Leaderboard

The cult accusations always get under my skin. Forgive me Americans, but I'm wondering if Church culture in the land of the free 🦅🇺🇸🦅 can at times be problematic. Because all of these "I escaped a CULT" videos tend to be from America, and the online discourse on whether or not the church is a cult, appears to be discussed between Americans. In my experience the Church is anything but a cult. My brother in law is homosexual, and inactive. He is loved and respected by his family and not excluded by any measure. On the odd occasion he comes to church to support family by listening to a talk or to witness a calling members of the ward greet him and ask how he is. He was the best man at my wedding. Some cult if you ask me. I think at worst, the church is a very conservative community with some very unorthodox beliefs when compared to the mainstream, but cult? Sounds like click bait.

I am echoing what others have said, but at it's root I think you have a misunderstanding of precisely what God's Glory is, and exactly what it means to increase it. I think part of the issue is the use of "increase" as that word can have 2 different meanings applied here. Firstly though, I will echo what @zil2 said. The verse you quote do not on my reading suggest that God's glory cannot increase. Now I do not believe any verse of scripture is so obvious in it's meaning that there is zero chance of misunderstanding, but I would not have drawn the conclusions you did from these verses. Isaiah 42:8 – “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” - My reading would be that God is making clear that nobody is able to take His place, and idols cannot replace Him. This is to me a testament of the Supremacy of God and not the self sufficiency of His Glory. Isaiah 6:3 – “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” - This to me reads the the Glory of God reaches every part of the world, not making any comment on it's completeness or impossibility to increase. Only that it is inescapable. John 17:5 – “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” - This verse emphasises to my eyes the primacy of the Glory of God. It existed before the world was made. Again no comment on it's sufficiency, increase etc Psalm 115:1-3 – “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” - These to me speaks of some reason to Glorify God. That he is in heaven and not missing or a false idol. It also seems though, in the first section, that our praise of God in some way gives him glory. From this I feel the rest of your argument fails as I am unconvinced by the first premise. But back to "increase". Even if one were to believe that God is all sufficient etc as described, it would be impossible to deny that as God creates more beings there will inevitably be more beings that worship Him. His Kingdom becomes greater in size and scope as it includes more people and places. If God makes a world then there is another world in His Kingdom. By that logic His Glory is on a practical sense covering more and so much be greater in size. Each added person increases the scope of the Gory of God. By similar tokens, if we become Exalted then our acts of Creation (under our Father) must also increase the scale of His domain and thus in some sense His Glory. But, this is a separate issue to, shall we say, God's "rank" of personal Glory. He is already the Supreme being of our Universe. He cannot scale up or be overtaken. He does not become smarter, more capable, more wise (to our knowledge) or so on. He does not become more perfect and thus in that sense His Glory is unable to be increased. God is not in some sort of contest with other Divine beings so that as His realm increases in scale He gets to be more important than them. God would be perfect in Himself even if He did not create the worlds. But creating Worlds means more beings He can share love with, more places he is God of and so on. So in short, whilst God is Perfect and thus in that sense His Gory does not increase (He is not becoming better) as more is created and His domains increase then the scale of his Glory spreads further and further rendering him, simply, Glorious over more.

Welcome, Fiddle. That is quite a long post. Forgive me if I only address a few items. Is a marraige transactional? It certainly can be. But how can you tell the difference? How many of us would look at a happy couple and determine that their marriage is just a legal transaction wherein shared property is utilized for better economy in the siring of offspring so they can be raised into adulthood to take care of us in our old age? Do I work 50 to 60 hr/wk so my wife will have sex with me and clean my house? That would be transactional. It would be cheaper if I just went around clubbing. Do I sire and raise children and care for them because I'm hoping they will take care of me in my old age? I have an iRA and an HSA. That's a whole lot cheape While we certainly "do" things for each other, marriage is about a relationship. All these things we do in a healthy marraige are motivated by love, cooperation, a sense of teamwork, and a sincere desire to adhere to correct principles. We do this out of a sense of love and a desire to be happy. On the flip side, what can be said of a couple who are always fighting? What about a couple who is ok with simply living together so they can get government benefits for fatherless homes? So, if you think of commandments as "jumping through hoops" you completely misunderstand the purpose of commandments (or ordinances, for that matter). I've been pondering this for a while -- whether I agreed or disagreed. And while I get the point you're "trying" to make (at least I've made an honest effort at it) I disagree with your assessment here. It has some incorrect assumptions. it is not "grace that drives the relationship." We form an initial relationship. And that relationship grows. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: You seem to say that the Restored Gospel tells us that we "earn heaven" by our obedience. No. There is no way we can "earn" our way to heaven. It is not about paying a certain debt. Only Christ can do that. And He has. So, what is left for us? For most of the protestant world, it is just about "believing in Christ." Yes and no. What exactly do we mean by believing in Christ? Or the more common wording I hear from evanglicals "accept Christ into your heart." That sounds great and all. But if you were to try to define that, what does it entail? It is not about jumping through hoops. It is not about checking off the boxes. It is about "becoming." When my children were young, I raised and taught them to do some things "because it's good for you." One cannot teach a 6 year old about vitamins, minerals , polyphenos, flavinoids, etc. You just tell them it's good for you. Only after they've matured sufficient to understand, do I explain the principles behind it all. The idea is that we obey commandments at first because we want to be obedient. We want to be obedient because we love God. And eventually, we understand the principle and internalize it. Then we begin to see the wisdom in the commandments. It was the obedience that changed us. When we obey commandments becuase they are commandments, we eventually become the people who can now understand the reasons for the commandments. And when we understand, we are happy we obeyed our of our love and respect for the Lord. So, the proper sequence is: Hope helps us recognize the goodness and wisdom of God. Faith & Charity provide the motivating force to obey commandments. When we obey, we receive the Holy Ghost and wisdom to understand why commandments are so important. Then we go through another cycle with full understanding. This is called growth. IOW, we become the children the Lord is raising us to be. It is not the act that saves us. We tend to emphasize obedience to commandments because in our childhood we do not obey because of understanding. It is our love of Christ that provides the desire to obey. The thing that most protestants will accuse us of is simply checking the boxes. No. And action without faith is vain. It has no meaning. Faith without works is dead. It's just words with no meaning. Faith-based obedience allows us to grow. Many believe we are a religion that believes works (ordinances) will save us. That's completely antithetical to our core doctrines. Others believe that we receive grace in our ignorance. No. Salvation comes from choosing Christ. And we cannot faithfully choose something we know nothing about. Infinity is a difficult concept. In mathematics: ∞ + 1 = ∞. Also: ∞ + ∞ = ∞. That is a basic law of mathematics. Does it increase? If we said it grows or doesn't grow, we'd be right either way.

