Leaderboard

"I bear witness that when Christ comes, He needs to recognize us—not as nominal members listed on a faded baptismal record but as thoroughly committed, faithfully believing, covenant-keeping disciples. This is an urgent matter for all of us, lest we ever hear with devastating regret: “I never knew you,” or, as Joseph Smith translated that phrase, “[You] never knew me.” Fortunately, we have help for this task—lots of help. We need to believe in angels and miracles and the promises of the holy priesthood. We need to believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the influence of good families and friends, and the power of the pure love of Christ. We need to believe in revelation and prophets, seers, and revelators and President Russell M. Nelson. We need to believe that with prayer and pleading and personal righteousness, we really can ascend to “Mount Zion, … the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.” Brothers and sisters, as we repent of our sins and come boldly to the “throne of grace,” leaving before Him there our alms and our heartfelt supplications, we will find mercy and compassion and forgiveness at the benevolent hands of our Eternal Father and His obedient, perfectly pure Son. Then, with Job and all the refined faithful, we will behold a world “too wonderful” to understand. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen." -President Jeffery R. Holland, April 2024 General Conference.

My family is the holder of the best known copy of the Rules of the United Order. For your fun and enjoyment I have printed out a copy (on my compurter not a photo copy) of the rules of the United Order. The Traveler

We got another one. My wife was following him prior to his baptism. He loved the temple open houses. Our clear communication. And Robins (the birds).

I don’t think Joseph Smith ever really saw any of his revelations as being truly “done”; he continued to tinker with their text throughout his life—even the text of revelations that had already been published. Brigham Young, at a Council of Fifty meeting, ”. . . supposed that there has not yet been a perfect revelation given, because we cannot understand it, yet we receive a little here and a little there. He should not be stumbled if the prophet should translate the Bible forty thousand times over and yet it should be different in some places every time, because when God [speaks], he always speaks according to the capacity of the people.” The point of canon is not to encapsulate all truth. The point of canon is to get us each in harmony with the mind and will of God and bring us to a spiritual state where we can learn all truth directly from the source. The current canon—while certainly not perfect—at least does accomplish that. This isn’t to say we should resist additions to the canon that the Lord, through His servants, offers us from time to time. But not do we need to live in terror that the existing corpus of scripture is somehow insufficient for God’s purposes.

Last year as I was reading through the Book of Mormon again, I was inspired to really notice all the father-son(s) dynamics, I then realized that beyond being the "keystone of our religion" and our "latter-day survival guide", it is specifically directed at men. I believe Mormon was inspired to include the things he did because the Lord knew in the days it would come forward masculinity and manhood would be under attack and the accounts in the Book of Mormon can help to counter that trend. The Book of Mormon addresses: *how to be a good husband (Lehi) *how to be a good father (Lehi, Jacob, Enos, King Benjamin, Alma(s), Helaman ben Alma, etc...) *how to be a good mentor (Captain Helaman) *how to be a good friend/companion (Ammon ben Mosiah, Alma ben Alma) *how to be a good leader and citizen (Chief Captain Moroni) The Book of Mormon is literally a "How to Manual" of being a man.

Seems like a good place to put this. I enjoy visuals like this:

So, my family is going to see the eclipse this coming Monday. We're just a few hours away from the path of Totality. We're planning on heading out right near @Ironhold's stomping grounds. We have no idea what the popularity will be. But if it is the nearest spot for me, you can bet that most of the eclipse chasers (out of 4 million people in Houston) will want to go to the same location. Texas is fortunate since the duration of the total eclipse will be longer with a decrease in latitude. We'll get nearly four minutes of the total eclipse. With the roads clogged, we may have difficulty returning. I hope we don't run out of gas. Or we'll be the only idiots driving out in the middle of nowhere looking at an event for just a few minutes only to returrn home with a memory. We can't really take pictures... can we? But memories will be what makes and breaks this family.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng Compare with the audio at about 1:05

