#premorte

[valentina-lauricella]

Near death experience

Ieri ho visto una persona che appena entrata nella stanza ho capito subito avesse qualcosa di speciale; era come se sorridesse interiormente e quel sorriso arrossava e illuminava tutta la pelle; il modo in cui stava con i piedi graziosamente divaricati come un ballerino a dare stabilità alla figura massiccia e arrotondata; gli occhi brillanti, e un'aura attorno, che nessun altro dei presenti aveva. Avrei pensato che fosse ubriaco: invece, come raccontò, vent'anni prima aveva avuto un'esperienza di premorte, e tutta la sua gioia derivava da questo, dal fatto di sapere, al contrario di noi che soltanto crediamo, non crediamo o non sappiamo che pesci pigliare.

[burnt-kloverfield]

It's so surreal to me to think about how so many people will say things like "I didn't choose to be born, to be here, to exist." When one of the core beliefs I have as a mormon is that we all existed(as energy, as a soul, as an entity, what have you) before we were born into a physical body. And that we had explicit agency to choose to be born and to have a body. There was a whole pre-mortal war about agency and having our own opportunities to make choices, and the whole fact that we are on earth today in a physical body is because we all made a choice to do this whole life thing.

[brothermouse]

If gender is eternal, like the family proc says, than it exists beyond the scope of physical reproduction. Otherwise it would be useless in the times in our lives when we are not able to reproduce. Gender would be irrelevant for the young, the old, the singles, the infertile, those who intend to marry and are currently keeping the law of chastity, etc.

If gender is eternal then we had it in the pre-existance and it is a part of our spirit, not our body. Our bodies don't always match our spirits, as any bald man will likely agree. Gender cannot be determined merely by physical metrics.

If gender is eternal, then it is like other eternal things. We know it's not eternally bad like eternal misery, eternal damnation, eternal stagnation. Eternally bad things are static and unchanging. Gender is eternally good, like eternal growth, eternal happiness, eternal progress. All eternally good things are in a state of growth, change, and expansion.

Therefore our current understandings of gender are most likely inaccurate in the long term and based on temporary mortal circumstances that will soon pass.

Unlike those who are, ironically, most likely to quote the Family Proclamation, I choose to actually take it seriously when it says "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

[nerdygaymormon]

A Brief History of the LDS Church's Transgender Teachings and Policies

Gender identity and gender roles are important in LDS theology and practices. For most of the 1800s, church presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had men, women, and children sit separately for all Sunday meetings. Nowadays, some of the Sundays church meetings are still divided by biological sex. Temple worship is also similarly divided.

For decades, the LDS Church believed that in the premortal life, when intelligences were organized into spirits that they may have chosen whether to live as male or female during mortality, and that poor choices during their time on earth could demote them back to a genderless condition. Joseph Fielding Smith, who was made an apostle in 1910 and became president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1970, was well known for teaching that those who do not reach the Celestial Kingdom will be neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings.

As a teenager in the 1980's, I remember being in Sunday School class and the teacher saying that when we're resurrected we can look down, and if we don't see a penis or vagina then we know we're not making it to the Celestial Kingdom.

Along with this, for many years the LDS Church seems to have viewed all queerness as a form of gender confusion, whether it was a man thinking he's a woman or a man who is attracted to other men.

As the fight over gay marriage ramped up, the teaching about genderless spiritual beings was replaced with the idea that gender is forever and this was incorporated into the 1995 Family Proclamation which states that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

The idea is that each of us are a son or daughter of heterosexual & cisgender heavenly parents, and we are meant to become like them. There is a strict binary of spiritual gender identities and gender roles. Ideally, our bodies should be formed in a way that reflects our spiritual body, including our spiritual gender, but the reality of the physical world is that things often don't work as we'd expect them to, but that doesn't change our spiritual gender.

Let me take this moment to point out that the notion of gender being eternal does not exist in scripture, this is a fairly recent evolution.

And while the idea is that gender is an innate and unchangeable part of our souls, the Church has also felt that gender needs to be nurtured, protected, and defended. There have been many rules about what women may wear to BYU and to Sunday services. For many years the advice to leaders on how to counsel with young men experiencing same sex attraction was to have them spend time around manly men and participate in masculine activities, and to not wear androgynous or feminine styles.