Welcome to the forum, these are just some thoughts of mine: As most Non-LDS Christians are trinitarians, I'll make an assumption you probably are too (please correct me if I'm wrong), a God with no passions, no substance, no beginning or end who exists outside of time, outside of the physical reality, there is no way we could possibly comprehend his personal glory. But the glory we 100% can comprehend is the role of God in saving us, and giving us eternal life. In that way I don't think Moses 1:39 is contradictory to a trinitarian world view in any way, because if the trinity is truly so incomprehensible and the father so difficult to understand, in what other ways can we begin to comprehend his glory, than through his influence in our lives? I think likewise with LDS theology, my capacity for eternal life doesn't make Heavenly Father more glorious, his glory comes from the fact that this even possible in the first place. I think if you flip the issue on its head, does the casting out of Satan and the sons of perdition make Heavenly Father 33.3% less glorious because a third of the hosts of heaven were cast out during the grand council, and so will never receive a resurrected body? I think not. The fact he has given us the opportunity, and holds the authority is what makes him glorious. My second thought: I totally and utterly agree. Genesis 1:26, we are made after the likeness of God, in his image, our capacity to receive eternal life, reflects his glory to grant it.

I consider all of the following logic errors: These may seem perfectly logical to you, but I don't see any inherent logic in them. And by the same token, I'm not sure your conclusion about Moses 1:39 follows either: The verse doesn't say this is His increasing glory, nor that it increases or decreases His glory. It just says it is His glory. Does it have to increase? Can this end not already be His glory, and His glory full? You're basing your entire post on your own assumption that by becoming exalted and glorified yourself, you will thereby increase God's glory. But the verse doesn't say that - you infer it. I'm not convinced you're correct. (I'm not convinced it isn't correct, either - I'm just saying that the verse doesn't make this clear either way, and I can't say I've sat and thought about the expandability of God's glory.) And what do you do with this: If God has all glory, how is He glorified by them bearing fruit? And what if they don't bear fruit? Is God less glorified? Cuz, it doesn't say, "Herein is my Father's glory reflected..." It says, "Herein is my Father glorified..." NOTE: If someone can explain to me what exactly "glory" is, I'd be grateful. Please don't cite the dictionary or Bible Dictionary at me - I've read all that. I comprehend the use. But the more I think about it, the less sure I am what "glory" is. And here's the most interesting clue I've found thus far: Suggests the Father is Christ's glory. Also suggests that whoever is to your left is your glory... 🤯 (Or that you are the glory of the person on your right hand.) Or it suggests that I'm reading it all wrong.

There are some obvious things missing in the translation. The term Christ is from the Greek. The Hebrew term translated into English is Messiah. Both are in reference to “the anointed one”. There is still some confusion that has arisen from the Dead Sea Scriptures that there may be more than one “the anointed one”. There are so many ways that the ancient scripture text cause confusion, but one thing we can understand through the restoration (especially temple revelation) is that all of G-d’s covenant saints are anointed. The ordinance of anointing is a precursor on the covenant path to a “oneness” with the Christ – who is also one with the Father, thus resulting in the Saints becoming one with G-d. Of course, the traditional and creedal Christians are lost in a labyrinth of teachings that amount to the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. The Biblical Book of Isaiah speaks clearly to the concept of apostasy and restoration. The history of apostasy and restoration from Jesus to today clearly follows the type and shadow of Isaiah but is lost to most modern Christians. Why? Because as the apostasy took place, the Christians of the apostasy forgot Isaiah and thought that apostasy was a heresy or a change of doctrine. Isaiah clearly taught that man becomes separated from G-d through transgression of the law, changing the ordinances and breaking the everlasting covenant. If one uses the internet to investigate why LDS are excluded from those “Traditional” and “Creedal” Christians, you will find that it is always because of a doctrine that they claim is heresy. And because of what they claim is heresy, the claim is, that LDS worship a “different” Jesus. As LDS we ought to be careful and mindful not to fall into the trap of apologetics of doctrine and instead hold to the Gospel of Christ. Which is to love one another, have faith in Jesus Christ (which is the foundation of the law), be baptized by one authorized by Christ (which prevents changing the ordinances) and keeping the everlasting covenant (which is solemnized in the temple of G-d). The Traveler

As of May 17, 2025, Iran had a stockpile of 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This was an increase of 133.8 kg from the previous IAEA report in February 2025, when the stockpile was approximately 274.8 kg. Regarding whether Iran “trucked it out,” there is evidence suggesting Iran moved its 60% enriched uranium stockpile to a secret location before U.S. and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June 2025. Satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies showed 16 cargo trucks near the Fordow facility’s entrance two days before the U.S. strikes on June 13, 2025, indicating a possible “frantic effort” to relocate materials, potentially including the enriched uranium. The IAEA’s Rafael Grossi noted that the stockpile was last verified by UN inspectors about a week before Israel’s attacks began, and its current whereabouts are unverified due to restricted access. Iran claimed it smuggled most of its highly enriched uranium to a secret location before the strikes. However, some analysts, like Ronen Solomon, suggest that even if moved, the uranium’s utility is limited without functional centrifuges, which were heavily damaged in the strikes. The exact location of the stockpile remains uncertain, and the IAEA has called for inspections to account for it. With functional centrifuges (e.g., 1,000 IR-6 centrifuges), Iran could enrich its 408.6 kg of 60% uranium to 90% in 1-2 months to produce enough for one or two weapons (25-50 kg total). Without sufficient centrifuges, the process could take much longer or be infeasible until infrastructure is restored. There was a good reason that Israel and Trump acted.

