Search the Community

Moroni 7 (Moroni's recounting of Mormon's teachings to the people of the church) v2: When you are called, remember who it is that called you. Be humble and grateful. v3: If you follow Christ, you will strive to be "peaceable" and obtain hope. In Mormon's day, this must have defined the followers as there was so much wickedness and violence that only those with a firm hope could have followed Christ. v5-21: @askandanswer has demonstrated the difficulty of defining and judging what constitutes good and evil. Mormon's words, "by their works ye shall know them", and using the third person: "a man" and "him" and "he", sure sound like "here's how to tell whether another person is good or evil". But he goes on to speak about how God will judge the described actions and their motivations. So perhaps Mormon is instructing people in what to do and not do to be judged righteous by God. Whatever he intended, we cannot judge another's intent (unless they (or the Spirit) tell(s) it), so when I read these things, I read from the perspective not of how to judge what anyone else is doing (or at least, not to condemn or unrighteously judge), but how to know what I should do. To that end (in the following, "thing" might be an object, person, event, thought, emotion, behavior, etc.): When you do what is right (e.g. offer a gift, pray), do it with "real intent". Don't begrudge the gift you intend to give (figure out how to change your heart so that you don't covet your own possessions, so that you can truly be generous). Pray with real intent - the only meaning I can think of for this is "pray with the intent to act in harmony with whatever answer God gives you". This is harder than it sounds. It requires serious humility. Follow Christ. If something comes from God, choose to receive it as good (even if you don't like it or don't want to - reject the natural man reaction and force yourself to accept it as good). If something comes from Satan, no matter how appealing, reject it as evil. If a thing encourages me to do as Christ did (good), or to love and serve God, it's good. If it discourages me from following Christ, it's bad. Rely on the Spirit of Christ (what some call your conscience) to teach good from evil. By choosing good, one's perception of this guidance is ever honed and refined so that what you thought good as a child is no longer good enough as an adult, etc. I have personally experienced this. There are things that my younger self thought acceptable that my older self cannot accept - they are not good enough. If it encourages me to believe in Christ, it's good. If it discourages that belief, it's bad. If it discourages me from serving God, it's of the devil. Lots of things discourage me from serving God. And I think things can flip - if I want to stay home from Sunday meetings, or ministering, or whatever good work so I can go fountain pen shopping, (my attitude and behavior toward) those pens have become evil. But if I use them to take notes in Church, to write a thank you card, or encouraging letter, now they are helping me to serve God and are good. If a thing cannot be used to serve God, it may well be something that should be removed from your life. Beware of the phrase, "there's nothing wrong with" - if the best you can say about a thing or behavior is that there's nothing wrong with it - if you can't say, "here is what's right / good with" it - then maybe it's not worthy. Invite the light of Christ into my life. Move ever into it, never away from it. Enhance my tolerance for that light (the natural man hates this light). Strengthen my ability to be in that light. Diligent effort is required to search, by the light of Christ, for what is good or evil - it's not obvious! (v19) We must work for it. And when we see a good thing, "lay hold upon" it! (If we don't, we will lose our perception or sensitivity to the light.) Faith is required to lay hold upon good things! (v21) (Remember, in the preceding, "thing" might be an object, person, event, thought, emotion, behavior, etc.) Judging good and evil is not an on-off switch. It is a gift and a skill we develop as we search in the light of Christ (hard to search for things in the dark). As we choose good and reject evil, our ability to distinguish between them will increase and we will increasingly choose better and then best. (Or worse and worst, I suppose, but don't go that way!) And while good and bad are in fact absolutes (God and nothing of God), during mortality, the choices for every person are relative to where they are and what they know at that moment. If you consistently choose the better option before you, you will become better and perceive better options than you previously knew existed until you are righteous. If you consistently choose the worse option before you, you will become worse and perceive worse options than you previously knew existed until you are downright evil. Chose the better and best options - seek for them, ask for the ability to discern them. v21: We're gonna talk about faith now. v22-23: The foundation of faith is that God knows all, and that "in Christ there should come every good thing", and that God has sent angels and prophets to teach these things. v24: After the fall, no good thing could come, except for Christ. IMO, pondering on this could help to define "good" and teach how to discern "good". At least in part, and perhaps as a beginning: the fall separated us from God. Christ offers a way for us to return to God. Thus, that which separates us from God is bad. That which brings us back to God is good. Mormon is clearly talking about the ultimate good here. Not: "cake and ice cream - good, Brussels sprouts - bad" (or vice versa, ), nor "new car - good, broken car - bad", nor "healthy - good, have the flu - bad". But rather: "separated from God - bad, with God - good". Thus, we could define our measuring as: does this bring me closer to God or does it keep me separated from God? v25: We exercise our faith in Christ by living as God has instructed - keeping commandments and covenants. This is how we "lay hold upon every good thing" - now "good thing" starts to be more specific. v26: And now we learn what to pray for - that which is good, that which God has spoken, that which will bring us back to God - but we must have faith, believing that we can in fact be brought back to God. v27: Interesting that it now goes straight to miracles with no apparent transition. Receiving the things prayed for in v26 is perhaps the miracle addressed in v27. "...to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men" - The Atonement is what allowed Christ to claim these rights. The Atonement isn't what helps you and I, Christ is. v28: Have faith in Christ so that he will claim you as his - and have mercy on you. If you have faith in Christ, you will "cleave" to good things (that which brings you back to God, which is Christ, his gospel, ordinances, and covenants). v30: Strengthen your faith and firm your mind. "in every form of godliness" - in other words, in the covenants of the temple! v31: The work of angels is to call people to repentance and the work of covenants. It occurs to me that this includes the covenants we make in the temple - the Father makes promises to us as well as we to him, and angels minister "to do the work of the covenants of the Father". Bear testimony of Christ! v32: Share the gospel with "the residue of men", so that they can have faith in Christ! v33: Faith in Christ gives you power to do Christ's will (not some arbitrary thing, not what you want, what Christ wills). v35+: If miracles and ministering angels and the Holy Ghost are missing from your life, repent, come unto Christ, and exercise faith in him. v39: Those with faith in Christ will be meek. v40+: Faith and hope feed one another. Faith in Christ, hope for the blessings Christ promises. v43: Meekness and lowliness of heart required for faith and hope (after all, you're trusting Christ for everything - no room for pride here). v44+: We need the gift of Charity. Plead for it (v48), practice it, pursue the virtues it encompasses (v45). Be a true follower of Christ (v48) or you cannot receive it. v47: Love Christ with all your heart, and you will receive his love for all others.

