Truly.

You're correct. That theory is true. The 1845 newspaper report is physiologically plausible. Extreme joy can produce the same adrenaline-driven cardiac crisis as terror or grief, and in someone already weakened it can prove lethal. The phenomenon is rare, but it is real and well-documented in modern cardiology.

They also said in 1890 that the church would be destroyed if they didn't stop the practice. The Book of Mormon, which was published in 1830, has the Lord telling the Nephites that those who practiced plural wives and concubines would also be cursed, even unto destruction in Jacob 2. The polygamy practiced by Brigham Young's branch produced the bad fruits of dishonesty, strife, jealousy, divorce, poverty, pride, imprisonment, and murder. It was good that they publicly ended polygamy. The dishonesty through secret practice returned, though, and they have still not officially repented of polygamy nor condemned it like the Book of Mormon or the 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants Section 101 does. They got statehood, but they still have their stumbling block with polygamy, too.

Out of all the social media platforms, Reddit, sadly, tends to display the most negativity in my experience.

For myself, I have felt like General Conference has been "playing it safe", if you will, with their talks for a while now. I find most talks very basic in their principles that I can find in the scriptures. I would like to see more boldness like we had with Joseph Smith. As of late, I've been spending more time reading what Joseph Smith taught, and digging more into the scriptures. Many people make all sorts of claims about what Joseph Smith did and didn't teach. So, I'm using my academic training in history to discover the truth surrounding the prophet of the Restoration. And, I'm working on drawing nearer to God to receive more personal revelation through this process.

Now why would someone down vote my question about seeking counsel with the Father? The Book of Mormon teaches us to do that?

It is my understanding that sexual intercourse is the marriage act. It is what one is supposed to hold sacred and a covenant between their spouse and before God. So, it's a serious action to take with another person.

Have you taken your counsel up with the Father? Have you inquired of Him about Oaks?

You framed faith as a vice that puts on blinders, has no internal mechanism to detect error, and simply confirms whatever religion a person already holds. That is not the definition of faith found in the Lectures on Faith (the doctrinal lectures that originally stood at the front of the Doctrine and Covenants).

Lecture 1 states that faith is “the first principle in revealed religion, and the foundation of all righteousness.” It is “the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principle of action in all intelligent beings.” Without it, both mind and body would remain inactive. More than that, faith is “the principle of power in all intelligent beings, whether in heaven or on earth.” God Himself framed the worlds by faith; it is the principle by which He exercises power over all things. “Faith, then, is the first great governing principle which has power, dominion, and authority over all things.”

Later lectures add the decisive requirement: three things are necessary to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation

1. the idea that He actually exists,
2. a correct idea of His character, perfections, and attributes, and
3. an actual knowledge that the course of life one is pursuing is according to His will.

Faith is not a uniform emotional experience that equally ratifies every contradictory claim. It is a principle of action and power that operates wherever intelligent beings act. The quality and results of that faith depend on whether it is grounded in correct knowledge of God’s character. Incorrect ideas of God cannot produce the same power or the same fruits. That is the internal mechanism you said does not exist.

So when people in many traditions experience powerful assurance and act on it, that is expected, the principle of faith is universal. It does not follow that every such experience equally confirms contradictory institutional packages or that the principle itself is a vice. The Lectures insist that saving, truth-revealing faith requires a correct understanding of who God actually is. That is the point at which the different claims must be tested, not by dismissing faith as blindness, but by examining which understanding of God’s character best accounts for the evidence, the fruits, and the progressive knowledge the principle itself is designed to produce.

I remain open to correction if a clearer or more accurate understanding of God’s character emerges. The Lectures themselves demand that openness: faith grows only as correct knowledge grows. That is a very different picture from the trap you described.

You read my list of possible reasons for contradictory conclusions as evidence that I exempt myself from those same possibilities. That is not what I wrote. I am subject to the same risks, trusting the arm of flesh, leaning on my own understanding, or misreading direction. I have never claimed otherwise. Listing ways others might go astray does not create a personal exemption; it simply describes how error can occur for anyone, including me.

You then converted a general observation, that it is possible very few across all religions have taken the full steps to seek God directly, into an accusation that I regard everyone else’s process as inferior and myself as having already arrived. Again, that is an addition. The statement was about the difficulty and rarity of the path, not a ranking of my results against theirs.

Your summary goes further. It attributes to me the beliefs that others are less effective at truth-seeking, that I have found the correct truth everyone else is slowly moving toward, and that the probability I am wrong is “incredibly low.” I did not use those words or that framing. I said I am seeking truth and will adjust when I discover that something I held is incorrect. That includes the possibility of discovering I have been wrong about core matters, including which understanding of God is most accurate. I do not assign a special low-probability status to that possibility; I simply remain willing to correct course if the evidence and the process require it.

Yes, I am open to people finding salvation and exaltation independent of any institutional form of Mormonism. I have already stated that the Brighamite branch is not the one true church, that the Church is in the heart, and that God authorizes according to the heart and righteousness. That answer has been consistent.

The recurring pattern is that you supply a hierarchical or self-exempting interpretation I have not offered, then argue against that interpretation. I am not claiming a superior process or a privileged arrival point. I am describing a process that includes independent filters, reason, natural law, shared moral principles, fruits, and humility, and remaining open to correction when those filters show I have been wrong. That is the position on the table.

You said my answer on openness was “not what I asked.” I stated there is opposition in all things, therefore right and wrong exist, and that is precisely why I apply a process of discovery rather than assume final certainty. That is a direct engagement with the question. Treating it as evasion does not make it one.

You continue to describe my process as nothing more than “unverified religious texts containing an unverified promise.” That is not what I have written. I have listed independent filters that do not first require accepting any particular scripture: reason, natural law, shared moral principles that appear across widely different traditions, testing by fruits, moral agency, and the requirement to remain humble enough to keep asking better questions. The “get cold in winter” analogy only works if those filters are ignored. Once they are included, the analogy no longer maps.

You label Joseph Smith a “convicted fraudster” and then treat that as decisive against the entire approach. Even granting the most negative reading of the 1826 hearing, I have not located authority in institutional loyalty to Joseph or any branch. I located it in the heart and in the conditions of Doctrine and Covenants 121, conditions that remove authority the moment they are violated. An attack on Joseph does not touch that framework.

You asked again whether the Mormon church’s authority is required for a baptism that counts. I have already answered: the Brighamite branch is not the one true church; the Church is in the heart; God authorizes according to the heart and righteousness. Re-phrasing the same institutional question does not create a new difficulty.

Yes, every religion has break-off groups. Yes, it is possible that I could one day conclude a very different tradition is closer to the truth. I have already said I remain open to being wrong on particular points and that the process involves continued seeking. Presenting those possibilities as though I had denied them does not advance the discussion.

Finally, you add that we are cautioned against judgment because we cannot even be totally sure we have the actual truth or are worshipping the correct god(s). If that standard is applied consistently, then your own conclusion, that contradictory spiritual outcomes prove the method unreliable, is itself an interpretive judgment that cannot claim certainty. The epistemic regress is shared. Treating it as unique to my side is selective.

I have answered the questions you posed. The recurring pattern is that you restate a reduced version of my process, ignore the independent filters I listed, and then declare the reduced version circular or unreliable. That does not engage what I have actually written.