This, all by itself, if true, warrants any and every requirement to remove the entire leadership structure of Iran - whether by assassination or bomb, I really don't care. Whoever would carry out this plan earns their own death. Just look at the war chapters in the Book of Mormon - this is always the downfall - when the Nephites are internally divided, their enemies succeed. I watched a video - heaven knows how close to truth it might have been - describing a plan where Iran would provide the nuclear warhead to go on a North Korean missile, with the intent to explode it over the center of the US, causing an EMP that would take out sufficient to render us essentially helpless. All anyone would have to do is wait while we destroyed each other trying to get food. If this was something these nations were planning, I can't say I'd find fault with anyone who did whatever was necessary to prevent it. I wouldn't even wish this fate on Iran or North Korea. The vast, vast majority of the modern world depends too heavily on electricity for even imagining such an attack to be tolerable, let alone trying to carry it out.

A sizeable percentage of those on the membership rolls of our church are not active. They didn't have to "escape" they simply stopped coming. I agree that leaving behind the cultural aspect of the Church requires significant adjustment but this video is not about closure. He is openly engaging our church but now as an antagonist. This is not escaping but attacking. Obedience to God's laws is the only thing that brings lasting joy. So to the extent that anyone obeys God's laws they can receive that joy in proportion. Our Church's mission is to teach a fullness of God's laws so people can receive a fullness of joy, if they so choose it. It's up to them. But we seek for those who are not content being just fine.

A few questions to consider: Where in LDS scripture is the phrase "become a god" found? (Hint: Nowhere) What does it mean to "be a god"? If it makes a difference, capitalize the G before answering. In what sense are we expected to become as God is? What does that mean, exactly? What is the glory of God? Can God's glory be shared? Can it be taken by another? What is the difference between God's glory and God's honor? What exactly was the rebellious Satan trying to take from God? Describe a scenario where such a thing (procuring God's honor by taking it from Him) even makes sense, not merely semantically, but philosophically. As with many seemingly "deep" questions, this issue cannot even be addressed until we define our verbal tokens sufficiently that we can manipulate them in a rational way. Once we sufficiently define those tokens such that the situation they describe becomes meaningful, the answer is likely to reveal itself in a pretty straightforward manner. Until then, we cannot even know if the question has any real-world meaning. "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" makes perfect sense grammatically, but not semantically. It proposes a meaningless situation that exists only because of wordplay and the rules of grammar, then demands we take that situation seriously. But we cannot, because it is not a serious situation. It is meaningless, like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". (For further development of this particular part of investigating the topic, see Gõdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Seriously, if you're willing to put the effort in, you'll learn a great deal.) As a general life rule, I believe that many of our questions can be approached only after we grasp the fundamental elements of those questions, not merely in a grammatical sense, but semantically, epistemologically, and hermeneutically. Until then, we are small children pondering how to solve a differential equation. We're just scrawling crude pictures on a whiteboard covered with equations, carelessly and vacuously kicking words around without actually addressing anything meaningful.

This really sounds like you're inviting us to leave the faith. You may want to re-read the site's terms and conditions - they're kinda strict... Am trying to be welcoming and open to discussion, but please re-read that statement of yours. You're basically calling us liars, or ignorant of our own beliefs. Do we think works matter - of course we do: scriptures are overflowing with Jesus Christ commanding His followers to do stuff. If works don't matter, why does He command them? Just because we believe works matter, that does not mean we believe works save us. One can hold both views: Saved by grace and expected to obey. They're not incompatible.

Welcome, @fiddle tenders! Where exactly are these Biblical teachings you summarize, so that I can read the verses myself? I expect this will boil down to different interpretations of scripture. FWIW, I'm in my 50s, have been an active member of the Church my entire life, and what you describe is not quite what I believe (more like a somewhat misunderstood version of it). Anywho, if we're going to discuss this, you're going to need to cite the Bible verses so we can go to the source, not to your interpretation or summation of the source.

Jesus Christ has many names and titles so we don't actually know what the Nephites were calling Him. So you may be right that Joseph Smith used the name he was most familiar with. Also, it was the prophet Mormon who compiled the gold plated. He lived post Jesus' appearance so he may have simply used the name he was most familiar with. Another thought, some of the information pertaining to Jesus' identity may have been hidden to prevent false Messiah's. Once the Nephites separated that was no longer an issue.

I used to think that everyone was living with sadness and anxiety. After all, Thoreau said it best when he said “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” I was wrong. While bad things happen to everyone, many people lead happy, fulfilled lives. It might be a bitter pill for some to accept-but life isn’t full of despair and dread for a lot of us.

Meanwhile, as long as we're talking about wars and stuff, I wish to point out that there are 19+ miles (as the bomb flies) and an entire mountain range between me and the Tooele Army Depot. But them blowing stuff up (presumably in as safe a manner as is reasonable) still rattles my house. Anyone celebrating this (blowing stuff up) actually happening to anyone anywhere is disturbed. The warmongers who make a profit and encourage groups of people to do this sort of thing to each other ought to be under one of their own profit-making devices when it goes. I comprehend that sometimes we need to do things like bomb the heck out of Iranian nuclear facilities, but no one should be happy about any of it. (If you think no one is, you should go read more on X - some people are rejoicing at Israel's suffering, others are rejoicing at Iran's suffering - there's just way too much rejoicing and not enough repenting.)