If they aren't canonized then how would you know if Joseph, Brigham, or Russell received one? The point was that Joseph received "thus saith the Lord" revelations and they were never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern. I'll state again that I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration". I think the fact that Joseph's revelations needed editing before publication shows that there's a level of wiggle room even for "thus saith the Lord" revelations. And baptisms for the dead seemed to progress as they were practiced. I don't think revelation is as strong as you think it is, nor inspiration as weak as you think it is. No, I'm suggesting that just because we do not have the text of a revelation that does not mean that the revelation did not happen. The testimony of the apostles present make it clear that the lifting of the temple and priesthood ban came about because of revelation. The canonized record is the conclusion of such a meeting and not the revelation itself. That does not discount that a revelation was had. I do believe, and am suggesting that properly run council meetings become conduits of revelation and meeting minutes should reflect that. Joseph seemed to think the Lord sustained the high council's decisions enough to warrant including them in the Doctrine and Covenants. And although the practice of baptisms for the dead are mentioned in a revelation, the proper execution of the ordinance is explained in epistles -- not textual revelations. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern. On the contrary, I believe there have been. I don't think they've warranted canonizing in the Doctrine and Covenants. I've seen saints stare in confusion when they read D&C 16 after reading D&C 15. What percentage of the D&C should we devote to the thousands of mission calls extended every year? Should we plan on adding a fresh revelation every time the First Presidency is reorganized? You'll notice the Doctrine and Covenants starts out with many revelations giving specific assignments to specific individuals, but once the assignment has been outlined the assignment revelations fade out. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern. I think that's debatable. Let me see if I can make my point clearer. President Nelson, in his inaugural talk as prophet, says The word of the Lord came unto me and said, My servant Russell, I have heard thy petitions and thou hast found favor in my sight this day. Inasmuch as you have sought my will concerning who should serve as your counsellors, verily I say unto thee that thou shalt appoint from thy fellow-servants Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring; This is my word and will for the First Presidency. And now, as for thy concern over who shall sit among thy brethren the apostles, thus saith the Lord, Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses S. Soares have I called for this work; And they shall serve as special witnesses to my name and testify of me. I will be with them and with thee in thy councils with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If ye will gather in my name, esteeming thy brother as thyself, then I will pour my power upon thee that thou shalt speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. President Nelson would either have to speak like this his entire talk, or find a way to smoothly transition to it. This style seems to have fallen out of the common tongue early in the 20th century. Instead he said the following: I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency. In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles. I and we welcome them to this unique brotherhood of service. When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church. In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “By union of feeling we obtain power with God.” No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment! President Nelson quoted the Lord directly using more modern language and you missed it. "[T]he Lord instructed me to ...." I wonder if there's something specific you're looking for that's blinding you to what's already in front of you.

AskGramps posted some thoughts on this subject. In summary: 1. Not all of Joseph Smith's revelations were canonized (either narrowly-scoped, redundant, or the revelation simply wasn't recorded) and many of today's revelations are of the same sort 2. You seem to draw a distinction between "thus saith the Lord" revelation and "inspiration". When Elijah (representative of "the Prophets") receives revelation as "a still small voice", I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration". 3. Even meeting minutes are records of revelatory experience. One example has even been canonized. 4. Elder Widtsoe classified latter-day revelation as "foundation" - doctrines and Church offices that need to be revealed only once -- and "daily guidance" which has the narrower scope -- given for a specific circumstance, time, or person. Gramps concludes that if Joseph Smith were alive today you would likely find yourself asking the same question of him. I would add that given the decline of biblical literacy in recent history, modern revelations are not going to be couched in King James formatting. Instead of "thus saith the Lord" we may instead hear something more like:

I believe it is being referred to as "inspired counsel"? There's also a hefty dose of good old fashioned Old Testament-ey prophetic warnings and calls to action in it: The forces working against the family are pretty much everywhere now. Plenty of voices decrying outdated European models based on an oppressive patriarchy, plenty of sympathetic ears.

I’m pretty sure we have more revelations than any other dispensation. Other than the City of Enoch perhaps. There is great struggle with the Family Proclamation. I wish that we were ready for more revelations. That we could live a higher law. Don’t think we are ready yet.

Indeed, including statements from our leaders during the last fifty or so years that unanimously affirm that this life is the time to prepare to meet God, We have been warned against the philosophy of "eat, drink, and be merry...and it shall be well with us; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." Jacob goes on to call these "false and vain and foolish doctrines". Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance. Don't say, "Oh, celestial is too hard. I'll just live a telestial/terrestrial life. That's good enough, because eventually I'll get there." The truth of the matter is that celestial living is not merely far more rewarding than terrestrial/telestial living; it is EASIER. Show some faith. Believe the prophets and the scriptures. Think celestial.

