Search the Community

Apparently my previous posts came off as defensive and perhaps even insecure. Hopefully this and future correspondence will be more avuncular. Well, some of the "thus saith the Lord" revelations are known to have been received by the Urim and Thumim, others were likely by an audible voice, or the voice of the Lord speaking to the prophet the exact words to say. I don't claim to know the exact method, but I'm confident that the actually words of God were being conveyed in these revelations and not the words of the prophet conveying some knowledge he had received as if it were in God's own words. I would encourage you to take some time to really consider JAG's questions here. Just how precise is the wording of a dictated revelation? If the same revelation was given to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would the wording be the same? If a revelation comes through the still small voice, can this be recorded as a "thus saith the Lord" dictation or does it need to be and audible voice with spoken words? Or are both acceptable but one is "weightier" or "weaker" than the other? The purpose of this exercise is to really address your assumptions. You've been given a lot of answers in this thread but none seem to satisfy you. Let's clarify exactly what you believe and understand and state aloud the unspoken assumptions. Actually, all you have is some man saying the words, "thus saith the Lord". Whether he speaks those words or any other words, it would still be up to you to go to the Spirit and gain a testimony regarding whether the words are of the Lord. I mean, I could quite easily say, "Thus saith the Lord, fountain pens are sacred writing implements and all others are an abomination before me." Doesn't mean the Lord actually said that. (Though He might have... ) Is this what you believe we need to do with each of these types of revelations we have received in the church thus far? Or can we trust that they are from God? Zil raises a really good point here, and your follow-up questions would be good for you to ponder at different levels. If President Nelson says "the Lord instructed me..." can we trust that the Lord instructed him? And if we're questioning that, then why will we trust him if he instead says "the Lord said to me, 'call Dallin Oaks and give him a fountain pen'"? Is the claim that the leaders of the Church may pretend to revelations that they haven't had, but they're god-fearing enough not to put words directly into the Lord's mouth?

There have been many, many changes in the church since 1847. Why hasn’t there been any record of God commanding or authorizing any of these changes via a official revelation quoting God’s words? Perhaps it will be canonized some day, but I kind of doubt it. Boyd K. Packer called it a revelation in General Conference but then this was changed to “inspired council” in the printed version of his talk. There are also more and more members of the church who take issue with some of the things stated in the proclamation. A growing number of members consider it to be sexist and transphobic. I think the fact that the church has refused to call it a revelation hasn’t helped combat this. I think you make an excellent point here. And if we look at the words of Jarom from this time period we get some additional insights: 1 Now behold, I, Jarom, write a few words according to the commandment of my father, Enos, that our genealogy may be kept. 2 And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me. 3 Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land. 4 And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith. 5 And now, behold, two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land. They observed to keep the law of Moses and the sabbath day holy unto the Lord. And they profaned not; neither did they blaspheme. And the laws of the land were exceedingly strict. 10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land. 11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them. 12 And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance. Based on this, it would appear that the majority of the members of the Lord’s church in those days weren’t very righteous, but there were some who were. And the righteous minority were receiving revelations and prophesying. And the reason that these revelations and prophecies weren’t written on the small plates was due to a lack of space (and presumably because they were written on the large plates or other records). If this is indeed a parallel to our day, does this suggest that collectively as a people we are so unrighteous that we are not worthy of revelation and prophecy, and those few who are receiving revelations and prophecying are not permitted to publicly share them with the church membership?

I’ve made statements to the effect that truth and chastity are inseparably connected. This was based on the metaphoric “Armor of God.” The Girdle of Truth is often associated with chastity (protects the privates). I had pointed to Hamlet asking if Ophelia was honest. This was a double meaning. He was first asking if she was being serious about giving his keepsakes back to him. But he realized something was up, and that they were probably being spied upon. So, he took it a different way. He turned it into a question about her chastity. A man who got a woman pregnant needed to marry her which would “make an honest man out of him." Pres Kimball wrote of the relationship between honesty and chastity very briefly in The Miracle of Forgiveness. Even with all that, I recognized that in our generation, we don’t quite seem to understand what honesty & chastity have to do with one another. Part of that is modern religion. Part of that is modern culture. Jordan Peterson said,”Sex has never been free. There were always consequences. Casual sex is a myth. There is always some sort of emotional exchange and bond formed.” He brought up the idea that children are always a possible consequence of casual sex. With today’s wide and affordable access to contraceptives, there does appear to be a crack in the wall. But because we’ve only had both cheap contraceptives and widespread casual sex in the culture for maybe one generation, we don’t have enough data to determine if that really changes anything. So, it is too early to tell if this technology changes thousands of years of history and evolution or not. Recently, I’ve done a lot of learning about male-female relationships in today’s society. One thing that had me worried was why my children and all my nieces and nephews were having such difficulty finding an eternal companion. I count 14 young adults of marriageable age. Only three are married. One solidly moving toward engagement. One more has a prospect, but the more I observe that one, the more misgivings that relationship is generating. We’ll see. Many of these young adults are finding it difficult to find someone who is even interested in getting married. One of them has no interest in finding a girl because of the maneaters out there. He doesn’t know if he can find a girl that won’t just destroy him like two of his uncles have experienced. He is a textbook hermit. He works from home with a fine paying job. And he’s looking to double his income by taking a few more classes. He’s making a lot of money, has few expenses. And he is a savvy investor. He’ll probably be a millionaire by 30. But what woman out there is going to be his proper match and value an eternal marriage? We see declarations of such “strong-independent-modern-women” (SIMW) who don’t need a man, but still expect her man to make more than she does to prove he’s worthy of her. Really? What logic generates that? These SIMW only look for rich SIMPs. But if a man is really all-that then why would he want a woman who will walk all over him? SIMW want to lead except for the times that she is tired of leading. Then she expects the SIMP to immediately take the reins and know exactly what to do and make all the right decisions that she must eventually approve of. Are they being honest with themselves? SIMW goes to gyms with barely anything on and sets up her exercise station directly in front of a man who has been working out for the last 10 minutes. Then she raises a stink about how he’s checking her out. Is this honest behavior? SIMW decides that she no longer needs a man and divorces him because she wants to lead her “authentic life” for real fulfillment. And BTW, she wants joint custody with 100% child support and a ton of alimony. Is she for real? SIMW refuses to get married until she can find a man with $300k income, over 6ft tall, and is a 10. She believes this is possible because that is what social media says she can do. Nevermind that she has never gone to the gym, herself, and she has a seriously high body-count, and she doesn’t even make $30k/yr. Is her head screwed on straight? She wouldn’t know truth if it hit her in the face. No, social media says she's a 10 and can bag any man. No problem. Now, what about men? When women behave like this, it is all too easy for men to forsake marriage. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? Where is commitment? What is commitment? Men just take what they can get whenever they can. But now we see a lot of men leaving the dating/marriage market entirely because they know that they always get the shaft. From me too fraud to divorce always favoring the woman (especially no-fault divorce) men know what a high risk merely dating can be, let alone marriage. Why? Because there is no trust. No one is honest anymore. Honesty is always linked to chastity. If your chosen partner has a high body count, then how can you trust them? They never made a commitment about the most intimate decision of their lives. They chose intimacy and made it like playing a video game. It’s just something you do when you have the time. You can take it and leave it. If you’re flippant about committing to intimacy, then you’re flippant about committing to anything. BIOLOGY: Oxytocin has been called the “cuddling hormone.” A great deal of it is released during intercourse. It is not merely a sexual high. It is an emotional bonding high. It is also released when mothers nurse their babies, so it is not just a sexual thing. When we engage in intercourse so often without even really considering a relationship, our very biology is getting screwed up. The oxytocin is trying to tell you that the person that you just shared this with needs to be with you. You need to stay. You need to commit to a relationship. When we ignore and treat casually such biological signals, it messes with our entire psychology related to commitment and keeping promises. This is why Balaam was able to destroy the children of Israel by sending in the loose women to tempt the men away. There is never any such thing as casual sex. There is always a consequence. And refusing to acknowledge that consequence/responsibility is dishonest. It doesn’t matter if we avoid tyrannical government. Hollywood already introduced casual sex into this society when I was a kid. Yes, there was always some of it in any society. But "society" at least knew it was wrong. It wasn’t until the 80s where it started being considered acceptable behavior. And it was during the Friends era that it became expected. When society stopped being honest, we were all ready to listen to any politician tell us anything. And we'd believe it. Not because we had confirmation by the Holy Ghost, but because it was pleasing to our ears. And pleasure without responsibility is all we wanted.

This is probably going to be a long post and I'm sorry about that. Well yes, I've found that the only thing that really brings most people to a faith is a personally testimony and considering you already believe in God I'm not sure what use is in that. Perhaps if I rephrase it...I am asking questions out of curiosity and a desire to learn about your faith, I'm just REALLY bad at wording things so if it sounds like an argument please tell me and I will attempt to rephrase. This is a good point. I suppose its less of, I need statistics and data and more of a this is the most logical outcome. Look at the world, so finely tuned. Most logical outcome, it was designed. How a religious document is proven true? I'm now questioning that myself. Oh yes if he has time it would be very much appreciated. He is the source of truth. My goal is not to force you to turn against your religion. Moreover, my goal is to find the truth of the matter and I cannot find the truth without looking at all sides. Everything I believe I believe until I find the truth, if that makes any sense. I mainly use NIV or ESV, only because I am unable to understand the wording in KJV. (if you get a theme here I'm very good with whats in my brain but getting it there and out is difficult) This is always something that I have been on the fence about and not really sure of the trinitarian belief, and this makes sense. What does this mean? Do you have to do this to be saved? If I mess up, does it mean I'm not? Honestly, I've never thought about this. Faith has always just been faith to me. This makes more sense. I've always heard that the Holy Spirit was the motivating principle. If it is faith, what does the Holy Spirit do? Or are they the same? I've been reading about this but I am still unsure what it means. How does it separate? Though I'm protestant, I would say I am not a charismatic Christian. Is there a reason for using KJV? I'm just curious about that. Do you also teach with the KJV to very young children? I've never grown up with these, but I can't say they aren't inspired by God or not scripture. I would have to look at them and see if they contradict the Bible, which I do know is God's word. Well, yes. If each man interpreted the word differently then there wouldn't be a truth. I am hesitant to trust recent time prophecy because of how easy it would be to lie, but I would cross examine it with the Bible because I know God certainly can do anything. I don't quite understand it though. If I have a question about how to act am I unable to study the Bible to find truth? Am I unable to trust what I read because I wasn't told this by God? I feel like if I needed a vision from God before doing anything I wouldn't ever actually do anything. In my understanding, modern interpretations are only one commandment about coveting(the tenth), am I correct about that? I agree with this...which seems to be uncommon nowadays. This is when I sometimes wish I lived in Utah. I'm never going to drink alcohol except at communion, but Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine wasn't it? Why would he do that? Also, tea? does that include non-caffeinated tea? And what about chocolate? For reference, I'm using this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2016/06/what-do-we-know-about-life-after-death?lang=eng#title15 This all seems very complicated. Like most afterlife ideologies, I of course have my beliefs, but I've always found it to be non-salvation, or not such a big deal it could prevent you from Heaven. However, I am confused on this. In John it says: "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." And in Romans it says: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." So if all have sinned and are condemned, how do the "good" nonbelievers get a kingdom? If you've read all this way thank you very much and I will be very excited to read any responses you have!

Is there a connection between stars and people? Could each star represent a person in a glorified condition, with one star differing from another star in glory even as one person differs from another person in glory. Has a star been a person before it became a star? Or does a star become a person? Or is a star a home for a god. This would be consistent with the idea that God dwells in the midst of everlasting burnings, as taught by Joseph Smith. A star starts its existence as matter unorganised. A star only comes into being when enough matter joins together into an organised, single whole. All progress is achieved by the joining together of parts - matter with intelligence to form a spirit, then a spirit combines with a body, then two bodies join together to create a family. It is only the coming together of unorganised matter in an ever tighter form that causes what was a cloud of gas to ignite in a burst of light and power that lasts for billions of years. It is only through becoming subject to law, the law of gravity, that the conditions are brought about whereby creation becomes possible as each component, each atom, of that unorganised matter, becomes organised and entwined with every other atom. Gravity is the means by which unorganised matter is formed into something that creates light. The first commandment, in Genesis 1:3 was let there be light. Perhaps knowing more about gravity would provide a link, or a portal, through which we can gain a greater understanding of how God does what He does and a means by which He exerts His will on the physical world. Perhaps we could go so far as to say that God created light by using gravity. Consider if any of this fits with Doctrine and Covenants 88: 7, 9, 12. 3 Nephi 1 The sign is given, and a new star arises Is this a merging of the political and the judiciary? It seems to me that when you merge the roles of Chief Judge and Governor, you get something that closely resembles a king. The Book of Mormon gives little information about the emergence/development of this role of Governor. Almost a year after writing the above, and having gone through parts of Alma closely a second time, I see that in late Alma there are perhaps 3 or 4 references to the governor and the chief judge being the same person. Lachoneus was the chief judge and the governor over the land. This sounds like a resignation. 3 Nephi 1:2 And Nephi, the son of Helaman, had departed out of the land of Zarahemla, After 600 years, this must be quite a sizeable collection. Its interesting that from more than 600 years of sacred records, plus the record of the Jaredites, after these records have been refined and distilled by Mormon, all we get is the Book of Mormon. My opinion is that if someone was to go through all of the General Conference talks of the last 200 years, and come up with a text as long as the Book of Mormon, we would get a far superior product in terms of doctrine, teaching, exhortation, and testifying power. I think the relevance, power and clarity of our General Conference talks far outweighs almost everything we get in the Book of Mormon. It seems as though at this time, control/stewardship of the records had reverted back to religious authority. I think it was somewhere in Mosiah that custody of the records passed to political authority. 3 Nephi 1:2 giving charge unto his son Nephi, who was his eldest son, concerning the plates of brass, and all the records which had been kept, and all those things which had been kept sacred from the departure of Lehi out of Jerusalem. Not just a resignation, but a runaway. I'm guessing he must have left instructions that he not be followed and that he be left alone, otherwise people would have gone looking for him. 3 Nephi 1:3 Then he departed out of the land, and whither he went, no man knoweth; Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Matthew 16:4 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. Given what has been said and taught about signs, why were there signs and who were they for? Perhaps the problem is not with the signs themselves but the seeking after the sign. And why does God give something that an adulterous generation seeks after? I suspect that anybody who follows the findings of the James Webb Telescope is quite frequently seeing amazing things, the likes of which have never been seen before, all of which are manifestations of gravity, mass and energy, some of which is light. Perhaps those sights could be seen as being signs. 3 Nephi 1:4 4 for there began to be greater signs and greater miracles wrought among the people. THis might suggest that among the ordinary people, the practice of keeping track of the passing of time might not have been widely practiced. 3 Nephi 1:5 But there were some who began to say that the time was past for the words to be fulfilled, which were spoken by Samuel, the Lamanite. What manner of person would rejoice over the seeming failure of another person's faith? This is not a good thing to rejoice about unless their abandonment of that faith is necessary for them to embrace a higher faith in something more true and holy. 3 Nephi 1:6 And they began to rejoice over their brethren, saying: Behold the time is past, and the words of Samuel are not fulfilled; therefore, your joy and your faith concerning this thing hath been vain. So five years later, the words of Samuel were still having quite an impact. It seems obvious that many people clearly remembered what he had said. 3 Nephi 1:7 And it came to pass that they did make a great uproar throughout the land; It sounds like they began to be doubtful but not doubtful enough to give up. 3 Nephi 1:7–8 and the people who believed began to be very sorrowful, lest by any means those things which had been spoken might not come to pass.8 But behold, they did watch steadfastly for that day and that night Governance must have become pretty bad if large scale killings such as this could be easily and openly planned. It makes me wander what sort of governor Lachoneous was. At the very least there seems to have been an abandonment of the practice/law that a man could not be punished for his beliefs. 3 Nephi 1:9 Now it came to pass that there was a day set apart by the unbelievers, that all those who believed in those traditions should be put to death Was Nephi the only one concerned enough to do this? It would seem to be a good idea for the senior religious person to encourage all the believers to pray for the same thing. 3 Nephi 1:11 And it came to pass that he went out and bowed himself down upon the earth, and cried mightily to his God in behalf of his people This is either poorly worded or seriously wrong. Their faith should be in God and His gospel, not in the traditions of their fathers. 3 Nephi 1:11 yea, those who were about to be destroyed because of their faith in the tradition of their fathers. I wander what it is that determined the amount of time that Nephi had to pray for. Why was it that the answer came at the end of the day rather than some other time? Was there a particular benchmark that his faith and prayers had to meet before they could be granted? Did it take all day for him to show the required degree of faith and humilty for his prayers to be answered? There is some reason why prayers are anwered at the time they are answered but I dont know what that reason is. 3 Nephi 1:12 And it came to pass that he cried mightily unto the Lord all that day; It would seem that in this instance, this prayer was answered by Jesus. I'm not sure if Jesus is the one who answers all our prayers, or if sometimes they are answered by the Being we pray to. 3 Nephi 1:13 on the morrow come I into the world, The extent to which Christ's will is aligned with, separate from, or the same as His Father's will might be brought into question by John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. See also Luke 22: 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. 3 Nephi 1:14 to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son This disposes of the idea that the Earth was tilted on its axis, because if that was how it happened, the sun would stay in the sky. So the light must have been coming from a source other than the sun. 3 Nephi 1:15 for behold, at the going down of the sun there was no darkness; Usually night is defined by the coming of darkness. If its not dark, its not night. I guess in the North Pole, during that time when the sun doesn't set, they would define night by time rather than the amount of light or darkness. 3 Nephi 1:15 because there was no darkness when the night came. it was still more than 30 years before He would appear to these people. 3 Nephi 1:17 And they began to know that the Son of God must shortly appear; Somewhere, somehow, somewhen, there is always a time of reckoning. At one point we will all be held accountable for our beliefs and our works. 3 Nephi 1:18 and they began to fear because of their iniquity and their unbelief. This is another fact that argues against the earth being tilted. At the north pole, the light at night is a weak, faded kind of light. quite different from what you see at mid-day. I guess another possibility is that in reality the level of light remained the same but their ability to see in the dark was temporarily adjusted. Another possibility is that there was a nearby supernova, although from what I recall, astronomers have considered this possibility and found no evidence for it. 3 Nephi 1:19 there was no darkness in all that night, but it was as light as though it was mid-day. You'd think that this would be a very convincing sign and that there was no way that it could be explained away. In this instance, the most logical explanation was because this is what the prophets had prophesied. 3 Nephi 1:19 And it came to pass that the sun did rise in the morning again, according to its proper order; and they knew that it was the day that the Lord should be born, because of the sign which had been given. I wonder if any of these dissenters fled to the Lamanites, or did they all go to the robbers? 3 Nephi 1:28 because there were many dissenters of the Nephites who did flee unto them,