For a long time, LDS Church leaders were more aware of homosexuality and focused on this, and their mentions of trans people remained pretty infrequent.

In 1980, Spencer W. Kimball was president of the LDS Church and was outspoken opponent of homosexuality, however he authorized the sealing of a trans woman to her husband in the Washington, D.C. temple. Perhaps in response to this, later that year LDS authorities updated the official General Handbook of Instructions to officially prohibit “transsexual operations.” The handbook stated that “members who have undergone transsexual operations must be excommunicated” and that “after excommunication such a person is not eligible for baptism.”

I first got access to Handbook 1 in 2016, and excommunication was still the standard, although it said "elective transsexual operations" (not sure when the word "elective" was added). Surgery was the boundary line which if crossed would result in excommunication. However, the phrase "elective transsexual operations" recognized there are some circumstances where such operations are required or aren't the choice of the individual. For example, a man whose genitals were injured and couldn't be kept, or an intersex person who had surgery performed on them as an infant or child.

Any individual who was considering "elective transsexual surgery" was not allowed to be baptized, but for an individual who had undergone "transsexual surgery" and now wanted to be baptized, it had to be approved by the First Presidency. If they were allowed to be baptized, they would not be allowed to receive the priesthood or participate in gender-separated temple rites (which limited them to doing baptisms).

There was some wiggle room on whether top surgery is considered "transsexual surgery" and depended on the local leader's interpretation. There was no policy on transitioning in ways that didn't involve surgery, such as hormone therapies, “cross dressing,” or other means of living out one’s gender.

In January 2015, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, "I think we need to acknowledge that while we have been acquainted with lesbians and homosexuals for some time, being acquainted with the unique problems of a transgender situation is something we have not had so much experience with, and we have some unfinished business in teaching on that." This reflects the growing awareness of trans individuals and showed some humility on his part. Elder Oaks had often spoken out on homosexuality and gay marriage, but this statement was thoughtful and many took it as cautiously optimistic.

Some transgender Mormons in explaining that their bodies do not reflect their gender identity would point to the Family Proclamation which says "gender" is eternal but not necessarily their sex. In response, in 2019 Elder Oaks said that “the intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation and as used in Church statements and publications since that time is biological sex at birth.”

In 2020, a major revision of the Church's general Handbooks were made. Handbook 1 (which was only available to bishoprics, stake presidencies, and General Authorities) was combined with Handbook 2 and put on the Church's website for all to see. This revision included major changes for transgender members.

The term "elective transsexual surgery" was gone, and now any social, medical or surgical transitioning would bring restrictions. Many saw this as more restrictive, it took away the space to transition in ways other than surgery while remaining in good standing as a member. Some saw it as a step at being more accommodating as excommunication was not the de facto punishment for transitioning. A church member could decide if transitioning was important enough to them that they'd be willing to be without a temple recommend.

The 2024 Handbook update seems like they felt some local church leaders had taken things further than had been anticipated, and so they had to plug in the gaps from the 2020 Handbook that leaders had used to be inclusive and accommodating of their trans members. Now members who transitioned in any were not allowed to be baptized, restricted from holding almost all callings, specified which meetings & activities they may attend, forbids trans youth and young single adults from overnight activities, and even has specific rules about under how a trans person may use the restroom.

[timemachineyeah]

I really, really need you to elaborate on this note you left on a post. I'm fascinated.

If you don't I'm sure I'll survive but this is an absolutely intriguing concept.

Whoooo, yeah, let's talk about Mormon theology and cosmology!!!

In response to me saying that this is basically Mormon theology, because it absolutely is

(I swear, being raised Mormon, and especially the studious and serious kind, and then leaving the church is like that bit in the first episode of The Office where they think they might be getting shut down and Jim says something like, "I know so much about paper. What I am supposed to do with all this knowledge if I don't work here any more." Like I never got very far in The Office, but I think about that feeling all the time.)

From the book of Mormon, 2nd Nephi Chapter 2:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. 24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Also worth noting that Mormons are so opposed to original sin that it's actually the second of the 13 Articles of Faith, which I had to memorize in grade school. The only article that comes before it is the one saying we believe in God, Jesus, and The Holy Ghost.

"2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

And stealing from the church's official current website on the topic

President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!”

