zil2

And here's @mikbone with a countering LDS view that I think is as valid as any other. And it demonstrates that unless we can define [glory] in terms that each and every one of us understands perfectly and identically, we could well be talking past one another. I'm perfectly OK with [God's glory just is, and is perfect and "full"] (I'm really unsure what "glory" means in this view). I'm also OK with @mikbone's description of God's glory lying in all God does, and thus it expands forever (to his kingdom there is no end (Luke 1:33)). Indeed, Abraham 3:26 is interesting: If glory is continually added, it would seem there is no limit to the amount of glory one can have. That makes a lot of sense with @mikbone's definition. IMO, we're toying with things we cannot yet understand. Interesting discussion perhaps, but not one we should expect to resolve or fully understand in this life. (I also suspect God is chuckling at the silly children trying to understand things they're not able to understand.)

You should have listened to more Elder Maxwell growing up. He does the best job I know of teaching God's omniscience, that God is not ever-learning or increasing in knowledge. Lectures on Faith also teach this well (though not considered formal doctrine, just a method of teaching doctrine that was perhaps incomplete). Just because we believe that we ignorant mortals can progress and increase in every way does not mean we believe God Himself is incomplete. Quite the opposite. Maybe you had to step away in order to learn and incorporate these things, but these things are the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no conflict here. Now, that said, after having read through all your replies, I see a repeating theme: In this thread, [current you] has been countering [past you]. Every time one of us says something about what the Church teaches, you stuff it into the box of what [past you] believed (to some degree or another). You are, in the same thread, both justifying the conclusions [past you] came to (reinforcing that the Church / your teachers did indeed teach [past you] what [past you] concluded) and decrying those conclusions as wrong (as evidenced by the experiences and understanding of [current you]). My mother had passed away by the time I realized that [what I learned] was not necessarily [what she was trying to teach]. Understanding that can help one let go of old falsehoods. I can also related to having been taught things that were wrong, or having been taught in misleading ways, or just poorly. Discovering later that what you learned isn't right (regardless of how it got into your head) can be painful, perhaps even traumatic. I sympathize with anyone having the rework long-held beliefs into a more correct framework. That's a huge part of mortality, BTW. Or at least, I have so concluded. Regardless, I hope [current you] is able to forgive [past you] and [past you]'s teachers, and that [current you] can draw ever closer and closer to Jesus Christ. He is the only way.

I feel like there's nothing in the restored gospel that would prevent you from making this change in understanding. But I can see that, especially 2+ decades ago, some members tended to focus more on our duties in the gospel and less on Christ's gifts within the gospel. The difference between "to-do list" to "Christlike life" wasn't always clear to everyone, and thus some will have drawn conclusions like yours related to earning eternal reward. (Though you're the first person I've encountered to suggest that our doctrine claims God needs us for something, let alone His own completeness.) For my entire life, we have been moving from a task-oriented instruction style toward a rely-on-Christ instruction style. This is a good thing. The Church is maturing and we are teaching differently (just as one would teach a child differently from an adult). I don't know how long it's been since you were in the Church, but if it's been decades, you might find it a different place - even though it's the same place1. 1Some accuse us of having changed doctrine. They do not understand the difference between teaching style, policy, and doctrine. Our doctrine has not changed one whit. If anyone reading this thread doesn't understand the relationship between grace and works (which seems to be an underlying theme of this thread), I would recommend Brother Brad Wilcox's BYU Devotional, "His Grace Is Sufficient" - it's wonderful. If you can't bring yourself to watch a 30-minute talk, ask yourself this question: “Have you been changed by grace?”

I like it! Can't help but smile when I see it.

No, they don't. They say nothing about God's capacity for glory, whether it's presently at 100%, whether it can increase, or whether the immortality and eternal life of man has any impact whatsoever on God's glory. (NOTE: I'm not trying to make any claims regarding God's glory, His capacity for glory, or whether it can increase. I'm simply pointing out that these verses don't do what you claim they do.) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach that the exaltation of man increases God's glory. This is strictly your own conclusion, and if it contributed to your disbelief in our doctrine, I'd say it did so falsely because it's not our doctrine. In fact, if we toss in D&C 93:36: I would say we teach the opposite: that God is omniscient, the source of all light and truth - Elder Maxwell gave some great talks on that subject. But at the end of the day, this is kind of a moot point because you're trying to contend against a belief that we don't have (though some individuals in the Church, like yourself, may have drawn their own personal conclusions on the question). I don't know of anything in our teachings which claim contrary to the following:

I wish to report that even with the water pressure back up to ~65psi, my new sprinkler controller with its water hammer feature works magnificently. Next valve opens ~10 seconds before current valve closes, and you can't even hear the valves opening and closing, never mind water hammer. All I hear is water flowing through the pipes. It's glorious. Highly recommend it, should anyone ever need to solve a sprinkler system water hammer problem. (Rachio 3 Smart Sprinkler Controller - the only residential one I found with this feature. NOTE: Its "end by this time" and "smart cycle & soak" features are broken or illogical, but you can set everything up manually and it works fine.)

