#Doctrine and Covenants application

[mindfulldsliving]

Hearken, O Ye People: A Call to Repent and Return to the Lord

“Hearken, O ye people” isn’t just an invitation—it’s a command from the Lord. Doctrine and Covenants 1 is His call to review our hearts, repent, and recommit to His covenant. Given as the preface to the revelations of this dispensation, this section emphasizes the urgency of listening to His voice and aligning our lives with His will. It’s not just for the early Saints; it’s for all of us today.…

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Ordo Salutis - The Order of Salvation

The phrase, “ordo salutis” is a Latin scholastic term that designates, “the order of salvation,” as it appears in Scripture. This is the theological doctrine dealing with the logical sequencing of the covenant planning and application of benefits in the redemptive work of God, through Jesus Christ, by the power of the holy Spirit….

Read more

[rucbarthatbowtiesarecooldw]

Sunday Afternoon Session

Conducting: Henry B. Eyring

For All the Saints

Elder Dale G. Renlund

King Tutankhamun and the finding of Tuts tomb

He is our mark – if we imagine there is something beyond what He offers, we deny all His blessings

Focus on Him intentionally

Baptismal water doesn’t wash away sins. That is why we have the opportunity to repent.

Approach the sacrament the same way a new convert approaches baptism – with a contrite heart and spirit

With the temple close it can be easy to let little things get in the way of attending – do not take the temple for granted. When we do we look beyond the mark

Do not praise exotic sources for being enlightened – sometimes that is not the case

Remember and always focus on Jesus Christ. He is our Savior and Redeemer, the Mark towards whom we should look, and our Greatest Treasure

Elder John C Pingree Jr. 70

What is our understanding of truth in today’s world?

What is truth and why is it important?

Where do we find truth?

When we find truth how do we share it?

1 God is THE source of eternal truth.

2 The Holy Ghost testifies of all truth.

3 Prophets receive truth from God, and share that truth with us

4 We all play a crucial role in this process. God expects us to seek, receive and act on truth

Our ability to receive and understand truth is dependent on our relationship with God

Is the concept taught consistently in the scriptures and by living prophets?

Is it confirmed by the Holy Ghost?

Doctrine = eternal truths such as God is our eternal Father, Christ’s atonement etc

Unchangeable

Policy =application of doctrine based on current circumstances

Subject to change

Teach truth in a way that invites the converting power of the Holy Ghost

Truth should be conveyed with Christlike love – love without truth is hollow and lacks the promise of growth

Tell Me the Stories of Jesus

Elder Valeri V Cordon, 70

Help children establish a gospel culture

Righteous Intentional Parenting

1 Teach Freely

Liberally, generously, and without restraint

Spend meaningful time with them, use church resources (church moveis, come follow me)

2 Model Discipleship

By example keep the sabbath day holy, keep temple covenants.

3 Invite to Act

To seek individual revelation, work for and nurture their own testimony

We are God’s agents for our children. Create an environment where they can feel His love and guidance.

Accidental conversion is not a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ

God will do everything He can without violating your agency.

As a parent you should do the same

Elder J. Kimo Esplin, 70

Hawaii and the battle of Okinawa

Baptisms for the dead, and temple work. People being taught in the spirit world.

Temple blessings can heal so much.

The Saviors work is to bind people together

Rejoice the Lord is King

Elder Garrit W. Gong Q of 12

Morse code locket “I I you”

Multilingual “I” “I” (Chinese ai) “You” = I love you

Languages of Gospel love

Warmth and Reverence

Service and Sacrifice

Covenant and Belonging

Daily sacrifices matter

Remember to speak with warmth and reverence about the Lord’s work

Sometimes things can affect our ability to serve, but hopefully never our desire

You need to feel the Lord’s love for those you serve – and for you when you serve.

When we serve in the gospel together, we find fewer faults and greater peace

Remember to minister with your hearts

Sociality and service often go together

The more we serve the better we can understand the nature of Christ.

Elder Christophe G. Giraud-Carrier 70

1 Samuel 16:7

God looks on the heart

We are His children, all of us without exception.

How sad is it that we honor labels more than we honor each other?

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the mediator

Discrimination is not ok

How we treat each other really matters.

I’ll Walk with You children’s song

Like Christ love others because it is the right thing to do.

Consider the Lillies

President Russell M. Nelson

What is the secret to living so long?

No what have I learned in almost a century if living

Heavenly Fathers plan for us is fabulous

This plan takes the mystery out of what comes next

What we do in this life matters

Savior’s atonement makes the plan possible

Adopt the practice of Thinking Celestial tm

Being spiritually minding

Mortality is a masterclass in learning what is of greatest eternal importance

Begin with the end in mind – carefully consider where each of your decisions will put you in the next life

Where will each decision place you? You get to choose

Take the long view – the eternal view

Put Jesus Christ first

Your obsession becomes your god – you look to it rather than to Him for solace

Struggling with addiction? Seek professional and spiritual help

Be chaste to attain celestial glory

Seek guidance from trusted voices

There are lots of things we can do to build faith

Temples!

Savai’i, Samoa

Cancún, Mexico

Piura, Peru

Huancayo, Peru

Viña del Mar, Chile

Goiãnia, Brazil

João Pessoa, Brazil

Calabar, Nigeria

Cape Coast, Ghana

Luanda, Angola

Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Laoag, Philippines

Osaka, Japan

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Roanoke, Virginia

Kahului, Hawaii

Fairbanks, Alaska

Vancouver, Washington

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Fun fact: he has announced 153 temples since becoming prophet

Teach me to Walk in the Light

[clarenecessities]

why toyguru's an idiot pt. 1

and i mean, any lawyers feel free to weigh in on this, 'twas the work of an afternoon and a few spats in YouTube comment sections. transposing it here from a he-man forum bc i wanted to break shit down in an easier-to-digest format. there'll be a few supplementary arguments addressed in a later post, i'm just getting all my ducks in a row for efficiency's sake first. backstory to the situation (through me) is here and you can read ethan's post here. yes i capitalize Fair Use all the time, i mostly managed to type like a normal person but i'm never gonna be 100% Normal okay

Glossary

Copyright Infringement: "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." - copyright.gov

Defamation: Any communication to a third party which may injure someone's reputation. There are certain exceptions which are protected—'mere vulgar abuse', for example, so insults are still A-okay. Typically, a defamation suit must prove that actual injury was done to the plaintiff, e.g. losing sales, somebody egged your house, that kind of thing, but defamation per se ('in itself') waives that for certain kinds of statements. Such as accusing someone of a crime, say, blackmail or harassment. Truth is an absolute defense for defamation: If you can prove it's true, it's not defamation, even if it injures that person's reputation. 

Libel: If the defamation is published/written down, it's libel. This includes publishing things on the internet. 

Bad Faith: While Good Faith is well-defined in law (the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings, which governs all contract law), there's no consensus on Bad Faith. It's generally understood to mean ill will, dishonesty, deception—especially in order to gain an advantage. A good example is "surface bargaining" in organized labor, where one party goes through the motions of negotiation but has no intention of compromise.  

Fair Use: The doctrine of Fair Use is an exception to standard copyright law, which provides for the use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances. Typically, it's what you cite when you've been brought to court for copyright infringement if you admit to the infringement (an affirmative defense), basically saying "Yes, okay, I did it, BUT here's why I think it doesn't matter." Officially it's no longer an affirmative defense, since (when correctly applied) Fair Use isn't copyright infringement, but—well. Its application is subjective. 

Which brings us out of the glossary and into the meat of the matter. 

Did Scott commit copyright infringement or was it fair use?