Adam's fall is considered an unequivocal good to Mormons. So this whole take on theology taps into two very import Mormon principles.

The first is "agency", "free agency", or "free will". This basically boils down to: you can't grow, your actions can't matter, if you don't have a choice. The ability to choose is power, and we are here specifically to experience that freedom and to learn how to use it.

This was actually the basis of a premortal war (don't ask how folks without bodies who can't die do a war, I've no idea) between Lucifer and Jesus, because Lucifer wanted to guarantee everyone's salvation by eliminating the ability to choose wrong. The losing side was cast out of heaven and that's where Satan and demons come from!

Here have a musical number about from a VHS I used to watch constantly (in case the link malfunctions, relevant song starts at 10:55)

The second is, "opposition". Basically, things can only exist in contrast. You can only truly recognize something in comparison to something else. Ergo, a world without suffering or sin is also a world without joy or virtue. It is a nothing world. Here, a worse song from the same musical! (starts at 8:57)

By this principle, the Garden of Eden, while wonderful from the outside in retrospect, was not wonderful from within, because Adam and Eve had no frame of reference for it. To them it was just Existence, and as an existence was fairly bland.

Another thing to understand here is that Mormons believe in a premortal existence. We are all, spiritually, as ancient as God is. We've all always existed. Another Mormon principle is one of "Eternal Progress" - the idea that we are always on a journey to improve, and are capable of improving to even the state of Heavenly Father.

I remember asking once if Heavenly Father was done progressing, and told we can't possibly know, but it's possible that even He has more progress to make. But if so, we can't possibly comprehend what he is progressing towards and it's not relevant to us now.

It's important to realize that "As man is, God once was. As God is, man might become" is, like, central to Mormon theology. We aren't lesser things than God, just not as far progressed. He's among the first caterpillars to figure out how to make a chrysalis and become a butterfly and he's trying to show us how to do the same.

Regardless, a necessary step to this progress, to growth, is to live a mortal physical life in a body. A body is so important that Mormons believe at the second coming everyone who ever lived will be resurrected into "perfect" eternal immortal bodies. (This ALL creates MANY logistical and theological problems but we don't have time for all that!)

Other necessary steps include compulsive heterosexuality, marriage, and having children. Because of course.

But if God's power is not innate, but rather something he has gained by being Perfectly Good And Noble - which is like the Force or something - then he isn't truly omnipotent. He is so powerful and omniscient that to us mere mortals the distinction is meaningless, but God cannot endorse harm or cruelty without potentially losing his Godhood. Godhood is conditional upon good behavior. Morality is a natural force in the universe that can be utilized, but! See above about opposition! And free will! To utilize it, you have to be capable of knowingly being bad and choose good anyway!

This puts God in kind of a bind when it comes to guiding humanity.

He needs people to have knowledge of good and evil, but if he gives it to them directly, he'd kinda be doing a bad thing? Like, he'd be causing suffering to just force knowledge of good and evil upon us. The suffering can't be something inflicted upon humanity, it has to be a product of human choice. And choice is essential, but to learn to make choices, first you must be presented with simple ones.

Like Adam and Eve are immortal, physical, useless baby adults who cannot progress. They need to progress, and they also need to get to boning or else all the other spirit children waiting in heaven to be born will not have bodies.

So God sets up a little trap. A little trick. Just a fun little -just a fun little game.

He puts a tree in the garden and he's like, "Just leaving this over here. Don't touch it. But it's right here. See it? Right here. Just making sure you saw it. Yeah, don't touch it. In fact, two commandments for you.

Go have kids

Don't eat that fruit"

And Adam and Eve are like, "cool, great, awesome."

And God is like, really loudly in front of Lucifer/The Snake like, "Oh noooooooo. I sure hope they don't eat from this treeeeee. That would be terrrrrrible! They'd learn about SIN and BECOME MORTAL." and Satan is like "tehehehe I have a great idea!"

Meanwhile Eve, who is currently a metaphysical biological immortal, does not know what sex is and has no sex drive. She's like, "Sooooo? The kids part? How that?"