Ether 12 This chapter probably deserves multiple days and a group discussion in real time. I consider it one of the best discourses on faith out there. For reference, when I think of faith, I generally think of two or three different definitions: 1. The kind of faith described in Lectures on Faith. The principle of action - that any action you do is driven by faith in an outcome, basically. I believe this is the sort of faith God has / uses - to see what could be and act as if it already were / were certain. 2. Faith in Jesus Christ - this is the faith that leads to salvation. 3. Faith in any other true principle or virtue - faith that kindness or patience are worth practicing, faith that following the prophet will yield positive results, faith that the Book of Mormon contains true teachings which can improve the lives of those who act accordingly, etc. This is the sort of faith Alma described when he talked about planting the word of God in your heart (and perhaps also #2, since Alma also taught of Christ). 4. I guess technically, there's a fourth, where it's used synonymously with "religion" or "belief system". v1: The king is descended from the brother of Jared and is a usurper. He or his predecessor(s) held the rightful king and his heirs captive. Ether is one of those heirs - perhaps the person who should be king. v2: Seek to follow the Lord to the extent that you are filled with the Spirit. v3: "by faith all things are fulfilled" - that principle of action type of faith. But also, #2 & 3 - by faith in Christ, we receive the word and by obedience to the word, we receive forgiveness and blessings. v4: The surety comes only because you know that God keeps his promises (faith, knowledge of the character of God and the history of his dealings with me - through scripture). Your faith gives you hope and that hope makes an anchor for your soul. Anchors always have a chain or rope that is attached to something else - otherwise, they're no good. If your hope is an anchor to your soul, then the other end has to be attached to Jesus Christ - the only sure thing to which one can anchor. And your good works strengthen that connection and keep the hope and faith strong (see John 7:17). v5: The Lord doesn't work the way the world does - you must believe before you can see. Why? Because it is your belief and faith (acting on that belief) that creates the thing you wish to see. Belief is the idea (or hope). Faith is the act of creation. v6: The Lord will test our ability to have faith in him, to be faithful to him, and to live by faith - to act according to the agency we've been given - which means to act in his name (or in our own, to our condemnation). v7-9: Christ showed by his resurrection that resurrection is possible. His existence gives reason to hope and to have faith that the word of God is true and that God will keep his promises and that through Christ, we can be saved. This is the anchor and our connection to it - our hope. v10+: The prophets of old were called by faith. They were able to do their work because they had faith (and the doing of that word was acting in faith). v11: Christ makes all things possible for all of us, if we will have faith in Christ. v12: I personally believe this is very literal and that whatever examples we may have that seem contrary are merely incidences where we don't have sufficient information. Perhaps there are times when the interpretation is that the children of men will not perceive the miracle (despite it having happened, through the faith of someone) - is a miracle that is not perceived as a miracle still a miracle? Or was it just an unexplained event? A missed blessing? v18: Here faith is explicitly tied to the Son of God. No other faith has power to work miracles. Indeed, even faith #3 (in principles, truths, virtues) is tied to Christ since he is the source of all truth and all good things. If you are trying to help someone who is struggling and don't know what else to do, help them to increase their faith in Christ. v19: Back to faith type #1 and verse 5 - first, you see with an eye of faith (the idea, the belief, the hope), second you act in faith to create (bring about, instantiate) what you saw only through faith, and then, once it has been created, your eyes see it. This is how you create (bring about, instantiate), or allow God to create, all good things in your life: whether it's creating worlds without number, or rending the veil of unbelief and entering into the presence of God, or overcoming sin and weakness, or gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon, or believing that you can keep trying to be faithful for one more day - whatever it is, if it is a true thing, then seeing it in faith, and acting as if it is a surety will yield the foreseen results. "...and they were glad." v20-22: There are already many promises available to you. These verses suggest to me that there's nothing wrong with seeking promises from the Lord - but as with all things, we should seek the promises with which the Lord already wishes to bless us. Our patriarchal blessings may constitute such promises. v23-26: There are multiple ways that the Lord may bless people. Rather than be upset by the blessing you lack, seek to learn what you have, and then to seek more, according to the Lord's will v26: Do not mock. Just don't. It's hard in this world, but break yourself of the habit. We are all made in the image of God. God is not to be mocked, therefore his children shouldn't be. The works of God should not be mocked, therefore the works of his children shouldn't be. Unworthy works should be lamented, mourned, avoided, or ignored, but don't risk your soul for the fun of mockery - it's an arrogant form of amusement. "my grace is sufficient for the meek" - not for the proud, for the meek - "that they shall take no advantage of your weakness" - don't take advantage of others because of their weakness - don't cheat them because they are ignorant or foolish. Don't mock them because they couldn't express themselves well or don't dress nicely. Be meek, be humble, invite the Lord's grace. v27: And oh how we need that grace. The Lord has blessed us to be weak (note that weakness is singular), recognize it and be humble so that you can work in the strength of the Lord, by his grace. v28: Plead for faith, hope, and charity. v29: Believe what the Lord tells you! v30: Perhaps you will never need to move a physical mountain, but all of us have symbolic mountains we need to move. Do it through faith in Christ. v31+: Prayer can include telling the Lord what you've learned about him - bearing testimony. This can be a way to learn more, solidify what you learned, and receive correction of misunderstanding. v34: "except men shall have charity" - this can work both ways - we must receive the gift (v36) of having charity toward others, but we also must be willing the receive the charity that Christ has for us - if we reject either, we cannot inherit eternal life. v35: Moroni has been working through the logic / principle that Christ taught him. Do you do that in prayer? Perhaps we should do that in prayer. Also, if you reject the gifts of God, he starts to take them away from you and give them to others. Don't reject the gifts of God. v36: Charity is a gift given to us, not a skill we develop on our own. Practice it (pretend, work, think), but also plead for it. v37: What a notion: "it mattereth not unto thee". I can't expound on it, but it strikes me as something to ponder. Learn to really see your weakness - be humble and meek. v39: "in plain humility" - it's Christ's humility being described here! He sets the example. He always goes before. v41: Do this - seek Jesus! Seek him in scripture, seek him through your actions, seek him through the witness of the Holy Ghost.

In one breath you aren't wrong. It's a way of grappling with thornier, less clear cut, issues of church history. The priesthood ban, current LGBT concerns, polygamy, and so on. Could every single one of these be wholly of the lord and there really isn't any confusion? Sure. I am wholly open to that approach. But I also see how, especially in the realm of LGBT issues, just handlining and saying "God has spoken, pound sand" is very possibly true, but can drive someone away unnecessarily. We can share the truth we have; we can be honest about things. But bedside manner counts. The doctor that curtly tells me that if I too much more pizza I will die and it is totally my fault, may be right. The thing is though, it's repellant, and will drive me away. Furthermore, we have revelation BECAUSE of the many important things to be revealed about the kingdom. The word of wisdom came from Emma pushing Joseph about tobacco clean up. We've seen stances change, in hindsight, it's always easier to see. Even Elder McConkie had to straight up say that we had less light with regards to the priesthood. If we were wrong, the problem is ours, disregard. With regards specifically to LGBT questions specifically, The Miracle of Forgiveness said about masturbation, that it led to gay orgies. It was vehemently condemned. As times, understandings, and perceptions changed, our language has softened. Our standards of chastity have not, but the way we speak to those has. People who used to believe attraction itself was chosen (through action or will, or whatever reason) have realized that is not (always) the case. The approach is gentler, but the standard is as firm as it has been. More people are open to the idea that this could lead to further changes. I am of that mindset myself. But even in the same breath, that is on God's timeline if it will happen, not mine. While my mind wonders about Gay sealings in a marriage, I don't expect Men to have children. Gender is eternal and is so for a reason. So, for me at least, the change desire is tempered. I hear people online complaining about division and confusion, that leaders are sending mixed messages. I don't see that. I welcome the softening of how we approach others. When the time comes, we do have to be firm, but I think there is a lot more leeway than some realize. I found out that post op transgender people can be baptized. I found this out in a video lamenting the decline of standards and complaining about confusion, will this person be able to marry, will they be able to hold the priesthood, and so on. A quick trip to the church handbook enlightened me. Post transitioned people can be baptized. They can be referred to and listed as their identified gender. They CAN NOT hold the priesthood as a trans man, and in NO CASE hold a temple recommend in a post transition state. So really, there IS not confusion. I worry that our more conservative members see this as an assault on fundamentals and are digging in their heels. I also worry that our more progressive members are thinking that this could lead to ANYTHING being up for change. I believe NEITHER is correct. There are things that can change, things that can't, and I still have a testimony of the brethren. I did with the children of same sex couples happened, even though I didn't understand it, and I do now, when that "change" happened. All I say about this is that, if change needs to happen, it will. If it does, do what you've always done, test the spirit. I say this because I know and have worked with trans folks. I want to be on the side that reaches out as far as I can to help them. In the end they have to respond, but I want to be part of the reason they come, not part of what drives them away. I KNOW that we have the truth. I KNOW we are the "only true and living church" on the face of the earth. But I also know if there are mistakes, "they are the mistakes of men". I'm willing to reserve judgment in case the Lord speaks. I'm not going to change what I'm doing or lower my standards in the mean time, but I am going to be open to further light. While you may worry about caving to pressure from outside, I worry about being those saying "a bible a bible". I simply think we need to know that we DO have all that has been revealed. But we also are looking forward to all that will YET be revealed. Sometimes the newer makes the old stuff make sense in a different way (and sometimes it doesn't). But as I said, I'm not looking for edge cases, like below: So that's why I don't have a problem with it. It helps me reconcile people who I truly believe haven't yet received an answer, with my also true belief that they will. That's what all this comes down to. I believe people may pray earnestly and not get an answer, because I have faith in them. But I also believe the church is true, because I have experienced that truth. I have to reconcile these, and this is how I do so. I do my best and leave the rest to God. My Mom loves God, and still speaks in tongues as a Pentecostal. I don't know why she hasn't been lead to the church when I've talked to her about it, and the verse comes to my mind as said also by CS Lewis... First, Romans 9:15 "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Then John 21:22 "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."

John 1:1 is quite a meaty verse. John really had a way with words. And this is evident throughout his Gospel. Why is Jesus "The Word"? This verse is a wealth of etymology and semantics. And that was exactly what John was using to communicate so much in so little. Written in Greek, the word John used was "Logos." That in and of itself has a wealth of meaning. Logos means: Word, speech, utterance, etc. Reason, logic, cause, motivation (Logos is the root of the English "logic") The controlling principle of the universe (cultural meaning in Ancient Greek) It is also the root of "Legend." This means both "the legend of Bagger Vance" and the legend on a map that helps you identify symbols used thereon. I tend to believe that a little bit of all these meanings was part of John's message to us. Additionally, one cannot make such a cryptic statement in Greek without also evoking the trinity (I use the word purposefully) of arguments: Logos, Pathos, & Ethos. Does John mean to evoke a meaning distinct from Pathos & Ethos? Does he mean to include all three? Thinking in terms of the Trinity, this trinity of words seems appropriate. But John really wants to focus on just one word -- whether unified with or distinct from the others. He is the physical manifestation of the Plan of Salvation. He is what is real. He is physical. The Father is Ethos (authority). The Spirit is Pathos (heart/emotion, etc). Separating them in this manner really does a disservice. But this is part of the Trinitarian argument. And it is also why we believe in the Godhead. We cannot separate them in our worship. They must be worshiped as one God. Jesus was also the word because He was the messenger of the New Gospel that would replace the Law of Moses. It is HIS message, HIS testimony, HIS gospel, HIS covenant, His Atonement. The common wisdom is that the word "gospel" means "good news." I slightly disagree with that definition (consider how we use "news" today). Rather than "news" I'd say "message" (think about how they used the word "news" only 100 years ago). But the full translation would be "God's Word." Earlier English didn't distinguish "good" and "God". If it was good, it was of God. And God only did that which was good. Now, let's look at the JST: My personal belief is that this was not a "correction" to the text. Joseph obviously wanted us to get away from the Trinitarian notion. But the D&C still reminds us that Jesus IS God (D&C 18:33,47 & 19:18). He's not "God, The Father", but he's still God. So, it was perfectly accurate as it was. So, why bother with the change? I believe that he was trying to point out a specific meaning because it was more important than all the other meanings in the verse as John intended. The primary point here is that the gospel is all about Jesus. It is the Word, Covenant, & Doctrine of Jesus Christ. What do you think Joseph's response would be if you asked him these three questions: Was Jesus, in the beginning? -- YES Was Jesus with God? -- YES Is Jesus God? -- YES So, this was not to "correct" anything. It was more of a commentary to direct us to a specific concept as written. Let's face it, most people don't really understand why John wrote this in this manner. The Christian world already has many different interpretations which all have some validity to them. But Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration. He wanted us to focus on the most important meaning which usually gets lost in the translation. The most important part of John 1:1 is: The gospel is all about Jesus Christ, our Lord, our God our Savior & Redeemer. See the word play? That's why Jesus is the Word.