In terms of "escape"........ it is an intentionally dramatic term and frankly I think gives the wrong impression. You are not trapped in any physical sense in the Church. If you want to leave on a simple practical level you can just stop going, send 1 letter to the Bishop asking them to not send anyone around (or remove your name if you genuinely want to) and perhaps a follow up and it is done. On that practical level saying you escaped feels...... well we probably wanted you to stay and some people will have tried to persuade you but you were not truly trapped. On a cultural level, it can be very hard for a person to completely overhaul or change their life. I have no plan to leave the Church (I am persuaded it is true for one thing) but even on a basic level I would feel..... kind of adrift on a Sunday without church to go to. I would lose some of my social interactions. I would lose a fairly hefty chunk of my identity. Leaving all of that behind may not be physically difficult but emotionally you bet it can be. And if you have close friends or family who are part of the Church then there can be a lot of pressure to stay and conform (whether intended or not) and telling them you no longer believe is going to be hard. I think escape is the wrong term, but it will be true that it can be a tough thing to do. And on a personal note, I would say 2 things. First, if you have tried and genuinely do not believe it is true, or genuinely believe the Church is fundamentally wrong, then I think you probably should leave. Don't pretend as that will just do you harm. And if you want to explain to people why you disbelieve then of course that is your right. I only genuinely dislike the critics who are dishonest about the Church, such as clipping 2 seconds from a 20 minute talk to make a leader look bad (as one example, I saw a critic post a quote from Elder Scott that tried to imply he blamed people for being abused...... even the worst faith reading of the whole talk shows that is not true as the talk is replete with comments about how the abused has done nothing wrong and should not feel guilt etc). So long as you are honest we can have a productive conversation (I get as frustrated with Evangelical types who try to tell me what I believe, such as someone saying we earn our way into Heaven, as that is again often bad faith). As a sub item to the above, don't accuse me of being brainwashed or some nonsense. I know why I believe what I do, you don't. But for the second thing, I dislike the term "cult" or the modern variant "high-demand religion". Both are just code terms for saying "religion I do not like, but also it's bad". It is not a useful term at all. We are a religion like many others. People who use the term cult to describe us usually do so in bad faith. The term cult is just a pejorative without any meaningful content except as a cudgel to say "boooooo" at a religion.

Not so long ago Iran and Iraq were at war. Iraq was much better armed and prepared and decimated Iran, but Iran refused to surrender. Iran is roughly 3 times the land mass size and had more resources and population. Attrition began to wear on Iraq, and they began to withdraw leaving behind vast areas filled with land mines. Iran had children run through the mine fields promising the children and their families places in heaven for their sacrifices. This conflict never ended but came to kind of a draw. There were claims that Iraq used weapons of mass destruction as part of the justification of “Desert Storm”. I have no idea how this current conflict in Iran will end, but I think there is a lot more going on than meets the eye. Especially our wester eye and its western view. I agree with @JohnsonJones that we had no choice. Beyond all this there is something that concerns me more. As I am reading along with this year’s study of the Doctrine and Covenants – I read how there will be wars in many far away countries. However, I think that what comes next in the D&C is more of a concern. We are told that we “know not the hearts of many in our own country.” I think this is the most important part of the prophetic warning. Currently the hearts and minds of our country are critically divided. There is nothing our leaders (republican or democrat) seam to be about without the other lashing out against with great anger and disgust. Our politicians have become the targets of assassins, and yet the hateful rhetoric continues, each blaming the other. The obvious weakness and greatest vulnerability of the USA is our mistrust and hatred of each other – especially against whoever is in power. So great is the hatred that many, otherwise calm, cannot contain their anger and mistrust of the other. Though the secret combinations ignited the great war that destroyed the Nephites it was, in the end, the anger, lust for blood and the unceasing desire for revenge that destroyed the Nephites – as well as the Jaredites. I have two, beloved to me, brothers that the very mention of “Trump” sends them into fits of rage. The one thing I learned while in the army during the Vietnam conflict is that regardless of how stupid, foolish or sick and wrong the orders were or seemed to be – not acting together as a united unit was the quickest route to failure and the best way to lose a battle. The Traveler

To be clear and upfront, I support this action. I feel this is not something that Trump wanted to do. In fact, I think he didn't want to do it. He did it because it had to be done. He probably knew it would be unpopular. He probably knew polls, even from his own party, would show many who were against this act. But if he did this, I think the alternative was Iran with Nuclear weapons. I think they may have been close, and at this point, there was really no alternative. It was do it now, or Iran has a nuclear weapon. (and I'd be happy if someone proves me wrong, but the impression I get was that the reason Isreal took the actions it did, and what convinced Trump to do what he did was how very close they were to obtaining such a weapon). An Iran with a Nuclear Weapon is bad. They have declared death to Israel. They have declared death to the USA. They are one of the biggest backers and formentors of world wide terrorism today. I do not think it takes a great deal of imagination to think of what they may have done if they got nuclear weapons, and the damage they may attempt to do at US targets with such things. Acting offensively to kill others is not Christian, but we also know in the Book of Mormon that we can defend ourselves. Iran declared the US it's enemy decades ago. They have made no secret of things they have done to try to cause us harm. Acting to defend the US from such an enemy that would probably use such Weapons of Mass Destruction to seriously hurt us, I hope falls in line with self defensive actions to defend our nation, our lives, and our way of being. You all know I am not a fan of Trump (at all). However, I think this is one action I fully think he made the right call on. I don't think it's going to be popular (from what I've been reading in the news), but sometimes hard choices have to be made and this was one of them. No one wins with a Nuclear Armed Iran (even Iran loses, though they may not understand why). I know he says that it's a great success, but I think it's too early to tell currently. I only hope that we succeeded as well as Trump has stated (if not more so) after we finally can get the analysis of what damage we actually did or did not accomplish.