First, let's establish that yes, Ethan owns the copyright to his photos. In the US, copyright of photographs is granted from the moment of fixation. One may choose to register their photos with the Copyright Office, but it is not required unless they intend to bring alleged copyright infringement to court. There is a bulk rate that comes out to about 7¢ a photo, but it's a long and tedious process which is genuinely unnecessary without prospective court proceedings. Should Ethan and/or other artists whose work Scott has appropriated choose to pursue legal action, it's the method I'd recommend for registration with the Copyright Office, but again, not necessary. 

Now then. Ethan's photographs (and indeed, the photographs of many other artists) were undeniably reproduced, publicly displayed, and made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder. So, if it wasn't Fair Use, Scott (to use the legal jargon) super duper infringed that shit. 

Let's take a look at Fair Use!

Title 17 of the United States Code (hereafter 17 U.S.C.) outlines copyright law in the US. Scott's 'representation' mentioned "the Copyright Act" because (well, I assume because) the Copyright Act of 1976, specifically, was the codification of Fair Use. We're concerned with section (§) 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So, point by point—actually before we get to the determination factors, let's take a look at Scott's counterclaims (Ignoring the parts asserting that Ethan doesn't own his own photos, because nuh-uh):

"[...] this video is 100% Educational in nature and is eligible to use still images of consumer products as examples in a documentary as fair use."

Alright, first, a documentary is just a (typically) nonfictional film/movie composed of interviews, on-site footage, and reenactments. It's not someone talking over a slideshow. Even if Scott's work were a documentary, documentaries are not automatically protected by Fair Use. Just because there are pragmatic connotations of documentaries being educational, that doesn't change their semantic definition. Do you remember at the beginning of the pandemic when everyone was really into Tiger King? And then it turned out they lied and fabricated a bunch of stuff? Tiger King is a documentary. 

Second. Please note that by calling it "a still image of a consumer product", in addition to dismissing Ethan's copyright a little more obliquely than usual, Scott is still materially wrong about his own rights as a (supposed) videographer. A still image of a consumer product is not, in itself, fair game. I can't just yammer on about, like, my politics or something and have a bunch of Mickey Mouse figurine pictures in the background, Disney would eat me alive. To claim Fair Use, the images must be utilized in one of the manners described by the doctrine. It's not that complicated! It's one paragraph! 

Third, and most significantly: Scott is here claiming that his videos are "100% Educational". So why's all his stuff monetized? Why did he tell Ethan he uses these videos to "feed his family"? Let's segue briefly into 17 U.S.C. § 107(1), which considers if the usage is commercial, or for nonprofit educational purposes. Nonprofit. Perhaps I'm biased, having only ever worked for nonprofits (and my college's gym, which I don't think counts despite never actually turning a profit), but to me nonprofit means any profits made will be invested back into the organization. Spector Creative, LLC is not a nonprofit. Scott Neitlich, the individual, is profiting from these videos. And while he could claim the proceeds were going into future video production, he'd need to demonstrate that through an audit—and like, we've all seen his videos lately. If the proceeds went anywhere, they could go to a camera. Or perhaps, a photography setup so he could take his own 'still images of consumer products'. He simply wouldn't be able to demonstrate that his expenses were business ones. 

Un-segue. Counterclaim narrative 2:

"images are used under fair use doctrine. [...] I depend on this channel as my sole source of clients and am actively losing business due to his unjust and constant harassment."

You can't "use something under" the Fair Use doctrine, you're permitted to do something because of it. This is pedantic of me but whatever, I think we can intuit from all this that I'm a pedantic little freak in general. Anyway. He says he 'depends' on this channel, which he formerly implied contained only educational videos, and it's costing him 'business', which further undercuts his claims that his usage of Ethan's work is educational, and, as his "representation" has now said, that his channel is 'designed to educate, inform, and engage [his] audience on topics that are of significant educational value'. A channel cannot be a source of profit (and by Scott's own account, the SOLE source for referral of clients to generate further profit) and a nonprofit educational venture simultaneously. Actually, let me show you something he said in one of those YouTube comment sections rq, because he is A Fucking Idiot:

So more succinctly, it started out as being for fun (not even for education? I guess education can be pretty fun) before "evolving" into a mechanism for profit. This is also how I learned 'rainmaker' is a business colloquialism and not exclusively a reference to the conmen who would go around during droughts, but that's neither here nor there. Scott's representation also stated (in the same message):

"The images used are instrumental in illustrating these subjects more effectively and are used in a transformative manner that does not infringe upon or substitute the market for the original works."

I definitely prefer dealing with his representation's language, I must say. A coherent argument, if still flimsy, poorly researched, and somewhat disingenuous, is way more fun to disprove. Let's turn our attention back to those factors for consideration, specifically 17 U.S.C. § 107(1) and (2): 

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

Okay, so: We've established that Scott's work is of a commercial nature. Its educational value is dubious, though I suppose that's subjective (frankly all I've learned from him is that Mattel didn't own the copyright to the name Double Trouble when they made her in MOTUC, and I suppose obliquely that he's really fucking bad at picking names), but its use of Ethan's photos is far from 'instrumental'. Scott's use of vaguely-associated images has little to nothing to do with the actual words coming out of his mouth. How many times recently has he used screenshots of dictionary entries? Rather, the images (at least, Ethan's images) are serving their original purpose, showcasing the figures in question (heh) in an artistic composition and expression. Further, the videos I know to have been claimed are absolutely not transformative of the images themselves. I'm going to get technical for a second but bear with me—

Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) found that the inclusion of a poster in the background of a TV shot which held the camera's focus was enough to determine infringement, as the accused had not obtained license from the copyright holder or her agent (the museum that sold the poster which reproduced her work). Because the poster was a deliberate set dressing to establish the location of the shot, and thus being used in its original capacity (as decorative artwork), it was not transformative enough to warrant Fair Use. 

The Supreme Court actually addressed what qualifies something as transformative very recently, in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 143 S. Ct. 1258 (May 18, 2023), which I recommend reading at least the Wikipedia page for if you want a crash course in where we're at like, as a society regarding transformative use—but I digress. If an Andy Warhol print isn't transformative enough to find non-infringement in a commercial work, surely Scott's unaltered reproduction of copyrighted images isn't either. 

Onto 17 U.S.C. § 107(3)

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; 

This one is where I take a more subjective approach. The substantiality of the copyrighted work is often referred to as its "heart"; does the infringement take that which makes the copyrighted work unique or valuable? Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997) is the best example I could find offhand to demonstrate this, and frankly I think the court's finding is relevant, so I'm just going to post an excerpt of the Copyright Office's Index:

"The court found that while defendant’s use of the tape was arguably in the public interest because it was footage of a newsworthy event, the use was still commercial because defendant was in the business of gathering and selling news and competed with other stations for advertising dollars. Additionally, the court found that defendant’s airing of the footage with a voiceover failed to add anything new or transformative, and that although only thirty seconds of a four-minute video were used, it was still the “heart” of the work. Finally, the court found that defendant’s use of the footage could also potentially have a negative impact on plaintiff’s primary market, especially in light of defendant’s initial request to license the work."

So I bring it up because, to me—consumer of reviews—a good picture is a huge draw. It affects my decision to consume a review, because if I see a high quality photo, I know that the reviewer is invested in the process, and therefore more likely to have opinions I'll value. Also, pretty picture yay! Therefore a strong argument could be made that Ethan's photographs constitute the "heart" of his work, even though he also provides review and commentary on the figures. And as the court found above, a voiceover was not new or transformative enough to negate its commercial purpose, despite its purported Fair Use exemption of news reporting, because the competition between news stations for ad revenue provided a financial incentive for the appropriation of copyrighted works. Much like Scott's (monetized) channel is in competition with others, and is representative of his company and its interests, which is an entity in competition with other consultants and consulting firms. Like he didn't name it 'Toyguru', he named it Spector Creative. It's a company channel.

