Search the Community

This thread is to highlight what posters are learning from their current study of the Book of Mormon. I will begin this with 1Nephi 5:16. Here Lehi learns that both he and Laban are direct decedents of Joseph. Thus, Laban inherited from his father the right to “keep” the records. As a direct descendent of Joseph Lehi was next in line to be a keeper of the convent – Nephi becomes the first son (most noble) and therefore the keeper of the covenant which explains why Nephi was instructed to behead Laban and take possession of the brass plates. This fulfills the prophesy that a remnant (righteous branch) of the house of Joseph will be broken off (See 2Nephi 3:5). The rest of chapter 3 prophesies that all this will commence the great work (from those that receive the Book of Mormon) in the last days to prepare for the Messiah. I understood that the Nephits carried the covenant of Joseph until their fall, but I never saw the symbolism of the beheading of Laban like unto the fall of the Nephits and the transfer of the covenant to Nephi symbolic to the transfer of the covenant to Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Traveler

This is regarding a correction of translation in the Bible concerning Luke chapter 23 verses 42-43. A thief hanging on the cross conversed with Jesus as He was also crucified next to him: 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits. A correct translation of Luke chapter 23 verse 43 should read as follows according to Joseph Smith: "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in a world of spirits." In the spirit world the thief would hear the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to him. (See page 96 of the New Testament 2019 Come Follow Me – For Individuals and Families.) The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught this. Why is this not in the Inspired Version of the Bible or at least in our footnotes of the Latter-Day Saint edition of the King James Version?

The fam went and saw One Life last night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Life_(2023_film) I can highly, highly recommend it. Everyone should know the story. Inspiring and important reminder of how average folks can rise to the occasion. Anthony Hopkins and all the other actors did an amazing job. Easier to watch and less traumatizing/extreme/violent/shocking than Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. Excellent movie for older teens on up. In my life, as the son of a WWII vet, I've felt the pressing need to preserve and pass along the lessons my dad's generation learned. This movie really really helped me forward that goal with my older daughter.

Oquirrh Mountain Temple

Had to share this commentary from the wife of my youth.

This is Wilford Woodruff's account of a dream/vision he had of Joseph Smith: “Joseph Smith continued visiting myself and others up to a certain time, and then it stopped. The last time I saw him was in heaven. In the night vision I saw him at the door of the temple in heaven. He came and spoke to me. He said he could not stop to talk with me because he was in a hurry…. “By and by I saw the Prophet again, and I got the privilege to ask him a question. ‘Now,’ said I, ‘I want to know why you are in a hurry. I have been in a hurry all through my life; but I expected my hurry would be over when I got into the kingdom of heaven, if I ever did.’ “Joseph said: ‘I will tell you, Brother Woodruff. Every dispensation that has had the Priesthood on the earth and has gone into the celestial kingdom, has had a certain amount of work to do to prepare to go to the earth with the Savior when He goes to reign on the earth. Each dispensation has had ample time to do this work. We have not. We are the last dispensation, and so much work has to be done, and we need to be in a hurry in order to accomplish it.’ Of course, that was satisfactory to me, but it was new doctrine to me.” I am curious to know what exactly needs to be prepared on that side of the veil before the Second Coming. There are a few things I think we learn from this experience. 1. It is definitely connected to the priesthood as it only applies to dispensations that had the priesthood. 2. The Second Coming is partially dependent upon it being completed or ready. Or at least, those who will go with him are dependent upon it. 3. The fact that this interview took place at the door of the temple in heaven would seem to imply that it is temple related. 4. It may not be just about being ready for Jesus' coming but also His reign on the earth. We know there is a lot of work for the dead taking place but that apparently will be happening all throughout the Millennium as well so I don't know that that is the reason for the hurry on the other side. Unless that work is needing to be done for specific individuals prior to the Second Coming. Maybe it's something connected with what will transpire in Adam-ondi-Ahman. It does make me wonder about the system of government that will exist during the Millennium. Christ will of course reign as King but how is the government setup under him? And will there be a separate religious leadership organization from the government body?

