RAB

Theoretical Christianity is much easier than actual Christianity.

I, too, tire of hearing what someone said on a Podcast. I feel like they are often adding more to the scriptures than they should. One example was Moses and the Flying serpent. Someone learned in a podcast that those on the outskirts of camp who were bitten probably needed assistance to get to where the staff was in the center of camp. In my mind, that undercuts the meaning of that event. The meaning is that all we have to do is look to Christ, repent, and live. We don't need someone else to carry us to Him (Bishops may have a place in the repentance process, and we can reach out to bring prodigal sons back, but I don't believe that is what this story is about). We have no idea whether Moses walked around camp with the staff, so that all people could just look up and live. There may have been no travel required at all. Just look and live. I think that is what God wants us to know. Look to Him and live. Don't avoid trying because you assume it will not work. Test Him, try Him, and see if He doesn't know how to give good gifts to His children. Podcasts have to come up with something interesting to say, but one should beware that the interesting thing they say may actually be detracting from the point of the gospel message.

I actually prefer the latter. He is more real. That is a man who has seen some stuff, has been through the ringer, and is still standing with jaw firmly set. That is a man who is a rough stone rolling. There is an indomitable will and definitely some pain behind his eyes.

I have come to a similar conclusion. We go to the Kingdom whose laws we are willing to obey. To reach the Telestial, you just have to not become a son of perdition. Pretty low bar, since you already came to earth. To reach the Terrestrial, you just have to not be an unrepentant liar, adulterer, thief, or murderer. To reach the Celestial, however, you have to strive to live those covenants made in the temple in person or by proxy, repenting along the way, until ultimately you always choose to do what is right. Whichever kingdom is chosen, all sins must be paid for in person, if one chooses not to take advantage of Christ's atonement. As D&C 19 indicates, that is not a pleasant process. It is not difficult to see why people, of their own will, will choose the subset of laws they are comfortable following, and thus, ultimately choose their kingdom. Much of that will play out in the millenium, except for those who have forfeited the opportunity for progression because they did not improve their lives during their earth life (in my mind that is reserved for evil people that wish to do harm, not for the distracted who might turn it around).

After going over my own income taxes last night, I certainly feel this way. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person, but those tax instructions and worksheets are full of gibberish only insiders can fully understand. I understood enough to know I'm cutting a check in April and revising my withholdings on my W-4 today. We really need a much simpler tax system. I love the simplicity of tithing. Just do a flat tax, and tax credit based on income for poorer people. This isn't rocket science, but how else would the Government get to incentivize my life decisions and bribe the public with the public's money.

In 2nd Nephi, Nephi points out that the days of man were lengthened pre-flood so that they could repent while in the flesh. (2 Ne. 2:21) I interpret that to mean that they lived long enough so that they learned how to always choose to do what is right, so that they did not need to repent any further. As such, through Christ's atonement that would come, they would be ready to be exalted when their resurrection would come with Christ's resurrection. How long did it take to repent in the flesh and get to a point where one would always choose what is right? Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5:5). Seth lived 912 years (Gen 5:8). Enos lived 905 years (Gen 5:11). Cainan lived 910 years (Gen 5:12). Mahalaleel lived 895 years (Gen. 5:17). Jared lived 962 years (Gen 5:20). Enoch lived 365 years until he was translated (Gen 5: 23). So, apart from Enoch, it took most people over 900 years to get to that point. Add to that the knowledge Alma 34:33 which states that we should not procrastinate our repentance because "if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed." Notice it says "if we do not improve our time" (we don't come to the earth perfect, but rather innocent), but it does not say there is no further improvement. We only get the chance continue improving if we improve our time while in this life. If we do become better people, then there is a chance to continue to improve. If we do nothing with our lives to improve, then there is no further chance to keep progressing. Piecing those two scriptural sections together, it is my belief that the thousand years of the millennium is when we get to continue to repent and improve while in flesh, so long as we made progress in mortality. It took the ancients about 900 years, so having 1,000 years at the end of mortality makes perfect sense. This gives me comfort for several reasons. We know the Lord does not expect perfection of us in our short mortalities, even though eventually He will. We know there is no magic that makes us become perfect, but rather ultimately we become what we choose to be. We also know that there will be opportunities for those who have made some improvement in their lives, but perhaps were distracted and lead astray. This isn't some game to our Father, where there is a prize to be won. Rather, He will give every opportunity and allow time for all His children who will to eventually choose Him and His way of life. Without Christ's sacrifice and grace to cleanse us and strengthen us to rise to new heights along the way, we could have no hope of eventually arriving at that glorious day of the final judgement with hopes of returning to our Father's presence. So, yeah, I believe there is progression after death. There simply has to be.

“Powers of heaven shaken.” Heaven is often synonymous with the sky and space. So, some kind of global event that knocks out satellites or perhaps space warfare?

Another possibility…it was a very male dominated society throughout history. Perhaps people would not have taken the message as well from a woman. Another thought, assuming the angels were attractive, a female angel’s beauty may have been too distracting for the male brain to process her message. 😂

I don’t get the outrage when you clearly see a Jesuit priest on Christ’s right hand coming toward him. People need to stop straining at gnats.

I think some have the idea that the specific words are some magic language that brings blessings when properly spoken…think Gandalf opening the secret door.I used to think that way—that the words unlocked some kind of power. Now, I realize we do what Christ asks, the way He asks us to do things, and then He blesses us, usually through the Holy Ghost. When I became a lawyer I found all kinds of ways to say the same thing. And antiquated language from prior leases is often modernized to become more understandable in today’s parlance. What matters is not the words spoken, but what both parties intend, and living up with what is agreed upon. If Christ wanted you to hop on one leg while you took the sacrament, well, He sets the terms of the covenants, so that would be His right. Luckily, He seems to provide language for the parties most appropriate in their time. I’m thinking about the changes to the temple endowment session as welcome changes that He, as the setter of the terms of the covenant, has a right to make.

What I have come to realize is that there is always a rational explanation. The scriptures are true, the Church is true, the Prophets of this dispensation are true. To the extent there is an apparent conflict I always start with the baseline of what the Holy Ghost has strongly witnessed to me and admit there may be some things I will not understand until later, perhaps the next life. But I know enough to keep moving forward in this life with faith the path will continue to light ahead of me.

This part seems to be at odds: “the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.” Isn’t that exactly what Nephi and Mormon were saying it was…a sign that these people were cursed and God did not want you to mix with them? To be clear, I don’t consider it a fundamental doctrinal issue upon which salvations rests. 😉 I am open to considering alternative explanations as I am mostly just thinking out loud. I haven’t made up my mind either way.

I guess my point is that just because we have always read and understood scriptures to mean one thing, sometimes we get further light and knowledge/direction that makes as reconsider our previous understanding. I used to interpret 2 Ne 5 and Alma 3 as they are written. But this statement by the Church has me reconsidering whether Nephi and Mormon accurately described the Lamanites’ darker skin as coming from God. I believe they believe that is what happened, but I don’t actually believe that is what happened. I believe it was more likely natural phenomena/genetics/culture. It is not uncommon for civilizations to attribute naturally occurring phenomena to the gods. I think perhaps this is one such instance. But either way, it doesn’t affect my testimony of the Book of Mormon.

So, is this a 1 or a 2? “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” -From Essay on Blacks and Priesthood in the Church Library

And you are drawing a distinction that doesn't make a difference. You have addressed none of my points and instead point out that I said curse instead of mark, which you know full well is not the issue. The issue is whether God caused the darker skin of the Lamanites, regardless of what you call it. I don't believe discussion with you is going to be fruitful, so let's just peacefully agree to let it go.