But I think the single most important argument against Fair Use is 17 U.S.C. § 107(4): 

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I haven't had the chance to hammer this one into people as much as I'd like to. Weirdly, it never comes up—it seems like Scott's defenders haven't even read 17 U.S.C. § 107, isn't that crazy? Isn't that wild? My time's been better served shooting down the arguments they do make. But these infringements annihilate the potential market. 

Before Scott and Ethan ever spoke, Scott perpetuated the devaluation of Ethan's product, both indirectly by encouraging the uncredited use of artists' work, and directly by, you know, stealing his art. If Ethan were to market himself as a toy photographer, there would be a significantly smaller clientele, because people will think they can just use and profit off of any old picture from Google Images if they can excuse it as "fair use". More egregiously—and this part makes me feel insane— how, in god's name, is anybody supposed to find Ethan to commission him for photographs if Scott erases his watermark like half the time. 

All of the images I've identified from Scott's videos have been because I know how to identify uncited images, and track sources, not because he is promoting their work. I think the only artist I've ever seen him credit is Axel, and that's because it made him seem important and cool and legitimate. Regular people are not going to track down the pictures from a slideshow! If I handed my sister one of Ethan's photos and told her 'find the source for this image', she would stare at me blankly and google 'toy picture'. She might remember that watermarks exist for a reason with some prompting. Failing to mention where you got a picture from in like, a personal blog post, that's inconvenient (and potentially a dick move) but not the end of the world. Not only failing to credit the artists whose work you're using in a commercial context, but removing watermarks, failing to transform or iterate on the work at all? That's copyright infringement. Indisputably. 

Ethan is fortunate enough to have a job outside his work, but if he didn't? If he decided to explore the potential market? He'd have to make his own advertisements, while Scott's company reaped in the profits for Ethan's labor and materials by using his art in their thumbnails without so much as a mention (well, a mention that wasn't accusing Ethan of a federal crime). 

It comes down to Scott no longer producing video content, just audio over slideshows of content he didn't make or even ask permission to use. I won't suggest every creator take video of themselves, bc for a number of reasons I think that'd suck pretty bad, but he could have taken his own photos (presuming he owns the toys he's discussing), or used his LEGOsona, maybe even done some low-effort stop motion with that cutesy little set he built for it. But at the end of the day it was just too much work compared to grabbing other people's pics off the internet. And his behavior towards Ethan has been reprehensible since day one—lying, moving goal posts, libeling him, now trying to intimidate him with an implied lawyer. Guess what! That weighs against Fair Use, too! 

Here's a fun little checklist that's sort of equivalent to a pro/con list for determining Fair Use, just a real basic sniff test. Take a look and see how things shake out for Scott.

[biblegumchewontheword]

Books of the Bible

Here is a detailed list of the 66 books of the Bible, divided by the Old and New Testaments, along with their divisions and categories:

**Old Testament:**

**Pentateuch (5 books):**

1. Genesis

2. Exodus

3. Leviticus

4. Numbers

5. Deuteronomy

**Historical Books (12 books):**

6. Joshua

7. Judges

8. Ruth

9. 1 Samuel

10. 2 Samuel

11. 1 Kings

12. 2 Kings

13. 1 Chronicles

14. 2 Chronicles

15. Ezra

16. Nehemiah

17. Esther

**Poetry/Wisdom Books (5 books):**

18. Job

19. Psalms

20. Proverbs

21. Ecclesiastes

22. Song of Solomon

**Major Prophets (5 books):**

23. Isaiah

24. Jeremiah

25. Lamentations

26. Ezekiel

27. Daniel

**Minor Prophets (12 books):**

28. Hosea

29. Joel

30. Amos

31. Obadiah

32. Jonah

33. Micah

34. Nahum

35. Habakkuk

36. Zephaniah

37. Haggai

38. Zechariah

39. Malachi

**New Testament:**

**Gospels (4 books):**

40. Matthew

41. Mark

42. Luke

43. John

**History (1 book):**

44. Acts

**Pauline Epistles (13 books):**

45. Romans

46. 1 Corinthians

47. 2 Corinthians

48. Galatians

49. Ephesians

50. Philippians

51. Colossians

52. 1 Thessalonians

53. 2 Thessalonians

54. 1 Timothy

55. 2 Timothy

56. Titus

57. Philemon

**General Epistles (8 books):**

58. Hebrews

59. James

60. 1 Peter

61. 2 Peter

62. 1 John

63. 2 John

64. 3 John

65. Jude

**Apocalyptic (1 book):**

66. Revelation

This list represents the traditional order and grouping of the books of the Bible in most Christian denominations.

These are the 66 books that make up the Bible.

Title: The Significance of Each Book of the Bible

Introduction:

The Bible is a collection of 66 books that together form the inspired Word of God. Each book has its own unique message, themes, and significance that contribute to the overall story of God's redemption and love for humanity. Let's explore the importance of each book of the Bible.

Lesson Points:

1. The Old Testament:

- Genesis: The book of beginnings, detailing creation, the fall, and the establishment of God's covenant with His people.

- Exodus: The story of the Israelites' liberation from Egypt and the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai.

- Psalms: A collection of songs and prayers that express a range of human emotions and provide a guide for worship.

- Proverbs: Wisdom literature that offers practical advice for living a righteous and wise life.

- Isaiah: Prophecies about the coming Messiah and God's plan of salvation.

2. The New Testament:

- Matthew: Emphasizes Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and the establishment of the kingdom of God.

- Acts: Chronicles the early spread of the Gospel and the growth of the early church.

- Romans: Explains the doctrine of justification by faith and the implications of salvation through Christ.

- Corinthians: Addresses issues within the church and provides practical guidance for Christian living.

- Revelation: Offers apocalyptic visions of the end times, the victory of Christ, and the establishment of the new heaven and earth.

3. Themes and Messages:

- Each book of the Bible contributes to the overarching themes of God's love, redemption, forgiveness, and salvation for all humanity.

- Together, these books provide a complete narrative of God's work in the world and His plan for His people.

Application:

- Take time to explore and study each book of the Bible, seeking to understand its unique message and significance.

- Reflect on how the themes and stories in the Bible can impact your own life and faith journey.

- Consider how the teachings and examples in the Bible can shape your beliefs and actions as a follower of Christ.

Conclusion:

The books of the Bible are not just separate entities but are interconnected parts of the larger story of God's redemption and love for humanity. Each book has its own importance and contributes to the overall message of God's plan for salvation. May we approach the study of the Bible with reverence and openness to the wisdom and guidance it offers for our lives.

[vincentcheungteam]

The Reductive-Institutional Approach to Scripture

April 26, 2025

Vincent Cheung

The Redemptive-Historical Framework

The redemptive-historical approach interprets Scripture as the progressive revelation of God’s plan, culminating in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Rather than treating biblical texts as isolated moral teachings or abstract doctrines, it recognizes that every passage contributes to a unified, unfolding narrative of redemption. In theory, this method guards against atomizing Scripture into scattered life lessons or disconnected theological points. It invites the reader to trace the divine initiative throughout history, to understand the covenants, the types, the promises, and the fulfillments that center on Christ. When rightly employed, it draws attention not merely to events or principles, but to the character and activity of God revealed across time, enabling a more integrated and God-centered understanding of the Bible as a whole.