Hi. I’m a life-long LDS member outside of a break from the church from ages 14-21. I’m in my 30’s now, sealed in the temple with three young kids, and have remained very active over the last 12+ years since I came back from my “break”. I have struggled over a multi-year period on the question if God is real. The point of this post is not to try and convince anyone that God is not real, I genuinely want to believe that He is and am looking for people to help me work through this issue. The nagging question that has dominated my mind is if men have made up religion over time to help themselves feel better about, and give purpose to, life. Everyone wants to know why they are on the earth, how they got here, where they go after. I understand logically that religion provides answers to these questions and that these answers (if believed faithfully) give us peace and purpose. What I can’t get out of my head is what if all these things were made up specifically to fill those gaps but is not true. I’m not calling anyone a liar or saying anyone is pretending to believe - I absolutely believe the leaders of our church (and most members) truly do believe it all and are not trying to mislead us in any way. I desperately wish that I didn’t have these doubts, but I do. What is life is just completely random and the bad things that happen to us are not part of a plan? What if all the suffering (a child dying, losing jobs, etc.) has no silver lining and are just random happenings that will make our lives worse. I struggle to see how God could allow a lot of things that happen in the world everyday - there are so many places where people suffer and die from hunger, people are regularly beaten and raped. A family with young children loses a mom or a dad. How can that be a part of God’s plan in any way? There are other more scientific questions about the Big Bang theory, dinosaurs existing, evolution, etc. that seem to be real things and in my mind and conflict with LDS beliefs. A lot of places where the LDS answer is that “we don’t know why these things happen”, but we should believe there is a reason. One of the parts where this messes with me the most is with death (if not obvious from my examples given above). I love my wife and kids more than anything, but what if there is no afterlife? What if I’m one random act (a car crash for example) away from losing a child, and if there is no afterlife then I will never be with them again? If there is no afterlife and I die in a car crash, what happens next to me? Blackness for ever? A natural defense for someone (especially a life-long member) to know that God is real is to think back on the spiritual experiences they have had as proof that God exists. But what if these experiences were figments of our own imagination that we have convinced ourselves of and didn’t actually happen? It is easy for me to see that believing in God / religion results in a better life overall - navigating all of life’s trials and tribulations is 100x easier if we believe that it is all a part of God’s plan; if we believe that all bad things that happen in the world are for a reason and all make sense / work for the best from the perspective of an omniscient God. A few years ago I came to the conclusion that I would not be able to PROVE God was real, but I also wouldn’t be able to prove the opposite. So if I can’t take solace in any spiritual experiences I’ve had to date because I’m worried that they were made up in my head, then since it can’t be PROVEN one way or the other, it’s simply a choice of believing or not. I am trying to choose to believe but it has been difficult to not let these doubts take over. I have tried to pray for confirmation but the thought of spiritual experiences possibly being made up is probably blocking that from happening. On a separate note, I have both lived in accordance with the gospel and have done the opposite, and can say I have a strong testimony that following things like the word of wisdom, our views on family / marriage. etc. will result in a happier life while on this earth. I have not deviated from these beliefs and regardless if I think God is real, I know this is the blueprint for the most happy / successful life on earth. So that is the core of my testimony for now: 1. I am trying to choose to believe that God is real (despite the doubts I have) and that everything the LDS church teaches is true. And 2. That following the gospel way of living will continue to bring the most happiness throughout life. I know this has been a long post and a bit all over the place, so thanks for sticking with me if you have. As I said above, I wish I didn’t have these doubts, but I do, and I’m trying to figure it all out. I would be grateful for any thoughts you have that may help me as I continue to try and work through this.

One of my guilty pleasures is YouTube. Lately I have noticed an increasing number of Evangelical/LDS interaction videos. There's a Pastor Jeff hosting a series. Another Evangelical is touring the state, visiting wards, even touring a temple (probably one open for public visiting prior to opening for members). There are some reaction videos too--one by the Sword of Joseph questioning Pastor Jeff's motives. I've only seen watched portions of a few of these but am wondering what is going on. Is it simply the algorithm targeting me as one who is interested in this material or has there been an increasing general interest? Thoughts?