I was in the military. I saw combat. I've cleared buildings. We had MORE rules as military than what I saw in the video and that was years ago. (Edit: to be clear, I do not know the rules for the Utah police on how they clear buildings, my only experience is with military situations). Those who are NOT military, are civilians. There are MANY civilians who want to claim they are not (for example, today, I am a civilian, I am no longer in the military). Police in the United States are not Military. Most Military forces are prevented from doing police roles in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. However, States MAY have military in the form of their National Guard which can act in that role under the direction of the Governor or whoever is over them in the State. They are distinctly identified differently than Civilians in general. Your general Police officers are NOT military, they are a civilian force (which also means there is an easier process for them to be fired in general and they also have certain rights as citizens that military do not have when acting in their official military duties). A military member gives up certain rights in their roles due to keeping good order and discipline in the military which civilians normally do not have to abide by. There are items which a military member can be punished for where as a Civilian may be fired, but cannot be punished. (For example, you lose certain rights to free speech while in your capacity as a military member, you lose the ability to be free from search without a warrant while on a military installation and if you live on base, they can search your quarters without a warrant, in theory adultery is a punishable offense amongst others whereas civilians will not get jail time for this type of crime). There are crimes in the UCMJ which you can go to prison for which are not punishable if you do them as a civilian. Maybe I am (clarification: ignorant of the Utah Police's building clearing tactics when involving little kids sitting on a floor with no weapons or hostility). I was in the military and in the front lines. This means clearing buildings (though sometimes that would be more like huts and holes). There was probably a lot more hostility and enemy combatants at times than what I imagine most police would see in a lifetime. Lots of gunfire. You mistake me as wanting an apology of some sort? I am not after an apology, I was looking for an explanation that made sense. Time stamp of 7:42 with an officer with a rifle approaching a child. There was another officer that seemed to be accompanying them. The child did not appear to be hostile or a threat. They could have had the other officer holster their weapon and approach the child to be less threatening. The entire conversation seemed ridiculous to me as the officer talking was a stranger with a weapon. If nothing else, he could have remained and covered another officer who was less threatening (and later they have one, but not that initial conversation). I don't think you've ever been on the front lines wondering if a kid is being used and is going to blow you up and try to kill you. It's a terrible situation. IF you HAVE to kill a kid, or worse, kill one by accident, it is a scar that you will NEVER get over. It doesn't matter how justified people may say or tell you, unless you are some sort of psychopath, this is a scar you cannot really ever recover from. You will have nightmares about it for the rest of your life. If you see something like this video where I point it out, even if you were just the witness to it, you will (unless, of course, you are the aforementioned psychopath) you will probably have questions. In that light, it would make sense to have a different policy or approach to spell out a situation like this. It protects both the child and the officer. I would rather die than shoot an innocent child on my own accord today, and I can't imagine anyone who would have a different opinion. Maybe you have been in that type of situation, maybe you have not. I can only relate my own thoughts and feelings on it, and seeing that portion made me uncomfortable with how it was dealt with. You can say it's ignorance of police procedures (and perhaps it is, as I stated, I am NOT a police officer in any way, shape or form). I am not anti-police. I've not really followed the case closely, and the video is probably my first real exposure to the case and what happened in it in any great detail. What part of this Did you interpret as being Rather than asking for an explanation?

@mordorbund I'm just asking questions about why we haven't had a single official "thus saith the Lord" type revelation quoting the Lord's words directly presented to the church since 1847 or a single vision from a prophet presented to the church since 1918. I'm not content to merely assume since we sustain the first presidency and quorum of the 12 as prophets, seers, and revelators and we believe in continuing revelation that the brethren are by default still receiving these types of revelations and visions to guide the church, but just aren't telling us directly for some unknown reason. If they are receiving these types of revelations and visions, but not sharing them with the church, I'd like to know why. Because this seems awfully strange to me. And if they aren't receiving these types of revelations and visions, I would also like to know why the church is no longer being directed this way. Because this also seems strange to me, since one would expect prophets, seers, and revelators to being having these types of experiences. I understand that these questions can be uncomfortable, so I don't blame you for being a bit defensive and accusatory in your response. But I would ask you to please do your best not to make assumptions about me or feel like you have to defend the brethren from my "accusations" or something. I'm not accusing the brethren of anything or trying to cast doubt on anyone. That being said, let me respond to your most recent comments: It's not a matter of every revelation of Joseph Smith being "canonized" or not. Many of his revelations, I dare say the majority of them, were published as scriptures for the church, quoting the Lord directly. And the reason that we know that he had other revelations which weren't "canonized" is because they were recorded and made available to the church. This hasn't been the case in over 100 years in the church. There were a few "thus saith the Lord" type revelations and visions recorded by Brigham Young, John Taylor, and some of the other early leaders that weren't added to the scriptures for whatever reason. But we still know about them. This has been completely absent since 1918, at least as far as I'm aware. So with all due respect, no, I wouldn't share the same concern if Joseph Smith were alive today, unless he completely stop presenting any of his revelations and visions to the church. I made no mention of the "strength" of revelation or the "weakness" of inspiration. I think there's clearly a difference, though. Sure, but we also don't know what, if anything, the Lord actually said if there's no text of the revelation recorded anywhere. The apostles testified that they didn't hear the voice of God and didn't see a vision. They said that they felt very strongly by the spirit that their decision to lift the priesthood ban was right, that God had made it know that the time to lift the ban had come. Many members assumed that there must have been a vision for this, like when Peter had a vision to take the gospel to the gentiles, or an actual revelation text. Yet the apostles were very clear that this did not happen. I think you're missing the point. There actually was an official revelation from God commanding that baptisms for the dead be done, that a temple be built for this purpose, etc. So no, I wouldn't have the same concern if things were being done the same way as when Joseph Smith were alive. I think you're once again missing the point. It's not about "canonization" it's about official first person revelations, visions, etc. not being presented before the church at all. Not for over 100 years. It's true that the rate of official revelation dropped off dramatically after a few years, but it didn't altogether cease. He had planned to publish new revelations in the 1844 D&C before his death. The way President Nelson said "[T]he Lord instructed me to..." isn't quoting the Lord directly. All he's saying is that the Lord made such and such known to him. We don't know how it was made known to him. We don't know that he received literal word for word instructions from God, because he didn't quote any literal word's from God. President Nelson could just be saying that he pondered on it and felt good about calling these men to the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12 respectfully, and then after praying about it he received the prompting that this is who he should call.