And the snake is like "You can find out, but you gotta eat this fruit" (true! this is Eden, it is still free from sin. The snake cannot lie here, yet. Because folk Mormon theology - Satan can't lie! That's a fun fact about him. He twists and manipulates truths, but lying is a Mortal gift we got from the whole Fruit thing that Eve is about to do)

And Eve is like, "Yeah, sure, I want babies. God told me to have them so...." and eats the fruit exactly as God intended her to, tempted by the snake exactly as God planned. And she was like, "Oh! I WANNA BONE ADAM. ADAM EAT THIS SO YOU KNOW WHAT BONING IS SO I CAN BONE YOU."

But then they were materially and metaphysically changed, so they couldn't stay in the Garden anymore. Less about casting out, more about God having to follow the Moral Metaphysical Laws that give him his power.

I was even taught it's not even that childbirth/periods/menstrual pain were punishments from God. They are just natural results of sexual reproduction and the part where God says that's gonna happen now isn't him giving Eve a curse, just kinda God giving Eve some sex ed. Since she'll need it.

Basically, God couldn't tell Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, and in fact was morally obligated to tell them not to, because doing so would cause suffering and death. But the suffering and death aren't a punishment from God, they're just facts about the world that become real when you know about them, but you have to know about them and experience them in order to know and experience good things also, and become closer to being a god yourself, and God wanted us to have good things, so he wanted us to eat that fruit. Which is why he put it there.

So very much like leaving water out for a cat who thinks they're being naughty but actually you just want your cat to be hydrated.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.”

And before any baby Mormons come in here like, "nuh uh!" about any part of this, your "eternal truths" have been so watered down in the past several decades by leadership trying to seem mainstream and cling to hemorrhaging membership. Y'all don't even know your theology anymore half the time, and what's worse is it's just as toxic as ever but like 200% less interesting. I like Mormonism better when they're proudly declaring Bigfoot is Cain and talking about how John the Beloved already has an immortal body and has been wandering the world for 2000 years and confidently claiming he was the stranger who helped them fix a tire that one time.

[thoughtfulfoxllama]

Names of Gods

In the Temple Liturgy, we see the Creation of the Earth by Three Deities: Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. The Temple Endowment is one of the most sacred, symbolic experiences in the spiritual life of Latter-day Saints, but it is ill understood by many (because of its highly symbolic nature)

One of the issues of debate however, is the identities of the beings discussed in the Temple Liturgy. Usage of the names has been hotly debated since the introduction of the Nauvoo Endowment (the Endowment Proper, to separate from the Kirkland Endowment, known as the Initiatory in the Modern Church)

In this essay, I will explain the various views held throughout Church History. Although the Culterite Branche also practices the Nauvoo Endowment, we have no information on their ritual, so we will focus solely on the Brighamite Branches

Points of View discussed

MC- Modern Church. This holds that Elohim in God the Father (or our Heavenly Parents), Jehovah is the Premortal Christ, and Michael is Adam

BY- Brigham is infamous for his "Adam-God Doctrine," where Adam is God the Father, Jehovah is his God, and Elohim is Jehovah's God. He did also advance other views however (such as Elohim being the Father, Jehovah being the Premortal Christ, and Michael being the Holy Ghost)

Sym- Symbolic Interpretation. This was developed by Max Skousen in his infamous "Temple Book," and was further added on by later individuals. It holds that Elohim is our Divine Intelligence (which is a part of God), Jehovah is our Self, and Michael is our Physical Body. He believed that the Endowment was teaching us that we need to have everything in it's proper place. The Self listens to the Divine, and the Self has control over the Body. The Body don't control the Self, and the Self doesn't control the Divine

HS- I call this the "Holy Spirit Theory." It is based off of some interesting wording in the 5th Lecture on Faith. It says that the Holy Spirit is the shared mind of God the Father & Christ. However, in D&C 130, it says the "Holy Ghost [...] is a personage of Spirit. This believes that all gods have a shared mind, known as the Holy Spirit (BH Roberts also connects this shared mind to the Light of Christ). Elohim is the Light of Christ, Jehovah is the entire Godhead, and Michael is all of humanity

T- Title Theory. This is the theory that the Names of God are not names at all, but merely titles. For example, if God has "names" like, "Endless," "Eternal" (Meos in Adamic), and "Man of Holiness" ("Ahman" in Adamic), how can we trust any of his names. While often used to try to justify Adam-God, it is it's own separate thing

CRT- "Creator, Redeemed, Testator." Joseph Smith said that before Creation, Covenant was made between 3 Archetypical Beings, the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Testator. The idea is that each of the beings in the Temple is one of these beings

Elohim

In his Sermon in the Grove (Joseph's last sermon), he stated that Elohim was always plural. He then went on to give a radical retranslation of Genesis 1:1. Instead of "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth," he said that it meant roughly "The Head organized the Gods, and all things" (my own translation, but faithful to Joseph's words). While the King Follet Discourse revealed man's potential, the Sermon in the Grove populated the Eternities with, in the words of Paul "gods many and lords many."