Imagine for a moment the land of the United States with all its natural features and all natural resources prior to any settlement of humans. Then insert a population of about 10 million people spread about in any comfortable distribution with nothing but a covered wagon full of basic living supplies, basic tools, etc. With that image in mind, how would that population go about creating wealth? In such an age, no immediate medium of exchange exists. What do they have? Goods and services. After their wagon supplies run out, they have no goods. But they do have services. So how do they use their “services” (or labor) to create wealth? Human labor is what we use to create abundance out of the natural resources. The return on investment of laboring to grow crops and herds on vacant land is many times higher than simply gathering food from the wild. Thus, labor increases the goods that we have available, and wealth is born. The next level is not just labor, but knowledge. When knowledge informs those who labor or augments labor efforts, it improves the return on investment regarding the labor-to-goods ratio. Knowledge, for instance will develop tools (like a plow) that will make planting crops easier, and thus, quicker. So, the same number of people can plant more crops in the same amount of time. Wealth is increased. This can go on for several more levels. But for brevity, I will stop. Now, UBI is antithetical to this pattern of the Wealth of Nations. It says that we have such abundance, that everyone can be given free money just for living. No labor. With no labor, no wealth will exist. It is true that if only a small percentage of individuals are on government welfare, then a prosperous society can manage it. True, but why? And is that fact sufficient to support this method of caring for the poor? No, it is not. The religious conservative will certainly be happy to support charities and even do things in their personal lives to help those less fortunate (sometimes called “the deserving poor”). That sure sounds like giving a basic living to those who can’t do it on their own. Is that any different? Yes, it is. Labor is what creates wealth. And knowledge/innovation can increase the efficiency of that labor, thus increasing wealth at a greater rate. Giving money to strangers through a faceless government agency only hurts the society. It does little to make the world a better place. I realize I have not gone into detail on my declarations for the latter half of the post. But that is what I leave up to discussion.

Some months ago, my seventeen-year-old told me that his classmates mock Elon Musk for being stupid. One, a close friend of his and a member of our ward, said that Musk isn't superrich because he's smart or innovative, but because he sells carbon credits. (My son and I shared a good laugh at the time, and several times since, at this idea. I'm going to miss him when he graduates from high school and leaves to serve his mission.) Since the time my son told me this, I have noticed this meme among many, that Musk is no genius, but rather the opposite. I have chalked it up to envy. But this morning I suddenly realized why this meme exists, this idea that arguably the most brilliant businessman and engineer of our time is actually an idiot. The perception of the Left is that they, those on the Left, are smart. Specifically, they are smarter—much, much smarter—than those on the Right. This is not merely a quiet, self-satisfied idea. This is absolutely central to the Left's self-perception. Left smart, Right stupid. Those on the Left are smart enough to see the benefit of [insert Leftist causes: socialist policies, destroying The Patriarchy, slavery reparations, tuition reimbursement, etc.]. And the reason those on the Right oppose the Left's policies is because they (those on the Right) are too stupid to perceive the benefits of those policies. Now, no rational person of sense and judgment considers Elon Musk a politically right-wing person. He's not, not in any real sense. But he's opposed to many left-wing causes. Therefore, by the Left's thinking, he's a right-wing Fascist. And being a part of the Right, he must therefore be Stupid. So how is he so rich? Because he's corrupt! That's why he's rich! Not because he is a hardcore businessman who invented new technologies and has worked extremely hard. That's all just a fluffy narrative written by his fellow right-wing devils. It is impossible for those on the Right to be smart, because they are not enlightened (or "woke"). Musk is a part of the hated Right, so it is impossible for Musk to be smart. So Musk isn't smart. So he's rich for some reason other than that he's smart. Absurd? Well, yes, this is utterly absurd. But the more I think about it and the more I reflect on comments I have heard, the more I realize that it is exactly this kind of thinking that is responsible for the meme of Musk's stupidity.

Hi, My sister in law is going through a tough pregnancy similar to this article: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2023/01/digital-only/god-is-always-good?lang=eng#p2 I come from a Catholic background and usually these situations have been pretty tough (spiritually). Are there any talks or verses about these kinds of situations?

In just 2 weeks one of our forum members gets the extreme pleasure of meeting me in person. 🤣🤣🤣

A significant portion of the Book of Mormon deals with secret combinations. Even though it played a major role in the history of the Nephites the Lord instructed Moroni to also include the Book of Ether as a second witness of the threat. In that account Moroni says: 8:24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you... Awake and do what? Obviously we need to vote and take part in civic affairs. But secret combinations are by nature secret. So while we may have suspicions or even some evidences that seem to point to their existence it would be very difficult, imo, to convince someone of them who did not already believe it. Years ago you could have pointed at communism and said that's it and the general public would have agreed. Now days it's not so simple. I think secret combinations work both sides of the aisle here in the US and seek to influence any major political party around the world. I guess I'm just uncertain what Moroni, or the Lord more specifically, had in mind when telling us to "awake" to the danger they present. Awake and do what?