I consider all of the following logic errors: These may seem perfectly logical to you, but I don't see any inherent logic in them. And by the same token, I'm not sure your conclusion about Moses 1:39 follows either: The verse doesn't say this is His increasing glory, nor that it increases or decreases His glory. It just says it is His glory. Does it have to increase? Can this end not already be His glory, and His glory full? You're basing your entire post on your own assumption that by becoming exalted and glorified yourself, you will thereby increase God's glory. But the verse doesn't say that - you infer it. I'm not convinced you're correct. (I'm not convinced it isn't correct, either - I'm just saying that the verse doesn't make this clear either way, and I can't say I've sat and thought about the expandability of God's glory.) And what do you do with this: If God has all glory, how is He glorified by them bearing fruit? And what if they don't bear fruit? Is God less glorified? Cuz, it doesn't say, "Herein is my Father's glory reflected..." It says, "Herein is my Father glorified..." NOTE: If someone can explain to me what exactly "glory" is, I'd be grateful. Please don't cite the dictionary or Bible Dictionary at me - I've read all that. I comprehend the use. But the more I think about it, the less sure I am what "glory" is. And here's the most interesting clue I've found thus far: Suggests the Father is Christ's glory. Also suggests that whoever is to your left is your glory... 🤯 (Or that you are the glory of the person on your right hand.) Or it suggests that I'm reading it all wrong.

This really sounds like you're inviting us to leave the faith. You may want to re-read the site's terms and conditions - they're kinda strict... Am trying to be welcoming and open to discussion, but please re-read that statement of yours. You're basically calling us liars, or ignorant of our own beliefs. Do we think works matter - of course we do: scriptures are overflowing with Jesus Christ commanding His followers to do stuff. If works don't matter, why does He command them? Just because we believe works matter, that does not mean we believe works save us. One can hold both views: Saved by grace and expected to obey. They're not incompatible.

Welcome, @fiddle tenders! Where exactly are these Biblical teachings you summarize, so that I can read the verses myself? I expect this will boil down to different interpretations of scripture. FWIW, I'm in my 50s, have been an active member of the Church my entire life, and what you describe is not quite what I believe (more like a somewhat misunderstood version of it). Anywho, if we're going to discuss this, you're going to need to cite the Bible verses so we can go to the source, not to your interpretation or summation of the source.

So, are you suggesting that the D&C sections in question aren't from the Lord? Or are you saying that the Lord is deliberately perpetuating a superstitious folk ritual? And if the latter, will He honor their "testimony" or is it all for naught?

I didn't say it was a priesthood curse, let alone an ordinance. I said that those verses make it seem like something more than just the Lord using a Hebrew idiom with Joseph Smith (that idea, unless the Lord paused to explain the idiom, seems inconsistent with the Lord saying (in multiple places) that He speaks to the understanding of man (or at least the person to whom He's talking)).

Those are probably just the UK Thought Police bots logging your activities.

While this may well be a Hebrew idiom for "let's get gone", the idea that that's all it is doesn't fit with the D&C, which was given in Joseph's language and to his understanding - per the words of the Lord... That last one sounds like the idiom, but all three of these verses make it clear that the action is a testimony against those who rejected the message. The first calls it a cursing. The second makes it clear that this is a distinctive, recognizable behavior (otherwise, why the "not in their presence, lest thou provoke them, but in secret"). And the first two add later washing for extra measure. The brevity of the third could be because the process / idea is considered understood by that point. So, whatever else is true, it seems clear to me that the Lord was saying more than, "if they reject you, hurry away from them".

Keep in mind that anything prior to the Words of Mormon wouldn't have been influenced by Mormon. 1 Nephi through Omni were taken directly from the small plates - Mormon didn't abridge these, he just added the plates. And "Jesus Christ" is definitely used in the small plates. Now, that might be the English translation of what was used in the small plates, but one can't say Mormon inserted anything into this part of the record.

I highly doubt my parents were skeptical about vaccinations (nothing later in life suggests it). I suspect it was just considered "normal" for children to catch certain diseases (like chicken pox) rather than to vaccinate them beforehand. And now that I say that, I'm certain we had chicken pox, so maybe we were vaccinated against measles, cuz I don't remember us having two childhood diseases (and I know we didn't have mumps). Next time I see them, I'll ask my aunts if they remember (both of my parents are dead, so I can't ask them).

Two thoughts: 1. Deuteronomists removed clearer references to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Messiah from the O.T. - whether His name was there or not, all clearer references were removed, especially if they indicated He was the Son of God. 2. If the Nephites knew the name Jesus Christ (or the Hebrew form of it), it would not and could not impact their faith. Christ did not come to them until He was resurrected, when both the Father and Christ Himself declared who and what He was. But if the people in the old world knew His would-be name ahead of time, then: That could have lead to a zillion people with that very common Hebrew name, some of whom could have falsely claimed they were the Messiah That could have impacted their need to have faith and choose whether to believe that Jesus was the Christ, because He worked quite a while before announcing who and what He was.

"Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!" (I have an annoying report for you: When I was a child (in Utah), it was common to just let kids get the measles and develop natural immunity. That's how me and my brothers got ours. <gdrvvf> )

Carb said both of those things. I pointed out that my friend who left said there are a lot of non-Muslims and a pretty large variety of other nationalities / ethnicities, but I concede, perhaps that was only the case when my friend was there, and the other non-Muslims mostly left, just like my friend.

No, not by a long shot. My Iranian-born friend enlightened me as to just how much religious (ETA: and ethnic) diversity there is - but those who aren't Muslim hide it and live in fear.

If you say so. Can't say I've seen it.

"...to take away our reproach." This is the part that always struck me as unlikely. There's no social stigma in America for an unmarried woman (as of now, so far as I can tell).

That verse never made sense to me in American culture, but then, who says it has to be about events in America? In other news, women (in China, at least) are discovering that selfishness does not equal happiness. Go figure.

Yes, we need to understand that even if everyone in the world eliminated compound interest overnight, they'd still try to kill us because: We're not Muslim - even if we stop being "the great Satan", we're still infidels They need someone to hate - it's core to their (interpretation of their) theology I believe that even if the entire world became Muslim, a subset of Muslims would be waging "holy war" against some other subset of Muslims for one reason or another. (This is not unique to Muslims (though the subset sure seem to relish it). It's pervasive in our species - in part because of the Real Satan®.)

#MakeItATrillion