Perhaps my memory's playing tricks on me ... I thought I posted one of his videos and you said you initially liked him but later thought he was concentrating too much on what was wrong. I removed the video link in case it violated some forum guideline, so its hard to check. Maybe you're right - perhaps the video I posted was Hello Saints and not this guy. I miss our BoM reading group. That was a good experience.

Some time ago I wondered about the physical appearance of Christ. I thought it odd that many claim to know Jesus Christ but at the same time I wondered if they knew him well enough that they could pick him out in a crowd. I have a brother that I ski with, we meet at the ski resort. We know each other so well we do not even have to plan on where or when to meet. We can spot each other on the lifts or the slopes because we are so familiar with each other. When Jesus walked among us as a man there were some that immediately recognized him (even a rather impious heathen lady) and some that despite all the evidence could not recognize him (even the most respected pious among the Jews). I have come to believe physical appearance is likely not the best means of recognizing Christ. I speculate that Jesus is likely shorter than most men of this modern age. I have no idea concerning the pigment of his skin, the color of his hair or his eyes. I speculate that he does not look so much like me. Anciently there was a great King of the East that had spies in various areas (including in and around Jerusalem) that heard of Jesus and his miracles and teachings. I speculate this great King was of the sort that were among those that sought Christ from the star when He was born and also perhaps related to or was Prester John or of a line of Prester Johns. This great King was converted that Jesus was the Christ and knew of plots to kill Jesus. So, he commanded his spies deliver a letter to Jesus along with an artist that was commanded to draw a portrait of Jesus. It was believed that Jesus hand wrote a letter to this king that was delivered with the drawn portrait. Though the portrait was lost in time the letter was presumably preserved among “Christians” in the East that became to be known as Nestorian Christians. The letter that is claimed to be written by Jesus is the only original document text of possible sacred ancient documents known to exist today concerning the Christ. This document has been tested and proven to be written at the time of Jesus upon parchment available only around the Jerusalem area – thus extremely unlikely a fake. I am amazed that this document is not better known but what is more astonishing to me is how many “Christians” do not care about such a document just because it was not included in our (their) “Western” Bible. I am convinced that in this day and age – it is quite dangerous to know anything of the “man”hood of Christ – for a great many reasons, including some religious (Christian) reasons. The Traveler

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.

It looks like she had her lawyer on speed dial, same for Pam Bodtcher's husband. When the police told him that they found Franke's children in a state of starvation etc, the guy didn't even flinch. This case is getting crazier by the minute particularly during Kevin Franke's interview where he described himself as the "resident exorcist" trying to help Jodi (who claimed to be Satan's bride). He also stated that paranormal activity was going on in the house while Jodi was staying with the family. The most interesting part is when he said that the Bishop and another Church leader were helping Jodi and they were giving her blessings in order to "cast out evil spirits from her" and because they weren't successful, they suggested Jodi to move in with the family. Really? Hmmmm doesn't sound right. On top of it all, Ruby decided to stay in Jodi's bedroom where they spent hours behind closed doors and they slept on the same bed. No comment on that one! However, here comes a contradiction. Kevin first stated that Ruby "invited" him to leave but then later on he stated that he left after growing tired of this lunacy. So he leaves HIS children in that crazy environment with no one to protect them? He has no contact with them for a WHOLE year??? Just because those are Ruby's rules?? Who is she, God? He worships her like a goddess EVEN though he knows what she did to their children! When he is told during the police interview that his children were found emaciated (let's think about that for just a second!), he didn't ask ONCE how they are doing and if he can see them. Not. One. Question!!!!! The only thing he asked was if Ruby was okay "because I love my wife". What the....And he is seeking custody of these children??? Sorry for the extra question marks but this case has me infuriated. Just like when Jodi claims to be a psychologist when she is NOT! The truth is that both parents have been abusive towards the children way before Jodi came to the picture. I am just hoping justice is served because 4 years behind bars isn't enough for what they did to these poor babies.