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is whether or not God actually wants our worship, obviously, he wants our respect, he wants our gratitude, but does he really want the endless fawning? Perhaps this is a function of my own misunderstanding of what true worship is, or, perhaps, it’s a miscommunication on how society portrays worship. growing up protestant, Penecostal in this case, all I remember, is people, hands raised, waving back and forth slowly. Or speaking in tongues, depending on the service lol. This instilled in me, a vision of worship as endless praise, endless, speaking, gratitude expressed over and over without end. But my thoughts Lately have turned to the idea that perhaps it’s just living a righteous life, acknowledging his hand in your life, but not necessarily laying prostrate on the floor endlessly. in the way that I would worship my own father on earth. I want to do all that he has set me up to do, I also want to bring honor to his name I don’t wanna make him disappointed. And in doing this, this is the worship he wants and this way he isn’t the egomaniacal narcissist that a militant atheist would describe, he’s just a dad who loves his kids and wants them to do well, and they gave him honor by doing their best to do so. It ties into a thought that I’ve had lately that if you love me keep my Commandments it’s just a statement of if you love me trust me and in doing so we can fill the other part of that statement that if we do the will of the father we will know of the doctrine and our love for the father will grow. I understand these are basic statements but they haven’t came into my mind in this way before. And just figured it kick it around with one of my favorite sounding boards

I don't suppose many of you are familiar with Alan Partridge. Alan Partridge is a comedy character on British TV, played by Steve Coogan. He is the worst chat-show host imaginable: he is rude, ill-informed, badly researched, self-important and foul-tempered. He only has two real friends: Liz and Michael, who are about the only people stupid enough to put up with him. In the later series he also has an Eastern European girlfriend with an obsession for teddy bears. Anyway, in one memorable episode Alan is interviewing a Christian lady. It went something like this: Christian Lady: Alan, do you believe in God? Alan: Er... (thinks about it for a moment) ...yes I do. CL: How do you see God? What is he like? Alan: God is... God is... (temporarily stumped, but then has a sudden inspiration) God is a gas! CL: What??? Alan: Yes! Well... he's not a little gas. He's not like Calor Gas. He's a Big Gas... Like Oxygen! Or Carbon Dioxide. Oh no... that's bad isn't it? That's the Devil! I always think of people who pooh-pooh the idea of a personal God as the "God is a Gas" crowd. A few years ago my wife really wanted to go to the spiritualist church in Kingston, so I took her. I hated - not least because it had all the trappings of a church (including the Stations of the Cross and Holman Hunt's "Light of the World" above the altar) but hw many times do you think Jesus was mentioned in the service? Not even once! Anyway, afterwards I went out into the little garden at the back and started talking to this bloke who was sitting there. When I asked him if he saw God as a person, his attitude was definitely "pooh-pooh" - as if he couldn't believe anyone could be so backward as to believe such a thing. Then he started driveling on about how "God" just means the same thing as "good"... and how the two are really the same thing. This is exactly what I mean by "God is a Gas": if all God is is "good", what's the point of God? We already have (if you'll excuse the pun) a perfectly "good" word for "good" so why do we need "God" too. We might just as well say that the Smurfs are God because they were good and Gargamel was bad...etc. Anyway, I told all of this to our vicar at the time. As well as being our priest, she was also moderately famous on the radio - though I don't think I ever listened to her. I was surprised to find that she was "God is a Gas" too. She seemed momentarily shocked I should believe God was a person... but then checked herself and said (rather patronizingly I thought) "Well OK I guess if that's how you want to see God..." That helped me put a few other things she'd said into context too... about the "afterlife" being no more than the memories our friends and families have of us. There was something else she said too about how she was convinced of the existence of "God" (whatever the word "God" actually means to her) by pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope and "Oh the colours! The beauty!) Well just as much beauty is to be found in the Mandelbrot Set and yet that is just z=z^2+c. And the Golden ratio? Just the limiting ratio of terms in the Fibonacci sequence. Is God merely mathematics? Is that all our Heavenly Father amounts to - just numbers? He might just as well be "A Gas"!

