Jesus wasn't a fan of the pharasee's obsession with obedience. He much preferred the action of the good Samaritan to the "correct" beliefs of the pharasees. I see a lot of focus on having the right beliefs in my former religion (Mormonism) instead of measuring people for their fruits. I feel like a more charitable version of myself now that I'm post Mormon, but that is juxtaposed by the shunning of some of the TBMs in my life. Jesus didn't look for jerseys, but Mormons do.

I see people posting that members lose their belief because of lies. I think more people lose belief because the accurate story of the church is so ridiculously fraudulent and shows the leaders are not connected to God.

What do you think?

“New” accurate realizations that led me to conclude the church is false.

1. Joseph Smith was a liar and adulterer. He lied to his wife Emma and slept with other women and girls.

2. There is no evidence for the Book of Mormon being a history. It was written by Joseph Smith who simply claimed it was ancient.

3. Church leaders insisted their racism was doctrine from God. Later leaders disavowed. The leaders mislead members and are not connected to God. The modern leaders actions reinforce this conclusion time and time again.

4. The Book of Abraham is an obvious fraud.

5. People I know outside the church lead healthy and happy lives whether that be in other religions or without religion. Being a member of the LDS church is not special.

6. The temple ceremonies are strange and are not ancient as claimed evidenced by their constantly being changed to remove embarrassing portions.

View Poll

I was at Deseret Book and noticed the latest issue of Deseret Magazine featuring Supreme Court Justice Amy Conney Barrett on the cover. It was also titled the “Constitution Issue” and included articles on the importance of voting in AZ, NV, and MT, criticisms of protest and the First Amendment, and an exposé on the dangers of conspiracy theories. While I realize Deseret Magazine is not a church publication, it is owned by the church. Accordingly, I was somewhat surprised to see this in DB since the church is “neutral” on political matters (Church Handbook ch. 38).

Two questions:

1: Is it weird to anyone else that DB would directly sell this?

2: What was the point of the Justice Barrett article? All other articles in the magazine conveyed a clear theme/takeaway. But this one felt like an odd attempt at pointing out how her success comes at the cost of her husband and nannies picking up the slack. I’m not sure why that was necessary, or really what the point of the article was at all.

Genuinely looking for clarification and hoping to encourage respectful conversation. Thank you.

I recently went through old journals of mine. One was dated when I was the age of 10 to 11. In that journal I had a quote from Melvin J. Ballard taped on a page along with a cut out of a cute little baby in a bassinet (very 1970's). The quote starts off as "the greatest mission of woman is to give life, Earth life, through honorable marriage, to the waiting spirits, our father's Spirit children who anxiously desire to dwell in this mortal state.... The ever enduring happiness shall come to the woman who fulfills the first great duty and mission that devolves upon her to become the mother of sons and daughters of God." I'm just now realizing I was taught about purity and marriage and babies and duty and earthly mission before I was taught about sex or education or talents or my own wants or desires. I was 10! Just having a moment right now.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/suit-accuses-mormon-church-leaders-of-facilitating-st-louis-/

David listened, admitted his sin, repented, and left the account in the written record instead of trying to hide his sin.

Does President Oaks believe that leaders chosen as David was can sin as David did and have a need to repent? If so, does he truly believe that he can repent for lying to God's children, misusing research and legal institutions to oppress people with sexual identities he doesn't understand, or for failure to "feed my sheep" as commanded by the Lord in a world of need using the funds given by the faithful?

Or will he seek to preserve his pride, avoid learning from the lives of God's children, and try to hide his sin by excommunicating Nemo?

My family and I are newer converts, children really like primary and my husband and I both have callings at our ward.

It’s in SoCal (very expensive housing) and I just noticed the past few Sundays that the only couples in the ward with children live with their wealthier TBM parents.

Here I was, bringing my kids to church all diligently, each Sunday and kids event, invited to speak at Stake Conference, written by the patriarch personally for my talks, saying what an awesome addition our family is to the ward, and I’m really thinking ‘wow I do have God and a whole community behind me!’

And it came to pass, my dad decided to evict us from a family home he doesn’t use, that he wants to now rent out for profit, and half the ward works in real estate and crickets

I didn’t even mention financial help, and everyone clammed up like clams. Just ‘does anyone know of places opening up for my family and I? We can afford it, but need a foot in the California real estate door, I suppose you could say. A hand up, not a handout. Advice, tips, tricks, anything on how to secure housing locally so we can stay in the ward and our kids in the same school?’