The Corruption of the Framework

Although the redemptive-historical approach claims to magnify Christ, in the hands of preachers and scholars it most often functions as a means to limit what people are permitted to believe about him. They routinely use it to suppress the full testimony of Scripture, filtering every passage through a narrow framework that permits only certain pre-approved attributes or actions of Christ. In practice, they never implement a redemptive-historical approach to Scripture, but a reductive-institutional approach that mutilates Christ. A text might clearly reveal him as a healer, a miracle worker, or a provider in response to faith, but these features are then reclassified as merely illustrative or symbolic, never meant to apply to the reader, never meant to describe what Christ does now. In this way, the method is used to amputate the very truths it claims to reveal.

This results in a Christ who is not defined by the totality of Scripture, but by the restrictions imposed by the interpreter. The method becomes a tool of theological reductionism. Whatever Christ says about himself in a given passage is often discarded in favor of a generic summary that aligns with a predetermined portrait. By insisting that the text is “only about Christ,” and then dictating what that must mean, the theologian nullifies the revelation of Christ already present in the passage. It is a sleight of hand disguised as reverence, replacing exegesis with evasion. This not only flattens Christology, but disables the reader from receiving what the text promises, commands, and reveals.

The effect is spiritual disfigurement. A method that should expand the believer’s vision of Christ ends up shrinking it. A method that should inspire faith ends up installing unbelief. It is now common for those who espouse this approach to brazenly dismiss healing, miracles, prophetic gifts, or answered prayer as applications of the text, even when the text itself speaks plainly about these things. The redemptive-historical approach, as commonly practiced, has become a sophisticated technique for denying the power of God while maintaining a veneer of scholarship and a superficial allegiance to Scripture.

The Rightful Use of the Framework

The redemptive-historical approach is valid in principle. Scripture truly does reveal Christ throughout its history, covenants, types, and promises. But a proper use of the approach must begin with submission to the text itself. It must allow the passage to reveal Christ on its own terms, rather than force the passage to conform to a predetermined image of Christ. The method becomes faithful only when it listens to the voice of God in each specific place, drawing out what he says about himself in that context, without preemptively discarding aspects that make the interpreter uncomfortable. The aim is not to reduce all passages to a single pre-decided theme, but to encounter the manifold wisdom of God in the diversity of revelation.

A faithful use of this approach will expand our knowledge and strengthen our faith. Instead of silencing texts that speak of healing, miracles, or spiritual power, it will recognize these as dimensions of Christ’s self-revelation. It will not discard the Christ who heals in answer to faith, or the Christ who commands nature, or the Christ who empowers his people by the Spirit. It will allow the text to teach us how Christ reveals himself, how he deals with people, and what he expects from those who believe in him. A redemptive-historical reading that does not lead to greater faith in Christ and greater expectation of his miraculous power has failed both as a method and as a theology. Its proper function is not to confine, but to unfold. It is not to guard against misapplication by denying application altogether, but to rightly instruct us in who Christ is and what he is doing now.

From Text to Christ: What We Are Meant to See

When the redemptive-historical approach is used rightly, it restores the authority of the text, the fullness of Christ, and the inheritance of the believer. Instead of silencing Scripture, it allows each passage to speak in its own voice, revealing dimensions of Christ that are too often ignored. We see not only the Christ who forgives sins, but the Christ who heals bodies, drives out demons, pours out abundance, and empowers his people to act in his name. The miracles of Jesus are not merely signs that he is the Messiah. They are revelations of what the Messiah is like, and what he continues to do for those who believe.

A proper reading of the Old and New Testaments will affirm not only salvation from sin, but also the outpouring of the Spirit, the authority of faith, the increase of supernatural abilities and ministries, and the evident intervention of God. It will teach that we walk in the legacy of Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and Paul, not just as students of history, but as inheritors of promise. The same Christ who acted in the past is active now, and the same power that parted the sea and raised the dead is available to those who believe. This is not sentimental reading or motivational abuse of the text. It is the natural result of letting the text speak plainly about Christ and taking him seriously.

A faithful redemptive-historical reading will not leave the believer with less. It will leave him with more: more vision, more confidence, more obedience, and more faith. It will not reduce the Christian life to waiting for heaven. It will compel him to take possession of what Christ has already given, and to press forward in faith. When Scripture is read as it was meant to be read, the church does not shrink back into theological minimalism. It rises to proclaim and demonstrate the full gospel of Jesus Christ: in word, in power, and in truth.

[the-single-element]

Good morning.

Our detour through John's Good News now at an end, today we return to Mark's account of Jesus's ministry. Hot on the heels of his miracle of the multiplication of the loaves – and, as John would have it, the controversy that arose afterward – Jesus finds himself pulled into a different sort of controversy about food.

This argument will prove to be so frustrating to Jesus that, after he says his say, he'll leave Jewish territory entirely, aiming to hide from the crowds in Syro-Phoenecian Tyre.

But, as we've recently seen from John, Jesus is no stranger to frustrating arguments, nor to being misunderstood. Why is this particular argument what finally breaks his patience?

Let's first talk about the specific rule that kicks off this controversy: washing your hands before meals. In our time, this is fairly normal, to avoid getting germs inside you. In Jesus's time… insisting on it was a Jewish peculiarity. It seems to have derived from the Mosaic rules for the Temple priests, slowly expanded upon by concentric doctrinal safety fences until they included everyone. There's some confusion as to the timeline, however; modern Jewish reckoning says that the universally applicable mandate to wash before meals was invented after the Second Temple's destruction in 70 AD, adapting a Temple-related commandment which was to be "permanent", "from generation to generation" to a world where there was no Temple at all. And yet somehow Mark – writing in 75 AD at the latest – seemed to think it was already a long-established tradition during Jesus's ministry.

So this seems like an innocuous rule for Jesus to get so hung up on when people ask him why his disciples don't always follow it. He could easily turn around to his disciples and say, "hey, the Rabbis are the religious authorities for now, so do what they say", like he later would in Matthew's account. Or else he could have, like the Apostles eventually did, argued that those followers of his were covered under Noachide rather than Mosaic law.

But Jesus chose, instead, to put up a fight about the doctrine itself, as a proxy battle about Rabbinical extrapolations of God's law in general. And the fight he puts up is strange. He doesn't challenge their reasoning, as other rabbis might. Rather, he goes straight to the results of the reasoning, giving – in the full version of the encounter – an example of how Talmudic precedents (which were, at the time, oral rather than written) create a "letter of the law" that can contradict the law's spirit.

This is, after all, the weakness of a covenant based on statutes and decrees. It becomes easy to focus on the rules themselves, rather than remaining concerned with understanding the underlying principles which gave rise to those rules. Combine with that a practice of interpreting and extrapolating on those rules as caselaw, and you can quickly find that these minor deviations have multiplied to leave you hopelessly lost.

So Jesus bypasses the legalistic arguments, the arguments based on interpretation, and skips straight to the results. That's his approach to doctrine generally: skip to the results and use that to assess whether the process was correct. "By their fruits you shall know them."

And from here he goes one step further, and argues – though quietly – that even parts of the Mosaic law have outlived their service to that principle, to the purpose of the law that Moses himself provides today (i.e. "that you may live, and may enter into the land which God is giving you"). And this is the part that frustrates him: nobody – not the scholars he was arguing with, not the crowds, not even his own inner circle, fresh from their miraculous tour of the region – seems ready to go that far. Even when Jesus gives a more explicit hint as what he's saying, the Apostles don't seem to get the gist; the meaning of his words are added only in a parenthetical by Mark, who was writing decades later, long after the letter from Jerusalem that loosened this law more explicitly.