I've been off arguing church finances with the critics on another board for a few years. I did a little research on where we stick our temples, measured by the GDP of the country where they're built, and I made this chart: Each dot represents all the temples in a certain country. So those two dots at the bottom right represent Brazil's 22 and Mexico's 25 temples, both horrendously poor nations with a per capita GDP of under $10k per year. Temples are a massive investment of funds. Maybe ~$60 million each to build, and maybe ~$3-4 million per year to operate. Yes, roughly half of the temples are built in happy rich 1st world high GDP USA. Because that's where roughly half of the worlds' saints live. But with only two exceptions, every other temple we build is built in a nation poorer than the US. 158 temples are in countries with under $40k per capita GDP. 150 in countries with under $20k. 131 in the world's poorest nations, with the crushing poverty of under $10k per capita GDP. If the saints in those areas had to rely on their own tithing donations to fund their temples, they couldn't hope to ever pay for one. If you're a church critic with issues on how the church uses it's wealth, even you are forced to admit that half of the temples cost more than they bring in. We're currently seeing exponential growth in new temples. When I ask myself how long that exponential growth will continue, one possible answer would be "as long as we can afford it". Someone with a background in monitoring how large wealthy organizations run their charitable endowments ran the numbers. Their back-of-a-napkin numbers said the church might be able to fully fund roughly ~2500 temples in poor areas who can't afford to pay for it via tithing. At the current rate of growth, we could reach that in the year 2067. Imma be paying attention in General Conference when they announce new temples! Hoping for 18-20 or more! And every time a poorer nation is named, I'll be rejoicing!

As I delved into the narratives spanning 1 Samuel 16 through 2 Samuel 10, a profound journey unfolded—one that took a young shepherd boy and transformed him into the king of Israel. This stretch of scripture is not merely a historical recounting but a rich tapestry that reveals the complexities of divine anointing, the essence of godly leadership, and the intricate ways in which God's sovereignty intertwines with human agency. The stories of David's anointing, his rise to prominence, his complex relationship with Saul, and his eventual kingship over Israel offer timeless lessons on faith, power, and the heart of true leadership. Anointed Yet Patient: David's Early Journey In 1 Samuel 16, David is anointed by Samuel, chosen by God not for his physical prowess or royal lineage but for his heart. This divine selection of a shepherd boy underscores a fundamental kingdom principle: God values character above external qualifications. Yet, what struck me most profoundly was David's patience and humility following his anointing. He did not rush to seize the throne; instead, he served faithfully under Saul, even when Saul sought his life. This period of waiting and service was not wasted time but a divine incubation period where David's character, faith, and reliance on God were refined. Leadership Tested Through Adversity David's ascent to kingship was fraught with challenges—from evading Saul's jealous rage to navigating the political and military complexities of uniting Israel. Each trial tested David's leadership, not just in terms of martial prowess but more significantly, in spiritual faithfulness and moral integrity. David's lament over Saul and Jonathan's deaths in 2 Samuel 1 reveals a leader who could mourn his adversaries, showing the depth of David's capacity for empathy and forgiveness—hallmarks of godly leadership. The Heart of Leadership: Serving God's Purposes Upon becoming king, David's actions—from his desire to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6 to his military campaigns that expanded Israel's borders—were driven by a desire to fulfill God's purposes for Israel. Yet, it was God's covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, promising an everlasting dynasty, that highlighted the essence of David's leadership: a heart aligned with God's will. This covenant underscored that David's kingship was not merely a personal achievement but a pivotal moment in the unfolding of God's redemptive plan for humanity. Personal Reflections and Application Studying these chapters has prompted me to reflect on the nature of the leadership roles I occupy—whether in family, work, or community. Like David, am I leading with patience, humility, and a heart aligned with God's purposes? David's story challenges me to evaluate not just my actions but the state of my heart in leadership. Moreover, David's journey from shepherd to king serves as a powerful reminder that our current station in life is not our final destination. With faith in God and fidelity to His commands, the seemingly ordinary can lead to extraordinary paths of divine destiny. As we navigate our own life's challenges and opportunities for leadership, may we draw inspiration from David's journey, remembering that true greatness in God's kingdom is measured by the condition of our hearts and our faithfulness to His call.

@JohnsonJones If you have the experience you say (I'm taking you at your word that you do) then you know how safe that child was and how ridiculous your concerns are. Timestap 7:40 so you can see clearly what you will also see in the next picture. Rifle slung downwards. Time stamp 7:42 the rifle is slung. Non threatening. Puh-leeze JJ...puh-leeze. My bonafides on the topic: I am 26 year officer (still working.) I am a building clearing instructor. I am an active shooter/rapid response instructor. I am a MACTAC instructor (counter terrorist active shooter stuff.) You are really reaching JJ.

As I've begun, for the first time, to read the Journal of Discourses, I have come across tidbits that are helping me to erase any assumptions I may have had about eternity and progression. My ultimate answer? I just don't know but God is really, really merciful- I trust Him.