Sorry for the late reply. I could have retired years ago, but I was reluctant to. It meant that I would have to monitor my money far more tightly and I also enjoyed being able to do what I was doing at that time. I had already worked a great deal with another career, and this opportunity to teach and research sort of leaped out at me. I took it and enjoyed it greatly. However, various factors combined to finally make me take the jump and go off the cliff to retirement. #1 - Politics. Not the politics that we think about, but university politics. I was responsible at times for getting grants and contracts and overlooking grants and contracts. There were several factors that were making them much harder to obtain or to feasibly consider. It was getting to be a chore and really making my life a rather unfun experience at times. #2 - My health. Healthwise I am not doing so great these days. As I get older, my health just doesn't want to keep up. It also appears that I may have gotten some dementia (and I do not know how long that means I'll be able to remain as I am, or if it will get worse and eventually I'll not be able to do things. I do not want to be a burden on my family, but if it gets worse...then we will be there). In addition some other health concerns have popped up that could get worse relatively quickly. It's estimated I may have only 1 to 3 years left. If I only have so much time, I want to spend it doing what I want to do. I may get a miracle, but I've lived my life and if I don't, I'll be happy with where I'm at. I'm trying to convince a son or in-law to at least sign onto these forums so when I am no longer able to visit, they at least can keep people updated. #3 - It just feels like it's time. The world and the students are changing, and sometimes I just feel like a fish out of water. I think I'm ready to be done with this stage of my life. On the bright side, I am retired now. I've gone traveling (and really crazy thing happened in Utah while I was there. They actually closed the entire Federal Highway Last weekend! I've never seen another state completely close the highway down without any real reason (Beyond construction). Normally they find a way to at least keep one side open. I've gone to Disney World with some grandkids (we went to all 4 parks. It's different when you are older. I think I prefer Animal Kingdom these days to the other parks, though the grandkids probably enjoyed the other ones better). I went throughout the Western States and I've visited several of the National Parks out there. On the downside, I've found I am going to have to cut back as much as I can on spending. Finances will be tighter and I'm still adjusting. I am fortunate to have a buffer, but I still need to ensure that I stop overspending and take time to focus more on the spending necessities and less on what I would like (for example, my summerly trips overseas...done [though that was usually for research trips rather than pure enjoyment]. My thoughts on touring Europe...currently it seems like it may be a little too expensive for my retirement budgets). Bills and Budgets are tighter now and I'm feeling it. Maybe more car trip traveling around the US during the summer than going internationally, and more time with family than experiencing sights and culture.

I agree it can be. Switching religions or political affiliations - that sort of thing can get people kicked out of families and end relationships. Paths of spiritual or moral growth can be smooth or bumpy, or even traumatic. I was born into a church I did not believe in, and stopped going as soon as I could get away with it. It seemed at the time to be an act of being honest with myself and those around me. Seeking and finding a testimony in my 20's brought with it this sort of "calm fearful panic", as it dawned on me that all that stuff I had walked away from, I must now intentionally walk towards. There were quite a number of times when I was totally out of my element, walking towards some new experience full of fear, sometimes even experiencing a pounding heart and close to hyperventilating. Heading to the bishop's office, telling friends and relatives, getting called to teach my first Sunday school lesson, getting asked to give my first blessing. Near panic, with the only thing on my side was this sense of "well, either the church is true or it isn't, either God is on my side or He isn't - I guess I'm about to find out one way or the other". My 180 on politics, however, was a mostly uneventful no-brainer. Discovering that there were better things to believe and better worldviews to hold than what my agnostic union democrat upbringing had taught me, really didn't involve any fear. I think a lot of that was because of the high caliber character of my father. Although he was ticked off to no end that, from his perspective, the smarter I got at college the dumber I got about things, he didn't seem to take it personally like close family often does. The beer-drinking gambling foul-mouthed WWII sergeant who mocked religion and anyone to the right of him politically - raised what turned out to be a good little conservative mormon boy. I never got the sense that he was disappointed in me, even though he had to have been at times. Fun stuff.