If part of Jesus's role was to move us from a covenant of statues and decrees, to the covenant of "God's logic is written in our hearts", that failure to even consider that the law might not be absolute must have been an incredibly frustrating experience. No wonder he wanted to throw up his hands and leave for a faraway region where there'd be no-one to argue with.

But… this deadly tendency which Jesus criticizes today… it's a problem for us Christians as well. We may not have Talmudic case law, but we absolutely have our own ironclad, human-derived doctrines, and without even the Jewish escape hatch of pikuach nefesh, of "most of the Law is suspended when necessary to save a specific human life, because the purpose of the law is that we might live".

So we should not take Jesus's words today as any kind of mark of Christian superiority. Rather – as always, when Jesus criticizes the religious authorities of his time – we should imagine him talking about the authorities of our time, and apply his warnings to our own religious dogmas and practices.

What fruit do they bear? Are they doctrines of life, or death? Are they still relevant to what's really important, or have they gotten so tied up in metaphysical inside baseball that they've got nothing to do with the outside world anymore?

Because only when we get this right can we become the sort of people Moses imagines, who the world can look at and recognize that there's something greater than ourselves behind what we're doing. Only then can we "welcome the word that has been planted in us", as the correspondent James urges us today. Only then can we transcend a legalistic covenant of statutes and become God's own people, his law written in our hearts.

[ramrodd]

COMMENTARY:

Jesus is the euangelion. He is the Gospels. Without Jesus, the Gospel don't exist. The Gospel are the Body of the Christ, The literature is alive. It is not broken pottery, alone. It includes broken pottery, but before it is broken and how it became broken.

The Gospels begin with the 10th Legion that regulated the area of Galilee from Capernaum to the Mount of Olives. They were part of the fabric of Pax Romana of the economic ecology of the Mediterranean basin for a thousand years. Jesus, JOhn Mark and Josephus grew up around these soldiers like the German kids grew up with GIs in the fifties when I was there. Everybody in that region was living large.Because of the Romans. The horizontal structures of the Roman Republic as defined by the Italian Cohort that formed the founding unit of the Praetorian Guard that was the core of the administrative state of Rome. The 10th Legion kept track of local politics as a routine function of force security, They had an excellent network of spies within their Area of Operations, or AO as we called it in Vietnam.

When it comes to soldiering, it's SOS/DD and another day in Paradise.

You and Richard Carrier and the JEsus Seminar are in denial of this fact It's offensive to me, YOu offend the literature of the Bible by devolving it to the finite status of history. Literature is the infinite game. Linguistics is an inquiry into the magic of language. At what point does the oral tradition become literature? The Gospel of Mark was never oral history. It was distilled from the intelligence archives of the 10th Legion, IEvery phrase in the Gospels and Acts book marked with the Greek word translated as "immediately" and variations, designated by εὐθὺς , This is an apparatus of the genre of military intelligence reports and appreciations. Each εὐθὺς is a spy report that was logged in to the evidence locker of the 10 Legion. Before Jesus was arrested, except for Acts 10:16 and the three applications in John, one describing the splitting of Jesus as a part of the unilateral covenant cutting ceremony of the Cross that Talked that became the origin of Hebrews and the Apostles Creed. Hebrews is the Christian doctrine of the Christian centurions of the Italian Cohort, The scuttle butt of the Talking Cross went through the 2000 soldiers in the Praetorian during the Jewish holiday and crowd control like Legion went into the 2000 pigs of Mark 5.

Your entire premise of the lost meaning of the Gospels is pure fallacy, The issue for me is whether you realize your scholarship is based on fallacy as a deliberate method of inquiry or because, as a religious fraud, it makes a whole lot more money than even the MAGA Mega Pro-Life Calvinist Evangelicals of the Campus Crusade for Christ Total Depravity Gospel. The Total Depravity Gosple is the doctrine of Christian Nationalism and MAGA Mike Johnson the David Koresh of the House Freedom Caucus.

[musicgoon]

Book Review: Neo-Calvinism, by Cory C. Brock and N. Gray Sutanto

What is neo-Calvinism? Written by Cory C. Brock and N. Gray Sutanto, Neo-Calvinism: A Theological Introduction invites readers to discover the distinctive, theological contributions of neo-Calvinism.

Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck

Brock and Sutanto survey the work and wisdom of theologians Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, the individuals most associated with Neo-Calvinism. Kuyper was Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905, and established the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. Bavinck succeeded Kuyper as Professor of Theology at the Free University in Amsterdam, and is noted for his classic work Reformed Dogmatics. Previous works about the men have primarily focused on their political and philosophical insights, rather than the theological dogma. But Brock and Sutanto point out and discuss how Kuyper and Bavinck actually developed John Calvin’s theology into a holistic worldview that had a particularly God-centered orientation toward all things within the context of the modern consciousness. In other words, Neo-Calvinsim is actually a holistic theology. 

Each chapter highlights a distinct theological aspect of neo-Calvinsim. (1) Catholic and Modern, (2) Revelation and Reason, (3) Scripture and Organism, (4) Creation and Re-creation, (5) Image and Fall, (6) Common Grace and the Gospel, and (7) The Church and the World. This range shows Neo-Calvinism as a rich theology with broad implications and applications.

Holistic Faith

I was most interested to see how a holistic faith leavens all of modern life - a topic introduced and then developed throughout the book. This means that Christianity is an agent of positive change. It speaks to reality and offers reasons for its necessity in every area of life—not just for use in the church. Although the Bible does not give us knowledge for every discipline and area of expertise, the Bible remains relevant and authoritative due to the organic character of all reality, and subsequently of all knowledge. I thought of the ways that God sovereignly works in my life, and how my faith should impact the different spheres I live in - including areas of work, play, and relaxation.

What most moved me was seeing that the heart of neo-Calvinism is God's action of re-creation as the essence of Christianity, and the meaning of world history. In other words, God is moving and working everything towards a cumulative end. 

After examining the Garden of Eden and the pre-fall covenant, the authors conclude that neo-Calvinists claim the resurrected Christ as the center of the glory of the kingdom. The goal of both creation and re-creation is for God to dwell amongst his people. This beautiful insight helped me see Christ as supreme in this life and in the next.

Christ’s Kingdom

The book concludes with 16 theses that sum up the main emphasis of neo-Calvinism. The first thesis is that neo-Calvinism is a critical reception of Reformed orthodoxy, contextualized to address the questions of modernity. This book will challenge Calvinists to see how the Doctrines of Grace is more than just head knowledge. It is a call to show that the Christian faith continues to be relevant. 

Pastors will be rewarded to see the far-reaching impact of the Reformation. This book is an outstanding academic work that will help share and advance the theology of neo-Calvinism while motivating the work of Christ's kingdom.

I received a media copy of Neo-Calvinism and this is my honest review. Find more of my book reviews and follow Dive In, Dig Deep on Instagram - my account dedicated to Bibles and books to see the beauty of the Bible and the role of reading in the Christian life. To read all of my book reviews and to receive all of the free eBooks I find on the web, subscribe to my free newsletter.

[mindfulldsliving]

Unveiling Modern Theophany: Joseph Smith's First Vision and Ancient Biblical Encounters

The First Vision, by Del Parson Joseph Smith’s First Vision stands as a pivotal moment in the history of the Church, comparable to significant prophetic encounters found in ancient scriptures. How does this modern theophany deepen our understanding of personal revelation and divine communication? In this post, I’ll explore the layers of Joseph’s experience within the context of biblical events,…

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The phrase, “ordo salutis” is a Latin scholastic term that designates, “the order of salvation,” as it appears in Scripture. This is the theological doctrine dealing with the logical sequencing of the covenant planning and application of benefits in the redemptive work of God, through Jesus Christ, by the power of the holy Spirit…

[brothermouse]

So I’ve been kinda fed up with listening to ‘Christians’ talk about Mormonism, so to take a break from that I decided to start doing something that would piss off some Bible Thumpers: read the Quran.