It’s so late this year. I love to celebrate it the Thursday before Easter but it’s supposed to be celebrated beginning at sundown on Monday, April 22 thru sundown on Tuesday, April 30. What are yall doing? This will be our family’s 4th year to partake of the Seder.

These are my personal observations. Take them for what they seem worth to you. There are two types of men: Those that understand women on an emotional level Those that do not understand women, but naively assume that women are emotionally pretty much like men, only more prone to tears The second group is far larger than the first. Most temple-worthy Latter-day Saint men find themselves in Camp 2. Your husband is statistically likely to be a Camp Twoer. Men can also be divided (roughly) into two camps along another axis, namely, how they feel toward women: Those that respect women Those that do not truly respect women as people, but see them as things to be used to achieve their own ends. Call these Camp A and Camp B. Curiously, at least in my experience, Camp A seems at least as large as Camp B, and probably larger, both inside and outside the Church. To hear women talk about it, you would never guess that to be the case, but I think it is. Some men call themselves "pick-up artists". These men are usually from Camp 1 and almost always from Camp B. Women find these guys irresistable. Why? In part at least, it's because they are from Camp 1 and understand women. And because these men are also from Camp B, they use their understanding of women to get into their panties. For them, that's the game. They are expert flirts. For women, flirting is a game to see if they (the women) can garner external validation. For men (at least for the PAs), flirting is a game to see if they (the men) can successfully seduce the women. This is a dangerous, volatile situation. The women involved in flirting may not consciously be looking for a sexual "hook-up", and may even believe they want to avoid that. But they are craving that emotional validation, and the men (at least the PAs) know exactly how to feed that hunger. Many women have found themselves in bed with a man they don't know and/or don't even like because they "followed their heart" (meaning their emotions) into the bedroom. Odds are that you would not follow through and cheat on your husband. But let's be clear: You're playing with fire and stand a nonzero chance of getting burned. If you view your marriage through a gospel lens, you will consider it of infinite importance, and would not risk its integrity to get some attention any more than you would risk your child's life to get some thrills. Whether or not the other guy was a PA is beside the point, at least as far as that goes. (By the way, women divide into the same two sets of camps as men. Like men, most women dwell in Camp 2, which is why women so often naively and wrongly claim that men are "emotionally stunted" or some nonsense of the sort; they expect men to be women that shave their faces. However, my observation is that women are pretty equally divided between Camps A and B, and if anything tend more toward Camp B. Men are and always have been viewed by women as caretakers. As a result, women view men quite dispassionately—many men would say ruthlessly—as to what the men can offer to the woman. This is most obvious when talking with young women in their late teens and twenties. If Carb had listened to his sister's friends much longer, he likely would eventually have heard conversation that would have included the women objectifying men, including their husbands, to a shocking degree. Not all women do this, of course; my wife never does. But if men stay quiet and pay attention to what women say in public and in private, many of them will be amazed at what they hear. Women are not the people we men often think they are. More to the point, women are not the people we men have been taught that they are.)

Let's try a different set of numbered points: 1. You passed. You were tempted but you stayed true to your marriage, your vows, your faith. Not only did you not break the Law of Chastity, but you were tested and passed. 2. We men should value the women in our lives more. If we don't treasure our treasures, there are always others who will. 3. It speaks well of you that your husband trusts you take such long journeys without him. His discernment appears to be spot on. 4. Don't allow your desire for more attention to turn to bitterness. Again, we men should do better. Perhaps your husband should. 5. Nevertheless, don't underestimate what you have. 16 years? Three children? Blessings all! You did it together. Love/respect him openly. You'll be reassured.

Alma 48: 17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men. Im pretty sure that Mormon named his son Moroni based off the reasoning of the above verse. Captain Moroni is a great example of manhood. The best example is Christ. Unfortunately, many artists, directors, and writers have portrayed Christ as a weak gentle man with feminine characteristics. He was not. The Book of Mormon give us a lens to better understand the masculinity of Christ.

The teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40 For aintelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; bwisdom receiveth wisdom; ctruth embraceth truth; dvirtue loveth virtue; elight cleaveth unto light; fmercy hath gcompassion on mercy and claimeth her own; hjustice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

What happened was that when Filmation was about to ship He-Man out the door they realized that the violence in each episode was on a rather higher level than what kids' shows of the era normally contained. As a result, they devised the PSA bit at the end of each episode in order to put the violence in some sort of context as part of a larger moral bit. This "halo effect" concept caught on, and soon a number of cartoons were doing some sort of PSA or educational segment at the end of each episode. These initially faded away around the end of the 1980s as most of the shows that did these segments got cancelled, but briefly reappeared in the mid-1990s when Congress passed laws requiring that all over-the-air broadcast television stations had to air three hours of "educational and informative" kids' programming a week as stations used these segments to justify tagging whatever show they were attached to as E/I compliant. Nowadays they're more of a meme than anything else, although there are G. I. Joe fans who are open to the idea of the PSAs returning at the end of future content.