This attempt to justify violence and the destruction of property is not persuasive. The fact that any group of humans contains elements that can be whipped into a fervor and pointed at a target, does not mean that the LA riots were some sort of moral thing. Liberal guilt over privilege, demonizing the word and forming it into a weapon to be used against those who have it, is also not persuasive. My people were once forced out of their homes at gunpoint and made to trek across the plains in a winter that killed 1 out of every 12 refugees. My wife's ancestry includes a slave (the little Indian girl bought by a family of Saints who had settled in Utah), and slaveowners (the members of the various Ute tribes who raided each other for children to sell to the Saints). Closer to the present, my grandfather lost everything in the great depression, and left my young teen dad as the oldest male to care for a family while he rode the rails looking for work. My Dad & his mom and siblings moved a lot trying to find food - Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico - literally starving at times - only potatoes for days on end at times - only one pair of clothes. And I was once forced at knifepoint to recant my religion. I was once pushed against a set of lockers by a guy who showed me his knife and said "I cut mormons - are you a mormon?" Me, my dad, my grandpa: 3 generations of honest law-abiders, striving for a better future. They had to deal with those who tried to cut corners and break laws back then too. There have always been people who figure the laws shouldn't apply to them. People willing to do violence to get what they want. No, you don't get to use the word "privilege" against me, pal. The United States of America is one of, if not the greatest nations out there when we're measuring who can work their way into earned privilege. Again, you're as familiar with social media as I am - I suggest again that you go find the ever-growing numbers of legal immigrants who are supporting the deportation efforts, and go argue with them. I've said it before and I'll say it here again - you and yours haven't learned a single thing since T took the election with nationwide gains in almost every category. It's not that T and the cops won't stand for it, Americans won't stand for it. Your lawlessness and rioting will be put down, and every thrown brick turns into another 1000 Americans supporting more deportations. Your basic attitude of "I don't condone it but I won't shed any tears over it, and besides, it's useful for change" is widespread across the political left. And y'all seem hell-bent on losing the next decade's worth of elections over the issue. Go for it. Yeah, MLK was a heck of a guy. Guess what else he said: "Every summer we are going to have this kind of vigorous protest. My hope is that it will be nonviolent. I'm hoping we can avoid riots because riots are selfish and socially destructive." "I'm here to say tonight that if every negro in the United States turns against nonviolence I'm gonna stand up as a lone voice and say this is the wrong way!" "The basic idea that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to the negro in his struggle for freedom and justice. I think for the negro to turn to violence would be both impractical and immoral." Again, once the fires start, once the protests turn into riots, once the rocks or bricks or water bottles are thrown - you lose. Especially after the riots of 2021 are recent enough in people's memories, and the results were basically failed cultural reform efforts like DEI and Kendi's stupid antiracism. So, the various -isms have had what, 150 years to work across the planet? There are -isms that have resulted in the worst atrocities, and there is capitalism. The phrase is "the least horrible choice". When paired with a representative republic and a constitution which mandates a limited government, separation of powers, and the notion of govt by consent, there have been zero worst atrocities. Holocaust? Nazis (aka the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The "Nationalsozialists".) The Armenian Genocide that killed 1.5 million? A coup that paired a dictatorship with ethnic nationalism. The Rwandan Genocide that killed around .8 million? Ethnic genocide carried out by a government that engaged in state control of the economy that favored the Hutus over the Tutsis. The Cambodian Genocide and it's almost 2 million dead? Communists seeking to transform Cambodia into a classless society based on their interpretation of Marxist-Leninist ideology. The Great Chinese Famine that killed somewhere between 15-45 million? A result of the Great Leap Forward. More Communists trying to transform China from an agrarian society into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization. The Soviet Gulags that killed between 1.5 and 2 million? The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. The 1-2 million deaths in India starting in the late '40's might be your best chance lay stuff like this at the feet of a developed capitalist nation. Britain is maybe 40% to blame, initiating the partition and then granting everyone their freedom and bailing on the whole scene as all the factions that had been kept at bay descended on each other. Ghandi tried hard, and he wasn't the only person preaching nonviolence, but it wasn't in the cards in that place. But the US isn't 1940's India. It's not like anyone is howling for blood (except for the growing numbers of leftists supportive of executing CEOs and assassinating presidents and burning down the system in the name of fighting fascism and racism). But apart from them, it's not like the white christian businessmen or McD's employee are howling to snuff out immigrants. We get to be a nation of laws, governed by consent of the people, with an executive branch enforcing laws passed by the legislative branch, and the judicial branch either giving T the green light or a smack down, depending on the particulars. Porous borders are a threat to this nation. Illegal immigration chews up lives and creates misery in the people seeking a better life. Human trafficking sucks. Child sex slavery sucks. Bad actors using open borders to smuggle humans, drugs, weapons across it must stop. Tall walls, wide well-guarded gates, robust immigration policies, humanitarian efforts, and punishing offenders. All of that is just, moral, and good. Win or lose your next election as you see fit. I don't see defending temper tantrums and yelling about privilege as a path to it, but you do you.

Personally, I find the lyrics of a lot of the new1 hymns disappointing. They're just rhyming prose, not poetry. They teach truth, sure, but they don't transcend the ordinary or give wings to your soul (so to speak). Many of the older hymns paint such beautiful pictures and evoke such strong emotions, but these just state truths in ordinary language. It's as if someone was ordered to create new hymns in a hurry and instead of poets, they got folks with solid gospel knowledge and a thesaurus... 1(I mean the ones that are actually new, not old hymns newly added / restored to our collection) It's on my favorite MoTab CD, which you can listen to here (on YouTube).

Well stated. I don't remember ever really thinking about this before. I have always taken the words as meaning "The predator and the prey will be at peace", but maybe there are more layers to the story. For example, the lion is a widely recognized figure of the tribe of Judah, and specifically of David and his reign and progeny. The lamb is obviously a figure of Jesus, but may also symbolize those ruled by David's or Judah's house. Come to think about it, I don't think the "lamb and lion" metaphor/prophecy/whatever you want to call it is biblical. Pretty sure Isaiah talks about the wolf and the lamb. Okay, looks like Isaiah 11:6, which reads: The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Hmmmm. Not sure what to make of this. Why do we so often talk about the lion and the lamb? Is there another verse of scripture that I'm missing here?

This is where both sides gets this wrong. 1. Democracy is an umbrella term which indicates that the masses have some say in how the government goes about passing and enforcing laws. This includes both the election of representatives as well as direct consent to new laws (e.g.: propositions). 2. Another definition of democracy (when the context is specifically describing the difference between republics and democracies) is that a "direct" democracy is where the population votes on any measure that effects the entire population. EVERY SINGLE TIME. So, I disagree with Republicans who make a big deal and say that "We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic." I also disagree with Democrats who say that whenever an elected official does something we disagree with, we can take them out of office immediately "because we live in a democracy." While there are some jurisdictions that allow for an immediate recall, there are conditions that restrict it somewhat. And with the President, the Constitution already addresses that.

Don’t we live in a constitutional republic?

This verse is a transition verse between the judgements falling on unrighteous Israel and the promises of righteous Israel (after it is cleansed). So it's probably speaking of a time imminent to the second coming or immediately following it. And while there may be a literal fulfillment of this verse I'm thinking the spiritual fulfillment may be related to the ten virgins and apply to both men in women in relation to The Bridegroom.

Given that Isaiah is so prone to dual prophesies, I think the primary meaning is less about future male/female relationships and more of a simple (and maybe hyperbolic) illustration of the destruction that will have been wrought on (then-) future Israel through wars, to the point that there just aren’t many men left. But if one reads the verse loosely and tries to apply it to our own culture in the last days, what we might fundamentally see is women offering men the benefits of a traditional marriage (in a word: sex) while not demanding that men reciprocate with the traditional responsibilities of marriage (material support/commitment). And I think lots of modern American/ Western women do precisely that, to avoid the “stigma” of virginity/undesirability or in pursuit of some will o’ the wisp emotional connection or out of a “maybe he’ll like me if I just change enough” dynamic or out of a desperate need not to be alone as their culture accuses them of “passing their prime”. There may not be a stigma against being unmarried; but I get the impression that (outside the Mormon corridor, at least) there’s very much a stigma against being chaste.