In doing some web surfing concerning the topic of eternal progression I came across a website that was not particularly supportive of the Church so I won't reference it but it was pointing out what it claimed to be conflicting LDS views of what eternal progression meant. Here are the quotes: “All organized existence is in progress, either to an endless advancement in eternal perfections, or back to dissolution… Nothing less than the privilege of increasing eternally, in every sense of the word, can satisfy the immortal spirit. If the endless stream of knowledge from the eternal fountain could all be drunk in by organized intelligences, so sure immortality would come to an end, and all eternity be thrown upon the retrograde path.” (Brigham Young, “Life and Death, Etc.”, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 349-353, July 10, 1853.) Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal (spelling intact): “I attended prayer meeting in the evening Circle. President Young asked Elder Orson Pratt what He thought of his preaching that intelligent beings would continue to learn to all Eternity. O. Pratt said that He believed the Gods had a knowledge at the present time of evry thing that ever did exhist to the endless ages of all Eternity. He believed it as much as any truth that he had ever learned in or out of this Church. President Young remarked that he had never learned that principle in the church for it was not taught in the Church for it was not true. It was fals doctrin For the Gods & all intelligent Beings would never scease to learn except it was the Sons of perdition they would continue to decrease untill they became dissolved back into their native Element & lost their Identity.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, pp.401-402, February 17, 1856). Joseph Fielding Smith: “The Book of Moses informs us that the great work of the Father is in creating worlds and peopling them, and “there is no end to my works, neither to my words,” he says, “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man,” and in this is his progression. “Commenting on this the Prophet Joseph Smith has said: ‘What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same [that is Christ must do the same]; and when I get my kingdom. I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I [Christ] will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.’ “Do you not see that it is in this manner that our Eternal Father is progressing? Not by seeking knowledge which he does not have, for such a thought cannot be maintained in the light of scripture. It is not through ignorance and learning hidden truth that he progresses, for if there are truths which he does not know, then these things are greater than he, and this cannot be. Why can’t we learn wisdom and believe what the Lord has revealed? (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.7) That's the end of the quotes and I apologize for the length but I wanted to be thorough. I'm not sure if the Church has an "official" position on this topic but to me personally I don't think these differing viewpoints have to conflict. Maybe only one of them is right but maybe D&C 93:30 applies here in that "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it..." with one viewpoint correct within one "sphere" and the other viewpoint correct within a different "sphere." Thoughts?

This looks like an appeal to believe in Christ based on a fear of what will happen if you don't believe. I think it has been quite some time since that sort of appeal was regarded as an effective tool of missionary work. Mormon 9:2 Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation—behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that great day when the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God Repentance can remove guilt but it is only available on certain conditions. OR Repentance can remove guilt and it is available to all who meet the conditions on which it is provided. Mormon 9:3 Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws? I think this plea to repent might be one of the most important things that Moroni wrote. Mormon 9:6 O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day. I find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who say/believe this. Why would God do miracles before and then stop doing them? On the other hand, the appearance of God's reduced involvement with His children during the dark ages, and the infrequency of reported miracles during that time might add support to the idea that sometimes, for the reasons given in verse 29, God does sometimes seem to cease doing miracles, or does fewer of them for a season. Mormon 9:7 And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues Is the fall of man more correctly attributed to Adam, or to Eve? My understanding is that it was Eve who first committed the act which caused the fall. Mormon 9:12 Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. This endless sleep only refers to the condition of our body. Consciousness, self-awareness and identity never ceased. Mormon 9:13 which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, I think this could be more accurately expressed as "from which sleep the bodies of all people" Mormon 9:13 from which sleep all men shall A possible interpretation of this scripture is that after the time of judgement, our condition/position becomes fixed/frozen/incapable of further change. This does not fit well with the idea that a period in hell can lead to sins being paid for and that after the price is paid souls can eventually be released. Mormon 9:14 And then cometh the judgment of the Holy One upon them; and then cometh the time that he that is filthy shall be filthy still; One man's miracles becomes another man's daily necessity. I guess we can see this clearly by reference to the example of electricity. One of the benefits of living in the latter days. Mormon 9:16 Behold, are not the things that God hath wrought marvelous in our eyes? Yea, and who can comprehend the marvelous works of God? And this is beginning to look like an appeal to believe based on miracles, which are a type of sign. This also is a less successful type of appeal to people to change their hearts. I think there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that people whose conversion is based on miracles develop shallow root systems that don't provide support during a storm. I suspect that Moroni would have used what he believed to be the most effective types of appeals that he knew of when trying to encourage people to change their hearts and come unto God. If appeals based on fear and signs were the most successful type of appeal at that time, to those people, and if such approaches now are downplayed or minimised, it may suggest that there has been a fundamental change in what people today regard as most appealing about the gospel. The primary approach today seems to be to help people understand the nature of their relationship with God and to help them seek their own answers to prayer. This is quite a different approach than the two approaches Moroni is relying on here. Mormon 9:18 And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles. This sort of raises a chicken or egg argument. Perhaps the reason why they began to dwindle in unbelief is that they did not see enough miracles to sustain their faith. If that were the case it would help to illustrate why signs, in the form of miracles, are not the best foundation on which to build a testimony. Mormon 9:20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust. I get a bit concerned/confused when I read this type of verse, of which there are many, many others, suggesting that all you need to do is believe and ask and you shall receive. I think they create a misleading impression about how easy it can be to get something by asking for it through prayer. There are so many more conditions that need to be met in order to receive what you ask of the Father. In recent years I've heard a few conference talks that seem to discourage this idea of viewing God as a celestial vending machine. Mormon 9:21 whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, I have the same concerns about this type of verse, and for the same reasons, as I do for verse 21 - they seem to simplify requirements of what is involved in achieving a particular outcome and leave out many, many other necessary conditions. Mormon 9:23 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;

Ether 3 v1: It has been suggested that the brother of Jared knew the account of the "window" in Noah's ark and that it was similar to these stones and that was where it got the idea (learned from an institute teacher, also heard elsewhere, but I forget the details). v2+: IMO, this is nothing like the sort of prayers we hear in the Church, but it ought to be. There are a lot of lessons in this prayer, but I'm not sure I have the energy this (late) morning to explore them (my head is killing me). At a high level: humility, confession, testimony, the attributes of God, our need of Him, why pray, the virtue of working and thinking... v5: "thou canst do this" It's as if the brother of Jared is giving the Lord a pep talk. Or just expressing confidence in the Lord. Either way, it's an intimate and endearing exchange, for some reason. v6+: The mixture of complete faith, knowledge, and revelation here is interesting. As is the degree of confidence the brother of Jared has with the Lord. I have to believe this comes from a combination of humility, constant repentance, striving hard to keep the commandments, and rock-solid faith. v9: Surely the Lord knew full well what the brother of Jared saw, yet he asks. The Lord's way of teaching is to ask questions - to get us thinking! v11: I believe this is an eternal principle. The Lord asks the brother of Jared if he (bofJ) believes (already, present tense) the words which the Lord shall (future tense) speak - before the Lord has spoken them, before the brother of Jared has heard them - does he believe something he doesn't even know yet! I believe this is how the Lord works, it is a principle of receiving revelation. If you would receive guidance from the Lord, you must believe it (or really, believe Him) first and receive it second. This is what the scriptures mean by "sincere intent". The Lord will only reveal things to you if you already believe and fully intend to act in harmony with those things. This is also what "faith in Jesus Christ" means - like Enos, we must know that God cannot lie (and the brother of Jared, v12). This is yet another way in which the Lord's ways are reverse of the world's: the world says "prove it and then I'll believe", the Lord says, "believe and then I will reveal it". v12: It can be faith promoting to ponder these truths for a time - that God speaks truth and cannot lie. v13: "Because thou knowest these things ..." What things? The Lord has yet to speak whatever words he was referring to in v11, so far as we have here. It appears that verse 12 contains "these things". All the more reason to ponder on them! (Perhaps, too, "these things" include v9 - that Christ will take upon himself flesh and blood.) v14: Possibly the clearest explanation of the gospel or doctrine of Jesus Christ. v15: Lots of speculation about this "never have I showed myself...", since other prophets before this had seen the Lord. Most seem to think it's the manner in which the Lord showed himself - as he would look when mortal. v24: Ah, disregard yesterday - Jared perceived it as the people being confounded, but here the Lord says it's the language he confounded (probably the same thing from different perspective, but still). v25: This seems to be what happens with all prophets who are allowed into the Lord's presence, though it's not always been recorded. v26: This is faith - have sufficient faith in the Lord and all the Lord's word to you will be fulfilled. Some things are not (yet) for public consumption. Learn to keep sacred things sacred. Trust the Lord's timing. Ether 4 v6+: The need for faithfulness in what you already have - if you hope for more, master what you already have. Believe the Lord! Believe in the Lord! v12: How to know if it's from God. v15+: Reason to believe. v18-19: The message is always the same: Repent, come unto Christ and follow him. Ether 5 (getting ahead) Personal instruction to Joseph Smith!

I should compare this with parts of 1st and 2nd Nephi to see if they use the promised land or a promised land. Ether 2 The Jaredites prepare for their journey to a promised land The promised land is a very conditional gift. Ether 2 It is a choice land whereon men must serve Christ or be swept off A one-on-one audience for 50% longer than the duration of a General Conference session. There is a huge amount that can be conveyed in that amount of time. I suspect Joseph Smith's lessons with Moroni might have been of similar duration, and from what I recall, without checking, Moses was on Mount Sinai for many days and nights. Ether 2 The Lord talks to the brother of Jared for three hours— barges, not arks like Noah, or ships like Nephi Ether 2 The Jaredites build barges— I'm guessing that this is a subject area in which the brother did not have a lot of expertise or experience. Ether 2 The Lord asks the brother of Jared to propose how the barges will be lighted. This sounds like a larger group than the group that went with Lehi but its speculative because we don't have a number. Ether 2:1 And it came to pass that Jared and his brother, and their families, and also the friends of Jared and his brother and their families, went `This group sounds much better prepared than Lehi's group, or perhaps Nephi simply didn't record such things on the plates that Mormon abridged. Ether 2:3 and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind. For reasons that are not clear, the Lord chooses to stay hidden from His children. The manner of almost appearing sounds very similar to the experience of Moses. Ether 2:4 the Lord came down and talked with the brother of Jared; and he was in a cloud, and the brother of Jared saw him not. Sounds very similar to the Israelies post Egypt and pre-Israel. Ether 2:5 And it came to pass that the Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel. Personal directions rather than through a Liahona. There's likely to be a reason for the difference. Ether 2:5 And it came to pass that the Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel. It's not clear whether this refers to many different bodies of water or one or a few larger bodies of water. I wonder how many sets of barges they ended up building. Ether 2:6 and did build barges, in which they did cross many waters Which land in particular is being referred to here? What land was covered by the decree, and what land wasn't? Even today, we see a lack of precision about the exact extent of a decree about a promised land continuing to drive conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Ether 2:9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land This suggests a yes/no sort of approach, that only once a particular condition has been met does it then trigger a particular consequence. It does not seem to be a gradual approach with the consequence beginning to occur gradually as the conditions are gradually met. Ether 2:9 And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. There are only limited parts of north or south America that have not been under political bondage of some sort. Even the components of what became the US was under bondage until about 1776. And you could make a reasonable argument that even today, the US is under the bondage of debt. Ether 2:12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage I suspect this is an incomplete account. I can't seee how or why it would take the Lord 3 hours to rebuke the brother of Jared for this failure to pray. Instead of calling another person to be his spokesperson, the Lord corrected the spokesperson he already had. I wonder if not praying sufficiently often could be considered as a type of deserting, or walking away, from God. Is that what the brother of Jared did? If so, it''s interesting that God continued to deal with him. Ether 2:14 And for the space of three hours did the Lord talk with the brother of Jared, and chastened him because he remembered not to call upon the name of the Lord. Noah had a window but I kind of doubt that one window would have been enough to adequately illuminate the whole ark. God could have prevented the winds and the waves from dashing a window to pieces but instead He chose to prevent them from having a window and invited suggestions as to how the ark should be lit. There are reasons for choices. I'm not sure what sort of lighting Lehi and his people had on their trip. I'm not sure what the Lord has against fire. He prevented Lehi's group in the wildnerness from having fire right up until the time that Nephi needed fire to make tools. On the other hand, the Lord appeared as a firey, cloudy pillar in the wilderness to guide the Israelites. He was quite happy to let them go by fire as long as He was the fire. Ether 2:23 For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.

Some of what I'll call the "negatives"... If it is, then logic says you should live in whichever way yields the best experience. A couple of times, you have indicated that in your experience, living the gospel of Jesus Christ has yielded the best experience for you. (IMO, this is a witness for the truth of the gospel - it yields fruit.) Anyway, there's nothing you can do about it - either we're all the product of random chance or we are the work and glory of God and nothing you or I do can change it. Personally, I'd say it's pointless, therefore, to worry over it (but I know this attitude doesn't work for everyone). This probably deserves a whole separate response. Let us know if you want to go down this route. The short answer is that there's no shortage of explanations for why God allows bad things to happen, and they are found in the scriptures. If you start looking for them - in part by studying when bad things happen in scripture - you'll find them, but I'm game to dig up some and share them, if you want to go there - it might make a good new thread. You certainly aren't the only person to struggle with this - it's one of the biggest questions everyone everywhere has. Love what @mikbone had to say here, but note that I find nothing conflicting between these and LDS beliefs. E.g. the book of Abraham makes it clear that the creation happened in six divisions of unrevealed duration (not six 24-hour days - or at least, not necessarily). I have no problem with dinosaurs being in there somewhere. I have no issue with in-species evolution - though I'm not convinced there's solid evidence of one-species-to-another evolution. Even if there is, and this is how God went about creating stuff, so what? Does that make God any less God? I don't think so. Check this out: It doesn't say, "Let's put fish in them waters." Read it carefully. Prepare the water to bring forth life. Doesn't that sound an awful lot like how folks describe the start of evolution? Big Bang? Maybe that's how God created this universe. Again, so what? Do you know something that refutes it? Cuz the creation stories don't in my mind (and anyway, those stories aren't meant to be technical manuals for creation, they're meant to teach us about God, his ways, and the purpose of our mortal existence). (As you may have noted, I'm pretty flexible on stuff I have no control over, stuff I can't figure out in my lifetime, and stuff that isn't going to directly and immediately impact my salvation - I've got covenants to worry about - that will take up the rest of my life... Not meaning to be dismissive of your concerns, just relating how I think of these things.) If there is no afterlife, nothing happens next to you (though your lifeless body will be disposed of somehow, by someone). You won't be around any more to care. You won't experience blissful oblivion or blackness or nothingness or anything else - you just won't be anymore. (Klaw is done bird-watching and has taken up resting on my left arm. We'll see whether he allows me to type my next reply... Nope, now lying on my right arm threatening to bite me... )