The fam went and saw One Life last night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Life_(2023_film) I can highly, highly recommend it. Everyone should know the story. Inspiring and important reminder of how average folks can rise to the occasion. Anthony Hopkins and all the other actors did an amazing job. Easier to watch and less traumatizing/extreme/violent/shocking than Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. Excellent movie for older teens on up. In my life, as the son of a WWII vet, I've felt the pressing need to preserve and pass along the lessons my dad's generation learned. This movie really really helped me forward that goal with my older daughter.

Today, I have been given the opportunity to bear a short 3 Minute testimony in our Branch Conference. (This is Branch a organized for the local prisons)... You will realize someday the importance of your calling to God and the heavens. Members would be clamoring to volunteer if they knew the blessings that will come to those who minister to the prisoner. Heavenly Father loves us with a love that we can barely even conceive of. As the Lord's newest Apostle, Elder Patrick Kearon, said, and as I can personally witness, “God is in relentless pursuit of you. He “wants all of His children to choose to return to Him,” and He employs every possible measure to bring you back.” Jesus Christ is our Messiah, Redeemer, and King. He voluntarily suffered, bled, and died so that we could repent and we receive forgiveness. He is our only hope of forgiveness, salvation, and exaltation. By His Resurrection all of God's children will gain immortality. He is the Light and Life of this world and all creation. He is creation's only hope. Without Him all would be darkness and chaos. He is coming again soon to establish His Kingdom of Peace. Joseph Smith holds the keys of, and is the head of this, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times and those keys will never be taken from him- “Forever and ever the keys he will hold!”. He is the Servant of the Lord in the parable of the Vineyard. He will stand again on the earth to lead forth in the redemption of Zion- “Millions shall know Brother Joseph again!”. The Lord gave me a testimony of the calling of Joseph Smith Jr. at 16, and the all devils in hell haven't been able to, and never will, take that witness from me! The Book of Mormon is a real history, of real people, that really lived. It contains the fullness of the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ. It is the keystone of my religion. It is my Latter-day survival guide. I have, and you will, come closer to God by abiding by it's precepts than any other Book. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's Church. It was established through the ministry of angels. Only in it are found the keys of salvation and eternal life. As President Nelson recently said, “no other organization can and will influence your life after death.” Russell Marion Nelson is the Lord's Presiding High Priest to direct His work in these days. He is the prophet, seer, and revelator to the Church and the world. If we obey the counsel given through him we will receive the power to endure and survive the sorrows that are coming upon the earth, and receive a fullness of joy in the mansions of our Eternal Parents.

I think we can agree on two things; 1) that the Adam-God theory was once taught in the church and 2) now it is not being taught in the church. I'm not sure, from those two facts, whether we can reliably come to the conclusion that it was a) taken away from the church and b) the reason for that presumed taking away was because of the wickedness of the church.

Since He's one of 'em, it would be sort of hard for Him to be there without Him present...

As a matter of mechanics, how do you think the “thus-switch-the-Lord” revelations in the D&C (and for that matter, the rest of canon) were transmitted to their recipients? Dream? Waking Vision? Physical material visitation of a divine being? Audible voice? Trance? Specific words coming to to the recipient’s mind? A image coming to the recipient’s mind, which the recipient then had to articulate in his own words? Something else? Were *all* the “thus-saith-the-Lord” revelations in our canon transmitted through the same method? Are you sure? How do you know? Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent: what do you think of Denver Snuffer and John Pontius/Thom Harrison?

For the sake of argument, let us pretend for a moment that you are right. The Church membership is less spiritually robust than in past generations, have turned their back on certain elements of their covenants, and therefore have had some of the light and truth in their doctrines, practices, and temple covenants taken away by divine decree. What would you have us do? I mean, repent, of course—but that would be true in any case. What would you, Maverick, have us TH participants do? Should we contact the First Presidency and express our displeasure? Should we chain ourselves to the gates of the Seattle temple to show our unhappiness with the direction things are going? Should we, I don't know, get on public message boards and broadcast to all who will hear how the Church is drifting into apostasy and forgetting its covenant roots? Should we go all Jana Riess and start publishing as publicly as possible our displeasure, unrest, and rebellion against such things? Or should we perhaps sustain our leaders in their challenges during these difficult times? Should we rather bear fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the reality of the restoration of Priesthood keys, and of the existence of the kingdom of heaven right here on Earth, with Christ Himself at the head and His chosen apostles leading and administering? I'm trying to figure out what it is you (Maverick) hope to accomplish in spreading your warning of wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. As a result of the dire warnings given us by you, we should immediately do—what?