Later in scripture we see Satan coming before the thrown of G-d to make deals concerning Job. I am not an expert but I wonder if it is just that Satan does not like hanging around all that much in places where G-d and his covenant people are firmly established in righteousness – upholding the law, maintaining the ordinances and keeping the covenants. The Traveler

Obviously, if praying in / with a group of people, it's done aloud by someone acting as the "voice" of the group, but what about personal prayer? Is there a reason for it to be spoken aloud vs expressed silently? I've been wondering a lot about this lately. I remember reading this: And there are similar verses (this to Martin Harris): And the duties of an Elder... And there's another in D&C 81:3. ...Anywho, all that, but mostly the first, got me to wondering people's thoughts on praying aloud vs silently when it's a personal prayer. Living in the midst of other people in my "formative" years, my personal prayers were always silent. I've heard some people express fear that praying aloud might reveal to evil spirits listening in things better kept private. This morning, while praying, I had the thought that praying aloud might "offend" those very spirits and send them packing (so to speak). Unless the FBI have bugged my house, there's really no reason I can't always pray aloud (beyond it feeling strange to me). So, what are your habits or thoughts on this? Does it matter? Which is better?

I believe it’s very likely that, much like Alma the Younger, the penitent thief’s sinful journey through life had finally brought him to the point where he was genuinely sorry for all the wrongs he had done, and that when he cried out to the Lord in faith he was deeply sincere and in a state of authentic contrition. No doubt the Savior keenly perceived the thief’s profound remorse of conscience and passionate profession of faith in him, and for these reasons it could very well be that the man’s change of heart was felt deeply enough to spare him the fate of being cast into the spirit prison with the unrepentant thief. As a consequence, it’s possible that immediately after he died the repentant thief was brought to a place in the spirt world where he was far better off spiritually than the unrepentant thief who was cast into the spirit prison. So at least when compared to where the unrepentant thief ended up after his death (hell), the repentant thief was, spiritually speaking, very likely in a far better place than hell, a place and condition where his opportunities to fully embrace the gospel would be greatly facilitated. In a manner of speaking, it might very well be that the penitent thief was in a place in the spirit world that’s much closer to the paradisiacal state than to the spirit prison. It’s also possible that the Lord granted the thief the special privilege of actually being able to enter paradise itself, where the Savior was about to preach the gospel to the spirits of the righteous dead who were gathered there in the joyous anticipation of his arrival. What better time, place and condition for the repentant thief to hear the gospel preached than by the Son of God himself immediately death? After all, the Lord promised the man that he would be with him in paradise, not separated from him. It appears that it would be somewhat disingenuous and misleading for the Lord answer the penitent thief’s heartfelt plea to “remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom” with “today shalt thou be with me in paradise,” when what he actually meant was ‘today you and I will be in the spirit world, but I will be in paradise and you will be in hell.’ I believe that in all likelihood the penitent thief was fully sincere in his repentance, and for this reason he escaped the condemnation of hell in the same way that Alma the Younger instantly escaped the condemnation of hell after coming unto Christ with full purpose of heart. It’s often said in the church that there’s no such thing as deathbed repentance, but isn’t that tantamount to what happened to Alma the Younger when he was delivered from the pains of hell instantaneously, immediately after crying unto the Son of God for deliverance? Therefore in answer to your question, the Savior’s heartening promise made to the repentant thief very likely is close enough to the spirit of the actual truth for us to be able to rightly leave the verse just as it is.

I am not looking for a reason, I haven't seen police doing something like that previously. Perhaps it's because I haven't been on the wrong side of the Law. HOWEVER, if that's what the police do to look for kids...and it's standard...you are right...I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM with CIVILIAN POLICE doing such stuff. I did not know that was a standard protocol for Utah police, and finding out from you that it is a standard protocol does not actually make me feel any better about that situation portrayed in the video. Why would your standard protocol be to be guns out when making first contact with a child (that they were looking for). I can understand why a kid would be scared to even talk in that situation even if they were a normal kid that hadn't been abused! The video does NOT make it clear they are clearing the building, it seemed to state they were trying to find children. It could have been both, but in that instance there needs to be a protocol where there is SOMEONE the children can approach with out fear. You can have others covering that individual, but you need to have someone the children will be less likely to be scared of than everyone having guns drawn searching for a child. IN MY OPINION of course, and obviously, I am not a police officer in Utah (or anywhere else for that matter). 1. That makes a little more sense, they probably should have mentioned something like that in the Video (or if they did, I didn't catch that). It makes sense why they'd be clearing the house then, though I'd still say they should have at least one person for the children to approach or to approach the children (unless they felt the children were going to be attacking the officers as well, which wasn't the impression I get). Have that person covered by others, but someone who doesn't have a pistol drawn approaching a child to talk to them and coax them more comfortably (and yes, later in the video it shows such individuals, but initial contact should not be a surprise to anyone that a child would be scared of strange men, even if they were officers, with guns drawn trying to talk to them). 2. Holy Smokes...that's crazy! So, that indicates she KNEW what she was doing was wrong! That's insane. She was knowingly doing something she knew was illegal or would get her into legal trouble!? Why would she knowingly do such a thing? That blows my mind! I guess some people do these things (and I know they do, but it never ceases to amaze me), but in this instance with kids...just...I can't even imagine why. She was supposed to be helping them and instead...she knowingly was doing terrible things. Terrible. Atrocious. I can see why people are so angry about this.

Brigham Young admitted that he may have been guilty of saying too much about who God is, as the Saints weren’t ready for it. I see the wisdom in this as well. And I think this is exactly what we’re seeing. It’s nice that the church is more tolerant of this now, as long as you don’t try to publicly teach controversial things like Adam-God as official church doctrine or try to disparage current church leaders for not openly teaching the mysteries anymore.