A part of the chapter "Return to the Temple from Nibley's Temple and Cosmos emples in General Hundreds of books and articles written since the beginning of the century draw attention to certain basic aspects common to temples throughout the world at all times. 15 The temple is an imposing structure, the place where one gets one's bearings from the universe, a place for the gathering of the entire race at an appointed time, namely the new year, to celebrate the beginning of a new age, the common birthday of mankind, i.e., the begetting of the race in a sacred marriage in which the king takes the role of the first ancestor. It is the "hierocentric point," 16 the place where all time, space, and humanity come together. 17 The word templum not only designates the template, the point of cutting between the cardo and decumanus from which the observer of the heavens makes his viewing, it is also the diminutive of the word tempus, denoting that it measures the divisions of time and space in a single pattern (cf. fig. 4, p. 20). 18 There, all the records of the past are kept and all the prophecies for the future are divined. 19 G. A. Ahlstrom concludes that the two basic symbols of the temple are in general (1) its cosmic symbolism, and (2) the paradise motif, setting it aside as a sort of halfway-house between heaven and earth. 20 One center would establish others in distant places in the manner, as Augustine says, 21 of a central fire that sends out sparks, each one of these setting a new fire to scatter new centers, etc., so that the whole world is embraced in a common unity around a common center. 22 This idea is reflected in concern with cosmology, a theme dominant in the Jewish and Christian writings until the schools of rhetoric took over. "The earthly shrine [is] a microcosm of the cosmic shrine, . . . conceived as preserving the proportions of the cosmic abode of deity in reduced measure." 23 "The temples," writes Hrozńy, "were not only centers of religious life, they were also centers of cultural, economic, and even political life of Babylonia." They were also schools and universities somewhat like medieval cloisters. 24 Albright notes that the original temple of Solomon as a point of contact with the other world presented a "rich cosmic symbolism which was largely lost in the later Israelite and Jewish tradition." 25 Since the beginning of the century, widespread comparative studies have shown the uniformity and antiquity of this institution as well as its worldwide contamination and decay, so that not a single example remains in its purity, and yet by virtue of comparing hundreds of imperfect and fragmentary institutions, the original can be reconstructed with great confidence and clarity. In 1930 the so-called Cambridge School gave this doctrine the label of "patternism." 26 Scholars avoided it until after World War II; since that time it has been accepted as standard by many. But it was Joseph Smith who first pointed this out, recalling a common heritage from what he calls the archaic religion, coming down from Adam in such institutions as Freemasonry, and clearly pointing out their defects as time produced its inevitable corruption. What he himself supplied single-handedly is the original article in all its splendor and complexity: quod erat demonstrandum ("that which had to be proven"). The cosmic pattern is presented in every external aspect of the Salt Lake Temple. At the dedication of that temple, Brigham Young explained to the people, "So we commence by laying the stone on the south-east corner because, there is the most light." 27 And at the dedication of the St. George Temple, "Precisely at 12 m President Brigham Young, at whose side stood Presidents John W. Young and Daniel H. Wells, broke ground at the south-east corner, and, kneeling on that particular spot, he offered the dedicatory prayer." 28 The Covenant and the Gathering God made his covenant with Israel both individually and collectively; he required everyone to repair to a certain place at an appointed time to enter a covenant with him. The names by which the Jews designated the temples are House of the King, House of God (fig. 10); the temple at Jerusalem was called specifically the Dwelling, ha-bayit, which does not mean that God dwelt there all the time, for the other name for it was 'ulam, meaning vestibule or passage. It was also the miqda 29, or place sanctified or set apart; the naos or hey -k al, meaning shrine or sanctuary; to hieron, the holy. The most common word with the Jews today is the House, Herod's temple being "the Second House." "Josephus calls it the Deuteron Hieron." 30 "All this must be done at a certain place" he tells Israel; "and I will send an angel to direct you to it. Behave yourselves and pay attention to his voice, because he is acting in my name" (cf. Exodus 23:20-21). They come together as equals, camp in families, follow the directions, note the functions of the appointed priesthood, and hearken to the voice of their prophet and leader when he shows his face after conversing with the Lord. The appointed place always had some structure, even if it was only a tent or stone (usually a ring of standing stones). This structure was considered sacred and was preserved in the building of the temple, which was built to house the original structures. What Was Done in the Temple? The central rite of the temple was certainly the offering of sacrifice — the slaughtering of beasts; yet the activities we read about in the Bible simply take that for granted and tell us of preaching, of feasting, and of music. The place seemed to be a general center of activity. The huge outer court allowed for this; the inner court was limited to Jews over twenty who had paid their tax for instruction or teaching, for the temple was a school. In fact, it was all those things for which the Kirtland Temple was dedicated in D&C 109. However, through the years both the structure and the uses to which it was put have remained completely baffling to scholars. 31 What the temple really looked like remains today as puzzling as ever. 32 Welcome light has finally come with the discovery of the great Temple Scroll from Qumran (fig. 11). This, as Yadin noted, was not a spiritual temple or an ideal model of a heavenly temple, but the temple which these people actually intended to rebuild as soon as the Lord would command them — a more perfect temple than that which the men at Jerusalem had defiled. 33 Its purpose was the renewal of the covenant made at Sinai, i.e., the temple ordinances that were present before; from the beginning, the building was merely to accommodate them. This temple was to be in three levels, in three concentric squares or in three cubes, as Frank Cross sees it, the ta -b nî -t being "a model of the cosmic Tabernacle of Yahweh." 34 Joseph Smith takes it back to "the three principal rounds of Jacob's ladder — the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms," 35 the highest level being an assembly hall facing a veil that ran from one side of the room to the other. According to Cross, the place behind the veil was reached by workers who would ascend a winding staircase in a tower or "house of the winding stair," which stood ten feet free of the building and was connected with the top story by a little bridge. In the Holy Place, for the priesthood, was the table of the "presence-bread" (i.e., shewbread). 36 Every morning in the temple, twelve loaves were spread out for the twelve tribes, and the workers took the sacrament (Leviticus 24:5-9; cf. Exodus 25:23-30; 29:33-34). The most impressive rite of the temple was the "drinking of the new wine by the entire assembly," which was to symbolize a ransom or redemption. A stairway led to an upper story connected to the temple attic; equally impressive was the House of the Laver, containing a great bronze tank located in a separate building a few feet from the main temple, with dressing rooms at hand, emptying into a drain which carried the water off to be absorbed into the ground. In the far northeast corner of the great enclosure is a roofed building supported by twelve columns with chains and pulleys; this is the place where the sacrificial animals were killed, far removed from the sacred precincts. From all this we see that the sacrificing of animals was only a part of the ritual activities that went on in the temple. 37 According to Milgrom, "The entire scroll is the revealed word of God," 38 and it begins with the covenant with Moses and a section on the Holy of Holies, which unfortunately is the one part of the scroll which has been completely destroyed. In both Jewish and Christian sources, one often reads of the five things — five covenants, five tokens, etc. — which are an organic part of the temple: When "prophecy ceased. The Urim and Thummim fell into disuse. . . . Corruption spread among the priesthood. . . . Was this God's holy Temple?" asks S. J. D. Cohen. 39 "Even the high priests were no longer legitimate high priests; they were regular priests who usurped the leadership"; the five things were gone, i.e., the sacred fire, the ark, the Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing, and the holy spirit (prophecy). These five are the typical list of the schoolmen. According to the Gospel of Philip, the five secret ordinances of the Lord are (1) baptism, (2) chrism (anointing), (3) the eucharist, (4) the ordinance of salvation (sote — unexplained), and (5) the bridal chamber or highest ordinance. 40 In a very old Manichaean manuscript recently discovered we read, "These five things [ordinances] about which you asked me," says the Lord, addressing the apostles after the resurrection, "appear to the world to be small and foolish things, and yet they are great and honorable or exalted (eutaiait). I am he who will reveal to you its ordinances [mysteries]. These five tokens are the mystery of the first man Adam." 41 Substitutes and Proxies In the temple, and in other structures, the sacrifices could be substituted (the tent, standing stones, the enclosure, the mountain, all stood for the same appointed and sequestered spot, depending on which structure was the most convenient, and it was the same with the sacrifices). The beasts whose blood was shed were only incidental; they stood for something much more. Already in Exodus when Aaron is crowned with his cap or turban, the crown of sanctification (cf. fig. 17C, p. 98) is added (the round linen cap was to act as a cushion for a metal crown during a long ceremony). Later the cap alone would suffice, since it showed that the owner was qualified to wear the "crown of justification." Aaron's sons, arrayed in their holy garments, then appeared and put their hands on the head of a bullock before the tabernacle; it was killed at the door. Moses, dipping his finger in the blood, put it on the horns of the altar (Exodus 29:5-12). The same thing is done with a ram (Exodus 29:15-18). The same men then lay their hands upon the head of another ram, kill the ram, and put some of its blood on the right ear of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:19-20). This recalls the rite of nailing the right ear of a servant to a door (there are only three nerves in the lobe of the ear) to signify an everlasting bond or covenant between the Lord and his servant (Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 15:16-17). Moses also marks with blood the thumb of the right hand of Aaron and his sons, as well as the big toe of the right foot (Exodus 29:20). In the Temple Scroll the bloody spot is placed in the palm of the right hand, whereupon the priest sprinkles the blood all around the altar to signify that this is the blood of sacrifice. It takes no great mental effort to see that the slaying of the ram is the same as the slaying of the ram which represents Isaac in the akedah, or "binding," for Israel, an assurance of the resurrection, a similitude of a great and last sacrifice. 42 Today for the first time, Jewish scholars have become greatly concerned with this question: Did Isaac make the atoning sacrifice? 43 But Isaac was not put to death! If not he, who then? What is being recognized is that there was much more to the ordinances than the scholars have been aware of. Thus H. G. May tells us that the "tabernacle ('ohel), the ark ('aocircRoman [and] the ephod ('e -p ô -d ) . . . may be closely related institutions." 44 "The ephod was a portable instrument of divination. . . . One suspects that it was the same instrument . . . [as the] urim and thummim." 45 Are all these things the same? How were they really used? Morton Smith has recently caused a sensation by calling attention to a thing deliberately bypassed by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, namely that for the temple the ancient saints always designated a mystery as an ordinance, and vice versa. He notes that Judaism itself was considered a "mystery religion" and that the rites of circumcision and passover were mysteries; 46 that such early and orthodox Christian writers as Clement of Alexandria "think of Jesus as a 'hierophant,' a teacher of the mysteries." 47 As Dr. Smith sums it up, "This was the mystery of the kingdom — the mystery rite by which the kingdom was entered," i.e., the ordinances of initiation. 48 In Paul, he finds, this is "a preparatory purification," followed "by unknown ceremonies" by which one became "united with Jesus," and so ascended with him and "entered the kingdom of God." 49 The teaching was very secret and was limited to an "inner circle." 50 After administering the blood, Moses then took the oil of anointing and sprinkled it over Aaron and his sons, clothed in their garments; thereby they became sanctified (cf. Exodus 29:21). This is the oil of healing, which reverses the blows of death. The sons of Aaron were made bloody, as if they had been sacrificed, and then cleansed, as if cleared of their sins. Being "washed in the blood of the lamb" is thus no paradox — the blood actually cleanses them of what most needs cleansing by transferring their sins to another. Leviticus deals with the matter in detail. It begins with every man in Israel who is for Jehovah bringing his offering from the herd, a male animal without blemish, as a personal, voluntary offering. He, not the priest, lays his hand on the animal's head, after which it represents him as an offering and a ransom for his sins (Leviticus 1:2-4). The conditions of the atoning sacrifice are given; all follow the same pattern, and the feast that goes with it is eaten in humility — "and ye shall eat in sorrow" (cf. Genesis 3:17). The principle of proxy continues as we read that the priest is to serve as a substitute or proxy for the king or the people (Leviticus 4:10, 13). He in turn avoided being sacrificed by being bought off (redeemed) by another substitute, a bullock whose blood is sprinkled before the veil while some of it is put on the horns of the altar. This bull is not eaten; the whole animal is burned in the ashdump outside the camp to eliminate completely all the sins of the people (Leviticus 4:1-12). And so anciently the principle of proxy was carried out: a goat for a prince who has unwittingly sinned (Leviticus 4:22), a bullock for all the unwitting sins of Israel (Leviticus 4:13-14), a female kid as ransom for any commoner for his unintentional trespasses, a lamb or a kid; or if you could not afford that, two turtle doves; or if you could not afford them, two young pigeons (one for a sin offering and one for burning); if you could not afford that, one tenth of an ephah of flour would do (Leviticus 1:2-2:1). The bread and wine in the temple represent sacrifice and atonement. For sins against holy things, a perfect ram must be brought, or its equivalent in shekels (i.e., by weight of pieces of silver; Leviticus 5:15). A clear case comes from Leviticus 8:12-15: First, oil is poured on Aaron's head to sanctify him; then his sons are brought in, properly attired, leading a bullock. They lay their hands upon its head, for it is to atone for their sins. Aaron kills the bullock, puts the blood on the altar, lokapper, to make atonement for them. The rites with the Levites are the same. Thus the sacrifices are carried out in the temple without the shedding of human blood, but if human blood can be spared, why not all blood? Because this was the similitude of the shedding of blood for the atonement of sin. Properly, of course, the sinner's own blood must be used, unless a go'el, a representative substitute advocate or redeemer, could be found to take one's place. The willingness of the candidate to sacrifice his own life (the c&acheckebar; -d ah) is symbolized by the blood on the right thumb and right earlobe, where the blood would be if the throat had been cut. Symbolic Representations Great emphasis is laid on the assembly of the people, both in the Old Testament and the Temple Scroll, as the camp of Israel in the wilderness — an armed, walled camp, the image vividly depicted in the appointments of the Temple Scroll. One of the most baffling titles connected with the temple is that of Metatron, the title normally reserved to Enoch as the guide of the initiates through the temple. After much argument and research, it is widely agreed now that the root of the word is metator — the metator being one who goes ahead of the host to set up the camp and supervise operations. This is also indicated in the name of Enoch, which signifies a guide or instructor of initiates into the temple — the hekaloth. Anyone approaching the holy enclosure must identify himself in three steps — the admission of initiates is the central theme of the Manual of Discipline. 51 First, at a distance, he seeks admission, giving a visible sign by raising his arms (a greeting that can be seen from afar and is a sign, among other things, that he is unarmed); approaching closer for inspection, he gives his name; then approaching for the final test, he actually makes physical contacts with certain grips, which are the most secret and decisive. His final acceptance is by the most intimate tokens of all, including an embrace, or a unio mystica (mystic union), in which the candidate becomes not only identified, but identical, with the perfect model. 52 The Arrested Sacrifice The gospel is more than a catalogue of moral platitudes; these are matters of either eternal life or nothing. Nothing less than the sacrifice of Abraham is demanded of us (D&C 101:4). But how do we make it? In the way Abraham, Isaac, and Sarah all did. 53 Each was willing and each expected to be sacrificed, and each committed his or her all to prove it. In each case the sacrifice was interrupted at the last moment and a substitute provided: to their relief, someone else had been willing to pay the price, but not until after they had shown their good faith and willingness to go all the way — "lay not thy hand on the lad, . . . for now I know" (Genesis 22:12). Abraham had gone far enough; he had proven to himself and the angels who stood witness (we are told) that he was actually willing to perform the act. Therefore the Lord was satisfied with the token then, for he knew the heart of Abraham. This is the same for Isaac and Sarah and for us. And whoever is willing to make the sacrifice of Abraham to receive eternal life will show it by the same signs and tokens as Abraham, but he or she must do it in good faith and with real intent. Circumcision is another form of arrested sacrifice in which the victim's own blood was shed and a permanent mark was left. It represents the sacrifice of Abraham, who initiated it (Genesis 17:10-14; cf. Exodus 21:6-7). It was the misunderstanding of both the seriousness of temple ordinances and their symbolic nature that gave rise to all the horror tales about temple ordinances in anti-Mormon literature of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 54 The Force of the Name Anciently, the signs and tokens were accompanied by words, the most important being certain names. 55 The epoch-making discoveries from Ebla put great emphasis on the primacy of the name in the rites of the temple and all its activities showing "local[ized] veneration of the divinised Name that corresponds to the veneration manifest in the personal names." 56 They are for identification, but they are more than that. Why is it necessary that all be done "in the name of the Son?" There is no mystic or esoteric allure to the logos, or spoken word. Like the other elements of ordinance, it is a means of communication. God says there is "no end to my works, neither to my words" (Moses 1:38), explaining in the same passage that his work and his glory is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). His whole concern, then, is to pass on to others what he has. The glory of God is intelligence, which he wishes to share with all others. Glory is shared intelligence. Hence his works always go along with his words. They are the means by which his thoughts are communicated to other beings and made intelligible to his children. Without works, words would be a futile exercise in a vacuum, the subject of endless and perplexed speculation by the Doctors of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment. According to the oldest of all temple documents, the Shabako Stone, and the Sefer Yetzira, the way one becomes a member of the universe is through one's sensory perceptors. Whatever gets to us from out there must come through "the seven gateways" of the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth. 57 These are the avenues made functional by the initiatory rite of the Egyptian temples. The Opening of the Mouth, in which the organs of the senses are first washed and then anointed, is to make the organs efficient conveyors to a clear and active brain, by which the mind evaluates, structures, and comprehends reality. But the receptors work only one way: the eyes, ears, nose, and taste buds do not broadcast what they receive. There is only one way that all those impressions — unified, structured, and enjoyed by the mind — can be conveyed to others, and that is by speech, by the word alone. It is the word alone that releases us and opens up a common universe of discourse. If we are full of grace and truth, we have the desire to seek truth and the grace to share what we have so that all can rejoice together. This can only be done through the word. "There is no end to my works, neither to my words" (Moses 1:38; cf. 1:4). The two are inseparable, and all is made intelligible through that one circuit — the voice, the word, the name. Secrecy The ordinances are not deep, dark secrets to be kept as such from the world. It is easy to get a temple recommend and then later apostatize and spread abroad the so-called secrets of the temple. The basic idea of the ordinances from Moses back to Adam is separation from the world. The endowment represents steps by which one disengages from a corrupt, secular, imprisoned environment. Segregation is the first step in the law of Moses. The people must give up their worldly practices and avoid contamination. The Mosaic rites and especially the Temple Scroll show an almost fanatical preoccupation with being qaocirc;&scheck;, "sanctified" (cf. Gk. hagios, Lat. purus) — all of these words for holiness mean specifically "set apart," "cut off," not mingled to any degree, because we are dealing with two worlds, the one eternal and incorruptible, the other corruptible and temporal. The slightest taint of corruption means that the other world would be neither incorruptible nor eternal. The tiniest flaw in a building, institution, code, or character will inevitably prove fatal in the long run of eternity. The object of the rules laid down in Leviticus 10:10-12 is to make a sharp distinction lohabdil (between what is holy and unholy, clean and unclean). Chapters 11 and 12 give a detailed catalog of what is clean and what is unclean, with the strictest rules for keeping the two absolutely separate. The lesson of absolute separation is forcefully brought home to Israel in the beginning of Exodus 19, where certain fences are set up at the foot of Mt. Sinai, with death the fate of any who cross the line (fig. 12). The teachings of Moses begin with a warning to make the people keep their distance (Exodus 19:21). The priests are authorized to approach more closely. Why? Because they are willing to take things more seriously. They are required to sanctify themselves, and Jehovah will come to them as a special group (Exodus 19:22). The priests themselves, however, must keep their proper distance: "They must not try to ascend any nearer to Jehovah or they will be overpowered" — blown up, yi -p ra .z (cf. Exodus 19:24). Purification is the beginning and end of the Temple Scroll, and it goes back to Adam (Moses 6:8). Temple work began among Adam's children when God set them apart, gave them a blessing, gave them a new name, registered them in the new Book of the Generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1-2), setting the true family of Adam on its course beginning with Seth (whose name means "second, substitute, equal" — he was the living image of Adam [D&C 107:48], and his name shows that), followed by his son, Enos (meaning "man," exactly the same as Adam and Enoch) — the line of patriarchs being carried down in the record. The ordinances are not secret, and yet they are, so to speak, automatically scrambled for those not authorized to have them. Satan disobeyed orders when he revealed certain secrets to Adam and Eve, not because they were not known and done in other worlds, but because he was not authorized in that time and place to convey them. Likewise he conveyed certain secrets to Cain, who became Master Mahan, and to Lamech, who achieved the same degree of negative glory (Moses 5:29-31, 49-52). Lamech's wives in turn "had not compassion" and spread the secret things abroad (Moses 5:47-48, 53). This is the classical account of the Watchers, angels who came to call the human race to repentance, but who, being tempted by the daughters of men, fell and gave away the covenants and the knowledge they possessed. 58 This was their undoing, and was always treated as the most monstrous of crimes, divulging the pure ordinances of heaven to people unworthy to receive them, who then proceeded to exercise them in unrighteousness while proclaiming their own righteousness on the grounds of possessing them (cf. Genesis 6:4-6). The oldest tradition common to many ancient people is that of the woman who got the secret name from the most high god. It is the Egyptian story of Re and the Son's Eye. Isis, wishing to found the Egyptian Dynasty along matriarchal lines by endowing her sons with the priesthood, begged Re, their father, to tell her his secret name. It is the story of Epimetheus, who loosed all evils upon mankind when he deferred to Pandora's request. Recently that story has turned up in the early Coptic Christian Third Apocryphon of John. Moreover, a two-volume work by Ludwig Laistner traces the Sphinx motif through ancient times. In the Bible it is Samson and Delilah. But the most significant telling of the story is in Moses 5:47-55, the story of Lamech, which reports how this pattern was spread throughout the entire world in the abominations of the ancients. This opens up a whole world of comparative studies telling us how it is that ceremonies resembling those of the temple are found throughout the ancient world. 59 Why are these temple ordinances guarded with such secrecy when anyone who really wants to can find out what goes on? Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is. For my covenants are all between me and my Heavenly Father, all others being present only as witnesses. Why witnesses, if this must be so intimate and private? Plainly others are involved in it, too. God's work and his glory is to share that work and glory with others. Abraham said he sought diligently for these ordinances that he might administer them to others (Abraham 1:2). It is because others are engaged in the work that we know that we are not just imagining it. On the other hand I can never share my understanding of them completely with anyone but the Lord. No matter what happens, it will, then, always remain secret: only I know exactly the weight and force of the covenants I have made — I and the Lord with whom I have made them — unless I choose to reveal them. If I do not, then they are secret and sacred no matter what others may say or do. Anyone who would reveal these things has not understood them, and therefore that person has not given them away. You cannot reveal what you do not know! The constant concern is to keep Israel out of contact with the profane things of the world; the reason given is not absolute secrecy, but to keep these sacred things from becoming .h alal, that is, vulgar, popular, the subject of everyday discussion, in a word, trivia. This is what is meant by blasphemy, which signifies not some awful and horrible commitment to evil but simply taking holy things lightly. And what is wrong with being .h alal? What is evil in innocent everyday conversation about the temple? Even at its most innocuous, the bringing up of such matters in public can only lead to their cheapening, but, worst of all, to all manner of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, disputation, contention, contamination, and corruption. 60 This is exactly what has happened throughout history — the possession of God's secrets was a cause for vanity and self-congratulation. In some parts of the world where the greatest secrecy was observed — as at Eleusis and in Egypt, and it would appear that some of the secrets never leaked out — scholars marveled at how well those secrets were kept; the rites appear today surprisingly like those in the real temple. When the Lord speaks of giving precious things to the dogs and pearls to the swine, it is not with contempt for those creatures, but with the futility of such a thing for all concerned — the dogs would find no value in precious things, which would be thrown away into dirt and trodden under foot. With the sectaries of the second century and following, secrecy becomes a subject of great fascination; it tickles vanity and gives even the lowliest a feeling of superiority. It was not so with the early Christians: "Everyone should be given the highest mystery which he is worthy to receive. For if ye hide any mystery from a worthy person ye may be guilty of great condemnation." Whoever asks and knocks should be given the benefit of the doubt, but we must not forget that it is very dangerous to give mysteries to the unworthy — it will harm them and everyone else. 61 The mischief resulting from secrecy has been apparent throughout the history of religion. There is no doubt at all that the early Christians were not only concerned with the temple but kept their knowledge of it and its ordinances secret. 62 The Roman Catholics have always denied this, claiming that everything Christ taught was to be "preached from the house tops." Roman Catholics are also very uncomfortable with the traditions of the temple. George MacRae goes so far as to assert that Luke gives a completely warped view in his attempt "to show that the primitive Christian community in Jerusalem focused its life around the temple. . . . I don't think Luke had any acquaintance with Jerusalem itself," he writes, "and how the temple actually functioned in the lives of people." 63 The Christian temple ordinances emerge in the forty-day teachings of the Lord to the apostles, which MacRae calls the "revelation-discourse[s]." 64 He considers them based on a complete misunderstanding perpetrated by the Gnostics. 65 In all of his works to disqualify the teachings of the Lord after the resurrection, MacRae never gives the slightest hint that there might really have been a fortyday ministry. Are the Conventional Ordinances Enough? The ordinances of some Christian churches today are Baptism, Confirmation, Communion (sacrament), Penance, Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction), Holy Order, and Matrimony. All of these have come in for examination, and some of them recently for drastic revision. The ancient records show that what corresponds to these rites today is complex and conflicting. Nobody really understands them. The discovery of early records has required constant reappraisal. The Reformation got rid of much ritual and liturgy of patently non-Christian origin, but as a result the liturgical poverty of Protestantism is one of its serious failings. How can such a defect be corrected? Can we trust to the taste and judgment of self-certifying institutions to impart sanctity to forms and observances? An example is the academic caps and gowns. Whether the design is by committees, synods, conventicles, or individuals, by what authority do they act? Wherein does the sanctity of these costumes reside? The Catholic case is even more dubious. When at the monastery of Solesmnes in 1830 the serious study of old and forgotten manuscripts dealing with the mass was undertaken, it became apparent that there was nothing particularly ancient or Christian in the rites. 66 Today the standard work on the mass is that of Eisenhofer and Lechner, who trace the origin of the Holy Office to four sources — and if there is one thing in which one is not lacking for evidence it is in the ritual of the church, attested in thousands of documents all over Europe. 67 The four sources are as follows: 1. The rites of the synagogue consisted of singing, preaching, scripture reading, and prayer. Reminders of the temple are important, but they didn't make it a temple or transfer any of the ordinances. 68 2. The adoption of antique cult practices, for example the practice of the annona, are clearly present in the mass. The word mass, messis, is in fact the Latin word for harvest ceremony. The council of Elvira in A.D. 444 forbade the use of candles and incense in churches, since they were a basic pagan practice everywhere. Parts of the mass thought by the apologists of the nineteenth century (such as the naive G. K. Chesterton) to go back to the days of the apostles are no later than the sixteenth century in origin. Such are the epiclesis and the monstrance, that climactic elevation of the host which has become the high point of the mass (fig. 13). The core of the Western rite was the Milanese order brought by Ambrose, a convert when he came from Antioch, via Ephesus and Lyons, while the foundation of the present Roman mass is the rite established at Aachen in the days of Charlemagne. 3. Much of the splendor of the mass may be attributed to the Roman Imperial cult, as Andreas Alföldi has shown at length. 69 4. The Germanic and Celtic courts of the North contributed some of the most venerated rites of Christian churches. Henry St. John Feasey's studies on the English Holy Week's Ceremony show how deeply rooted in pagan antiquity these rites are. 70 For years it was accepted doctrine that the early Christians had a choice between Amt and Geist ("office" and "spirit"), the two being mutually exclusive. Rudolph Sohm made this into an article of faith: Whereas the old Jewish religion was steeped in hierarchy, form, and authority, the early Christians relinquished all that to be governed by nothing but a spirit of love — no organization of any kind, no offices, no orders, no structure, just the spirit that bloweth as it listeth. But then there was a reaction. It was easy for Adolf von Harnack to show how involved the Christians were in an ordinance such as the laying on of hands, on which they were absolutely insistent and which served, as the earliest writings make clear, as an ordinance of initiation, which would necessarily be initiation into an organization. 71 More recently the coming forth of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the early Coptic Christian texts, as well as the rediscovery of a mass of apocalyptic writings, such as the books of Enoch and Abraham, bring out an intense concern with the ordinances of the temple. But this is the ideal temple, the heavenly temple after which the earthly temple is modeled. Needless to say, it is a very different structure from that which scholars have tried to construct through the years: To this day no one is sure what the temple was like or what was done in it. But the Temple Scroll is a link between the two; that document shows how the earthly temple insensibly fuses with the holy city and eventually embraces all the spirits in the world. 72 The numerous accounts of the heavenly temple are found in a multitude of Ascension texts. 73 These might appear as altogether fanciful were it not that they show a consistent picture of the temple and are supported by numerous points of contact with actual practices. We must not forget the forty-day literature, in which the Lord instructs the apostles in great secrecy after his resurrection in the rites and ordinances of a higher order, such as the prayer circle and "the bridal chamber." 74