Joseph once said that he could reveal 100 times more about the degrees of glory than what was revealed in the various sections of the D&C, as soon as the Saints were prepared to receive it. Joseph knew. But he also recognized that the Saints were not ready to hear it. He said If it was that difficult for what might (in the Church) be considered "the greatest generation" imagine what our generation is prepared for? Are they the great and noble generation saved for the last days? Or are they the lost generation being tossed about by every wind of doctrine? When I look at the many youth in the four stakes I've been frequenting, I'd say "Yes."

From a talk that I know some people here highly appreciate https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/ Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4; italics added). And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed” (italics added). Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot], 13:95).

OK, so I got curious. It would have been "inspired counsel" (counsel = advice; council = group of people). So, I sharpened my google-fu and searched (cuz the Church website search options are lacking). In October 2011, "Counsel to Youth", we find: ...but the video says the same thing. In "Parents in Zion" (Oct 1998), it's listed with other things as "inspired guidance". The end. So I removed Packer from the equation and required "family", "proclamation", and "inspired". Elder Richard J. Maynes calls a portion of the proclamation "inspired counsel". Elder Scott says it was "inspired of the Lord". And, I'm tired of perusing the results. At this point, I think it's up to @Maverick to provide a link.

I should note that I didn’t condemn the entire younger generation; I condemned that subset of them which has abandoned a certain set of principles. I’m probably getting into the weeds here, but . . . I disagree with this. Kids don’t always do what they’re taught. In fact, for millennia people have bemoaned the tendency of adolescents to do precisely the opposite of what they were taught. Humans are not computers; and I think it’s a stretch to suggest most incidences of human dysfunction are the result of some sort of manufacturer’s or programmer’s error.

I would respectfully add separately, @Maverick, that I rather think you rather overstate the degree to which Church members have cause to feel significantly and sincerely befuddled by conflicting “church teachings”. That individual prophets and apostles can express personal views that may be wrong is, I think, increasingly well understood in the Church; as is the idea that we aren’t bound to offer unblinking obedience to such idiosyncratic statements. The closest analogue is the statement in the supplementary matter to OD-1 about the Lord not allowing the prophet to lead the Church astray. And even then, the statement is qualified to suggest not absolute infallibility but that any error will ultimately be harmless. What we are covenantally bound to follow through our sustaining votes—where we risk falling into grave error if we disobey—are statements of the united voice of the Church’s governing councils. And once we remember that Church practices and teachings are to some degree tailored to time and place and that what was needful in 1835 or 2015 may no longer be appropriate in 2019 or 2024 (a proposition that is baked into the whole process, else there would be no need for living prophets/continuing revelation at all), I think one becomes hard-pressed to find a single instance where the entire Q12 and Q15 were objectively, undeniably, soul-jeopardizingly wrong. The Church has no shortage of fringe theories, but it also has a theological mainstream. And it’s really not that difficult to tell the difference—especially with the added benefit of personal revelation based in faith and sincere repentance, and even more so as we learn to block out the voices of the shrieking profligates who are pretty obviously motivated primarily by envy or libido. Take the aforementioned Proclamation on the Family, for example. We can split hairs over whether it is (or should be) canon, versus scripture, versus revelation, versus inspiration, versus just good sense, versus a complete product of its culture, versus a vestige of bigotry under which the Church groans for relief. But the simple fact is that over a hundred LDS apostles, seventeen LDS presiding high priests, every currently-serving GA-level seventy, and every section of LDS canon that discusses the matter, disapproves of gay sex. It’s not a close call in any way. The Lord, of course, can reveal whatever He will reveal. But as our theology stands right now there is literally a better chance that He will instruct the Church to start buying and importing indentured servants from slave markets in Mauritania or child brides from impoverished families in Saudi Arabia, than that He will instruct the Church to begin solemnizing gay marriages. That’s the elephant that remains in the room in spite of all the kabuki theater and concern-trolling over just how seriously we should really take the POTF.