There are numerous debates in our society about the need to eradicate (as much as possible) toxic masculinity. Some would hint that it does not really exist while others are certain that it is standard practice though much of our society. I would add to all this my personal opinion that toxic masculinity does indeed exist and that it is a growing problem in our society. First, I would define toxic masculinity as those of that are biologically of male gender that torment and dominate those that are biologically of the female gender, forcing them to be shamed by the masculine dominance over them. What is odd to me is that many that argue about the problem of toxic masculinity are unable to recognize the very worst cases of it. As near as I can determine every definition of toxic masculinity is manifested by masculinity dominating in female (feminine) sports. From depriving women (the biological feminine) from achieving recognition for their athletic achievements to the sexual harassment in the locker rooms where the toxic masculine and their supporters are forcing women to be unwillingly required to undress naked in front of them – often themselves (the toxic masculine) also displaying themselves naked forcibly before women. I cannot think of a greater display of toxic masculinity that what is being perpetrated by certain masculine individuals and their supports in the arena of women sports. The Traveler

Greetings @Sail: As I ponder various epochs in scripture, I am not sure that the divine message or purpose is obvious. From the Biblical accounts there seems to be some contradictions. The reverences to G-d and divine society is always that G-d is the Supreme Suzerain (King) and that heaven is a divine kingdom. However, when it comes to G-d’s covenant peoples here in mortality on this earth – Making our human leaders kings and making ourselves subjects of our governments and governors have never worked out well. Not for ourselves nor our leaders. To me the story of David very much portrays this great contradiction. Obviously, something very critical is missing. Perhaps some of what is missing is referenced in Doctrine and Convenance section 121 verse 39: So prominent is the inclination to misuse authority that it seems to me that the only one worthy of authority is the person that does not want anything to do with it. Thus they will only use authority is when it is forced upon them and that only acceptance is as a temporary act of service. So, in my pondering I wonder if we really understand G-d, his leadership and the divine society of heaven. Perhaps our view of heaven is not Celestial at all but rather more along with the glory and governance of the telestial or terrestrial, both because of what is expected of leaders and what is intended as our contribution. The Traveler

