person0

I think the question has a flaw. I could easily name all states without a map, but if I was asked to fill in a map with state names, I would have to fill in all the states I know first and get the ones I don't know perfectly by elimination. That said, I may know them better than I think, haha. 🤷🏻‍♂️

"He grew up in the RLDS church but converted to the Utah-based LDS church about eight years ago." This is, in my view, the most important part of the article. I'm sure if he donates or lends it to the Church, additional verification will be done.

A sin in ignorance is much easier to repent for than the opposite; consider King Lamoni & his father, especially compared to Cain. Having the sure knowledge that you murdered a child of God would not be advantageous if you knew it while doing it. Not going to claim to know the Lord's specific reasons, but it is evident from the scriptures that He does it, sometimes even when the individuals in question would never again dwindle in unbelief. Other times He intentionally speaks in ways that many will not understand, and also not be responsible (parables, sure, but also Isaiah comes to mind). Anyway, just some thoughts.

There are multiple advantages to the answer being unknown. Two are: 1. If it were to be revealed that life begins at birth, sadly even more members of the Church would use that to justify abortion. 2. If it were to be revealed that life begins at conception, abortion would be considered "like until murder" in a much more strict sense and repentance for it during this life would become even more complicated. The ambiguity makes it easier for the Lord to both grant mercy to those who will sin in ignorance and to preserve those who would be tempted to justify. I think, perhaps for these and other reasons, the Lord, in his wisdom, has chosen not to reveal this.

I have considered this passage as well. What would we gain from knowing the answer? Also, the Voice of the Lord could be the Holy Spirit speaking by divine investiture of authority (similar to the angel in the Book of Revelation), and could have received instructions in advance. I don't have a for sure opinion either way other than that I think the knowledge, while interesting, would probably not be very useful.

More correctly, one could say we are pro-revelation for the rare exceptions. The correct interpretation of the Church position is that abortion is always unjustified except when God reveals otherwise, and that He will not reveal such outside of the circumstances of the specified possible exceptions.

I agree. I have always gone by a name that is different from my legal name. One's preferred name does not necessarily or inherently convey gender, especially not in the same way that pronouns do.

The handbook does not say that. I believe you are thinking of Section 38.6.23 paragraph 9. It explicitly states that the preferred name may be used, the permissible usage of preferred pronouns is omitted. The handbook acknowledges that a member may request both pronoun and name usage, but only grants permission to use the name. If there is some other passage to which you are referring, please share.

Do you strive to be honest in all that you do? (Not aimed at you directly) When one knowingly and intentionally says something that is untrue, at a minimum, they are being dishonest. Therefore, at the very least, knowingly using pronouns that identify someone as something they are not, is dishonest. It does not matter one iota if the purpose appears to be noble. Justifying using false pronouns prepares the way to further justify dishonesty, deception, and sin. This is another avenue of attack Satan is using in his quest to gradually bring down society. Sadly, it will very likely have a damning effect on many, because of where it may ultimately lead them.

Why can't it be both literal and figurative?

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.

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 agree with essentially everything you said, including the above.

I hope to determine two things: How does the Church encourage us to interpret section 38.6.29 paragraph 9 If different than my current understanding, upon what gospel and doctrinal principles am I to understand it so that I can know that it is not in clear and direct conflict with other doctrine and be able to teach it to my children. I would like for Church leaders to expect the members to adhere to doctrines during Church functions. And by expect, I do not mean force; I just want to be able to clearly show my children that what we are teaching them at home is correct, even if other adult members of the Church do not fully adhere to the same ideals. That is not to judge those other individuals, only to show my children that they should not look to them as examples in that specific thing.

I agree, though personally I am willing to accept a preferred name in the same way I would a nickname or common name; I myself don't use my legal name except where required because it is a somewhat complicated native Arabic name. Is it reasonable for me to expect that my children should not be taught by the example of their leaders to do differently?

Unfortunately, I am less concerned about the world and more so about the Church. Currently, the General Handbook contains the following in section 38.6.23 paragraph 9: The guidance clearly states that a preferred name may be used, and gives no such indication for preferred pronouns, though it acknowledges that such a preference might exist. In my ward, however, our Bishop and some youth leaders are choosing to interpret that they should use the preferred pronouns (we have socially transitioned youth). In my view, using preferred pronouns teaches inappropriate lessons and sets an improper example to both youth who experience transgender feelings, and those who don't. This prompted me to communicate with my Stake President and higher leaders the following message, which specifically focuses only on the principle of honesty, to keep it as brief and simple as possible: We are awaiting an official response and potential escalation, if necessary. I don't understand why faithful members are so easily willing to adapt themselves into using language that validates an identity that is biologically, doctrinally, and eternally false. It is a struggle for me to send my children to youth classes because an unsafe environment now exists within the Church where they will be taught to embrace falsehood. We don't have to acquiesce in order to show true Christlike love and acceptance of those who are at a different point on the path back to Christ. I believe that Christ would not use pronouns for an individual that were contrary to their true eternal identity, because He is perfect. I am willing to accept the Lord's will and instruction, but I am currently unable to comprehend upon which doctrinal principle it would be appropriate to validate a false identity. What, if anything, am I missing?