I was looking to visit my favorite sounding board, and wanted to touch on a topic that I already have (Link) If anyone wants to read it, that is the link. But looking through it myself, I feel I am partway to where I need to be, but not quite there, and wanted to work through it with you guys, as it usually ends up helping! So, long and short. As of late I have been contemplating the nature of God. In my current thinking, he is either A) Self existing, truly omnipotent, and the source of all "Goodness", but in that way, "Goodness" is just his nature, and really a descriptor, and not a positive adjective. Goodness in this sense is arbitrary and just describing God. This is the God of the non-LDS (very broad strokes, and partly unfair, just using it for ease of description). B) God is an eternal being, an exalted man, possesses all Goodness, but goodness does exist apart from him. This is palatable to me because it takes the "unfairness" of existence out of his hands. Some things just are because they ARE, not because they were designed that way. This removes the incomprehensible parts of existence, really the problem of pain. If there is a truly omnipotent being, and things could have been different, why are they not. Thus, I believe this view posits God as an "effectively" omnipotent being, that is a being that can do all that can be done. This leads into my ongoing question. Why do we still call the plan of salvation, "God's" plan. God didn't make it, he couldn't, the King Follett sermon precludes it. He couldn't have been saved (to borrow from my Pentecostal upbringing) by his own plan. It's a chicken and egg scenario. With this in mind, it makes sense to me that it is his plan (and was my takeaway from the conversation linked) in that his touch, spin, and signature are on it. It's his variation. And perhaps this is the way it should be viewed, but I'm just trying to work through it, and sharpen and clarify the thought process. It also might be of worth to realize that we will become God's in the sense that we will be one with God the father, and if he is one with his father (turtles all the way down of course) then in a sense any time it is said that it is "God's" plan, it is true that heavenly father informed and kicked the ball down the hill, but that the plan in broad strokes, has always been. FWIW, I originally didn't have the last long sentence of the above paragraph written initially, and now that I'm seeing it, that feels like it might be the angle to go at it. In my favorite way of reasoning, reductionist, (I say this with sarcasm, because I always hated in 2 Nephi where Lehi goes "If C, then B, then A, thus God"), my understanding is this. I exist, ergo, something exists, which means something has to be eternal, either this existence, or God. If God exists eternally and is the SOURCE of reality in the sense that he created everything, including the rules, we are then potentially bound by the argument against his omnipotence, in that he is not good, because of the pain and suffering we see in the world. And those who argue for this, still have to limit his omnipotence by saying he can't subvert logical fallacies, such as a rock too heavy, or a burrito too hot. And with that defeat of true omnipotence, I move to the other argument, that he isn't. I believe our theology posits, that reality/eternity exists. There are principles that are "eternal" and eternal principles, I would argue, are unmade. If that is the case, then God exists separate and beholden to these principles. And our path is to follow him, in the way he has set forth, and thus become like him. It seems reasonable enough to say the end of all existence, the meaning, is to become like God. Which jives well with "This is my work and my glory." This was all written in one go, so I appreciate any feedback you guys have to help hone this, this is in a large degree train of consciousness, but I need help sorting it, so I'll stop now.

My son and I laughed our heads off. I was especially impressed with the bolded part. ************************************** Vort Spock's cello theme ChatGPT Spock, the iconic character from Star Trek, is not typically associated with a specific cello theme. However, there are several musical pieces and themes associated with the Star Trek franchise as a whole, including some that may feature the cello. One of the most recognizable themes from Star Trek is the main theme composed by Alexander Courage. It is commonly known as the "Star Trek Theme" and is primarily played by an orchestra, including brass instruments, strings, and percussion. If you are specifically looking for cello music from the Star Trek universe, there are a few notable pieces worth mentioning. One of them is the "Theme from Star Trek: The Next Generation," composed by Jerry Goldsmith. While this theme is not exclusively cello-focused, it does feature a prominent cello part throughout the melody. Another notable piece featuring the cello is "Ilia's Theme" from the Star Trek: The Motion Picture soundtrack, composed by Jerry Goldsmith. This hauntingly beautiful piece includes a solo cello melody accompanied by an orchestra. It's worth noting that Leonard Nimoy, the actor who portrayed Spock, released several musical albums throughout his career, but none of them specifically feature a cello theme related to the character. If you were referring to a specific cello theme associated with Spock that I am not aware of, please provide more information, and I'll do my best to assist you further. Vort It's used throughout the original series. It goes like this: Duh duh duh duh duh duh, du-du-duh, du-duh, du-du-duh, duh duh duh duh duh duh, etc. ChatGPT Based on your description, it seems that you are referring to the "Spock's Theme" from the original Star Trek series. This theme is commonly associated with Spock and is played during various scenes featuring the character. While it is difficult to convey musical notes through text, the rhythm you provided helps in identifying the theme. The "Spock's Theme" is a simple, yet distinctive melody that is often played on a solo cello. It has a somewhat melancholic and introspective quality, reflecting Spock's logical and reserved nature. Although the original Star Trek series did not have a consistent composer throughout its run, Alexander Courage is often credited with composing the main theme and various musical cues for the show, including the "Spock's Theme." However, it's important to note that multiple composers worked on the series, and different variations of the theme might exist. If you would like to listen to the "Spock's Theme," I recommend searching for "Spock's Theme Star Trek Original Series" on a music streaming platform or video-sharing website. You should be able to find various recordings or compilations featuring this iconic melody. **************************************