There are some General Conference talks that are obviously inspired. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1977/04/our-great-potential?lang=eng D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. Joseph Smith routinely gave us revelations in the voice of the Lord. Ezra Taft Benson’s talk about pride is in his own voice. The question is, do we appreciate those messages equally?

That makes it sound weird, so apologies, let me rephrase: I am suggesting that "Thus saith the Lord..." needn't preface every communicated or published revelation a) when the flow of revelation is constant, as it is with the brethren directing the countless everyday tasks and projects currently underway, and b) the members are spiritually mature enough to not require this to focus their attention and understanding. Both come from the proliferation of endowed priesthood power among the members and brethren. Perhaps a social backdrop to this, in the USA anyway, is that the common religious language has changed from the 19th century, probably due to secularization of the language overall, and the practical expediency for religious speakers (to combat resistance and alienation by potential converts) to frame their communication to the modern hearer. Those with ears to hear will hear as they always have (the saints will recognize the Lord's voice nevertheless).

Yes and no. I agree generally that the Lord withholds things until we the members more fully utilize what we have already been given. The prophets have said as much. But when you consider the early days of the Church many revelations came during periods of apostasy or turmoil among members. So you can't just say the members are to blame. I personally believe that the fledgling Church simply needed more support to help it keep going and growing. As the Church became more stabilized the importance of a steady flow of publicly recognized revelation diminished. Looking forward, when all heck starts to break loose again it wouldn't surprise me if that flow picked back up.

What about D&C 138 1918 I consider a vision continuing revelation.

We, the membership, only receive what we prepare ourselves to receive. If there is a lack of "many great and important things" it's because we haven't responded adequately to what we have already been given. Remember the Liahona wouldn't work unless they had the faith to exercise obedience. I believe Pres. Nelson has much more he has received and wants to reveal it, but unless we get to the House of the Lord as counseled, it will continue to be withheld.

It's a fine question. I think one without any doctrinal answer, but one we can speculate and opine about. I think about dispensations and folks setting off into new uncharted territory needing guidance from the Lord. We are a relatively young restored church - a scant 200 years. The restoration kicked off something that doesn't need a bunch of changes. The D&C is a record of those changes. I think about how things get canonized, sometimes a lifetime or three after the record is actually made. It makes me wonder, as the Proclamation on the Family approaches turning 30, if it might become part of the D&C eventually. I also think about Enos, Jarom, and Omni, books documenting ~300 years of BoM history, and how they get only 3 short chapters. Enos gains a solid testimony. The Lamanites resist missionary efforts. Prophets keep prophesying same old stuff. Oh look, it's Zarahmelans. 3 centuries, that's it. Omni gets 3 verses. One verse saying "I'm writing something because my dad told me to." One saying "I fought a lot, and wasn't a good person." One saying "Lotta peace, lotta war, nothing much else to say. Wrote this down because it's tradition, so here's my son Amaron for you." Amaron's record is equally as short and unremarkable. Holy, sacred scripture at it's most routine and unremarkable. Omni certainly didn't think anything about him or his record should have been thought of as holy or precious, other than he was an unimportant part of an important story. It makes me think about what 2020-2024 would look like in scripture. "A new plague crossed the entire world and killed many of the old and sick. In the church, there were some disputations about how the sickness should be dealt with, but mostly the saints did their best to practice their religion in safety. I, Russel M. Nelson, being a doctor by trade, urged the world to receive a medicine, but nevertheless to love all no matter their choice. The sickness did not stop us from our missionary work, nor did it slow our work of building new temples at a fast pace across the world. Nevertheless, the dark one took advantage of the disruptions caused by the sickness, sowing much confusion and dissention among the children of men, with some men crying "lo, I am a woman", and others crying "because of injustice of one, it is not just to be subject to laws enforced by many". And these notions did confuse and anger many, including amongst the saints." A heck of a lot more interesting than Omni, if you ask me.

Jesus is risen! To commemorate the Resurrection of our Savior, Redeemer, and King I thought perhaps we could share things we could resurrect in our own lives to try to be better and do better. I will resurrect my life by: *Praying more *Reading and studying more *Spending less time online *Being less contentious while still vigorously defending the Restored Gospel *Making more of an effort to show kindness to those around me *Being more diligent in my daily labors *Communicating more regularly with family He is risen indeed!