MC- The belief that Elohim is God the Father is unsustainable, given Joseph's statement that Elohim is always plural. This doesn't mean the Modern Church is wrong though, but rather that we don't look at Elohim with a full understanding of Godhood. Godhood is Couplehood (or Throuplehood, or Quadruplehood, and so on). So, Elohim may refer specifically, not to Heavenly Father, but Heavenly Parents. After all, Modern Prophets have stated that Heavenly Mother(s) are deeply involved in our lives. Why wouldn't HM be there, alongside HF. He wouldn't be God without her, so Elohim still fits

BY- Admittedly, Adam-God is a huge cluster-screw. We know nothing from Brigham about the identity of Elohim from his own words. We have Joseph F Smith quoting an earlier source saying the Creation Trinity were "Grandfather, Father, and Son." He did state Jehovah was Michael's father, so maybe this is where that came from. But this is only 1 of the many inconstancies with Adam-God. For his views on it being "Father, Son, Spirit," see the MC explaination

Sym- Skousen has some interesting ideas. The idea that Elohim is in essence the root of being is an intriguing idea, and it allows Elohim to be plural. If one wanted to go further, the Lecture also says the Father is a Personage of Spirit, while the Son is a personage of Tabernacle. This has been connected by the Fundamentalists as the Liquid in their Veins (Blood or... It's never explained, but Spirit is the best word they can come up with). However, the idea that God the Father is this Divine Intelligence doesn't line up with D&C 130 (which states the Father was a body of Flesh & Bone), or with the First Vision. Unless, Elohim is what we are all called when we're Exalted (which connects to the Degrees of Glory. Celestial listen to the Intelligence, Terrestrial listen to Themselves, Telestial listen to their Senses)

HS- The Light of Christ makes an odd amount of sense here actually. In the Liturgy, Elohim commands the Creation, while Jehovah & Michael are the primary actors. The Light of Christ gives us (among other things) our Conscience. When were about to do something bad, we can get this feeling that we shouldn't. Maybe the Light of Christ also inspires that feeling in the gods. As this light is "in all things," it knows the proper timing, the proper order, everything like that. It also makes sense in the order as a whole, because the Earth was created spiritually, then physically. Jehovah (the gods) tells Michael (the Spirits), what needs to happen, then Michael reports when it's done. Maybe Michael needed to do their part, so Jehovah could do theirs

T- In the Title Theory, Elohim (more accurately, El) is the "Reshit," the Head of the Gods, speaking for the entire Divine Council. El (with his authority as essentially an EQ President) commands Jehovah & Michael to create the Earth, and commands Michael to people it.

CRT- Elohim (El) is the Great Organizer. He organized the Gods, and Organized the Creation (although he didn't actually participate, he did organize the work that needed to be done)

Jehovah

The name with the most debate, even before we get the Restoration. Jehovah (originally YHVH, but I'll just use Jehovah) was originally seen as a Storm God & a War God. Even by the time we get to Lehi's Departure, Jehovah was not a sole divinity. He was connected most notably with Asherah (Goddess of War, the Seas, Trees, and Motherhood) & El (the Head of the Gods)

By the Second Temple Period, Jehovah was stripped of equals. It also became prohibited to speak his name in public. This means, with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple (one of, if not the only place the Name could be spoken), the pronunciation was lost

In the Restoration, the use of Jehovah became... Chaotic to say the least. Joseph Smith used Jehovah to mean the Father in D&C 109, while in 110, Christ speaks with "the sound of rushing great waters, even the voice of Jehovah" (D&C 110:3). Brigham used Divine Names interchangeably, even saying "Elohim-Jehovah" as one name on more than one occasion. This naturally causes so much debate that Wilford Woodruff has to tell people to stop fighting about it. But, it went on. Jesus & Jehovah continued to be separated individuals in the Endowment, Joseph F Smith said Jehovah was Heavenly Father, and eventually, James Talmage wrote that Christ was Jehovah (an idea first officially pushed in the 1916 talk "The Father & the Son," and reiterated in "The Living Christ," on January 1st, 2000)