Hopefully my further responses can clarify. Tone well . . . it's a mixture of frustration and sadness. I'm sure there is a little anger and bitterness in things. More of an "if only". I am literally caught between two worlds. I love what I had, I have no regrets, none for what the LDS Church has given me. Yet sometimes once you see things, there is no way to unsee them. Forgiveness is absolutely critical. It's like hey . . .I was all in. We had a massive experience that tested us as to how we would response, with love, kindness forgiveness to those who did those things. We did everything we could; it was only when it was evident that the health of the very basic concepts of God, Christ, being a Christian were in jeopardy in the raising of our children did we think about "maybe we should go somewhere else". Where should we go? I don't know, let's try the next ward over? Go there, let's have a conversation with this Bishop . . .oh brother same crap . . .nope. Oh excellent a new Bishop in the next ward over is called . . .let's talk to him . . .nope same crap. Well shoot . . .we are in an extremely conservative area. Moving? Where are we going to move to? 2 wards, 4 different Bishops same crap . . .same mentality. Okay, should we move? Where to? Uproot the entire family to another conservative area? Where? I don't feel called to any particular place? Okay, let's look at local Church's. . . oh great, this Church is a rock Church. Cool, I guess. There is an online video of the guy who sang a very beautiful hymn from the pulpit literally mike dropping and fist pumping a bro as he walks down the isle . . . great next. Rock church . . .next. I mean cool sing a hymn to guitars and drums. I don't I don't particularly want to be entertained when I go to Church. I want to learn about God, I want to worship him. What about Catholic? Meh. . . the pope is weird, having unmarried pastors that are supposed to give us life advice when they have never been married is pretty strange. I don't see how that will work + alter boys and pedophilia . . .meh next. Hmm . . . look at this small tiny orthodox Church. Let's go there. Holy moly . . . we are supposed to STAND the entire time. The incense is really strange. Hmm the first sermon the Priest is talking about fiery arrows from demons literally being shot at an ancient priest. Okay that's interesting. Dang my feet are tired. We are sitting down. Wow these people are really into this. They are standing and singing the entire time. Hey the comment my wife made right before we entered is she wanted a place where they taught the scriptures. It's been 90 mins and we've had two psalm readings (each 5+ minutes each) a scriptural passage and entire sermon on that passage. Hmm . .. . that's interesting no one is looking around at each other during the service; all eyes are up front, praising God. That's strange the Priest comes around and everyone is lining up to touch his robes . . .just like people touched the robes of Christ and Peter . . That's cool, after Church every Sunday they all have a meal together . . .every Sunday. We've had a pretty tough time of it, let's see what they respond when they find out we are visiting and LDS. They are just happy we are there; is anyone going to be pushy? Send missionaries out to us (for pete's sake please no missionaries . . .the last thing we need is pushiness-we need recovery, actually find a way so my wife can figure out if she believes in God and Christ . . .she doesn't know what she believes right now . . .was what happened to her too much? Is her faith going to crumble. Please God, I don't think I can take that-gone through way too much in life to at this junction have my wife totally say God & Christ don't exist. Okay cool, no one is pushy. Just friendly. The wife is pretty weirded out by everything . . .but strangely enough when I ask the next Sunday-where do you want to go to Church she says Orthodox. Each Sunday where do you want to go? Orthodox. Do you want to join Orthodox? (receive glace like I have three heads . . okay just trying to understand). Hey husband, I'd like to learn a little more about XYZ . ..well that would mean we would go to an actual catechumin class . . .do you want to go? (Nope, now only get look like I have three hands). Weeks later, yeah let's go to a class. Hey husband, these things about basic Christianity they teach . . . like I believe that. Big sigh of relief . . .okay at least my wife ain't going aethist on me! Glory to God! Do you want to go back to LDS Church? (look at me like I've got three heads). Hey you know after 10 months . . . it's kind of grown on me quite a bit. No conflict, just scriptures, how to be a good human being and be a disciple of Christ. So let me dip my toe back into LDS . . . is it me or not? I don't know . . . Honey do you still believe in the Book of Mormon and JS? Yes. Husband do orthodox believe in prophets? I don't know, let's find out. Hmm that's interesting yes they do believe in prophets and that God does still send prophets. I don't think they believe JS is a prophet-no they don't. Hmm . . .well that's a shame. I don't think LDS look too kindly on Orthodox? I don't think so either . . .let me find out? Go to forums . . .nope they really don't-leave LDS . . .damned to hell. Cool . . . great Do Orthodox believe Mormons are going to hell? No, some will some won't, some orthodox will, some won't. So why do they say they are the one true church? Because they believe they are the continuation and teach the truth in the purest form.

