zil2

My intent was to say that I am coming at this question of Sanderson's LGBTQ+ views and actions from the perspective of a faithful member, not from the perspective of politics.

Left schmeft, right schmright. I could not care less. Toward the restored gospel or away? Now I care.

Yes, huge. He doesn't need to do this to get his name out there - it was huge before word of this came out. And he is prolific - tons of books, and lots of "side stuff" in the world of book and comic conventions. The FAQ points at changing views from him over time. Whether he "needs" to support LGBTQ+ views to continue selling at the same rate (or keep his editor or publisher or agent), I couldn't begin to tell you.

Well, full woke are certainly not satisfied (as he indicates in the FAQ), they would have him go a lot further. One of the biggest red flags for me is this: He is trying to change the Church. Obviously, he's not going to change the Lord or His prophets, but he could be having a huge impact on his ward and stake, especially its youth.

Exactly!

This thread cannot be complete without a sword bathed in heaven:

I read fantasy almost exclusively (as far as fiction goes). Granted, I'm probably not "current" on fantasy because I have a backlog and have lost my ability to concentrate on fiction. But I've read enough to say that I believe that Brandon Sanderson may well have the most creative imagination I have ever encountered, and the most amazing skill when it comes to writing a good ending to a story. He is exceptional in these two regards. And everything between is very well executed (in those of his books that I have read and in comparison to everything else I have read, most of which I thoroughly enjoyed). This is why I believe he has (or had) a huge gift from God. I know quite a lot about Sanderson's writing process, and it's equally obvious that he didn't bury that talent - he worked hard to magnify it - so I'm not trying to say it's only a gift from God with no effort from Sanderson. Anywho, when I read the FAQ I linked (and apparently you can find social media posts along the same line, though I haven't tried to confirm that), it makes me sad. Heaven knows how it will all end up, but in the meantime, he is encouraging things not compatible with eternal truth, and that's not good for anyone.

I guess that depends on what he says when he's interviewed (apparently professors at BYU have to have regular interviews akin to a temple recommend interview, but with additional questions), and what the interviewer thinks of his answers.

According to his website, yes. https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/ive-heard-you-are-a-practicing-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-what-are-your-opinions-on-gay-rights-particularly-in-light-of-the-churchs-controversial-rel/

I haven't read the Stormlight Archive, at all, but I have read several other books (all before, I suspect, his "going woke"). And, IMO, he could not have even written those books, let alone attained the success he has, without a serious gift from God (the likes of which few ever have or ever will receive). I believe he has let it all go to his head and pride has led him to embrace the ways of the great and spacious building. It's a tragedy. He will be left to his own strength until and unless he repents. To that point: Well, yeah, can't let go of the audience / income / potential converts. (Perhaps he has convinced himself that the lies are true à la Korihor.

Filet. With butter. Yum.

To those who believe in Christ and ask for understanding, he gives it (and often speaks plainly, as in the Book of Mormon and D&C, and as in the NT when the disciples would ask Him to explain a parable). But to those who harden their hearts, he speaks in parables (without the explanation). In this way, those who are willing to seek understanding can receive it through Him, and those who refuse to believe or ask are not condemned (or blessed) by understanding that they would reject anyway. And I think there's also an element of simply wanting the connection between dispensations and to show fulfillment of prophecy, so He quotes Isaiah to us and to the people in the Book of Mormon.

The diameter of the bullet.

This: Later in the section, the Lord uses more language like that in Isaiah 34:5. I believe the Lord wanted to point us there and then leave it to those who were willing to put forth the effort to gain understanding through revelation (see D&C 1:34).

And it's barely been used at all since the 1980s! I think it's time for a comeback!

Shhh! If it gets out, everyone will have to decry the cult instead of enjoying the music.

Well, I have no idea who they are.

Not to me.

What can I say, I like the look of grey better than I like the look of gray. (And I grew up reading a lot of British authors, so I was more used to seeing grey than gray...)

