laronius

I read a Pew research report that stated 71% of parents are concerned about how much screen time their kids experience. Later it said 68% of parents feel their cell phones distract them at times when spending time with their kids. Hmmmmm. 🤔

This is one of things I'm talking about. LDS doctrine does not support the idea of having to be worthy to access the grace of God. We need grace to become worthy. What is required is that we are humble and penitent. When we sin, if we humbly repent God forgives us. That's grace. Likewise, through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost our desires can change from wanting to sin to wanting to be holy. That's grace. The teaching that we are saved by grace after all we can do often confuses people but only because they isolate it from the rest of what we believe. But it's quite straight forward. For example: Say I have a choice to make to choose wrong or right. What is the all I can do in that moment? I can choose the right, in which case God blesses me with guiding and sanctifying influence of His Spirit which is a function of His grace. But let's say I choose the wrong. Well I don't get those blessings because the Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples. Now, in this my unworthy state, what is the all I can do? Humble myself and repent. In which case God extends his grace and forgives me. And this process repeats itself over and over throughout our lives. There's nothing earned. There is no worthiness requirements to access God's grace. His grace is available at every step if we but turn to Him. Through the grace of God we are forgiven and cleansed. And through the grace of God we are sanctified and transformed into new creatures in Christ. Does this process require effort on our part? Yes, because even though we cannot save ourselves God expects us to use what He has given us. And it's in our attempts to obey Him that God can strengthen and refine us.

I have to admit I'm finding this discussion difficult because you keep comparing what you believe now to what you incorrectly believed before about LDS doctrine. You state you are aware this may be true but any attempt on our part to correct those misconceptions is ignored as you continue to compare your new beliefs to the same misconceptions. From our perspective you are simply comparing two flawed belief systems. You sound like a genuinely good person and it's unfortunate that you didn't find doctrinal clarification before leaving the Church but I don't think it is appropriate for you to keep implying that what you once believed is representative of what our Church teaches. If you want to discuss what we actually believe you'll need to leave those misconceptions behind you and be open to a new perspective on these issues.

Happiness cannot be given to someone. It comes as a result of who God helps us become. This is the whole purpose of grace, to help us become better than we are which results in greater happiness. No amount of grace can make a sinner happy in sin. Everything Jesus Christ taught was about becoming better. His teachings are the requirements for admission into the kingdom of Heaven. They are not optional or irrelevant. The idea that we just have to just accept God's grace relegates Christ's teachings as optional at best and irrelevant at worst.

This transactional view of LDS core doctrine reflects a developmentally immature perspective of what we truly believe (immature meaning not fully developed, not a slight). But I think it's a pretty common perspective a lot of members have though many don't question it as you rightfully have. Where you erred, though, was in your assumption that your understanding was 100% correct and so looked elsewhere for truth rather than seeking clarification. When we are taught early on things like all blessings come by obedience to some law and that we are saved by grace after all we can do, it's easy to come away feeling like we are part of a divine win/win program God has created where we get salvation and He gets our obedience. This issue arises because we fail to view scriptural teachings in their much broader context of God's ultimate purposes. You are exactly right when you say that God is motivated by love. The scriptures are pretty clear on this. But it's also correct to say that God glories in creating and then saving His creations because that's who He is. A Creator. And of all His creations, man/woman is His supreme creation. We are not just a passing fancy that sooner or later He will lose interest in and then choose something else to glory in. His very identity is tied to what He is now doing with us right this very moment, saving His sons and daughters. But the question arises: To what end does He seek to save us? At the core of our doctrine, as you know, is His desire to exalt us. Not simply to be forgiven or being saved in our sins but to become new creatures altogether. And what form does this new creature take? Ultimately one like Him. He enjoys perfect happiness and that is His desire for us. But it cannot simply be given to us. It's happiness that comes from who He is and what He does and we cannot attain to it unless we become and do as He is and does. Anything short of that is a form of damnation.

What do you mean "no point?" You just gave me my next sacrament meeting faith talk analogy. Gravy: brown or white.

The word glory can have different meanings based on the context of its usage. So rather than debating a concept that we are not fully agreed upon as to it's definition I'll instead address what you have identified above as your actual intent in this thread which is simply the ol' grace versus works debate, which really boils down to who God is and who we are and our relationship. As you know, we believe we are literal spirit sons and daughters of God. And as all of creation teaches us, like begets like. We have the potential to become like our Heavenly Father. If you reject the doctrine that we are literal sons and daughters of God then of course your idea of who God is and our potential will be different and with the role of grace and works in reaching that potential.

I wonder if the next step up is omniscience. I could understand that being a gift that God withhold from mankind.

Here's what I think are the applicable verses of what Mormon used. It's hard to say what exactly he simply stuck with his record or abridged. Words of Mormon 3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi. 4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass— 5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people. 6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren. So some of the plates of Nephi are abridged (perhaps the large plates of Nephi) and other plates of Nephi it sounds like he just puts with his record (perhaps the small plates of Nephi). I don't know if that means he physically attached them to his record, just kept them together or transcribed verbatim rather than abridged. Do we have additional insight on what he actually did? Another thought to keep in mind as well is that although we generally say Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the actual process was really just Joseph Smith recording whatever God told him to record by revelation. God himself could have made changes as He saw fit.

16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. Any thoughts on this verse? Specifically, why is the gift of seership esteemed greater than any other spiritual gift available to man? And what exactly is the power of God that man can't have? As it says, some of God's power is given to man so it seems he may be referring to something specific that man can't have. But seership is apparently the closest man can get to it.

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.

You sidestepped the whole point, which is that they haven't changed. And by "they" we don't mean the predominantly peaceful element of their religion but the extremists and more in particular the extremists who are in power.

In any society someone has to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong," whether it be economically, socially, whatever. But somebody has to decide it. I personally would rather it be me (us the people) rather than some ruling class. If we fail it's on us and we have no one to blame but ourselves. The influence of the US in the world is obviously both good and bad. But if it's have both or have neither then I would much rather be a citizen of most any nation with the US in the world than not. Lastly, it's really hard to know what people really think about us. We know what they think based on what they are told about the US but that's not always accurate. And the less freedom a people enjoy the more likely their perceptions are skewed.

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.

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.