Alma 28 v12: I cannot imagine how painful the death of a love one would be for someone who had no hope of life after death. v13: Ironic that Satan claimed he wanted to save everyone (equality) and yet his actions belie that claim, as he seeks to divide and make us unequal. Alma 29 SPOILER ALERT: v1: Perhaps Alma got his wish: v3: It's interesting to consider whether righteous aspirations (ambition?) can be a sin... Certainly, we should be careful that such desires don't keep us from doing what the Lord calls us to do. v4-5: Consider carefully what you wish for, what you pursue. v6-8: Answer to #3 perhaps - recognize that the Lord knows what he's doing and trust that he's put you in the right place at the right time (assuming you're obedient and following the Spirit). v9: Alma's thoughts are much like Ammon's were. I imagine they were good friends. v10+: Remember what the Lord has done for you and others and you will not easily be led away from him. v17: This should be our hope for all people, that somehow we all might turn to God. Even if it seems impossible, we should hope and woek for it. Alma 30 v7 & 11: The way I read this, God's definition of "unequal" is to persecute based on a person's belief - to take away freedom of conscience. This would be considered absurd and revolutionary today, when everyone is jumping on the "you must think what I think" bandwagon. v13: One of the most baffling things to me about Korihor (and similar types) is that they aren't being harmed in any way by the believers. He's free to believe and do what he wishes, yet he's got to preach against Christ and his Church. This is all to common today. The only explanation I can find is Satan, because there is no rational explanation. "Religious types" aren't harming the atheists, for example. v15: You can't know what you don't see. v16: But you have a frenzied mind (which I can't see, while you're alive). And while I can't see the future, I know the things you believe aren't going to happen... (also v17) v17: Ah, I suppose this is how the religious types are harming him - he's an anarchist and wants there to be no law and therefore no crime. Thinks highly of his survival skills... v20: Be like the people of Ammon - don't entertain nonsense. v23-28: Satan's playbook: False accusations. "You can't know that." Twist the truth to speak a lie. Pretend to be concerned about others. Assert that material possessions and pleasure are paramount (without actually saying so). Mock sacred things. Lie about the existence of God (thereby violating your own logic about what can be known). Above verses are a lesson in reverse: don't do those things! Do them and you risk falling into your own trap. v29: Sometimes, keeping silent and turning the matter over to someone else is wisdom. Don't feel like you have to argue with every accuser or refute every persecutor. v32-33: Don't seek to live off the work of others. Provide for yourself. Don't use the work of God to excuse yourself from such work. v40: Folks hate this question. "You can't prove a negative." "It's on you to prove God does exist." etc. v41: All things testify of Christ. Pause now and then to see this. v42: (an old doodle inspired by Korihor and his lying spirit): v43+: Don't ask for signs. Live so that you can recognize the signs that follow those who believe. v48: Another sign of Satan's influence: cowardice and Satan abandoning you (or destroying you, however you want to see it). (see v60) v51: Like everyone else, I wonder if Korihor was made deaf as well. Otherwise, why would the chief judge need to write his message? v53: This is the danger of believing happy lies - eventually, you convince yourself they're true, and then there's no saving you - not easily, anyway. v54, 56, 58: If Korihor were truly sincere, why wouldn't he pray himself? And he went begging rather than working, rather than trying to repair the damage he did (compare to Alma and the sons of Mosiah, who worked hard to undo the damage). v59: SPOILER ALERT: The Zoramites are the sort of people who will run down and stomp on someone until he's dead! (If Korihor were also deaf, that might help to explain this incident - he didn't hear them coming.)

It looks like I need to pay closer attention to the readings for the week. I remembered that this week started with Alma 40, yesterday, so I figured that todays' reading, without checking, would be Alma 41 and that's what I read this morning. The happiness may indeed be endless but I anticipate that there will be different degrees of happiness. We will probably all feel happy but will everybody feel as happy as everybody else? I think its only a tiny minority who will come forth to endless misery. Alma 41 In the Resurrection men come forth to a state of endless happiness There are certainly times when wickedness seems like happiness. A lot of people seem to enjoy their wickedness. This is referred to in Proverbs 9: 16 - 18 16 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, 17 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant. 18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of ahell. Alma 41 In the Resurrection men come forth to a state of endless happiness or endless misery—Wickedness never was happiness This is imprecise. In a well-lived life, throughout that life, a person should be consistently and successfully working to change characteristics and attributes, to develop new ones and discard old ones. Presumably the ones we end up with after the resurrection are the ones we had at the time of death rather than the ones we had earlier in life. Alma 41 Every person receives again in the Restoration the characteristics and attributes acquired in mortality. It seems like the resurrection, and associated events, must have been quite a topic of discussion amongst some of Alma's associates. Alma 41:1 for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing. This verse might provide some insight into an aspect of justice. Alma here seems to be saying that it is a requirement of justice that the soul of man be restored to its body. This restoration is part of the deal that was agreed to between God and His spirit children that we now call the Plan of Salvation. The implication of what Alma is saying is that if there is any variation from the Plan of Salvation, any change to the deal that has been agreed to, such as the soul, or more correctly, the spirit, not being restored to the body, that would be unjust. This suggests that there are some aspects of justice that are local and variable, and relative to a specific set of circumstances, rather than justice being absolute and unchanging. If there had been no Plan of Salvation, then it would have been not unjust for there to be no restoration of spirit to body. However, there is a plan, based on an agreement between God and His spirit children, and because as part of this agreement our bodies and spirits will be restored and reunited, then it would be unjust if this restoration did not happen. So the unjustness stems from not keeping one's word, possibly with little or no regard to the specifics of what the deal actually is. If we took things a little further, perhaps we could look at this as an example of how God interacts with the universal law that even He is subject to. Perhaps the universal law says you have to keep your word, but its up to you, in your own local and specific context, ie, for this God, in this universe, and under this particular plan of salvation, to decide what your word is. Ether 3:12 might offer some support for this idea: 12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie. Alma 41:2 2 I say unto thee, my son, that the plan of restoration is requisite with the justice of God; for it is requisite that all things should be restored to their proper order. Behold, it is requisite and just, according to the power and resurrection of Christ, that the soul of man should be restored to its body, and that every part of the body should be restored to itself. In the same sentence, Alma refers to two different criteria by which we will be judged. He starts off by saying we will be judged according to our works. And then he immediately adds that we will be judged according to our works and the desires of our heart. So if we are judged according to our works and our desires, why did Alma start this sentence by suggesting that we will be judged only according to our works? Did the second part of the sentence, where he mentions about being judged according to the desires of our heart come to him as inspiration, as a prompting from the Spirit while he was in the act of talking? Or was it perhaps added when the record was being written, or engraved? Alma 41:3 3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, This is interesting. According to verse 3 we are judged according to our works and our desires, if they are good. In verse 4, when it talks about those whose works have been evil, there is no reference to desires. Alma 41:4 4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. It sounds like everyone gets what they both want and deserve. If we all get what we want, I don't see why one kingdom is considered to be better than another. The focus of this verse is on desires rather than actions. Alma 41:5 5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh. There are several verses in here referring to the importance of desires in the judgement process. Alma 41:6 6 If he hath repented of his sins, and desired righteousness until the end of his days, Joseph Smith used very similar terminology for describing a very similar situation. Here, Alma is describing those who will be delivered from that endless darkness of night. In doing so he uses the phrase "These are they." In Doctrine and Covenants Joseph Smith describes those who will receive the various degrees of glory. In doing so he repeatedly uses the phrase "they are they." Alma 41:7 7 These are they There seems to be many different ideas floating around about the final judgement. Here, Alma is suggesting that we will judge ourselves. Elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, in 3rd Nephi, we are taught that the people of the American continent at this time period will be judged by the 12 disciples who Jesus chose, who in turn will be judged by the 12 apostles He chose in Jerusalem. And in other places it is suggested that Christ will be doing the judging. More recently, in his closing address during the Sunday afternoon session of October 2023 General Conference President Nelson suggested that we make our own decisions about where we will end up after this life. Alma 41:7 for behold, they are their own judges, whether to do good or do evil. Doctrine and Covenants 56:4 would seem to suggest otherwise. Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. Perhaps the fact that Alma 41:8 is talking about decrees, and Doctrine and Covenants 56:4 is talking about commands makes something of a difference. Or perhaps the reason why some need to be revoked is because they are unalterable. Maybe decrees or commands can be revoked or replaced but not altered. Alma 41:8 8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; This is another example of imprecision. How much sin does it take before it can be said that one is wicked? It seems to be that there is an ability to repent in between death and judgement. No person is perfect, or without sin at the time of death, but no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of heaven and God cannot look on any sin with the least degree of allowance. So somewhere along the way there must be a way of removing through repentance, the sins we are guilty of at the time of death. I think this is interesting. I believe that most, and more likely all, who inherit the telestial kingdom will be both sinful and happy. They are unlikely to be as happy as they who inherit a kingdom of greater glory, but I think that neither are they likely to be unhappy. I think that they who inherit the telestial kingdom will be restored from sin to a degree of, or form of, happiness. Alma 41:10 10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness. There might be something tricky going on here with the way Alma is defining and using the word restoration. These verses, to me, seem to suggest that Alma is defining the use of the word restoration to mean to bring something back to its original condition, without any change. Alma in these verses seems to be talking about a restoration of our character, our personality, our traits and behaviours and desires. He is saying that whatever our character, personality, etc, we have now in mortality will be restored to us in the resurrection. In these verses, the restoration is used to refer to a process of returning like to like. I'm comfortable with that use of the word restoration. However, previously in this chapter, in verse 2 he used the word restoration to refer to the body being restored to the soul. This is inconsistent with how he has used or defined the word restoration in these verses because the body to which the soul is being restored is a resurrected body, different in many key ways from the body which we have in mortality. The way Alma uses the word restoration in verse 2 - to describe the joining of spirit to an immortal, resurrected body - is different from how he has used it in these verses - to describe a situation of returning like to like, with a continuation of the same characteristics from mortality into immortality. Alma 41:12–13 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.