MC- Jehovah is Jesus Christ. "Before Abraham was, I am." This is the phrase Talmage used to prove his point. He also pointed out that Christ said in the Book of Mormon it was him who gave the Law on Sinai, and Jehovah was the Lawgiver

BY- Jehovah is God's God. He was well aquatinted with Adam's Children (possibly even being the god they worshipped, instead of Adam. This connects to the teachings of Fred Collier, who believed that Adam had 72 Sons, who were the gods of the 72 Nations). That's all Brigham had to say, aside from throwing out names like "Elohim-Jehovah" when referring to Michael (which makes no sense Brigham! No wonder people struggled to believe Adam-God, because it makes no sense, and you constantly contradict yourself!!!)

Sym- Jehovah is who we are, our Ego. It is meant as a go-between for the Divine Intelligence, and the Physical Body. This is similar to Christ, who came to mediate between Human & Divine

HS- This is based on the letters of the Name. According to David Ferriman (founder of the Fellowship of Christ, which is a Non-denominational Mormon Church), the Yod & the First Hei are our Heavenly Parents, while the Vav & the Second Hei are Christ & the Holy Ghost. While Ferriman (most likely, based on his other writings) doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit Theory, this interpretation of the name Jehovah is common for people who do

T- Jehovah is the God of a World. Before the Resurrection, Heavenly Father was Jehovah. When Christ said he gave the Law on Sinai, he did, and he was speaking on behalf of his Father. However, after the Resurrection, Christ became Jehovah, the God over this World

CRT- Jehovah is Christ. I've already said that above

Michael

In the Endowment Liturgy, Michael is Adam. There are literally millennia of people associating Adam with all of Mankind. This is especially meaningful when we are told to associate ourselves with Adam in the Temple

MC- There's not much to say. Adam is the First Man (possibly the Physical Son of Heavenly Parents, born Immortal, and needing to eat the fruit to become Mortal). He was the Archangel Michael (the only Archangel?), forgot that when he was created, and became an Archangel after death. He may have visited Christ during the Suffering in Gethsemane. Maybe he's resurrected, maybe not

BY- This one, more than any others, provides a huge discrepancy between the two views extended by Brigham (in the same flipping sermon!!!). Either Michael is "Our Father & Our God" or he his the Holy Ghost

There is a possibility he is both, as he is the Father of Humanity, our God (the Holy Ghost is a God), and "the Only God with whom we have to do" (because how many of us have seen Christ or the Father. Seriously, saying that part is even more confusing, considering we have 3 gods already!). This is not what Brigham had in mind however

If Michael is God, he is the Father of our Spirits (through Sexual Union), and then was sent to Earth by the Council, given Amnesia, tricked by Lucifer (who may also have a body, based on some interpretations of the Theory I've heard), and became the Father of Humanity. Eve is therefore Heavenly Mother (it appears we all share 1 Heavenly Mother. Each Wife gets a Planet, like they'd get their own house in Mortality)

Sym- Adam is the "Natural Man." Our physical desires, our fears and anger, all those things we associate as bad. However, we are not told to kill our passions, but to bridle them. No emotion is bad, but it needs to be under control (for example, libedo connects spouses, produces children, and gives pleasure. But, we are told to express it within strict bounds (marriage))

HS- Adam means "Man" (as in Mankind). We are told to associate ourselves with Adam in the Temple

T- Michael is the title of one who is called to begin life on a world. Likewise, Chavah (Eve) is the Name-Title of his help-meet (as Chavah means "Breath Giver," breath being representative of Life & the Spirit)

CRT- Michael is the Testator. However, we need to remember that we are told to associate ourselves with Adam in the Temple. Our first covenant (Baptism) include "standing as a witness of God." We are all Testators, we are all Michael

What do I think?