That title isn't meant to be too flippant. The last week has been utter torment, and I may struggle with it all the rest of my life. I legit thought about going back to the mental health facility I visited a few months ago. As you may remember, to make all seem too simple, I got caught up in the chicken and egg question. For all the trouble I had, I was just trying to solve this question, and being able to be a bit more removed from the hyper focus I had on it (I was looking beyond the mark), I have more clarity. In fact a challenge I am facing, is in light of this truth, I feel like I am hooked up to a firehose of truth, and I need to turn it down, because everything seems to be coming so fast now. I know I have a lot to catch up on. There are many ideas that I understand are true now, even as I type this I my mind is racing and making new connections, realizing new truths, which is to say I'm coming to know things I already knew, but in a deeper sense. So pray for me I don't look beyond the mark in a good thing of seeking and finding truth, and in turn hurt myself by running faster than I am able. The good thing is I'm learning truth, I just need to stop wearing myself out I wanted to share my journal entry today. Today has been a coalescence of all of the struggle, back and forth, truth, misunderstanding, and confusion I have dealt with during this time I have questioned Free Will and existence. This is me working together the puzzle pieces, and I did that over the course of a drive home from my in laws, with my wife in the car. I talked and she listened, though she was happy, she also had agreed with me, and had felt this way for years, so a bit of the excitement was surprising to her. When I did this entry,I honestly wrote it with the ability to share it in mind, so the super sacred bits (AKA, the bits that are only meant for me ) are left out. I also wrote so I could remember, remember, that I know I have felt to sing the song of redeeming love. That is to say, I know I'll get pushback from Satan later, it honestly happened DURING the day today, while I was going through all of this. So my wife said I should journal it, and thus I did. If you don't have a few minutes, come back later. This is a stupid long wall of text, with a swath of quotes. But it is also long enough to be self sufficient, and not a fragment I have to fix later. === Ok, so I HAVE a testimony. This is going to be difficult, incomplete, and not fully worded well enough. I have received pure revelation. I have received a testimony of the Gospel. The words I use will be my own, but they will never truly express what I know. Before I begin, I am going to argue from a rejection of creation “ex nihilo” (out of nothing). Because nothing being turned into something is a contradiction. It’s a married bachelor, nothing is nothing because it does not exist. God can’t make a married bachelor, because those things are not possible. If you believe that, you could also say “God can Lie” and if he could, he wouldn’t be God, because we know God can’t lie. Something can’t be itself and it’s opposite, or it would negate itself, and not exist. So that was too many words, but anyway, beyond that, let’s go! To quote the prophet Joseph Smith. Doctrine and Covenants 128: 18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. And that is a sufficiently plain to suit my purpose. And that is how I intend to render this testimony. I have come to discover truth, diamond truth as McConkie would say, eternal truth as I would say. And he DID in fact say just that in the devotional Seven Deadly Heresies. Now let me list some axioms (I guess in academic circles we call these caveats): —There is no salvation in believing a false doctrine. —Truth, diamond truth, truth unmixed with error, truth alone leads to salvation. —What we believe determines what we do. —No man can be saved in ignorance of God and his laws. —Man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge of Jesus Christ and the saving truths of his everlasting gospel. —Gospel doctrines belong to the Lord, not to men. They are his. He ordained them, he reveals them, and he expects us to believe them. —The doctrines of salvation are not discovered in a laboratory or on a geological field trip or by accompanying Darwin around the world. They come by revelation and in no other way. —Our sole concern in seeking truth should be to learn and believe what the Lord knows and believes. Providentially he has set forth some of his views in the holy scriptures. —Our goal as mortals is to gain the mind of Christ, to believe what he believes, to think what he thinks, to say what he says, to do what he does, and to be as he is. —We are called upon to reject all heresies and cleave unto all truth. Only then can we progress according to the divine plan. As the Lord has said, Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. [D&C 130:18–19] Which, reading these now, I believe every single point. I think there is some flourish that is McConkie, but that’s here nor there So Eternal Truth 1: It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. From 2 Nephi: 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. From Abraham 3: (This skips 18 and 20) 17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it. ... 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. ... 21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen. 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; 25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; From one of Joseph Smith’s last sermons, the “King Follet Sermon/Discourse” I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man; but it is impossible for me to say much on this subject. I shall therefore just touch upon it, for time will not permit me to say all. It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead—namely, the soul—the mind of man —the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. I will make a man appear a fool before I get through; if he does not believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble. We say that God Himself is a self-existing being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.” The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth. I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know that it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more. With this as a basis, I will say that a plain enough understanding of “opposition in all things” can be that “all things are not one”. I know I exist. I also know my wife exists. We are separate beings, or as I am beginning to call it, “wills” (I am fond of the idea of a Phylote in Xenocide, from the Ender Saga, the chapter on Free Will gives a plain enough rendering of what I think, so read it if you like). Since we are separate wills, we are both eternal, and if these two spirits exists, one is above another (probably her ) And another above us, and God is greater than all. And I repeat from Joseph (this is spliced from above) God himself could not create himself. The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. And from Doctrine and Covenants 93: 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. 32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; 34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. 35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple. 36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. 37 Light and truth forsake that evil one. So what exists and is eternal is the mind or intelligence of man, that is susceptible of enlargement. I can render a plainer version, but I’m taking so long, I need to stop myself. Suffice it to say that when you combine these all together it paints a picture. (Like a Buffalo Drawing, you need to take it as a drawing and the intention, that is, a buffalo. Do not focus on the literal graphite flakes on wood pulp. They may be true, but you miss the point. You do what the Book of Mormon calls in Jacob 4, looking beyond the mark. In a way, they rejected the Buffalo in favor of the graphite flakes on wood pulp. They wanted more than plainness, they wanted to keep going, which while you CAN do, you can become blind to the bigger picture. 14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. So all of this is to say, all existence is based on intelligence doing what intelligence wants to do everything in existence is to a degree, intelligent, it has a will. So if you go all the way to bedrock, the eternal basis of existence is again, uncaused “wills” or Phylotes, or Intelligences, doing what they want. That will may manifest in apparently deterministic behavior, but it’s doing it because it wills it. It IS the cause, and it IS eternal. And since we know that existence manifests as an infinite variety of things, trees, cars, people, plants, animals, we know that “opposition in all things” or a “differentiation” in all things, exists. It is often said that the only thing we have to give God is our will, at least in the protestant circles I grew up in. The believe was, the only thing you can give your God, is yourself, because he doesn’t have you. I believed that then, and I believe it now. But the problem is, I didn’t take the time to realize what that actually means (and I doubt many that say it do, but I could be wrong). Anyway. If God doesn’t “have” my will, it means he didn’t CREATE my will. It means that my will (whatever that word fully entails, because I can only describe it in a broad sense) HAS to be uncaused. And since I am uncaused, I am : Like God in nature (Not better than, or even equal to, just LIKE) Not the only thing in existence And since those two fact are evident, there is... An opposition in all things. During that fun trip, we also learn/infer some other eternal truths, including aspects of the nature of God (though not expounded super well) and eternity and eternal things (also not spelled out as well I would like right now) but I’m tired, and this simple idea (and I argue, eternal truth) has taken almost an hour and a half to type up. But this being true tells me that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, the Doctrine and Covenants is the Pearl of Great Price is true, and since the only group in general (churches aside) that believes all of those things is the LDS church, I am willing to take the step of faith to say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the church for me to be in. I could say that in a more pointed manner, but I’m not in the mood to say things to invite discussion. I’m just saying that given the information I have found, I am accepting it on faith as true. Because while I feel like I learned a LOT, I’m not omniscient yet, but I also fully believe it. I have had a trial of my faith, and I have received this witness (also a Book of Mormon idea, which furthers the feedback loop of it’s truth in my mind, but again, I’m tired ) know several layers of this logic are self reliant. This entire blob could be reduced to, It’s true because it’s true. And I see that. As much as I’d love to continue (and I will), I’m done for now. I’ll discuss my hot takes on eternal things soon. I’m shutting off my brain, I’m not taking input, I’m not looking for refinement. I’m just basking where I am. If I need to change or revise it, I’m open to that, and will. But not now, I need this moment. I’ve fought HARD for this moment. I almost started considering going to the mental health facility because of this mental work I’ve been doing. Which makes this moment a blessing, and honestly one of the most supernal and incomparable In my life. I know if I did my due diligence there could be others, but for right now, I’m celebrating this win. One last fun little quip. I wish I had the faith and belief before, because they would have helped me during this struggle. But as is the case in life, while it would have helped, to be sure, that just isn’t how life works. Enos wrestled and THEN got the awesome rewards. (See Book of Mormon feedback loop, lol). There are more good examples of this, but if I keep going, I’ll keep going, so I won’t, so I won’t

Do you know that the written talks are submitted before hand so that the translators, interpreters, and technical people have a "head start"? That it is far more likely, especially given the video, that the spoken talk diverged from what was written and that the printed version was not edited from what Elder Packer had previously submitted? Just checking. I used to assume that the printed came second, but it turns out, it comes first (per Elder Bednar).

But just about anything supports possibility. So what -- "O then, is not this real?" Bias does make an appealing possibility a working model us, but that dos not make the model reflective of what is light, good and known. "Real possibility," when it comes to answering spiritual truth, is an oxymoron. Faith in possibilities is not the same as faith in things not seen which are true.

In another thread it was suggested that there might be some problems in the church. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't, I don't know. But what I do know is that if there are problems in the church they're not my problems, they're God's problems, because its His church, and its for Him to solve them, not me. I just need to keep doing what I've always been doing, but do it more and better because I still see the occasional hint of an imperfection in myself (an almost imperceptible hint ). I feel no need to get engaged or involved in whatever problems there might be. They're not my problems.

