Leaderboard

D&C 88:6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; 7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. 8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; 9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; 10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. 11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; 12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— 13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. I have generally read these verses as a metaphor, the light of the gospel/Christ/truth that comes from God being likened unto the physical light that allows us to see with our eyes. But verse 11 seems to be more literal, making them one in the same. Is that how everyone else reads it?

On truth, Brigham Young is quoted as saying: As a protestant, for many of my 14 years of membership, I focused more on being the "Only true and living church" and not the above. I have found it useful to shift my perspective to the idea that the church is the "Most correct" of any church on Earth. While all truth is "Mormonism", it emphatically DOES NOT follow that "Mormonism" is all truth. I just watched a reaction video to the Mormon Stories video interviewing the Mississippi bishop who resigned from the pulpit. He honestly spoke about how he viewed those outside the church as "not worth his time" and that only members were "celestial material". To me, this is obviously a failure on his part for gross misunderstanding. But perhaps we could focus a BIT more on the "most correct" and less on the "only true". You obviously need both, but it seems some have the balance WAY off, even those in "leadership" positions.

I believe there is a literal interpretation to the above. I suspect the "light" being described is not (only) the light our mortal eyes see. My imagination comes up with all of us connected by a network of light - like a (literally) glorified fiber optic network without need for the cables. (My imagination likes to visualize things - and make things up out of whole cloth.) Everywhere you see "truth", you could replace it with "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" and see if that sheds any (ahem) light for you. D&C 88 and 93 have a lot of stuff that instinctively make sense, but which I have a hard time deciphering... Go figure.

This sort of question feels an awful lot like an effort to excuse the words of the Lord. What comes to mind immediately for me is D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;" This is expressed practically immediately after the Lord declares the church to be the only true and living church in D&C 1:30. But inevitably someone comes along and tries to excuse what the Lord said. Let's focus "less" on that. Let's be apologetic about what the Lord declared. I don't find the Lord's declaration in this case as useful. Etc., etc. That doesn't sit well with me. I think instead of trying to excuse what the Lord said I'll focus instead on trying to understand why He said it and why it's important.

I think this is a great question. I think these type of questions allow us to ponder truth a little more as we seek further light and knowledge. I would take a different approach and simply say focus on these aspects within their sphere of truth. I really like this teaching in the Doctrine and Covenants where it teaches us the following, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." (emphasis mine) Let's review this independent truth, "the only true Church." This is a very important truth that shouldn't be replaced by the "most correct," which is pointing toward the Book of Mormon in reference to other scripture (Holy Bible). Within its independent sphere of truth it should never be compromised to "most correct." There is no other way back to the Father, except through Christ and his Church. If we were to solely focus on "most correct", then it could lead some to remove themselves from the Church because it may be the most correct but there are still other paths that are correct. This would result with some members making a choice to follow a forbidden path, letting go of the iron rod. As truth is a sphere, independent, spheres of truth are also interwoven with each other. Remember, we believe the "restored" Church of Jesus Christ, and as President Nelson has made clear that restoration is still very much occurring. This is also taught in our Article of Faith #9. We believe that God will continue to reveal truth to his Church. This revelation may result from another church's teachings. This is why I find Mason theory from anti-Church individuals to be humorous. If the Lord preserved a "truth" for his restoration through another faith or culture, then the Lord has every right to bring that truth back into his Church -- without question. All truth is Christ's -- for he is the way, the truth, and the light. As we properly focus on each of these two truths, "most correct," and the "only true Church" we will profitably grow quicker. If we focus on one more than the other we will lose that independent truth and eventually look beyond the mark. It needs to be announced unapologetically and unequivocally that this is the only true Church. This is the straight and narrow path. There is no other way to the Father, and this is why we have work for the dead (as you know). We also need to keep aware that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct," because this allows the right and privilege of the apostles and prophets to make updates, corrections, or clarifications to scripture.