3 Nephi 8 & 9 It's easy to miss that this voice was speaking while they were still in darkness. Chapter 8 ends noting that the darkness lasted 3 days, so it's easy to think that the darkness ends with chapter 8... I cannot find anything explicit in 8 or 9 to say it was light or dark, but... The heading of 9 says "In the darkness..." (and I'm not about to second guess Elder McConkie, even if he himself said these were neither scripture nor without error) 8:23 says that for three days "there was no light seen" and the people were "mourning and howling and weeping" continually. (But presumably they stopped with the voice started.) All of this is to point out that the voice of Christ was heard immediately after all the destruction, at some point during the three days of darkness. (And to set the scene for comments on chapter 10.) 3 Nephi 10 v2: They ceased lamenting and howling for the loss of their kindred - suggests that this is still during or immediately after the three days of darkness. v1-2: Other than Christ taking credit for all the destruction, the things he said in chapter 9, should not have been a surprise. They had been taught that Christ would redeem them from their sins, that they must repent, and that after Christ came, the law of Moses would be done away. It's likely the survivors (the more righteous, even if not that righteous) would remember at these the basics of that. Perhaps it was a little surprising that the new sacrifice was as "simple" as a broken heart and contrite spirit, but I don't think any of that is enough to account for many hours of silence. I suspect that it was both the voice out of nowhere (so to speak) and the power of Christ that caused this stunned silence. I have no idea what it's like to hear the voice of Christ speaking seemingly from nowhere, but I think there's a lesson here. Christ gave these people time to "process" what they had heard and felt. Whether they did that was up to them. Therefore, we should choose to take time to "process" (aka document, ponder, study, and pray) when we have spiritual experiences - great or small. We should make silent time and space wherein to receive what God has sent to us. I believe that the better we get at that, the more we will receive (and the faster we'll be able to process it). v5: "ye that dwell at Jerusalem". In 9:6-7, the Lord says the Nephite / Lamanite city of Jerusalem was sunk into the earth and waters were caused to come up in their place. Therefore, it seems more likely that the Lord is addressing the Jerusalem where he had ministered. And this makes me wonder: Is this one of those cases where the Lord addresses a people without them hearing it (similar to Luke 13:34 - few would have heard him speaking these words), or was his voice heard in the old world and we just have no record of it? The first half of his words (chapter 9) was very specific to the Nephites and Lamanites, but this part appears to be common to the entire house of Israel... Anywho, just a curiosity. (But before you go wondering how such a thing could be lost, see v16-17 about things that were on the plates of brass that are not in the Old Testament.) v5-6: Be like a cute baby chicken, and go huddle under Christ's wings where it's safe and warm. v9: Aha! So this was during darkness. v10: When the trial is over, praise and thank the Lord (but turn to him during it, too). v12: Receive prophets, don't murder saints. Seems like a pretty low bar for survival. Choose to survive. Better, choose to be a saint. v13: Fates to avoid. v18: Mormon at least knows that Christ returned to minister among his apostles before ascending into heaven, and that he came to the Nephites after that. Note that those who survived received great blessings. Be a survivor. 3 Nephi 11 Per the end of chapter 10, this is a considerable time after all the destruction, darkness, and hearing the voice of Christ. v1: When you feel prompted to go to the temple (and perhaps even if you don't), go to the temple! (Just in case you might otherwise miss out on something spectacular...) v3-6: There's no indication in chapters 9 and 10 that the people had any trouble hearing and understanding the voice of Jesus Christ also, no point of origin is specified for Christ's voice. But here we have a voice coming from heaven. And unlike Christ's voice, they cannot immediately understand it, not even the second time (v4) when it's no longer a surprise. It takes three times (a symbolic number, whether there's meaning here or not - though there's certainly meaning in God being willing to (I assume) repeat himself). v3: Important points: not harsh, not loud, "small" (probably like a whisper). And yet: it pierced them to the center, causing "their frame" to quake. It pierced them to the very soul and caused their "hearts to burn". If just God's voice does this (without even understanding the words), just imagine what his presence would do to you! Some connections my brain made: 1 Nephi 16:2 states that the truth cuts the guilty "to the very center" (God is, of course, a God of truth). It is perhaps slightly easier to understand why the Israelites in the wilderness told Moses, in essence, "You go talk to God, we'll stay here." Joseph Smith taught that "God dwells in everlasting burnings" (ToPJS, section six, p361). And of course, there's the obvious "burning in the bosom" that signified a confirmation from the Spirit for Oliver Cowdery. (Klaw says, "Too much scripture study! Not enough play!") v5: They "opened their ears", they looked toward the sound, looked steadfastly toward heaven - we should do the same! v8: I'm not so hard on the Nephites as @askandanswer - it's not like they had a photograph of Christ, or experiences similar to this to compare... I have to believe Christ was suppressing a significant percentage of his glory (which would be the same as the Father's glory at this point) in order for the people to endure his presence (and not immediately collapse under its "pressure" - for lack of a better way to phrase it). v14: I have always assumed that Christ had the power to keep or lose these marks of the crucifixion at his will, and that he will keep them for as long as he deems them necessary. As to the multitude feeling them one by one - clearly, the Lord wanted a people with zero room for any doubt, a people with absolute knowledge of this at least. And I have to believe that a massive spiritual healing and witness was happening for each of those individuals, at the same time - more than just what they saw and felt with their hands. v15-17: I don't think they needed all this before they could worship, I just think that's the sequence of events, as directed by the Lord. v28-30: We should not contend with anger about doctrine (or anything, but particularly about doctrine). We have a prophet, and we have various key-holders under him, we should yield to them and to scripture to teach us, and not argue it out in Sunday School. v31+: Christ's doctrine: repent, believe in Christ, be baptized. v35: Fire again. Seek witness from the Holy Ghost - that witness is more sure than whatever your eyes see and your hands feel. v37-38: When the Lord repeats himself, pay attention! v39-40: Oh, hey, building. Gonna have to go note this in my other thread! Only when you base your behavior on Christ's doctrine are you safe and stable - base it on anything else and you're doomed to fall eventually. v41: Share the gospel of Jesus Christ with everyone.

I understand how others will say this. My counter-point is that openly homosexual members are temple worthy. Considering this is one of the biggest topics of our age, I have yet to see any GC, talks specifically stating that same-sex thoughts, feelings are not acceptable and should not be indulged in. Actions, yes. Fully agree the Church teaches same-sex sexual relations are unacceptable. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng The handbook states: "https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number109" "God’s commandments forbid all unchaste behavior, either heterosexual or same-sex." What the heck is "chaste same-sex (i.e. homosexual behavior)? I literally have no clue. The handbook leaves it as ambiguous. Yes fully agree that sexual same-sex behavior is unacceptable. Yet, clearly there are multiple instances of missionaries who come out on facebook, get a platform on social media, post rainbow pictures, advocate for same-sex things. I've notified Church HQ, written letters, like hey is this acceptable. Total silence; they are considered worthy; they are. From their own mouths they say, Church HQ told them it is acceptable for them to come out and posts these things. The Church brings up on stage in an official capacity at BYU woman's conference an openly queer Young Woman's president. She is held up as someone to be emulated. All the while in other venues she will talk about her hot female old flames who she still is in contact with and has sleep-overs with. Church ensign articles are written about the openly queer man who "came back to church, reconciled with his Bishop" but when he is with the LGBTQ+ group he will discuss how he puts on a nice shirt and tie; looks like everyone else so as to not startle anyone and how when he goes to the Temple he feels the spirits of his dead ancestors all around him stating yes, one-day he will be with his dead lover sealed together for all time. Yes, every now and then a bone is thrown and the Family Proclamation is talked about from the pulpit. Elder Oaks will talk about how a YW writes him a letter about how all her LDS "worthy temple going" friends are talking about their same-sex crushes. And his response is . . sometimes it's hard to stand up for what you believe. It's like dude man. Here is a problem-people are telling you there is a problem. You are the leader, start bringing the wood. The solution for same-sex romantic slow dancing at youth dances . . .let's all dance with the lights turned up. Literally 0 message, 0 message to the youth. Hey guys, same-sex romantic behavior is unacceptable. I mean shoot, I remember going to youth dances and we were explicitly told: this is the standard. If you don't abide by the standard that's okay-you just won't participate. okay . . .I guess it's okay to same-sex romantic slow dance with the lights on, but not with the lights off. No wonder the youth are confused. No one wants to take a stand and say, this is a problem, don't do this. If it's just shuffled under the rug and no one talks about it . . .well they will eventually just figure it out. All that I have ever seen is weeping testimony meetings about my child is queer and isn't so great that the ward/stake etc. is so accepting and what does the gospel mean for my child. Look lady; I got my own set of problems with my kids. I don't want to know your child is queer. . . .like literally why would I want to know? What possible good could it do. And why do that to your kid? If my kid was on drugs, I wouldn't get up on stand and say "my child is shacking up with the girl next door on drugs . . . I'm so glad the ward is so accepting . . .what does the gospel mean for him". I'd be like . . .hey it's a rough time, I'm so glad for good leaders to help show my child the correct way to think, feel and act .. .hopefully if I can't get through to him maybe someone from the ward can.

I see God as all-powerful, which power comes from greater knowledge and love relative to our own, and in perfect balance. He is thus considerate of lesser beings and commits Himself to their obtaining a fulness of joy -- every kind of life in its sphere. Lesser beings can never rebel enough to take away what He has obtained, try as they might, and in trying find Him leveraging their efforts to His interests. By "sphere" I mean existence, or the extent to act (agency) and be acted upon (lack thereof). I do not understand how different forms of life came to have different spheres of existence, and why some things are purely acted upon, but it does seem to have something to do with the knowledge and love they possess (or lack thereof) and the balance therein, resulting in their level of self-comprehension (or none) and what becomes expressed in the spiritual and physical realms for us to perceive and interpret as space-time, forces, elements, microbes, plants, animals, people, etc. From our perspective, God has always existed, and from our perspective, we have always existed no matter when we began to perceive that we do. We may pass between many veils and estates, and not all of them are remembered, though we begin to see them as we become more like God.

Saying I have issues with gospel truth is different than saying effectively I and my future generations will be damned for not sticking with it. Yes, I do have issues. But to a large part most of the issues are things that I can overlook. I don't agree with BY; I don't agree with the typical line that JS practiced polygamy; I don't think he ever did. Yet I also think that what actually happened during those years is pretty darn murky (so it is possible he did)-the history has been written and re-written and when comparing what is in the JS papers to the current narrative I see inconsistencies. I understand why regardless of whether he did or did not the Church must say JS instituted polygamy. The Church has to say that; because the Church is built upon a line of continuous righteous prophets who in the modern Church teaching must be right in what they do; because God will never allow the Church to go astray and will remove a man who gets it wrong. Therefore, there is no room, no ability for the Church to say . . .yeah this guy got it wrong . . . it is a dance of "this was right then, it isn't right now, that is why x/y/z changes". I take JS at his word when he said he had a theophany. I see no reason not to. I think the Book of Mormon is a pretty amazing book. It is hard for me to fathom a man uninspired by God to write such a book. I don't have a problem with Temple rites . . . which are liturgical in nature. However, Temple rites were not written down until long, long after JS was dead. JS certainly created some form of Temple/liturgical rites, yet that form is vastly different than today and even the covenants are different than today. The Church has an easy out; a continuous line of righteous prophet who are not wrong. I think tithing is a great thing; I disagree with how tithing is taught but I agree that tithing is in principle an absolutely necessary and wonderful thing. Every bit of that I have overlooked and given the benefit of the doubt to. Not a big deal. I can calculate my tithing; pay my tithing and answer honestly. If someone wants more details or questions me; I will respond. Yet there are some things that are fundamentally deal breakers. The purpose of religion is to teach people how best to live their lives and to worship God. One of the fundamental aspects of Christianity is the knowledge that our thoughts are not necessarily us and that the greatest struggle in an individuals live is the struggle of the heart (i.e. discarding thoughts that are unGodly and disciplining our internal passions-that all external sins come from undisciplined internal passions). If one particular group of individuals gets a pass on those passions (i.e. it's acceptable to internally be undisciplined on thoughts, but unacceptable to act out those things in life) in real life; I found that position internally and theologically inconsistent. And that is a theological viewpoint in which God plays favorites. So I would prefer a more honest approach, if it is acceptable to be internally undisciplined in some thought pattern, then it should be acceptable for that thought pattern to be acted out in life. Which means, if it is acceptable for individuals to be sexually/romantically/etc. attracted to the same-sex, then it should be acceptable to act out those thoughts/feelings in the world. If it is unacceptable to act out those thoughts/feelings in the world, then it should be unacceptable for someone to be sexually or romantically attracted to the same-sex. There are many things that I have enacted in the world that are unacceptable; but I have to both change my outward actions and my inward actions. A religion that is inconsistent in that aspect; is one that cannot hold itself together because it will always be making excuses for bad behavior and bad thought patterns. One day it is same-sex sexual desire. What is the difference between same-sex sexual desire and desire to steal a car? Currently, in the LDS Church it appears that in the first an individual can openly tell others they desire that which is forbidden; they can ruminate on it; think about it; explore those thoughts, feelings and it is acceptable. As long as one does not physically act on it. In the second, we are told to change ourselves that one should not think thoughts about stealing a car, that those thoughts come from the evil one to tempt us. No one goes around "coming out" as someone who desires to steal cars, no one says "the desire to steal a car is intrinsic to my very core and if I do not tell everyone that I desire to steal cars I will kill myself." At the end of the day; the Orthodox are consistent in their teachings about the heart. I'd rather that be the message taught to my children than whether we have a living prophet who can see around corners and someone who prophesy and can foretell the future. It would be great to have both-that was my youth. It is not today.

I am not privy to the exact numbers of what is driving membership up or down in the Church today. I do see a lot of University students and what drives them. I've actually thought a lot about this recently. Right before I came back this summer from my research trip I had a discussion with a graduate student out there who was helping us. This grad student was supposedly an atheist. I asked them about their history and they came from what they considered a strong Christian family and a strong Christian faith, but had turned against it. It was not due to ignorance on their part from what I can tell. They were very well versed in the Bible, and at times knew more than I did. It was hard to try to make a point for Christianity based only on scriptural discussions. It boiled down to the idea that those who SAY they are Christian today are not very Christian at all. If you look at the New Testament, it has some conservative items, but it is also an EXTREMELY liberal piece of instructions. It teaches that seeking riches is the opposite of seeking the kingdom of the Lord and thus, those who do so and are rich will have a hard time of it. It teaches some of the basic ideas of what people today term as socialism and even communism (enforceable by Death if we believe the actions of Peter). We learn that we should LOVE our enemies, that when persecuted we should turn the other cheek and go the extra mile to help others. There is a LOT of very liberal thought in the New Testament. The young people today see this. Then they see many of those who proclaim Christianity saying that the poor deserve what they get, that they should not assist the poor more than we already do, that we need to attack those who do not like Christianity, that we hate sharing and having equality among rich and poor (so even perhaps to the point of being nor rich or poor) and insist on having the rich get richer and those who are not rich dream of getting richer, and so on and so forth. They soon come to the conclusion that if the New Testament is true, than there is no church that seems to represent it today (I disagree with them, but some students seem to be set on this stuff). In that light, it is VERY MUCH a political thing in my opinion. It's not that young people are not familiar with Christianity (though there are those that absolutely do not know or understand Christianity, they normally are not the young atheists that have problems with it though), but that they are MORE familiar with it than perhaps any other generation prior to this have been. This Church, the one I am a member of, has exhibited these very features (of how the early Christians had religious socialism/communism...so did our Church early on). When I bring it up and HOW it was actually done, I get a LOT of pushback at times. I'm a solid member of the church. I have a testimony. Many young people haven't had the time to build a strong testimony yet. Their testimonies can still falter easily in some cases. I see some in the church who do have strong testimonies...however...young people who don't, and see this...may have the same type of problems other young Christians have with members in their religions who say they are Christian. However, as I said, I don't have numbers for our church. The MOST successful argument I've had thus far (and not that successful at that, but it normally has them agreeing to disagree with me) is that I ask them about a computer. Do they think that a computer could just pop into being. That it could just appear out of nowhere with no one having built it? That it could just appear and work perfectly? Then I ask about this world with it's complex biology and intricate systems. Even the body of an animal...say a monkey...is probably more complex than that computer. This world is full of MILLIONS of these complexities all working together in an even MORE complex system. If a computer can't just pop up by itself without having been built by man...how could this World be built up out of nothing? It is so much more complex...so if a computer couldn't pop up on it's own, being that much more simple...how likely is it that something FAR more complex could do so? This normally doesn't win me any discussions or arguments though, just gets them to agree to have our own beliefs in things. Once they start down the path where they are critical of Christians and keep pushing in that direction, it seems they get more and more extreme on that path where they see Christian Churches as not doing good. Ironically it almost always centers around how the Christian Churches are hypocritical or being bad rather than the gospel itself. When it comes to the gospel many will say they like the things it teaches, they just don't believe it can be true when we talk about the afterlife or deity. I think politics ARE playing a huge part in the younger generation being a little disillusioned about Churches in general. They are not stupid (maybe a tad unwise though). Many are brilliant. I think the Christian congregations may be clinging a little too closely to political affiliation and belief foremost rather than actually READING and studying the gospel and the churches history (and that doesn't just mean LDS history, I'm talking about Christian history going back to the first century and their practices and actions) and putting God first. They put political teachings as religious teachings rather than actually understanding or at least acting as Jesus has taught us to act and I think that has turned off a LOT of the younger generation. I don't think we'd be all in favor of Liberal Talking points if we put the teachings of Jesus first, but I think there would be some Conservative ideologies that we wouldn't be pushing so strongly for either. Case in point...how does Donald Trump actually represent Christianity? Why is HE the current Champion of many Christians? If he is what Christians are wanting to represent them...then what exactly are Christians voting for? I may not be a Ron DeSantis fan, but from what I've seen thus far he is FAR more MORAL than Trump...and some of the other candidates may be as well...but Trump thus far is leading the pack by a LARGE margin. What does that say about the Republican party for which a LOT (but not all) of Christians are affiliated politically? This is a prime example of what I mean when I say young people see our actions and know what the scriptures say and get turned away from the churches because of it.