‘We will be praying for you!’ ‘Stay strong!’

I never had a family growing up that would have my back unconditionally in any way.

I guess I thought people would care more? Especially with how much adoration they have showed to my family so far?

I've been off the mission coming on for 4 decades, yet, like many of you, I still frequently dream I'm going back.

This morning I was dreaming that I had lost my job, so going back to the mission was somehow my best option.

And...I was in the MTC bookstore and they were displaying the latest in missionary fashions: leather suits and ties.

I was awakened by a really nasty painful cramp in my ribs. Still better than dreaming I was back on the mission.

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is Hulu's best performing show this year so far. It seems like an exposé on the LDS church but really the title is just a cash grab. They make it out to be like these TikTok influencer moms are fighting the patriarchy or something but it's actually just a run-of-the-mill cringe reality TV show.

I’m curious to hear everyone’s perspectives on the show. Here’s a YouTube video I made sharing my opinions on it and also kinda recapping it for if you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBWQRX0yzbE&ab_channel=Gwowls

Im meeting with mormon missionaries soon and they wanted to talk about the afterlife and the before times, what questions should I ask them?

I grew up LDS. Always taught I would get my own planet. I am a Creative Mormon (CM) now. But my mom says that I am lying when I say that the current teachings are that you don't get your own planet to create....but you do get to watch over one. Any help from sources would be great.

Dallin Oaks is dishonest. He is a documented liar. 🤥 He tells people to hide the truth. He tells the church and its leaders not to make amends for mistakes.

Lies include:

Saying that electroshock of gay students had ended at BYU before he was made president.

He lied in 2018 when he said that the church promptly and publicly disavowed the reasons given for the race based ban of full blessings for black members after the 1978 revelation.

He was dishonest when he was assigned to investigate the lies Nemo the Mormon accused as coming from several of the apostles. He never answered the accusations except one and closed the matter.

He teaches others when it’s ok to lie. See his speech on this topic given to the BYU law school.

My prediction is that his reputation along with future continued dishonesty which is in his past pattern of behavior will do great damage to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church).

He will lie more. He will condone and even ask others to lie on behalf of the church. As an example, II predict they will lie to courts about the importance of steeples trying to set legal precedent for building temples.

As an LDS parent I was taught it was my responsibility to teach my children the gospel.

Scripture like this is an example:

And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of the baptisms and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the head of the parents. (Doctrine and Covenants 68: 25)

I see postings from time to time on Reddit of children talking about the rules their parents set that punish them if they choose not to go to church, attend seminary, go on a mission and sometimes if they don’t want to go to BYU.

This kind of thing by parents is evil and immoral. To force a child to accept the parents beliefs or be punished is wrong.

Introduction

You sometimes see claims that the Book of Mormon contains no new theology. Instead, its sermons are said to be typical of nineteenth century Protestantism.

There is a bit of truth to this claim. Many of theological innovations that Joseph Smith would teach later in life are not found in the Book of Mormon - like the Three Kingdoms of Glory or baptisms for the dead. However, the Book of Mormon does not simply follow American Protestantism. There are some passages that are extremely unusual, even heretical, for nineteenth century Protestants.

I will now list the most unusual theological teachings from the Book of Mormon. I am including teachings that are also found in small sects, like Mennonites or Swedenborgians, but not issues where there was an ongoing debate within mainstream American Protestantism, like infant baptism. I use the term 'Traditional Christianity' to refer to Catholic, Orthodox, and the leading Protestant branches of Christianity, in contrast to 'Restored Christianity' to refer to groups and individuals like Joseph Smith who reject much of the Christian tradition after the death of the original apostles.

For each example, I will quote the relevant verses, explain what makes this teaching unusual, describe any precursors to this idea, and speculate whether Joseph Smith plausibly would have known about these precursors.

I am not an expert in nineteenth century American religion, so I might have missed some precursors. The goal of this post is as much to see if people know of additional examples as it is to convince people that no precursors exist. Please comment if you know of any so I can add them !

The theology taught in the Book of Mormon is not entirely typical for nineteenth century American Protestantism and contains some unusual innovations:

Angels Are People Too

This is not in the text itself, but rather in the frame story around the Book of Mormon.