I very explicitly disbelieve this. We have been told almost nothing about the lower kingdoms or what covenants are required to enter therein. This is because God wants us to be celestial. Our current prophet and senior apostle has clearly stated that we are to "think celestial". We are not to resign ourselves to a lesser kingdom or start planning for our more modest mansion in the terrestrial regions. The Lord Himself, both during mortality and in His eternal nature, has told us that eternal life—which is to say, exaltation—is the greatest of God's gifts, and that He wants to bestow that gift upon each of His children, and will do so to all who will receive that greatest of gifts. No, we do not need a better understanding of a lesser place. We need a better understanding of the celestial realms and, more importantly, a better understanding of what we must know, do, and be in order to gain that exaltation.

I will be going to the temple more often

Eating my lunch and scrolling, and I came across an example of what I’m talking about: https://youtube.com/shorts/GMq9NalMTp8?si=JGF6ByKYshz-JJ2I it is nice to see younger folks arrive at a little bit of wisdom on their own. Completely secular viewpoint being given here.

Funny you should say that. This is my own opinion, also. Joseph didn't tinker with the content of his revelations; those are pretty static (though e.g. his various First Vision recountings do emphasize and bring to the fore different aspects of that encounter). But he seemed to have no problem rewriting parts of his Book of Mormon "translation"* when he thought the original wording didn't quite get the point right. He reworded, and I think it would be fair to say revised, revelations included in the Book of Commandments/Doctrine and Covenants as they came up for republishing. Joseph seemed to approach the role of prophet as a very dynamic one. And while he took his responsibilities very seriously indeed, I get the impression that he did not really take himself too seriously. He certainly had no problem admitting error in his work or revising how or what he said if it didn't feel right to him. *I put the word "translation" in quotes, not because I don't think it was a translation—it clearly was—but because we have a rather straightforward view of what a translation is and is not. I don't think Joseph's Book of Mormon translation fits the way we use the word today.

In my youth I had a personal relationship with Apostle Hugh B. Brown. It has always been my nature to seek out and ask the most difficult questions – at least the questions I considered the most difficult to me. Like some that have posted I was aware of leader that were obviously in error. And so I asked Apostle Brown the question – Do we still sustain our bishop even if we know absolutely that they are wrong? This answer has stuck with me for decades. Brother Brown looked me squarely in the eyes and said, “You sustain your bishop, especially if he is wrong because he will need your support more then than at any other time.” Perhaps we do not understand what it means to sustain (support). There are two parts. One is to be agreeable, to help, to love, to honor and respect. The other is like unto the servants of Elijah that held up his arms when he was weak. When our leaders (or fellow members) are weak or failing – we hold them and their mission and purpose up. This second part is known in the covenant to not speak evil of the L-rd’s anointed. My friends @mrmarklin , @ZealoulyStriving , @Maverick and other Saints of G-d: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not just the L-rd’s Church. The Church also belongs to the Saints of G-d and is why the Saints are included in the name. I would suggest that if anyone is aware of anyone or anything that is a problem in the Church that they humbly pray to G-d concerning that problem and inquire what it is that they can do (or sacrifice) to assist G-d in his mitigation of the problem. As I have done this myself - almost always in such things, the first thing I am commanded to do is to repent. The Traveler

What I don’t understand are those people who “fear commitment” but have matching tattoos and three kids together, yet are not married

I will predict at least two in places I did not know there was even a ward there and one in a place I did not know even existed. In my youth I could name all the temples – but back then there were only 12 and the year I graduated from high school they dedicated the 13th. I set a goal to visit al the temples. Currently I can’t even tell you all the temples in Utah. I am starting to take all the temples for granted. The wife and went to our assigned temple forgetting that it was closed for a week of deep cleaning. So we just went to another temple. We ended up finding out there 4 temples were closed for something before we found one (all within less than an hour drive of our home) was open. Now days that problem is solved because we make appointments. At the most recent Roots Tec I learned that on the Family Tree app I can find the name(s) of the closest relation to take to the temple. I am guessing that we will be told that the Kirtland temple will soon be restored and rededicated. I would like to be there for that. The Traveler

Utah judges don’t tend to have much discretion on felony sentencing. They can only impose the statutory period and specify whether the sentences (if there are multiple counts) run concurrent or consecutive (in this case, four sentences of 1-15 years, running consecutively; but Utah has a separate statute limiting consecutive terms on second-degree felonies to a total of 30 years). The case is then handed over to the state board of pardons and parole, which decides when a person may be eligible for release. Theoretically one would think there would be a 4-year minimum, but I’ve heard well-placed sources suggest that if Mom reeeeally impressed the parole board at their first meeting (likely to occur sometime this fall) then they may declare her eligible at that point. Given the public furor that has come out with this document release, I think the parole board will be under a lot of pressure to keep her locked up.

I am to both , although studying on my own for the most part.