It’s no crime to be ignorant of what’s going on in the world, but oh my. And who is this Putin guy?

I finally showed our LDS volunteers this website and my role as a non-LDS moderator. The introduction was the question: Does the term "third hour" mean anything to you? They said it used to. So, I mentioned that some LDS folk wanted a third hour to discuss the gospel and other topics, and so LDSTalk was renamed. While they said they had never heard of the site they seemed impressed. They expressed appreciation, so who knows, we may see a bit of uptick in our traffic. 🙂

April 27, 2023 -- Opinion by Kirk Cameron I’ve been on a cross country book tour for the last five months speaking with families and children across America at public libraries sharing my beliefs about faith, family and country. You may already know that drag queens have been cross-dressing for children and appearing in many of our nation’s public libraries for years. And, you may have heard that I’ve been visiting these same public libraries—those that are willing to host me—and other venues doing my own story hour together with Brave Books. Families have been pouring into my events by the hundreds, even the thousands. When I speak to these people, I share the timeless value of biblical wisdom and the "Fruit of the Spirit" with children and their parents. I warm the room, shine the light by reading stories to spellbound audiences from my new book, "As You Grow." After I conclude my remarks, panicked parents often crowd around, pressing me with hard questions. They are pleading; they earnestly long for a return to wholesome, God-honoring, pro-American values. These people want to know: * "Why is there a seemingly sudden increase in pedophiles, sexual deviants? Why do we have so many amoral—or plainly immoral—educators, school administrators, school boards, politicians, community leaders, and even judges, hell-bent on advancing the sexualization of our innocent children, and pushing perversion into the hearts and minds of the most impressionable among us? * Why are too many of these leaders hiding their aberrant "sex education" and "gender-affirming" curricula from the parents of their students, stripping moms and dads of their rights to determine when and how their children are exposed to sensitive topics in school? Read more at: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tour-around-america-taught-weird-work-wicked

A distinct doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints is that God still speaks today. Then again, Pentecostals and Charismatics also believe this--though we experience it mostly through the gifts of tongues and interpretations or through prophetic words. How can we (Pentecostals/Charismatics) tell when an interpretation or prophetic word is from God? How do we discern truth from a false word? I addressed this topic in my sermon today--Hearing the Voice of God:

I can't imagine anyone not feeling perplexed at least to some degree when thinking about how Jesus Christ's role and the Atonement relate to all things physical and spiritual, how He is at the center connecting us back to God, how the concept of sin and spiritual laws can actually be put into effect by God, and trying to make sense of the literal power source of how any of it can be effectuated. Can anyone else out there relate to feeling perplexed in this regard? I want to develop my relationship with my Savior, and these perplexing thoughts sometimes act as a hindrance to that desire. A friend recently told me something I like. She said pray for faith, not for clarity. She defines faith as accepting God's will and clarity as wanting answers. I am more content when I focus on faith and probably just need to hit the brakes on wanting clarity. I do want some clarity to at least help define what it is I believe in, and God has given me a few sweet moments of clarity. I'm grateful for those moments as they've helped keep me centered. Perhaps me going through this process is God's way of teaching me to have patience. I'm left to admit 1.) I know very little, and 2.) accepting God's will means being content with where I am.