The gold plates containing the Book of Mormon were given to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni. Moroni had previously been a mortal prophet and the final author of the Book of Mormon. It is not portrayed as being weird that a mortal prophet would become an angel after he died.

What's Unusual?

Traditional Christian theology teaches that angels are a distinct species (or rather multiple species) from humans. Humans may become glorified and dwell in the presence of God after they die, but they remain distinct from the nine orders of angels.

Precedents?

Some Jewish thought claims that Elijah was changed into an angel, but this is presented as being extremely atypical, even for a prophet. Elijah is also sometimes described as always having been an angel, rather than having been a human prophet.

Emanuel Swedenborg taught that angels are resurrected humans.

This belief also exists in modern American folk Christianity. For example, a child's headstone that says "Our Little Angel."* I don't know if this has long precedence in folk Christianity or if it's a more recent development.

Would Joseph Have Known?

Swedenborgianism was much more common in the nineteenth century than it is today. Joseph Smith was aware of it by 1839,** although there was plenty of opportunity for him to have learned about Swedenborg during the previous decade.

If this had a belief in contemporary folk Christianity, then Joseph Smith definitely would have been familiar with it.

Innocence Is Not Goodness

[Adam & Eve] would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they know no sin. - 2 Nephi 2:23

What's Unusual?

Innocence here is sharply distinguished from goodness. Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden are presented as being in a neutral state, neither good nor bad. In Traditional Christianity, the innocence of Adam and Eve before the Fall is presented as being unambiguously good.

This also results in a different notion of goodness. Someone who never has the opportunity to know evil, or be morally culpable, is innocent but not truly good.

Precedents?

None that I know of, but I wouldn't be too surprised if someone found one.

The Fall Was Actually OK

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. - 2 Nephi 2:25

What's Unusual?

Traditional Christianity teaches that the Fall of Adam was unambiguously a tragedy, both for humanity and for the physical world. There is debate about whether every human is personally responsible for the Fall, but not whether the Fall itself was a bad thing.

Precedents?

There are some strains of Gnosticism and Islam that portray the Fall as not being entirely bad, but they are quite different from the view presented here.

One Gnostic view of the Fall begins with the belief that the material world is inherently bad. It thanks the serpent for bringing knowledge, in opposition to the evil creator of the material world (but not in opposition to the highest unknowable God).

Some Muslim scholars believe that Adam was predestined to eat the forbidden fruit, and so was not being disobedient. Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden, not as a punishment, but rather so that humanity could experience more of the attributes of God.

The Book of Mormon's teachings in 2 Nephi 2 is very different from the Gnostic view. There is no distinction between God and the creator of the material world. The serpent is clearly evil. It also differs from the Muslim view in that this is a free choice by Adam. It is also a transgression against the commandment of God which destroys Adam's innocence. But God had made it part of His plan to use their transgression to help them transition from innocence to true goodness.

Would Joseph Have Known?

I do not know if Joseph would have known about these lines of Gnostic or Muslim thought, but it seems kind of unlikely. They are different enough from the teachings presented in the Book of Mormon that they don't feel like real precedents regardless.

Double Baptism

And after Alma had said these words, both he and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit. - Mosiah 18:14

Alma is a prophet who is founding the Church of Christ in a time & place that the Church did not already exist. A key act in founding the church is for two people to baptize each other, before they begin baptizing others. Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery would themselves perform a double baptism on May 15, 1829.

What's Unusual?

For a double baptism to make sense, two things must be true: (1) baptisms must be performed by someone with the proper authority,*** and (2) no one currently has that authority.

Catholics (and others) reject (2): they believe that there is a valid lineage of baptism tracing back to the time of Christ. Many Protestants reject (1): they believe that any follower of Christ can legitimately baptize people and don't worry about the lineage of the person performing the baptism. A double baptism is an act that explicitly creates a new lineage.

Precedents?

The Anabaptist movement began on January 21, 1525 with the double baptism of George Blanrock and Conrad Grebel.

Would Joseph Have Known?

Yes. The Whitmers were Mennonites when they met Joseph Smith.

Between Death And Judgment

Now there must needs be a space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection. - Alma 40:6

Judgement is clearly stated to occur after the resurrection in v.21 of the same chapter.