Translated beings are of a Terrestrial glory, not Celestial, so that is a fairly significant difference.

They are. You shouldn't if they are in opposition to established truth. A lady in my ward claims she has received confirmation by the Spirit that one day Homosexual sealings will be approved. Should I take her experience at face value? Or should I stick to the doctrine? I think the latter. It is hard to get more universalist than the Restored Gospel already is. Doing so requires embracing falsehoods and at that point, it is useless because it isn't true. Like, perhaps, Christ's millennial reign?

Being fairly confident they will obtain at least a Telestial glory, I assumed we might consider that as "happiness" in the context. Separate from that, I have traditionally separated in my mind the concepts of happiness and joy. Joy being eternal; happiness being temporary, like fun.

When I look at his Twitter feed over the last few months, it's hard to understand how that isn't representative of such. Happiness? Yes. Eternal life? No.

Have these individuals expressed an intent to betray the Gospel of Christ? Or are they just seeking attention? If one claims the intention to live according to the commandments, what could be an appropriate purpose for coming out? Edit: As suspected, in Bergs case he's just completely rejecting the gospel. I presume the same about Harkey. 😔

Do you also agree with Ben when he acknowledges that fraud wasn't ultimately necessary because the left wing media & social media outlets were successfully able to censor enough content and control the narrative sufficiently to produce an equivalent result by keeping the American people uninformed/misinformed?

This has infiltrated and infected our ward. 2 female youth who have identified as trans (one has fully socially transitioned), 1 who identifies as pansexual, 1 as bisexual, my daughter (for a time) was introduced to it by another young woman. Our kids are homeschooled and video websites with suggested/automatic content are heavily restricted in our home, so nearly 100% of their exposure to this phenomenon has come through associations at Church. Thankfully, intervention helped our daughter and at least one of the other youth to escape and align themselves on the path (for now). Our daughter was being led down the path that could eventually have led to a trans identity (all seemingly stemming from a desire for social acceptance). One of her so called 'friends' in the ward even helped come up with a new name for her that we quickly, lovingly and successfully shut down (thankfully). We had three special counsels with ward and stake leaders (incl. youth & primary presidency) to foster ideas for how to help. Admittedly, I am generally impatient and to me it seems that progress is slow. Our ward has many woke individuals who publicly trumpet lgbtq affirmation (among other things), to such an extent that a member of the Bishopric, while teaching the plan of salvation, mentioned our eternal identity as sons and daughters of God and then followed up by saying that he "didn't mean to get into that", specifically referencing gender identity. I don't blame the individual for the type of anxious thoughts and feelings that led him to say that; instead I question how we allowed such circumstances to develop in our ward in the first place. Anyway, it seems this stuff is all over these days. We have been seriously considering ward shopping to seek out an environment that is more safe for our children. This coming Sunday we will be visiting another ward just for a break and to see what we feel from the Spirit. Thus far, somehow, through all this, we have not yet felt a strong spiritual impression to flee (although a few others have already done so).

Depends on how one is applying the word finite. The duration Christ's suffering in the garden was finite according to our measurement of time. However, at the same time, even a finite measurement of time can be subdivided into infinite moments, just as in mathematical theory, how line can be subdivided into infinite points. In other words, something need not be endless in time in order to be infinite in scope. Not that you weren't aware of this already, but I think it is worth stating.

Well, I did some research on the Church website and could find no resources that directly address this passage in an attempt to explain what we are discussing, so I suppose your interpretation is as good as mine until more is revealed. The most important thing I wanted to share is that when we really get down to it, permanent separation from God and His light is the only eternal punishment for all sin. We also know that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. Understanding this we can see that the eternal consequence of stealing a piece of bubble gum is equivalent to the eternal consequence of stealing a car (i.e. separation from God). Our earthly laws would punish the one much more severely than the other, but to God, both would be immediately ineligible to dwell in His presence until they had truly repented. On that note, consider how King Lamoni murdered his servants, and yet his repentance process took only a few days. Alma the younger not only committed many unwritten sins, but he persuaded other to sin also such that he wrote of his effect on others as having 'murdered their souls'; similarly, his repentance took only a few days. I think that the lack of lengthy punishment and forfeiture of God's Spirit and blessings was the result of the sincerity of their change. It only takes a long time for some of us to repent because it takes a long time for us to truly decide to change our ways and be dedicated to following God's will in the thing for which we are repenting. So anyway, that was my main point, that there is only one punishment for sin, and that punishment is permanent separation from God.