I believe in agency. I do not believe in almost anything or just short of anything else. Let me put this another way. We are what we have spent billions of years becoming. This mortal experience is just a part of what is called the plan of salvation. There was a pre-existence and there will be a spirit experience after we die and before we are resurrected that will complete our probation. The first step to freedom begins with discipline. The first step into bondage begins with self-indulgence. We become free or bound through the steps we take. If one is in St George Utah, they can follow I-15 in one of two directions. One direction will take them towards Las Vagas the other direction will take them to Salt Lake City. With each step one takes, the gap between the two destinations does not change but the gap between where you are and the destination you are headed is what changes. We are told in scriptures that we can follow one of three paths. One leads to the telestial glory, one leads to the terrestrial glory and one leads to the celestial glory. The choice is yours – you determine by your agency the path you take. There is a passage in the Book of Mormon that implies that according to your choice the atonement of Christ will complete what you are unable to accomplish on your own. The Traveler

That depends on where you live. I think you live in Texas...isn't that correct. Texas lacks income taxes...and the money to fund the government has to come from somewhere. I believe Texas (California is even worse, and Florida is beginning to inch towards uncomfortable from what I'm hearing) has higher property taxes than many other places in the US. My property taxes are relatively light, and not that costly. That goes towards funding schools and other things in our local area, so considering that amount it's very little to pay for what we get in return for us. (I believe I COULD apply for an exemption in regards to veteran status and age, but I do not see a need to. If I were in Texas I might desire to do so though from what I hear about Property taxes there).

On the OP, I've read recently that the Lord has been offending a LOT of people in the United States. Evangelicals call the Lord "liberal" and weak it is interesting how the world stays the same even as it changes and advances. The same problems during the Lord's ministry exist today and I think that if he were here today the result would be the same, those who profess to worship the Lord and are in the Churches would be some of the first to call for his crucifixion or his death. The Lord was an extremely liberal radical during his time. He called for things that most of the religious individuals at the time were against. He called for forgiving others who offended you, letting your rulers rule over you and keeping your religion separate from that of Caesars. If you accept his apostles also spoke for him, he instituted a type of socialism (called Religious Socialism by many scholars today) where all property was shared amongst those in the church community for the benefit of others. He called for people to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities in a society of his. His church called for RIGHTEOUS leaders who were married. He called for faith and common sense. These ideas offended those who were in power. His ideas would tear down the more conservative ideals of the time (where church LEADERS dictated what you could do including how many steps to walk on the Sabbath, etc) which were alarmingly closely aligned to many of the ideas of today. I think people would be surprised at HOW liberal his ideas really are. Even today, his ideas are extremely liberal in relation to what we think in general. In that light, the same type of people (those who were the leaders of the church at the time, those people who followed what those teachers taught) would probably call for his destruction today. (And to be clear, when I refer to leaders of the church I am NOT referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am talking about Church leaders in general. These would be those Pastors, Preachers, and others who teach such ideas as hatred of others today, prosperity gospels, those who teach not to help the poor and to try to stop any aid going to them, those who teach that people get what they deserve and that the poor and disabled deserve whatever has happened to them, those who argue to destroy those who don't agree with you, that teach that anger and distrust are what we should do to others because we feel they did it to us, those who teach revenge, and on and on and on in regards to what I see many who claim to be Christian are actually being taught and actually doing these days).

Since this thread has been brought back up – I thought to add some more of my thoughts about the one and only true and “LIVING” church. In my mind the importance of the one and only true and living church is equivalent to or saying that there is only one true and living path or way. In a previous post of mine on this thread I used the metaphor of Kingdom that is often used in scripture in reference to the society of G-d. Obviously, there are many kingdoms that we encounter in mortality – we could also say governments or the structure of laws by which societies on earth are governed. Just as there is only one true and living G-d, there is only one true and living church structured with G-d’s laws (not man’s or man’s interpretations) and ordinances and commandments. Since there were no comments about divine kingdoms or governments my assumption was that this concept was not understood or considered of upmost importance. This leads me to believe somewhat that few are capable or interested in discussing the structure of laws by which G-d governs his Kingdom (which his Church is part). The one example I used in a previous thread pointed directly to the law given to Peter that would allow him to seal here on earth (perform functions) within the church on earth that were valid in Heaven or after we die. Of course, baptism is an example of such a function. As I said previously, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization I know of on earth that claim and/or attempt to insure all have opportunity to be baptized on earth and have that sacred law sealed in heaven. Many “churches”, rather than deal with such necessity as baptism claim that it is not all that necessary, despite the fact that Jesus himself, of necessity, was baptized. I would now point out that the scriptures bring to bear a second witness that there is a true and living Church in the giving witness of the “Path” or “Way” of G-d to salvation. The post that started this thread seemed to indicate (as I understood it) that there is no such thing as the only one true and living path or way – only a best path or way available at the time. I find no such witness in scripture. Rather I find comments like straight, and narrow is the way or path – implying only one path leads to salvation. Jesus said that he is the way. I understand that to mean that He is the Christ, and that Christ (Messiah) is the only means or path of salvation and exaltation and that he is not a Christ or Messiah of confusion but of clarity and exactness for all his disciples and followers. There is no other true and living path. If one is not convinced, they are on the one and only true and living path it can only be because they do not know the one and only true and living G-d nor His Son (Jesus Christ). It is not possible to know G-d without knowing His Son – the Son of G-d – Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and the one and only way that they have provided. There is a caveat that needs to be understood. Though the path is currently available to some in this life – it is not complete or completed in this life. One of the simple truths that was lost from scripture that was restored in the Book of Mormon is that there is of necessity a “time” between death and the resurrection to complete the way or path. There are spiritual echoes of this in the ancient scripture of Genesis that references the way or path to the “Tree of Life”. The Book of Mormon provides more concerning this path in what is known as “Lehi’s Dream” of the path and the “Tree of Life”. It is true that other churches (religions) have access to truths. It is possible that there are individuals in other religions and churches that know and better understand certain truths than some (even many) of the Latter-day Saints. Their understandings and efforts to appreciate and honor the truth they have received or discovered will be of their benefit when they leave this life and await the resurrection. Likewise, there will be many things individual Latter-day Saints will think they understand that will have to be adjusted for when they leave this life and await the resurrection. I do not believe we (LDS) have to convince anybody of anything in this life. Our job is to testify of Christ and teach the doctrine of Christ – particularly the doctrine of Christ that was lost and restored for us now in the Book of Mormon. There are great advantages in this life and the next to know and follow the path holding on to rod of iron (way), being aware of the fulness of the Gospel of Christ (or doctrine of Christ) that is in the Book of Mormon and take advantage of the Laws, Ordinances and Covenants of the only true and living Church of Christ. The Traveler