I flatly deny that the Church as a whole has any such policy or practice regarding missionaries testifying. Elizabeth Smart came home from her mission to testify against her kidnappers—multiple times, IIRC. I could *hypothetically* see why local leaders in a particular area (particularly one where government corruption may be an issue) might prefer to stay out of legal proceedings. But, if they’re leaning on third parties/lay members to stay silent or hide evidence . . . the Church could get in a lot of trouble for that. I would tell my leaders that I intend to inform legal authorities/ defense counsel/ whatever of the situation on such-and-such a date unless they instruct me in writing by virtue of their priesthood and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that I must remain silent. And if they do write such a letter, my next step is to forward a copy of it to the Area Presidency.

Yeah, I don't care about Red Dawn notions of armed incursion. (The original was ok, the remake was boring.) But there are endless valid and real reasons nations sneak people into other nations where they operate covertly. And there are also endless valid and real reasons nations worry about the various impacts of illegal immigration. If you like our culture, standards of living, economy, and institutions and want to preserve them, there's plenty of cause to worry about the impact all of it has on that stuff. History is fascinating. They tell me the reason our southern border is so porous, has to do with the terms they agreed to during the last US Mexican war in 1847. The US won pretty soundly, but was still in the process of inventing itself, and there were several American opinions at odds with each other. How a lot of the frontier lands were going to get populated , who got to be a "US Settler", how would citizenship work, etc. In the end, we signed treaties that officially made it illegal to be illegal, but everyone knew the border would see a lot of migration. There's been a flow back and forth ever since, especially seasonal as the US became a major food producer. Trump wants to do what he's done in the past, build another massive monument to his ego with a solid gold TRUMP on it to make sure he goes down in the history books as building the wall. But his ego aside, there are plenty of good nonTrump, non-ego-driven reasons to have a robust southern border with tall walls and wide gates with good immigration laws. The wall is one component to that.

Shift it back, brother. Here's what the Lord himself said: The Lord himself "wrote" this section of the D&C, so let's not suggest that Jesus Christ did not know what he was talking about. Don't know any sane person who suggested otherwise. Even God didn't do that: Clearly the Lord expects us to seek out learning from wherever we can find it (as well as from him). Yes, it is wholly true that: No other church on the earth has the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, nor his ordinances and covenants. I submit that this person didn't follow the instructions (or see my text below the link): Some of us don't want the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, some of us aren't ready for it yet or like to do things the hard way (and maybe need to experience evil longer before we can recognize the good), and some of us love Satan more than God. (And whatever other combination of variables I'm not thinking of.) Jesus Christ does not send people (other than Satan and his minions) away, ever. (Explicit verses above, but the scripture are full of little else than Christ inviting people to come unto him. He will let them come as far and via whatever convoluted or tortured path they choose, but they are always invited to come fully unto him, and that path is not complete until one has entered into the House of the Lord, received ordinances, made covenants, and then kept those covenants to the end.)

Of course. Though I wonder if even that is WHOLLY true. If there are not edge cases where the law is applied differently to others, that is to say, if someone claims they read the BoM and received a prompting not to come to the church, I don't question it, I may tell them to be certain, and make sure, but then I have to have faith in God and the person. BUT, I'm not willing to wager my eternity on an exception. I'm just not willing to rule any out, you know, being a fallible mortal . I bring myself to "What is that to thee? Follow thou me." I do what the spirit tells me, I don't deny the experiences of others, even if I don't agree or understand them.

Yeah, but we don't really know what "intelligence" means here. Is "intelligence" IQ, smarts, intel, knowledge, a mass of raw material infused into spirits on their creation, an attribute of eternal spirit-beings, or sentient beings with free will, or non-sentient beings who don't gain sentience until fused into a spirit body, or....? There are places where "spirit" and "intelligence" are used interchangeably and other places where they seem to be distinct from one another, places where intelligence seems to be an entity and places where it seems to be an attribute. I submit that we simply do not have enough clearly revealed information about anything prior to our lives as spirit children of God. Without said clearly revealed information, we are filling in the voids with logic, imagination, and error.

That just means you need to watch more movies! And it ain't just humans - it's the dang aliens! https://www.ranker.com/list/best-movies-about-america-being-invaded/ranker-film