Reports now (take them for what they are worth) say: Iran's stockpile of uranium was enriched to 60%. Not enough to do a full-blown bomb. But obviously beyond "energy-producing" levels. Iran was apparently moving the uranium via trucks, prior to the bombing. The centrifuges were destroyed or made unuseable. While some may be reparable, it is still a significant cost to Iran. However, we are aware that they had others at other facilities. We don't know where. Saudi Arabia is clear that they consider Iran a bad actor. Apparently, there is no love lost between them.

JJ, thanks for the update. I have no small amount of envy for a person who worked as long as they wanted to, and is content (happy even) with an approaching closure of mortal life. I pray I'm that lucky. Please check in as you can, and here's hoping your son-in-law agrees to check in with us after that.

I never really understood this concept. That is to say, I know what the technical definition of closure is: But the idea that we can find certainty in life (much less the spiritual realm) is just not realistic especially in highly esoteric subjects. We can find closure in what we know with the five senses. But "belief"? If anyone claims that there is no other worldly sense, then how can we know that it is or is not? It's a circular self-defeating view. All we can do is -- express doubt. There is no certainty because you can't prove a negative. At best, one can be agnostic. Yet all too many atheists will mock those who believe. For all they know, the theists could be correct. Similarly, most other belief systems end up being circular. The Bible tells us there is a God so, we know He exists. We know the Bible is true because it says it is the word of God. The one major difference in epistemology that the Restored Gospel offers is personal experience via the Holy Ghost. My x-mo friend was completely honest about this. He left because after being raised in the Church and giving it a good chance, he realized that he had never felt the Spirit. That's why he left. Assuming that is true (I have no reason to doubt his own words about his own experience) I don't blame him. Really living this religion requires a lot. And if you have no certainty after many years of giving it a good try... How can you justify the effort to stay? Atheists are perfectly welcome do disagree with others' belief systems. But to claim that they have either moral or intellectual authority over theists seemingly displays a lack of self-awareness.

I don’t really have an allegiance to the cultural aspect of the Church. Some of my family’s best church memories were during COVID when we had Sacrament meetings in our home. And I didn’t spend a second watching this boy’s hour long declaration of weakness. Everything I needed to know came from the title and screen shot. Jesus Christ guides this Church. Not man. “choose you this day whom ye will serve⁠; … but as for me and my house⁠, we will serve the Lord⁠.”

Yes. It's frightening trying to rebuild a worldview from scratch, but it's preferable to trying to force yourself to follow a belief system that you don't actually believe in. I personally don't believe that an exit from the church requires a video manifesto, but people find closure in different ways. The LDS Church is extremely social and communal, much more so than most other churches. That's where the "escape" mindset comes from. You're not just leaving a religion, you're leaving an entire community. And again, it's still preferable to going through life faking it. "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams No church or religion has a monopoly on happiness, not even yours. If LDS dogma brings meaning to your life, cool. Billions of people are doing just fine without it.

Sex, drugs, and rock & roll? ETA: And in the case of the dude in the post, earrings, a necklace, and a new hairdo?

How I Escaped??? I wonder if these people ever really stop to consider every unique doctrine of our church that they must turn their back on in the process of "escaping." If the promises of the gospel aren't true, what in the world do they think they'll find that will bring contentment?

"go there" does not mean that people get on boats and planes to enter into that geographic region. It means: "Jump to the conclusion that it is a fulfillment of end-times prophecy."

Back when I was dealing with online anti-Mormons in the 2000s, I formulated a hypothesis for what I call the "Holy Crusader" mindset. This is a situation where a person becomes so mentally and emotionally invested in whatever they adhere to that they consciously or unconsciously see it as a deity figure, and by extension view themselves as holy warriors in behalf of the cause. Since they see their cause as "good" and themselves as the arbiters of "good", they therefore regard anything that is the opposite of their cause as being inherently "evil". Thus, in their eyes, everything they do is justified as part of the larger battle of good versus evil. This is how we have, say, people claiming to be "anti-fascists" when they themselves are behaving in a fascistic fashion.

In my youth I had the opportunity on a number of occasions to know and personally converse with Elder Hugh B. Brown. Because of his position in the first Presidency, I felt that I had inside access to divine things. During this same time there was this old guy in my ward that seemed to present his testimony each fast Sunday. I did not pay much attention because this guy had no calling and always talked about Jesus. I knew that he was once a college professor at BYU and had awards for perfecting certain flowers – but as near as I could see he was basically ordinary and since he had no calling, he was no more special than anyone else and he lived in a very ordinary unimpressive house. When this old guy passed away Elder Brown came to speak at his funeral. I went to the funeral because it was in our ward and Elder Brown would be there. As Elder Brown was speaking, I was deeply touched. During his talk Elder Brown mentioned that the old ordinary guy had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I had heard people claim this before but as Elder Brown spoke, the spirit whispered to me that Jesus had appeared to and conversed with this old guy. I was stunned by this revelation. I did not know that Jesus would appear to an ordinary member of the Church. I though such things only happened to Apostles. Later, Brother Brown confirmed my understanding. I have had some stunning personal revelations and manifestations, but I have never conversed directly with Jesus to my knowledge (If I had, I strongly believe I would know it). I have come to understand that it is not for us to speculate about what is made known to who. We need not worry about how and what grand things are made known – even in our generation or even to ourselves. We need not worry about what things we may wish to know. G-d knows what is best for us – and we should seek and strive to be willing to receive whatever G-d would reveal to us. We can ask, and if it is right, it will be made known to us. The Traveler