To be fair, though, I’m not exactly reading it, I’m listening to an audiobook version.

Anyways, I thought I’d record my thoughts and impressions here. I don’t know too much about Islam, but I thought it might be interesting to look at another faith’s holy book through a Mormon lens.

For the record this is the version I’m listening to.

This all just gonna be string of consciousness stuff as I ‘read’. I’ll try and and give references to where I’m reading from, but I might get things wrong. Sorry if I ramble.

First part is the introduction from the translator.

Just hearing about what the Quran is I think It's not fair to compare it to the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It’s not a narrative story. It's more like Doctrine & Covenants; a collection of revelations around specific circumstances that have wide application by virtue of being The Word of God.

First Chapter: The Opening

It begins with a sort of prayer to God. It's very short and very nice. I like it.

Second Chapter: The Heifer

Next part has a retelling of the Adam and Eve story and little of the creation. Not as detailed as the Bible, but it hits the important points.

It quickly runs through the story of Moses, again, less detailed than the Bible, but hits important points. I guess in Islam they must also read the Torah or some equivalent? Or at least there’s an oral tradition? The text references Biblical stories a lot. So there’s gotta be some way for them to be familiar with them. I’m just wondering how.

It talks about some confirmation bias. People who reject the truth before them because it doesn't fit the truth they want. There's also some talk of hardening hearts. Sounds familiar.

"They say We believe in the what has been revealed to us, while they deny what has been sent down after." -“A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible.” 2 Nephi 29:6

"Those are a people who have passed away, what they did is theirs, what you do is yours" I think this is specifically talking about Abraham and Isaac, but it reminds me of the sec Article of Faith “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”

There's a part here talking about the direction to pray (towards Mecca) and it seems like to main purpose is to help make a distinction between Muslims and other faiths (Christians and Jews are named). Makes me think of the way we often, though not always, have our temples face east or towards Salt Lake. It's not an exact parallel, but I, like Ultron, find the geometry of faith... fascinating.

There's some dietary restrictions here: "Eat the wholesome things...He has forbidden you only blood, carrion and the flesh of swine." So, no blood (does that include raw steak?) or pork, and I'm guessing carrion means animals that weren't slaughtered but died on their own? I imagine that, like with the Word of Wisdom there's room for interpretation.

There's some talk of fasting, and it goes into some detail. One thing I like is that "for those who can fast only with extreme difficulty, there is a way to compensate, the feeding of a needy person". I see fast offering parallels, but I have some righteous envy that this clear alternative to fasting is played out so clearly.

Apparently Ramadan is the month that the Quran was given And that's why they fast for it? I actually didn't know that. Neat!

I also like how there's a provision that if you're sick or traveling during Ramadan, you can just shift your fast. So if I'm horribly sick the first three days, I can just start and end three days later. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but that's how I understand it.

"God desires ease for you, not hardship." - “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” 2 Nephi 2:25

Lotta talk about pilgrimage. I'm guessing this is the pilgrimage to Mecca, unless there's another one I don't know about. It kinda makes me think of Trek, which feels like a decentralized, youth focused, small scale pilgrimage of sorts. I know people have all kinds of problems with Trek, but I think looking at it through that lens makes it more meaningful? I dunno. Weird thought. Rambling.

"They ask you, Prophet, about intoxicants and gambling. Say, there is great sin in both, although they have some benefit to people." -strong drink is not for the belly WoW

There's a section that lays out a lot of rules around marriage, divorce, and family. Clear rules like this are unusual to me. Most rules in Mormon scriptures are squishier. Vague and open to interpretation unless clarified by modern policy. I imagine there's plenty of modern Muslims that have arguments that make these rules squishy, but it's just unusual for me to see clear rules like that.

I guess the Mormon approach is "Learn correct principles, govern yourself" and I do like that, but I can also see the appeal and draw of this sort of "Book of the Law" approach. Both have value, benefits, and drawbacks. It's just an interesting contrast. Having clear rules set out in scripture like this would definitely encourage careful study and scholarship of the text, but it can become ridged and dated. The squishy method allows for more adaptability, but that can get pretty far out of hand if you’re not careful.

I think overall so far, it’s nice, I like it. The only issue I have is that there’s a kind of ‘combative’ tone. By which I mean, there’s a lot of, “these people do this, and you shouldn’t” from what little I know about Islamic history, that sort of boundary marking makes sense. It was and is important and necessary to differentiate your faith from others in this way. But it just rubs up against my Utah Mormon sensibilities. Us Mormons HATE confrontation, even with other Mormons. We try and get along and not pick fights or cause a fuss, so this more combative, defensive approach from a religious text makes me a little uncomfy. I’m not saying it’s bad or wrong. It’s just different from what I’m used to. Besides, it’s not like I can change it, so I’ll just live with it.

That’s as far as I got for now.

[gingermcl]

Baptism means “initiatory sacrament of the Christian faith, consisting of immersion in or application of water by an authorized administrator," see baptize

Baptize is “to administer the rite of baptism to," from Old French batisier meaning “be baptized; give a name to" from Greek baptizein "immerse, dip in water, be over one's head" (in debt, etc,) to be soaked in wine” from baptein "to dip, steep, dye, color," which is perhaps from PIE root *gwabh- (1) "to dip, sink."

When someone is baptized, they are said to have entered into a covenant with the Lord. A covenant is an agreement with a group of witches. You have promised to fulfill the system of the Lord in the Bible, the Elohim. False gods, not the supreme creator or eternal essence. The Elohim are manifestation of the demiurge, an ancient AI system for lack of better terminology.

Baptism is to take an oath or make a contract with the demiurge. The baptized person has agreed to serve the demiurge instead of the actual supreme creator, which is within. When one is “saved,” they aren’t being saved from eternal damnation, the system is saving itself from losing an energy being.

The message of Christ is ancient knowledge that all of mankind knew at one time. Only a fraction of Christ’s messages in the Bible. Christ did not teach that he died for sin or saved anyone, he actually taught we are to save ourselves. In order to fully understand what he meant, one should read the Nag Hammadi scriptures and Dead Sea Scrolls. Any gnostic texts are also very helpful. The entire. Christ died for your sins and all you have to do is believe in him is gross mistranslation of some of the writings of Paul and John.

I also thought of b-apt-ism. Sim means practice, system, or doctrine. Apt is “inclined, fitted, adapted,” Baptism makes me think “be inclinedto follow the doctrine of the false god” one who is baptized is apt to follow the man and the matrix, instead of honoring the eternal essence within your sovereign self. We are fractals of eternal essence, experiencing creation and Annie, and always possible. God is a force, and it’s all of us. It’s not just one being. The first emanation of spirit or the most high goddess for the gnostics was Barbelon or Babel. I have a suspicion that the tower of babel was actually honoring the proper creator and that’s why it was destroyed.

[mordigen]

Wicca is a Sex Cult - you won’t change my mind. Pt 2

And so we decided to join.....