Why do you say "despite the dictionary"? Reckless is unfavorable. There isn't even any grey area. "Without thinking" - never a good thing. I don't believe God ever does anything "without thinking" (or, if you interpret it that way, "without thinking about the consequences"). "Without caring about the consequences" - this is only a good thing if what you are doing is the right thing. I think this is where @Carborendum went - "Do what is right, let the consequence follow..." But as we all know, despite the literal meaning of the dictionary definition, "reckless" is used after the fact to describe something that harmed or came very close to harming someone (often someone who wasn't involved in the reckless behavior - a bystander). NOTE: I'm aware that sometimes the meaning isn't quite so unfavorable when used in the phrase "reckless abandon" - but usually only when the phrase is used to describe something that's not actually going to cause harm (as opposed to when the phrase is used legally). So, like the song, explain away the use of the term, whatever - no skin in the game for me - but obviously, God is never reckless, and I personally don't see how anyone could even consider / imagine that He is / would be. Here's a freebie: If you want to explain it away, use the phrase "poetic license" - the fact is that poetry can successfully turn the meaning of words upside down - for good or ill. Here's an example, a haiku I made about Klaw, my void kitty - who is solid black: Gold eyes in a void Warmth and purring vibrations Blackness fills my heart ...Normally, "blackness" filling one's heart is a bad thing. Hopefully you see that here, I flipped it around. And just so Smoke (my grey tabby) doesn't feel left out, I made a haiku about him, too: Smoke-grey tiger stripes I must go up, Meowmy, up Books crash to the floor

Welcome to ThirdHour, @Flashman!

Seems to me the dictionary answers that question for us.

I'm not so sure it is - not if "bathed" means "quenched" (as in, hardened - one of the last steps of forging; not quenched the way anger is quenched). Agreed. And some of the possible Hebrew interpretations include those parts of sword-making that involve dipping (like quenching and sharpening). In other words, I think there are multiple meanings to the one phrase, and I suspect Isaiah's people would have understood all the meanings - and may well have understood the meaning described in that ByCommonConsent article (easier to just point people there than to summarize it - it's already pretty short).

Except this is the Lord's sword, so it was never used for evil purposes. I think some of the other translations more likely. The "bath" was part of the preparation process (they actually call the liquid into which metal is dipped for quenching a "bath").

OK, I'm back. "Sword" was never a problem - it's a common symbol for judgement, wrath of God, etc. It's the "bathed in heaven" part that seemed strange to me. Usually if you put sword and bathed in the same sentence, the sword is bathed in blood. If we keep the same structure in play, "heaven" isn't really a substance in which something can be bathed... Thus, the logical assumption is that "heaven" is the location of the bathing, but in that case, in what substance is the sword bathed? As soon as I googled it and found Isaiah, I knew we were dealing with ancient Hebrew customs / idioms / whatevers. From the wide variety of commentary on the Isaiah verses, we have the following, which all make sense to me (some more than others): The sword was prepared in heaven (indicates the judgement / punishment is coming from God / divinely sanctioned) The sword is "soaked" in the power of heaven (I rather like this one, regardless of whether it's what was intended) "bathed" in Hebrew suggests "saturated" or "filled", and in relation to a sword, it likely refers to being dipped into a liquid prior to sharpening; it might also refer to quenching (hardening) or another part of the forging process to brighten the metal or otherwise prepare it for use (this makes a lot of sense to me) One result suggested the sword was bathed in the blood of those killed by it, but that doesn't really match "bathed in heaven" - since any "blood" is going to come when the sword falls, not when it's prepared in heaven; one could try to argue "the blood of the saints" or even Christ's blood, I suppose; but this doesn't really seem like a good interpretation to me. There's this from bycommonconsent.com Alternate translations for "is bathed", like: "is drunken with fury" or "hath drunk to the full" (Hmm, "my light saber is now fully charged and you will all die" (I may have gotten carried away there).) Here's a link to blueletterbible.org with alternate translations of the Isaiah verse. But since D&C 1 could have said whatever the Lord wanted it to say, I'm quite certain He meant for this phrase to appear as is. I wonder if / how the early saints understood it. I feel like these give me enough understanding to be comfortable with the phrase (as opposed to just understanding the overall meaning of the verse).