I think I need a break. The Hot Takes take a lot out of me, emotionally. Not just because I'm composing basically a full length essay, then vastly cutting it down (only keeping in about 1/50th of the Adam-God rants) in a couple hours, but because I'm worried about going too far

So, next week, it'll be something way more chill. Specifically, the Sabbath

[stayjustone-morenight]

Frothing at the mouth at the blatant absence of Heavenly Mother while talking about the premortal life.

[panlight]

Just out of curiosity, in case the line about blackest night seems familiar to anyone, it's because it's a famous line by Anne McCaffrey, one of the very famous and influential classic fantasy and scifi writers, the author of Dragonriders of Pern. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/345356-the-blackest-night-must-end-in-dawn-the-light-dispel

Incidentally, also one of the inspirations for imprinting!

Imprinting was inspired by two different sources: ducklings and dragons. Imprinting actually exists in nature, but usually between parents and their offspring. I saw a nature documentary about ducklings imprinting on their moms and it always stuck with me. The other inspiration is Anne McCaffrey’s dragon books (which, if you haven’t read them, do so now! Start with Dragonflight). In her mythology, humans and dragons bond so tightly that if one of them dies, the other either suicides or goes mad. They love each other with an absolute and unreasoning love that never falters or changes. I was always captivated by this concept, and I wanted to explore that kind of life-changing and compulsory relationship. (source)

I did read some of the Dragonriders of Pern books ages ago so I don't remember them all that well, but yes, they're classics.

What's strange to me about her inspirations is that neither of these are in any way romantic; she's the one who takes it to the romantic level. I do wonder if that's from the Mormon literature idea of pre-mortal romance. Again, this is literature (fiction) not scripture:

The werewolves of the Twilight books never know when (or if) they will imprint on someone. Once they become a werewolf during adolescence, they may imprint at any time, and when they do, any prior relationship becomes unsustainable because an imprinted werewolf can never turn away from his or her imprintee. Sudden recognition that then lasts eternally? The Premortal Romance. (source)

There was a more in-depth version of this article online years ago, but this summary one gives you the gist. The tl;dr is that we all exist in the pre-mortal realm before we are born, and can form attachments there. Then when we are born on earth, we can find that other soul and instantly and eternally connect. I know I bring it up like once a year, and that it's entirely possible SM didn't read these (much older!) works of Mormon fiction at all, but man, it explains SO MUCH about imprinting to me. I still don't like it personally, and choosing to use this device with toddlers and babies is . . . uh . . . not great IMO, but if she did read these works I can see what she was going for.

[nobetafortomorrowedie]

I could probably write a whole book on how pernicious the Mormon idea of the Premortal life is. Their belief that we ASKED for this has haunted me my whole life. You can't say that it wasn't your choice to be born in the Mormon church. You can't say that you never wanted this. A lot of Mormons even believe that we got to choose(????) the trials we go through in life before being born.

Prophets and apostles and sunday school teachers would be like You Fought to Be Here today!!! and I would be like I Fight Every Day Just To Stay Alive Bitch!!

[xmo-rmon]

There were so many questions that I was afraid to ask, or even admit to myself that I had. I think my writer brain was just looking at the whole christian/mormon story and going, “these plot points make no sense”

Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? How did that even work? How did one man dying affect billions of people going forward? And what did it actually do? We still go to hell for sinning, as I’m sure we did before Jesus. What actually changed? Why are we responsible for god killing his only son (and aren’t we all god’s children)? Did he not make that decision himself? Based on a plan for mankind that he devised? Couldn’t he have just decided not to do that, and produced whatever alleged effect that killing Jesus had without doing it? Is he not all-powerful? How could an all-powerful being’s hand be forced in a way they did not want it to be?

Why did god need to send us to earth to get a body and be “tested”? He is all-powerful; could he not have just given us bodies in the premortal life? Why was Satan wrong to suggest that everyone should go to heaven? Why did we have to be tested at all? God loves all of his creations, right? So why did he send us to Earth if not to force us to prove how obedient we would be to him? Did our all-loving, all-powerful heavenly father really go “my children will only get to live with me in paradise if they show that they will be unflinchingly loyal and subservient to me no matter how much suffering I choose to put them through”? Is that what we think love is?

