this thread so I see no need to repeat them.

It may not have been a matter of cosmic right and wrong after all, depending on the circumstances, at least nothing the Lord couldn't rectify. If you become good with the Lord in your lifetime, that is all that matters.