I don't know if this fully answers your question but perhaps we can infer some things from it. Brigham Young, "Light of the Spirit—Laws of Health—Joy in the Gospel, &c.," August 5, 1860, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: George Q. Cannon, 1861), 8:138 "No man ever preached a Gospel sermon, except by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Without this power, there is no light in the preaching. Brother Bywater remarked that he did not desire a man of God, when he arose to speak to the people, to say, "Thus saith the Lord God Almighty," or "Thus saith Jesus Christ." People who require this, or who constantly require written revelation, have not a correct conception of revelation and its Spirit. What do the present professing Christian world know about the words of the Lord that came to Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other ancient Prophets? They read and hear without understanding much; they have not a true conception of the truth or principle of what they are reading. Is this the case with the Latter-day Saints? It is more or less the case with those who are continually desiring to have "Thus saith the Lord," and more written revelations. Those who possess the Spirit of revelation know the voice of the Good Shepherd when they hear it, and a stranger they will not follow. They discern the difference between the spirit and power of the Gospel and the precepts of men. When they hear truth poured upon the people, in comparison like the cataract of Niagara, they do not want "Thus saith the Lord," for it carries with it its own evidence, and is revelation to the believer. They understand, and the fountain within them springs up to everlasting life; they are happy partakers of the peace of God through the administration of his servants, and of the truths the Lord dispenses; and they receive truth upon truth, light upon light, which cheers and comforts their hearts day by day. If you wish to understand the true principles of revelation, live for it: there is no other way of obtaining eternal life." These are BY's sentiments but I'm guessing other Church leaders simply followed suit until it became the norm to not state "thus sayeth the Lord." To me, he is saying that there is an expectation for the members of the Church to receive a direct confirmation from the Lord on prophetic teachings and so there is no need to constantly identify the source of revelation because the Source will reveal it's truthfulness to us directly. The Lord must have felt it was needed in the earliest days of the Church because many members were still largely inexperienced with how revelation worked both personal and authoritatively. That all changed with time. Now, as BY states, we don't need the Good Shepherd to preface everything he says with "I am your Shepherd," if we are His sheep we will automatically recognize His voice.

I'll decry his actions no matter which political bend he has.

Welcome, Moroni60! I can’t speak for any individual prophet; but looking to my own experience in giving priesthood blessings: there have been occasional, very rare instances where specific verbiage was given to me, but generally it was concepts or impressions that I was left to put into vocabulary as best I could. As we go back and look at the editorial history of the D&C and the way different revelations were edited, combined/separated, or revised even between the BoC versus the first edition D&C—I am increasingly persuaded that the fact that many of the revelations in the D&C are written in the Lord’s “voice” is less a reflection of the process the Lord used in each of those instances to communicate with the Prophet; and more frequently (not always, but very often) a stylistic choice made by Joseph Smith himself. (Mormon himself, I think, does the same thing in recording/reconstructing some of the great sermons, and perhaps visions, in the Book of Mormon; particularly in Mosiah and Alma.) The result can be something very powerful to read—if it’s not wrong. President Taylor’s 1886 revelation shows what can happen when the prophet gets it wrong. I have no doubt that he was given a true revelation with some general concepts that comforted him and led him to stay on a course that was right for the Church at that time. But I have less confidence that, when he finally put pen to paper, he was able to articulate what he’d experienced in a way that wasn’t influenced by his own experiences and hopes and sufferings. President Taylor himself seems to have shared my doubts about his own scribal process in that instance; to such an extent that he declined to present it to the Twelve for review—let alone to the Church as a whole for canonization. And I think since his day later prophets have, generally wisely, chosen to take a more modest approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet Now, why would Obama want to destroy Iran's centrifuges if they were "only" using it for nuclear energy? Hmmm?

The doctor was wrong on this one - what he prescribed is exactly the course of action one needs to follow in order to live forever.

Actually, I take that back. I will humbly accept a lecture on privilege from the vet who bears literal outward and inward scars gained during service to this country. Just not from the leftie activist. Tell you what: I wish you a happy flag day, or a happy no kings day. Pick the one you'd like to receive.

In stunning news, Colorado's Dem governor and Dem Denver mayor took care of business. ~100 protestors at capitol hill yesterday, and it all went well until it didn't. Protests are good, riots are not. Clashes started, rocks and bottles and stuff started flying. The protest became a riot. The cops read the riot act, then dispersed the riot. Arrested maybe a dozen or two rioters. So, kudos to the liberal blue democrats in charge of Denver, because they did good. And by "do good", I mean they understand how important law and order is to the people who will vote for them in the next elections. It's nice when a representative government understands the will of the people.

It also varies from person to person as to why they choose to grow facial hair. In my case, when I was in junior high there were two other students who had similar appearances to me, such that teachers often confused us if we were in the same class. When I got to high school I discovered that the student handbook allowed us to have mustaches, and so I let mine grow out, much to the chagrin of my mom, who did everything possible to try and get me to shave it off. Once it was grown out, the three of us were never again confused for one another. I've since allowed the mustache to grow into a full Van Dyke - style number, and I've also begun sporting mutton chops as with my high blood pressure there are certain parts of my face to where if I tag myself while shaving it takes a prolonged period for the bleeding to stop. I use an electric razor to keep my facial hair trimmed, and a disposable to remove what hair I don't want as part of my style.

If you are incapable of seeing the difference between these two pictures you should either a. Educate yourself or b. Admit you are nothing less than partisan

I find rioting and destroying property appalling. First off, you have no right to damage things that are not yours, unless you are given permission to do so. Second, these businesses and homes are in your own hometown! Do you not realize that they won’t rebuild there and you’ve just damaged your own property value?!? These are your neighbors as well. It’s repulsive.

The military being deployed seems a bit extreme. If Joe Biden did this the right would be losing their minds in rage, though they won’t admit it now.

"I'd rather a polygamist who doesn't polyg than a monogamist who doesn't monog." - Senator Boies Penrose, in response to the fact that many of the politicians so adamant about keeping B. H. Roberts (?) out of office were known adulterers.