Toward the end of our attendance, my sister just kept asking “Why” in sunday school and I tell you, I’ve never seen mormons look so uncomfortable

[valentina-lauricella]

Complementarità

[...] la coscienza nel mondo materiale, che può essere paragonata alla luce sotto forma di corpuscolo, deriva dall’aspetto d’onda della coscienza completa e infinita creata dal collasso della funzione d’onda in uno spazio non-locale.

(Pim van Lommel)

[faztasy]

Types of Higher Beings:

Premortals - Truely Immortal Parents of Kaliokami and Embodiments

Kaliokami - Origin of Spirits

Embodiments - Origin of Elementists

Gods - Children of Embodiments

[brothermouse]

I have a confession . . . I do not know the ways of the vocaloid. To me Hatsune Miku is the chick on Thomas Jefferson's binder. Why is she a candidate for the handshake test

Ok, so vocaloid is a music program from Japan that lets you use these preprogrammed voices right? It has a some different voices available, each one has an anime style character that is "singing". Hatsune Miku is, like, the Main Character of the vocaloids.

People love Miku, and the company that makes the program wants to show off what they can do. So they hold these real world concerts where Hatsune Miku "performs". But how do you get an anime character to perform in real life?

Holograms!

Technically, I think it's some kinda Pepper's Ghost effect, but whatever, the fact is that she does NOT possess a physical body and (assuming she has a spirit) theologically there are only three possibilities, 1: she's a premortal spirit, 2: she's a post mortal spirit who hasn't been resurrected yet, or 3: She's a DEMON!👿!!!

It might be ridiculous, but this is the molehill I choose to die on.

[bookofmormonmemes]

God: Hm. I don’t like that tower they’re building down there. We should do something about it. Anyone have ideas?

The premortal spirit of J. R. R. Tolkien:

I actually forgot how obsessed I am with the idea of us as spirit children taking part in God's work from both mortal and non-mortal planes. Hey everybody think about a hyperfeixation/special interest/regular interest you care about. Yeah, you like that thing a lot? You make stuff about it and related it to it now? Hey have you ever considered that maybe you helped Mom and Dad invent it?

Hey Jonald, you like making languages? Yeah, you always have. Hey you, reading this post, you like knitting or crocheting? How about cooking? You probably helped teach our prehistoric ancestors weaving and breadmaking. Like drawing? Rocks? Pretty colors? Probably helped design the mountains and the meadows and the desert flowers. Like chaos and destruction? Volcanos. Australia. What's your favorite historical story? You were probably helping there too. Maybe Heavenly Mother let you press the explosion button for Vesuvius. Maybe you gave a revolutionary soldier the internal pep talk needed to power them through the battle. Maybe you baked the amazing biscuits that my great-great-grandmother fed her starving children while crossing the country with the early Saints.

I am now incorporating into my faith both the content of this ask and the belief that I personally was the spirit who prompted that cat who was supposed to catch vermin on the titanic to jump ship before it left so she could safely give birth to her kittens

[t-annhauser]

Abbiamo visto una curiosa Turandot con tanto di metaracconto di incidente di macchina e sala operatoria che cala in scena dall'alto che se non fosse stato per quel filmato grottesco e imbarazzante in cui i due parlano guidando la macchina come due attorucoli qualsiasi di Tempesta d'amore sarebbe risultata anche interessante. Si trattava della prima del San Carlo. Per di più la macchina scendeva dall'alto incuneandosi sul palcoscenico di muso come il logo dei trasformers, il senso era: Turandot come sogno premorte di due promessi sposi che litigando in macchina fanno un incidente, Liù come amante suicida dell'autista/Calaf. Si fa fatica a spiegarlo anche per iscritto. E quello che ha avuto la pensata era pure tutto gasato, io al posto suo mi sarei vergognato come una scimmia. A me Turandot piace classica, buffa, misteriosa e incompleta, tronca del suo finale per la sopraggiunta morte dell'autore, tutto il resto sono fregnacce. Dice: ma le opere vanno modernizzate. E allora inseriamo uno sciame di droni pure in Delitto e Castigo e ciao (se vuoi un'opera moderna te ne scrivi una nuova da zero come ti piace a te, con gli iPhone, la PEC e i locker di Amazon, e lascia in pace quel che è stato già scritto).

[prententiousjackal]

Boring Social Contract theory. Is he going to say we literally signed the social contract in premortal life?

Oh no. Inherited covenants! That racist thing.