We made our arrangements with our parents, each one of us “spending the night” with another so as to cover our tracks for our midnight outing. We were led in a fairly run-o-the-mill initiation rite with a group of other new members. They cast a circle, we were in white linen robes and donned with flower crowns. We all had a specific role in ‘calling’ the towers as to be one with the ritual we were involved in - they lit a bonfire. We all had candles, they lit one by one as they spouted out prayers and incantations. We were anointed and saged. When it came our time, we would speak our part  - some generically worded ‘dedication’ to the Goddess. We tossed our crowns into the fire, along with a lock of our hair. As we were officially initiated, the lead would come around and extinguish our candles as she closed the circle. It was nice enough, but ....anticlimactic. I’ll be honest, I don’t know what I was expecting, but whatever it was - the reality fell flat. BUT, I walked away thinking - well that’s not bad at all! What was I ever worried about? It seemed to galvanize my faith, and my denial. And since I was still under the belief that this was just a modern interpretation of a very olde faith, I thought then, perhaps, all those things we read about were simply from the “olde ways”, and this modern faith was nothing to worry about. 

But, it all changed once we had been initiated. There were now suddenly heavy expectations of new members. You HAD to attend so many meetings, or you’d be kicked out. You HAD to contribute so much work, or you’d be kicked out. You HAD to follow the High Priestesses rules - whatever that may be within each meeting - or you’d be kicked out. You HAD to pay tithings, or you’d be kicked out. And, of course - once you were initiated. Well....that’s when all the rituals became “skyclad”....and you HAD to participate....or else you’d be kicked out. 

Well. Spoiler alert - I was kicked out. I wasn’t the only one, but there were a couple of our friends who stayed. And I was once again seething in envy. They came back with stories that were shocking, honestly, with some of the things they had to do --- but they also came back with fantastic stories about all these new things they were learning and doing, and I just couldn’t stand it. There was one skyclad meditation class my friend was a part of where she was partnered with an 60 something year old man, where there was touching. Nothing scandalous - but still, contact. And whilst I absolutely did NOT want to get naked in front of a 60 year olde man, and I absolutely did NOT want to see a naked 60 year olde man - and did not want to have to touch palms with him, whilst both of us are horribly uncomfortably naked - I couldn’t get past everything she was taking away from it. She constantly touted how natural it was, how uninhibited you felt and how nothing dirty or sexual every happened and how it was supposed to force you beyond the realms of your body, where you didn’t even notice that you or anyone else was naked. Months passed, and the ones who stayed had nothing but positive things to say - and they had seemingly accomplished so much. Comparisons between nude beaches and nudist colonies abound, and the tut-tutting of how Americans are just a bunch of prudes because of Puritans. It’s a hard argument to dispute. The grooming was successful. They had won them all over. And truth be told, they were winning me over as well. I had started to reevaluate all my misgivings. I was just a prude. I was a slave to Puritan thought and tradition. 

It was less than a month hereafter, my friend was selected to participate in the Great Rite. I will not state how olde she was at the time, but her ‘partner’ was well into his 40s. I know nothing of the details beyond how utterly excited and eager she was, and how she apparently was able to achieve astral projection and make it to the Akashic Library.

Supposedly all her workings she ever did were wild successes - she got everything she ever wanted, and seemed to have just an infinite amount of knowledge about anything. She soared in confidence, personality, popularity, experimentation, intellect, and owned her blooming sexuality. I was unbelievably jealous. 

I made moves to join another coven myself. I wanted what she had. I wanted to become this enlightened, powerful, greater version of myself I ever could be. I wanted to be that fucking cool. So, I did some digging, and met some people. But, as I had come to find out - it was extremely hard to find one open to younger members. Specifically because of the sexual content. I eventually found one open to younger members. In retrospect, I did absolutely no due diligence whatsoever - I joined the first one that was open to minors as I was just desperate to join one, and start my journey to become as awesome as my friend. Only, this one was run by a Priest, not Priestess, and forced skyclad from the get go - it was part of their “trials” as to whether or not you were serious in your journey, as, according to them, that was the -only- way to perform rituals. If you were uncomfortable doing so, then you were not “ready”. 

So I performed. I hated every minute of it. I was unbelievably uncomfortable in front of all these complete strangers. But I forced myself through it, still holding fast to the idea that I just needed to shed all of my puritanical preconceptions and become comfortable in my own skin. The older men gravitated to the younger members - which was encouraged by the women as a rite of passage, for the sake of “mentoring”, that they all had gone through it themselves in their time. In more than one of my sessions, they were notably aroused. The older members brushed it off as just being a natural effect of the human nature, and not to take offense to it. So I pushed through, and tried to ignore it. I never had any of the overwhelming, enlightening experiences my friends claimed to have experienced - just horridly uncomfortable encounters with sexually aroused older men gawking at me. I was turned away from this coven for not being a “right fit” and not being “ready” for my journey. I was devastated. Though, when I look back on it today, I can only think that they could see/feel my discomfort and believed I would either not engage with them at all, in which case what’s the point? Or, if I did, I would have caved and told someone about the encounters - which would be a lot of problems for them.

But, I was young, and I was an idiot, and I was effectively brainwashed. So I set out to find another one, and was determined to not let my insecurities ruin my chances of being able to learn and grow in a legitimate Coven. It took a while, but I eventually found another one open to minors. They had legitimate application forms. I applied. I went to a few meetings and what could only be described as interviews. I had to take several tests. I found this encouraging - they really took the educational/intellectual side seriously. They swooned over the knowledge I had already gained - especially for it being all on my own. I was delighted. I was blind to the fact that so many of their tests were centered around doctrine - one of which being the secrecy aspect, yet again. Apparently, I had all the right answers. I was selected for initiation. I was ecstatic. But then they informed me that initiation was performed through the Great Rite, with either the High Priest or Priestess, and though wouldn’t be open to the entire Coven, would be confirmed/witnessed by the other Priest and several of the high-ranking officials. I immediately grew anxious - but I was determined. So I agreed....

(...continued)

[butterfly-winx]

Eraklyon

Eraklyon is known for its riches, political intrigue and peculiar standing in the magical society. The lavish lifestyle of its inhabitants is supported by the ores and minerals hidden in the crust beneath the country, that has caused many an envious eye to be thrown at it.

Eraklyon is located on Manubra 47, a mid sized planet they share with 27 other countries spread over the continents divided from each other by unique freshwater oceans. Two of their most prominent neighbours are Nishii and the island country Callisto.

Eraklyon, like Magics has the means to supply basic amenities to its inhabitants free of charge, though on Eraklyon they do mean the barest necessities: shelter and water. Nevertheless those two taken care of the general stress level about self-sustenance among the low economical classes is staggeringly low compared to other countries of the Magical Universe.

Just like on Solaria, the favourite trade products are gems and minerals that they gladly share with their more famous business partner. A lot of jewellery is is made on Solaria, but mined in Eraklyon. Though semi- and precious stones may be what they are most know for, their other mining products such as oil and carbon gases is what gets them into tension with their neighbouring countries.

As nice as a life in such a well-off stable society sounds like, Eraklyon has never been the object of envy for most people who know what lies beyond the exterior. The country is almost always locked in war with one or the other bordering region in a never ending conflict over territories and mining rights on ground and on the colony planetoids. Borders have shifted considerably over the centuries, the people being displaced adopting a bi-lingual and bi-cultural lifestyle fluent in both Rak (the language of Eraklyon) and the other language of their residence. The instability this introduces had many people flee overseas to Callisto, or straight up just as far away as possible,  onto another planet.

The war at current times is tame. It has morphed, and had to because of the massive causalities it has reaped in the past. Neither Eraklyon, nor Nishii, the two main perpetrators in the fight, are technologically underdeveloped. They had the means to employ weapons of mass destruction against each other and not too long, only two centuries ago they did, nuking most of the people and inhabitable zones of the planet. Magic may not be able to solve all problems, but with the use of the nature core most life was salvaged, the only evidence of  it ever happening a scar on the surface that is slowly being filled by the seas. It was a grim reminder to the ruling class, that at the end of they are nothing without the people they are sworn to lead, serve and protect. The very ways of warfare had to be rewritten.

