laronius

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.

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?

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.

Much of what is recorded in Genesis is also substantiated elsewhere in scripture. But if you simply choose not to believe it, at least not literally, there's not much anyone can say. But your choice not to believe it isn't proof that it's not literally accurate either. Here again you are describing something that is not a hole in the argument. You have simply decided not to believe or at least question potential evidence for the argument. This argument would have more merit if following prophets did not actively seek the Lord's permission to give blacks the priesthood and were denied so. I personally reject the idea that a prophet of God would be so racially motivated in such a significant issue first of all and that the Lord would simply be fine with it as to not do anything about it. But that's just me. At the end of the day though, it's all just theory. One day we'll know but by then we'll probably not care anymore.

I remember as a fairly green missionary still going to an appointment with a woman we had tracted into a week earlier. We knocked on the door and no one answered. So we knock again and just then we see through the door's window the woman walking past the door down the hallway acting as if we didn't even exist and not even trying to hide the fact. I guess I wasn't quite used to the rejection yet so I was kind of miffed. So as we walked away from the house I half seriously and half jokingly reached down and brushed the dust off my shoes. My companion saw it and chastised me. No more shoe dusting for me after that. I hope I didn't ignorantly bring ruin down on her house. 😂

That's why I said fewest holes. But it seems like I remember a discussion once upon a time on the BYU channel that talked about Joseph's wife not necessarily being racially Egyptian. A quick Google search found the "Ask Gramps" article making that same case but I don't know how much evidence there is to support that argument. https://askgramps.org/can-you-please-explain-how-ephraim-and-other-israelites/

So this is Bruce Porter's take on the issue and to me has the fewest holes in understanding of why. The whole video is interesting but if you want to jump to summation watch 43:00-47:00.

On the one hand I don't blame them. With the amount of true symbolism found in the ancient faith (and even now in Christianity) and with our knowledge of all things bearing witness that there is a God, looking for the symbol is going to be instinctive. But not everything anciently came from God. Some things came undoubtedly from man during times of apostasy. And making that distinction, even for those of us who believe in personal revelation, can be tricky. But I'm glad to hear there is at least some basis in what the website is talking about.

I was doing a Google search of possible symbolism of the word "nail" in Hebrew and came across a website where they are looking at the symbolism of not Hebrew words but the individual characters of the Hebrew alphabet. I had never heard of this before but what I read about one particular character that is representative of a nail I thought was really interesting and it got me wondering if this is legit or is someone just trying really hard to make something of nothing. I am including the link below because the article was really lllloooonnnngggg and I only read the first little bit to get an idea of what they were talking about. https://agapegeek.com/2023/10/30/jesus-in-the-ancient-hebrew-alphabet-part-7-vav-jesus-the-nail-for-heaven-to-earth-connection/

I'm not opposed to crossbreeding and other agricultural tricks to produce a more desirable product. I am a little worried though about GMOs which is scientists using technology to modify the DNA of plants and animals. Does it totally stop me from buying those products? Not really. But I am a little concerned about unintended consequences. But this is all completely separate from organic, which I do actively try to consume. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you spray chemicals on a fruit or vegetable and then you consume that fruit or vegetable, there is is a decent chance that you are consuming some of that chemical. I'm not a 100% organic only person but I do believe that the less pesticides and radiation exposed foods we consume the better.

How about the time BY snuck up on a passed out drunkard and chopped his head off. Oh wait, that was a different prophet. Or how about BY trying to slit his own son's throat because he thought God told him to. Oh wait, that was a different prophet as well. Perhaps that they were all prophets is the only context that matters. That of course won't fly with those outside the Church but with some things that's all there is because sometimes what God does (or wants done) flies in the face of all mortal reasoning. I can already hear the retort: "But God actually told them to do those things!" Well how can we know what God did and didn't tell BY to do? I don't think any of us is in a position to pass judgement on him. If you were simply looking for a way to explain such things to those not of our faith, I wish you well. But for those of our faith it really shouldn't require apologetics.

I think we can thank Satan for this. He quite effectively corrupted man's understanding of who they are and who God is. I don't blame people for not believing that we can actually become like some totally foreign and incomprehensible being. How does one even relate to that let alone be inspired to become like that? It just magnifies the importance of the first vision of Joseph Smith. I think we as members of the Church overlook that sometimes, just how much was revealed in that single moment of the appearance of God the Father and His Son. I used to wonder why relating that event as a missionary was almost always the most powerful and Spirit-filled part of teaching people. It was just how much truth was being restored. We generally focus on the "don't join any churches" aspect but there was so much more than that.

A fourth but much rarer source of truth would be a personal manifestation of the Lord Himself. Such as with Joseph Smith, Paul, the Nephites, etc. And could we classify creation as a source of truth? Truth is revealed in everything around us.

Elder Rasband after quoting Exodus 3:5 "Putting off our shoes at the door of the temple is letting go of worldly desires or pleasures that distract us from spiritual growth, setting aside those things which sidetrack our precious mortality, rising above contentious behavior, and seeking time to be holy." Oct 2020 GC I think shoes are specified because they so easily get dirty with the filth of this world but it's representative of putting off this world entirely (changing into white clothing) and like you said, connecting with the divine.

There is a difference though between those who show up because they are personally asked to and those who show up because they are simply made aware of a need. And it's a significant difference. If we only ever acted because the Spirit specifically told us to the Lord would not be pleased. Is it better than not responding at all? Of course. But it falls short of what the Lord is asking of us