I will add what I have come to believe to this thread – for what it is worth. I believe that the logic for one true and living church is no different from the logic used for the doctrine that there is only one true and living G-d. There are, in my mind, many misconceptions both in attempts to explain what is true and living as there is in understanding what is and what divergent thinkers say on the subject. Here is my effort. If there is a true a living G-d – that being is the supreme Suzerain of law and order, especially the law and order of the kingdom over which that being resides. Note that the term “Kingdom” is not my term, but the term used in scripture to describe that which G-d defines as his standard for his realm. I understand that we are flawed beings and therefore have flawed understanding of things. Especially things pertaining to G-d and his kingdom. It is my understanding that because we are flawed beings what happens between birth and death of any individual is not sufficient to understand or prepare for that which is eternal. This is a primary reason why I understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and temple work and worship to be the only true and living church on the earth. It is the only church doing work to redeem the dead and seal on earth that which will be sealed in Heaven. It is also the only church I have encountered that has a good grasp on why there must be a pre-earth life existence as there needs to be post-earth live existence to prepare for eternity (though some come somewhat close). There is one other principle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that I believe demonstrates why it is the only true and living expression of the true and living G-d on this earth and realm of fallen beings but that is another discussion that ties into this principle that I have already presented. Such that if one is doubtful of what has been described thus far – there is no logic to continue. The Traveler

I think that within the religious community that it is not uncommon for someone to be somewhat confused with believing, hoping, exercising faith and having knowledge. So here is a thread to explorer what we think concerning these terms. I think that these terms are most often confused, especially with youth while expressing their testimony during Fast and Testimony meeting that is part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not intend to criticize anyone – but rather express my personal inability to understand certain expressions. Though all the terms are related I will attempt to express what each means to me: Belief: Sometimes I believe what a person expresses concerning their religious belief and what they really think and do is not consistent. But the reality is that what we believe is what we do. There is a saying – “What you do thunders so loudly in my ears that I can hear a word you say expressing what you believe.” If a person is honest (especially to themselves) I am of the notion that when expressing their testimony – what they believe is the most powerful expression and the most profound connection to G-d. Our belief is developed throughout our entire experiences and is more of what we are than we tend to realize. I think that expressing one’s belief is good to do – even to write down our belief is important to clarify, especially to ourselves, what exactly it is that we believe. You cannot believe in paying a full tithing unless you pay a full tithing. You cannot believe in mercy unless you are merciful. You cannot believe in truth and tell little white lies. Hope: I think that hope is often confused with faith. I think the reason for this is because (I think) hope is the first step of faith. When we utter a first prayer – I believe it is because he have hope that our prayer will be heard. Some think that such a step is a “leap of faith”. I do not like that term, “Leap of faith”. I think it would be better expressed as a “Leap of hope”. For me hope is a desire or intent to discover what is or what we think possible. Having hope and a good think and a powerful tool that can get us to do things we would not otherwise. I do not think we should ever be ashamed of hoping for good things. Faith: Perhaps I have a different idea about faith. I do not think there is much of a difference between faith and knowledge. Because the line is so fine, I think many confuse themselves thinking their faith is knowledge and that what they think is knowledge is in reality faith. I will use an example and use as a symbol of faith with a reference to electrons (electricity). Some study electrons and think they know what an electron is – but in truth no one has ever seen an electron. But we have all had lots of experiences with something that we all call electrons (electricity). Our faith is so strong in electrons that we never doubt that electrons exist and work. If we hit a switch to a light and the light does not come on – no one ever thinks, “Oh no electrons (electricity) no longer works”. Rather we think the light bulb has burned out. If we replace the light bult and the light still does not come on – we think the switch has quite working, or a breaker and shut off the electricity – or after we have checked everything in our home then we think the power is off. No one ever loses faith in electricity. We continue to “hope” we will find out why the light does not come on. But our faith in electrons persists. But note that in order to have faith – some knowledge, hope and belief is required. Knowledge: I am expressing my understanding. Knowledge as I understand is the divine revelation that that what we experience is true. The problem with knowledge is that it is fleeting and can be lost and become a uncertain memory. I do not believe someone can know a thing unless it is true, and G-d has made that truth known by the power of the Holy Ghost. This means that the only way a person can know or have knowledge is to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (by covenant) and then to be loyal to that covenant. As soon as one disconnects from their covenant, doubt will muddle their thinking and their knowledge of the truth will be become uncertain. This is why it is impossible to know truth without a witness of Christ in that truth. It is why all truth gives witness of Christ. The caveat to this is that for whatever principle of truth someone discovers – they discover something of Christ. But if they have not herd the truth of Christ they may not realize that they are learning of Christ. Thus, someone can know a truth and deny that they know anything concerning Christ. Because they do not understand that they only deny their false understanding of Christ. The Traveler

I honestly don't know what parallel you were trying to draw. That's why I asked for clarification. Can please just explain what you meant instead of trying to read something into my question that isn't there?