I'm starting early because if I don't, I'll never get it done. That said, some vague comments: I find Nephi's story an easy one to abstract into personal lessons. I always look for things that I can learn for my personal effort to overcome the world and for things that teach me of Christ, and Nephi's story is full of these. Also, the story-like nature makes these chapters easy to read. Chapter 1 v1: Good parents teach their children Being favored of the Lord does not equate to a lack of afflictions, especially on an individual (as opposed to societal) level. (From OT and the BofM as a whole:) The Lord's promise of prosperity for the obedient is a societal promise; the more righteous the individual, the more likely they are to experience afflictions (in the world, at least, or so it seems). When you have knowledge of God, you should make a record thereof v4: I've always found it interesting that in both the OT and the BofM, many prophets seemingly showing up out of nowhere seems to be common. Perhaps we just don't have record of the organization behind them, or perhaps it's modern technology that allows for the degree of organization we now have. (Though one could discuss the meaning of "prophet", we don't really see this un-centralized appearance of folk calling for repentance or destruction within the modern Church.) Reminds me of Jeremiah 31:34 - how it will be in the Millennium (or so it seems to me). v5: When prophets warn us, do we go and pray for our people with all our hearts? v12: Reading scripture should fill us with the Spirit. [Klaw objects to my typing.] v13: Come unto the Lord - it's far better than the alternative. v6 vs v15: quaking and trembling vs rejoicing - the Lord may show you some awful things, but the righteous need not fear... v18: see D&C 88:81 - those who have been warned have a duty to warn their neighbor (back to v4) v19-20: Expect persecution. v20: See Moroni 10:3 - the book opens and closes with the mercies of the Lord. Everything in between reminds us of them. Remembering them keeps us humble and helps us to trust the Lord. Chapter 2 v1: People seeking to kill you means you're blessed. (Alternately, doing as the Lord instructs means you are blessed, even if it so happens that people are trying to kill you because of it. Alternately, keep an eternal perspective. Alternately, rejoice and be exceeding glad when people persecute you for Christ's sake.) v2: Fulfillment of chapter 1:14 - the Lord is merciful and will not suffer those who come to him to perish. v3: The wording of this - Lehi was obedient (character), wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him (behavior) - sounds redundant, but, it reminds me of a conclusion I recently came to in regards to temple covenants (@Jamie123, if you wish to read this, scroll down just a little to a numbered list of five laws): It would seem that 2 through 5 (obeying specific laws) are covered under the first covenant - the law of obedience. Being a weirdo, this bothered me slightly until I came to the conclusion that the first law, in addition to saying we should obey God (behavior), is teaching us to have an attitude of obedience (character). That it should be our habit and desire to be obedient to God. The others are specific things we can do to obey God, but they aren't all (after all, we can receive personal revelation and guidance, which we should also obey), but if we can develop an attitude and desire to obey God, if we approach it as forming a habit of obeying God, then that first covenant becomes more than just, "when God says something, I'll do it", it becomes deeper, a part of who you are - the kind of person who seeks and follows God's will. (This probably doesn't really explain what's in me, but it's the best I can do with English.) v4: The more you love God, and the less you love "precious things", the easier it is to obey God when he tells you to give up those precious things. And sometimes, God asks you to give up your precious things. v7: Give thanks, even in hard times, and do it properly. [Hooray! Klaw decided to go bask in the sun. I have an hour or so in which to type and write (see chapter 1, verse 1) faster.] Also, I'm realizing that I love the Book of Mormon. There's so much in it to learn. It's truly a gift from God. v9+ Take inspiration where you can find it. v9: "continually running into the [Lord]" - as I thought about this, the idea of "running into someone" popped into my head. When we're doing what the Lord would do, going where he would go, seeking guidance from him, then we'll be continually "running into" him ("Oh, hey, it's you again!" "As long as I've got you here, I had a question..." "Do you have a minute to help me with this?"). My previous RS lesson (I teach RS): "Abide in Me, and I in You; Therefore Walk with Me" by Elder Bednar. v10: firm, steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord. See v3. Good goal. [Klaw is back, climbing the back of my chair and chewing on my hair... ] v11+: Complaining makes things worse. See v4. Perception is everything. Don't focus on what you lost or even on present difficulties - trust the Lord's promises of what's to come. [I perceive that a play break is now required...] v12: Learn the dealings of God. v13: Trust that God is more powerful than man. The minute you start having murderous thoughts, something is beyond wrong. (See Matthew 5:43-48 and Proverbs 23:7) v14: It's OK to shake your children? v15: Emergency preparedness. v16: (Why does it matter here that he was large in stature?) Do I have great desires to know of the mysteries of God? If so, do I properly pursue those desires? Or do I leave it to prophets and apostles to pursue said mysteries? Believe what you have already been taught. It requires softening your heart (humility?) to believe. Don't follow bad examples. v17: Testify! v18: Pray for your enemies! (Matthew 5 again.) v19: Do what Nephi did - seek diligently, in humility, with faith. v20: Obey and prosper - the societal promise to all Israel. v21 = the opposite, thus, to prosper is to enjoy the presence of the Lord. v22: See Abraham 3:6 - perhaps "rule" should be thought of as "to give light to". v23: The greatest protection from the wicked is in the Lord. v24: Affliction is, at least in part, to keep you humble and help you remember the Lord. Chapter 3 v5+: Before complaining about an assignment, remember from whom it really comes. (See also Alma 7:23 - be "easy to be entreated".) v7: See also Jeremiah 32:17 - even [Klawus Interruptis] (I'm typing away, and little demon just flops right onto that arm with my hand and the keyboard as a pillow, and falls completely asleep. I'm laughing so hard I'm crying and he's dead to the world. Using only my right hand, I manage to use the laptop camera and mouse to get a picture. An alarm goes off in the other room, and he's still completely zonked... Scripture study, Zil-style.) v7: See also Jeremiah 32:17 - even when the way seems impossible, nothing is too hard for the Lord. v13+: When you're on the Lord's errand, don't be surprised if some folks get angry, kick you out, accuse you falsely, and try to kill you. v15+: Don't give up! Trust the Lord (see v7). Just because you're on the Lord's errand, don't expect him to always make it easy. Use the resources you already have, even if they may not be enough (see the feeding of the various thousands in the New Testament). (Meanwhile, good thing we left all those precious things behind, otherwise it might have been another round trip into the wilderness to fetch them. And they must have had a really good security system for it all to still be there... ) v19+: Preserve those things which will teach your children what's important. v21: When necessary, use all your best arguments to convince and encourage others. v25+: Just because you're honest doesn't mean others will be... v29: Angels don't always do you favors (revealing Nephi would rule over them probably made life harder for Nephi). Note that here the angel says that it's Laban who will be delivered into their hands, not the brass plates. v31: Seriously? Two seconds after the angel is gone you start whining again? See v7 and v15. Other: Getting ahead a little, but this whole sequence in the wilderness and back and forth to Jerusalem demonstrates that the Lord isn't concerned with what we would perceive as efficiency. For example, it would seem more efficient to get the plates before leaving, and to pick up Ishmael's family on the way out of town. Of course, one can imagine all sorts of technical and tactical reasons to do it the way they did. And one can imagine that the Lord is testing their obedience before giving them more to do. But one thing I learned in my time as a RS President was that the Lord isn't so concerned with speed and efficiency (more accurately, getting things accomplished as quickly and efficiently as we humans can manage / imagine). Rather, He is concerned with the individuals involved, ensuring they experience the things they need to experience to draw them closer to him. FWIW. Parting thoughts: Don't think I can spend this much time every day, but we'll see!

Its a great blessing to be able to assist in someone else's conversion. Alma 26:1 behold I say unto you, how great reason have we to rejoice; for could we have supposed when we started from the land of Zarahemla that God would have granted unto us such great blessings? This reminds me of the hymn count your many blessings. Alma 26:2 2 And now, I ask, what great blessings has he bestowed upon us? Can ye tell? Some evidence seems to suggest that they were actually pretty close to the light if all it took for their conversion was the conversion of the king followed up by later preaching. Alma 26:3 3 Behold, I answer for you; for our brethren, the Lamanites, were in darkness, yea, even in the darkest abyss, Outside the salvation of one's self and own family, there really isn't much greater work than missionary work. Alma 26:3 3 Behold, I answer for you; for our brethren, the Lamanites, were in darkness, yea, even in the darkest abyss, but behold, how many of them are brought to behold the marvelous light of God! And this is the blessing which hath been bestowed upon us, that we have been made instruments in the hands of God to bring about this great work. The symbolism paints a picture of something that was standing, being cut down to the ground and separated from that which gave it nourishment and strength and enabled it to stand. This idea that the field was ripe is not consistent with the idea that the Lamanites were in the darkest abyss. Alma 26:5 5 Behold, the field was ripe, and blessed are ye, for ye did thrust in the sickle, and did reap with your might, yea, all the day long did ye labor I'm not quite into the barn yet, or not as far in as I should be. I need to get a move on. Alma 26:6 Yea, they shall not be beaten down by the storm at the last day; yea, neither shall they be harrowed up by the whirlwinds; but when the storm cometh they shall be gathered together in their place, that the storm cannot penetrate to them; We need to place ourselves in His hands. It must be an informed and voluntary act of surrender and submission. Alma 26:7 But behold, they are in the hands of the Lord of the harvest, From what Ammon says here, giving thanks to God for the outcome, I don't see how it can be said that Ammon was taking glory unto himself. Alma 26:8 Book of Mormon 8 Blessed be the name of our God; let us sing to his praise, yea, let us give thanks to his holy name, for he doth work righteousness forever. God wrought the miracles. Alma 26:12 behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, Is there a time when any of God's children are not encircled with His love? Alma 26:15 15 Yea, they were encircled about with everlasting darkness and destruction; but behold, he has brought them into his everlasting light, yea, into everlasting salvation; and they are encircled about with the matchless bounty of his love; This is not fully consistent with my note in verse 7. Perhaps on some occasions, God does snatch us into His hands rather than waiting for us to place ourselves there. Alma 26:17 Who could have supposed that our God would have been so merciful as to have snatched us from our awful, sinful, and polluted state? There is nothing that is more meaningful, more important, more satisfying and more necessary than being an instrument in the hands of God in bringing about His work. Alma 26:15 15 Yea, they were encircled about with everlasting darkness and destruction; but behold, he has brought them into his everlasting light, yea, into everlasting salvation; and they are encircled about with the matchless bounty of his love; yea, and we have been instruments in his hands of doing this great and marvelous work. This is exactly what Saul was trying to do and he went through a similar experience as Alma. As I've noted many times before, this is behaviour that I just don't understand. Why not live and let live? If you disagree with someone's belief, so what? You should not seek to interfere with that belief except in the case where you can offer them a higher belief, ie, the gospel, in which case the higher belief should be extended as an invitation for the other person to accept. Alma 26:18 18 Behold, we went forth even in wrath, with mighty threatenings to destroy his church. Crossing over to and being on the right side of the gulf is only the beginning. Its not a one-way trip, its far easier to reverse direction and cross back to the other side of the gulf than it is to continue going forward. Much easier, and much less rewarding. Alma 26:20 20 but in his great mercy hath brought us over that everlasting gulf of death and misery, even to the salvation of our souls. Here is the way whereby anybody can come to know everything. The pathway to revealed knowledge is open to all who will follow these steps. This is something that I truly believe, and why I reject the notion that our capacity to know and understand God and His actions is limited. Alma 26:22 22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, Are they still calling it a strange land even after 500 years of occupation? Do they still feel that Israel is their home land despite not having lived their for a dozen or more generations? Alma 26:36 36 blessed is the name of my God, who has been mindful of this people, who are a branch of the tree of Israel, and has been lost from its body in a strange land; yea, I say, blessed be the name of my God, who has been mindful of us, wanderers in a strange land.

The pride-prosperity cycle seems very simple as the Church has framed the phenomenon throughout the Book of Mormon. The description from a philosopher of the early 20th century worded it with much greater detail (I can't seem to find his quote, nor do I remember his name). But both of these were in very general terms. So, we sometimes don't grasp the reality of what is happening. And because we don't grasp that reality, we don't understand why God and righteousness is the answer. Human beings are born with an innate sense of justice. Of course it is not able to be verbalized by a child, nor is it fully intellectualized. But a child also has fear of threats to his well-being. Studies show that even a baby has a sense of not wanting to fall. A child doesn't like restrictions to his desired movement. Even though babies like a swaddle because it gives him comfort, a baby eventually will want to move about. Any restrictions to that movement causes the baby to object to such restrictions. And a baby may not understand property rights, but if you've ever tried to take candy from a toddler, you realize that he understands the concept of "mine." Thus "life, liberty, and property" are innately understood as individual self-evident rights even from infancy. And the denial of these rights are a violation of justice. Again as children we aren't able to verbalize or intellectualize justice. But we have some sense of it. We can feel when it is being violated. And when it is violated human beings tend to have a few different reactions. With no justice, we can commit crimes with impunity. So, we become criminals. With no justice from others, we take it upon ourselves to levy justice upon others -- usually through violent means or through other violations of rights, and a breach of justice. Latch on to ANYTHING that seems like a kind of justice that many will latch onto -- even if that form of justice severely violates the very concept of justice -- even if it is really corruption in disguise. 1. With small levels of injustice, we see criminal activity increase. I won't go into detail because this is the level that most societies are expected to handle through appropriate governmental action. 2. With injustice in front of our faces more and more often, we may want to become vigilantes. And I won't go into how dangerous and unrealistic Batman style justice can be. 3. But apparently, we've become so corrupt as a society that we have approached level 3: HOW? Simple. We took God out of schools, work, government, and even churches (I'm sure many will wonder why I say that-- later--if the thread continues) and something will replace it. Our innate sense of justice, our longing for justice demands it. But when we demand false justice as a replacement, we're not just replacing sugar with Splenda, we're replacing wholesome foods from the basic food groups with alcohol. It is the opiate of the masses. We feel our sense of justice is momentarily appeased. But underneath it all, we feel the unhealthy results. But instead of fixing the problem by recognizing that justice itself has not been applied, but only an illusion, we keep asking for more of the illusion. I know that anyone reading this who even partially agrees will think "OK, so my philosophy is the 'real justice' and yours is a false one." Fair enough. But isn't there an objective way of determining what is real and what is the illusion? Yes. What philosophy, what laws, what societal rules and social order allow for the greatest number of people to experience the greatest amount of freedom? Every rule is about limiting freedom. But some limits on freedom will increase freedom for others. Most importantly, the limits on governmental power will increase freedom for the general population. Punishing those who choose to violate the life, liberty, and property of others will increase the freedom of others to maintain their life, liberty, & property. Surely most of you have already considered these things as the basis of "proper role of government." So, what does this have to do with the pride prosperity cycle? At some point, someone has to judge whether something is "reasonable." There are some supposedly measurable rights, "My right to swing my fists around end at your nose." But what about personal space? What if I choose to swing my fists 1" away from your nose? What if I happen to hit your nose when I was trying to miss? I could accuse you of stepping into the punch (you drew the foul). What is this elusive "reasonableness" we all cite and venerate? If left to mortal reasoning alone, there is no answer. It is by popular opinion that will change over the generations and eventually fall to ruin. There are no guidelines, no safety rails. But with God, there are always guardrails. And while society is slow to change (even across generations or requiring great wars to evoke such change) society will change to the standards of an unchanging being. But why God? Surprisingly, whether we're talking about the Judeo-Christian God or the gods/concepts of many religions throughout the world the reason is the same. The one unifying principle is that there is some absolute right and wrong out there... somewhere. And that absolute right and wrong will not change because we simply take a vote. There is a higher power (whether it is a sentient being, a force of nature, or simply the underlying framework of the universe) that will always win out regardless of how we mere mortals vote.