At this point, no one on Manubra 47 is allowed to hold an army at steady whose sole purpose is to lead wars. Military and its deployment are only permitted when the purpose serves the well-being of all people of the country, say an outside invasion or criminal activity, but never for the personal interest of the ruling classes. They are permitted personal protection units, but even those are limited in size. So the tension moved, the stress of being a casualty moved from the people’s shoulders with the war being solely confined to the royals and rulers themselves.

What began there is known as the Bello Sicarii, the personal war of assassinations, hits and extortion among the members of the royalty. This experience is what shaped Sky’s life growing up and necessitated employing Brandon as a body double for most of his life. It is not rare that it happens, because of the specific rules that further define the Bello Sicarii. In the first years, hits had an extremely high success rate, neither party really used to the new rules and the implemented security measures were lacking, leading to a much too frequent change of regents. That left countries destabilised and at the brink of another civil crisis that neither party on Manubra could afford. 

The new postulations drafted specified, that in order to retain a ruler for as long as possible, adults would be largely spared but their progeny would not. Children before reaching adulthood were fair game, as interrupting the succession line of a ruler carried almost as much weight as an assassination itself. After an heir has reached adulthood, matters would get much more complicated with the young royal being able to sign contracts, make diplomatic agreements and get entangled in business relations, as to such that their “removal” would have significant consequences for the planetary peace and economy. This is something frankly normal to Sky, but he is sweating up a storm thinking if he had to ever explain that to Bloom in the event that they got married and were thinking of having children. (This is also the reason why Bloom’s impersonation of Princess Varanda of Callisto passed for so long, since Varanda has truly never left the protective hideout she had been brought up in and no one off planet has ever seen her.)

Religion on Eraklyon is a double edged sword. Their main belief is a strong doctrine that aims to lead people down a very predestined, rigid path of moral righteousness. In doing so, painting one lifestyle as supremely right, it has the tendency to demonise anything else that deviates from it. Especially magic.

Eraklyon, like Earth, operates a split society where non-magic people and magic users and creatures live in almost separate societies with a hierarchy of their own. While non-magic Eraklyonites know of the existence of magic and do use it in certain amounts, they fear it more than they appreciate it. Especially witchcraft, which has become a notorious example of why magic is bad in the eyes of religious people. In ancient times witch covens liberally offered trade and magical problem solving to those who were willing to pay a certain price for it. It snowballed into a sort of worship that angered the rising power of religious folk, who protested this kind of exchange because of the missing toil in the magical solutions. In their eyes there was no moral lesson, no growth in allowing oneself to rely on spells and magic alone, so they despised the the craft so much that witches entirely left the planet at some point.

The religious doctrine permeates almost everything concerning social life. The rigidity of it demands clearly defined social classes that are largely kept separate, like castes. Elevating oneself is of course possible, so the spiritual leaders say, if only one behaves according to the path of the right. Otherwise every misfortune that happens to one is justly brought upon punishment. This idea is by the way remarkably at odds with the motto of the country that states, Imbalance is paramount for progress, as it keeps social mobility at stagnation.

Imbalance and asymmetry are also beloved design elements that set Eraklyonites apart from other cultures off planet. They are not as avant-garde as people from Zenith, but favouring rich hand-woven fabric, brocades, taffeta and silhouettes that remind of 19th century Earth fashion. No two sides of a building, dress, or haircut are the same but the overall picture is never off kilter, both sides of the design packing incredibly high detail density. For this reason clothing is still hand-crafted and is not a mass market product like in other countries or planets.

One happy thing though that everyone will be able to tell you about Eraklyon, is that they celebrate a lot. They have 18 religious and commemorative days that are bank holidays, but on top of that they also value birthdays very much. Every person automatically receives the day off on their day of birth and may request other ones off for those of their immediate family - meaning spouse, sibling, children, parents, even up to grandparents. Job applications in Eraklyon typically start with a big wall of birth dates requested to give the employer an idea of when one might not be available to work. For seasonal work, people are preferred whose family doesn’t have predominantly summer birthdays, just to make sure harvesting is done on time without Celebration Delays, as they call that.

Eraklyon is a core member of the Company of Light. Being constantly at war gave them the advantage of having armies at the ready to be deployed to protect people from the Ancestresses attacks, plus their experience in battle strategies has come handy more than once, latest in the fight against Tritannus. The people of Eraklyon are a proud people, infused with blind love and trust in their homeland despite its shortcomings. However, they offer the same fierce love and loyalty to all the people close to their hearts.

[nottskyler]

Politics and the Church: Socialism (Part 1)

For the first segment where the doctrines of the Church don’t put us on one side of an issue, I want to bring up a topic that most members of the Church think is black and white, especially since members disagree as to whether it is entirely good or entirely bad. 

I was brought up in the bible belt and communism and socialism were both equally terrible and bad. Coming to terms with my queer identity and interacting with West Coast Mormonism, I have found many people who feel like socialism is what Gd wants from us. I can see where people are coming from on both sides, but I think this discussion ought to be a lot more nuanced than people make it.

The call for efforts on the socialism/communism end of the spectrum come from the call to help the poor and needy and the law of consecration. It isn’t too surprising as the early Church was accused of being socialist and that Church leaders when first given the law of consecration turn to something that looks like communism or socialism, but I don’t think that is the “one right way” to follow the law of consecration. I particularly get that feeling when I learned about Peter’s attempt to enforce the law of consecration involved using the power of Gd to kill people who did not give their all (Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5). I get the icky this is not of Gd feeling whenever I read that story (like the prophet who used his power to kill children with a bear for making fun of him).  If we were struck dead every time we were slightly dishonest in keeping our covenants or even if it only comes when we actively break our covenants, we would all be dead.

That doesn’t mean the early Church’s application of it failed to work or that the Church doesn’t operate on some level of almost socialism through tithing and the Bishop’s storehouses. I also don’t think it is true to say that Christ said support socialism, he said pay taxes (and Rome had a little bit more socialism than we do in the US) and that your wealth in your warehouses will do you very little when you are dead and that you ought to give of your own goods freely to the poor and needy. I think this very much a commandment that has multiple ways of correctly following it.

I have spent a lot more time in the homes and around conservative people who think socialism is evil, but they are always active in doing things to help the poor and needy, both in and beyond their communities. At least among Church members, I have never seen a conservative reject socialism and not do something to help the poor and needy. They feel like it is their obligation to serve and to love and to give while the government can’t be trusted to do what they can do better. I’m sure liberal members are just as good as getting out and helping in the community, but I think it is unfair to call people who oppose socialism as people who don’t care for the poor and needy.

That said, I think we do need to look at matters on a larger scale than individuals of a certain religion in certain communities because the Church is not the majority everywhere in the US. There are starving people, there are homeless people, there are people in great need that are not getting what they need in the current set-up. Socialism in Scandinavian countries look like they are completely successful, but we can’t disregard the fact that socialism failed in Venezuela. Socialism is the not the cure to a society that fails to take care of its poor and needy; it takes more than enacting it to make it successful.

This means that discussions about socialism needs to be more nuanced than “caring for the poor and needy”.  I will break down more what nuances I’ve seen in my next post, but I hope this post helps us realize that the left and right ideals for taking care of the poor and needy are both in line with the teachings of the Church. There is more than one way to help people in need and there is no one right way to meet the needs of communities.