What's Unusual?

This is kind of a necessary consequence of the fact that people died before Jesus. If Jesus is the first person to be resurrected, the "firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Cor 15:20), then it seems like there was some time between when ancient prophets died and when they were resurrected. However, this time is rarely discussed by traditional Christian theologians.

Alma does emphasize this space of time. He states that the soul is conscious during this time. It is either full of joy or full of misery, depending on whether the person had been righteous or wicked. Judgement is still in the future and is anticipated with either joy or fear.

Precedents?

None that I know of, but I wouldn't be too surprised if someone found one.

Goodness Precedes Godliness

What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. - Alma 42:25

This is in a reductio ad absurdum, so it's a bit hard to interpret: Alma clearly does not think that it is plausible that God will cease to be God. He is treating justice as something which is (logically) prior to God. God's godliness is (in part) BECAUSE God perfectly upholds the demands of justice.

What's Unusual?

This is the most heretical passage in the Book of Mormon.

It treats God as being contingent on the demands of justice. If God somehow did something which was not just, He would lose His status? essence? being? that makes Him God.

Traditional Christian theology DOES NOT treat God as being in any way contingent.

The overwhelming majority of theologians either believe that God is prior to moral law (divine command ethics) or that God and moral law are necessarily coeternal.

God ceasing to be God is so absurd that it would not even be used in a reductio ad absurdum.

Precedents?

Socrates claimed that moral law must be prior to the Greek gods. Moreover, many of the stories involving the Greek gods portray them acting not in accordance with moral law -- and so these stories must be wrong. Plato/Timaeus use this as evidence for a higher, ultimate god who is necessarily coeternal with moral law. Neoplatonists would associate this ultimate god with the God of the monotheist religions.

I do not know of any nineteenth century theologians who would treat moral law as prior to the Christian God.

Spirits Have Fingers

The Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his fingers. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood. - Ether 3:6

This is explicitly the premortal spirit of Jesus Christ. It is not merely the case that Jesus's mortal body has fingers -- his spirit also has fingers (and the other parts we would expect from a human body).

What's Unusual?

This is not how Traditional Christianity understands spirits. Spirits are not structured in the same way as bodies. They exist as interrelated ideas, which would not need to have corresponding parts to those necessary to live and act in the physical world.

The spirit of the Lord, in particular, is taken to be perfectly simple. God's spirit is understood to be something like pure intelligence, or goodness itself, or the meaning of existence, not a hominid spirit body.

Precedents?

None that I know of.

I would guess that these precedents are more likely to be found in folk Christianity than in any systematic theology.

Conclusion

Some of the doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon are extremely unusual from the perspective of nineteenth century Protestantism, or from Traditional Christianity more broadly. The Book of Mormon itself would be considered heretical by many denominations, even without Joseph Smith's later innovations.

It is interesting that many of these teachings occur in personal conversations with a prophet's son, rather than in public sermons. The sermons focus more on the simple Gospel of Christ, which is shared across Christianity.

The unusual theology often points in the same direction that Joseph Smith's understanding of metaphysics and the nature of God would later develop. The Book of Mormon does not say "All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (D&C 131:7), but Ether's vision of the Lord is more consistent with this than with a traditional understanding of 'spirit.' The necessity of a restored priesthood isn't spelled out in the Book of Mormon, but the double baptism provides a pattern for part of it. The Plan of Salvation diagram is not drawn on the flyleaves, but Nephi interprets one key event in the history of mankind as a progression from innocence, through opposition and agency, towards true goodness. Even the King Follett sermon is weakly prefigured with the claim that goodness precedes godliness, and by reducing the number of distinct species we would expect to exist in eternity.

The Book of Mormon is a distinctly Mormon text, both in its history and in the theology it teaches. The theology of the Book of Mormon is not simply reflective of Joseph Smith's religious surroundings.

* This headstone teaches false doctrine, according to traditional Christianity. But what pastor would tell that to a grieving mother?

** Edward Hunter, a Swedenborgian who later became a Latter-day Saint, asked Joseph Smith what he thought about Swedenborg: "I asked him if he was acquainted with the Sweadenburgers. His answer I verially believe. ‘Emanuel Sweadenburg had a view of the world to come but for daily food he perished.’" [Source]

*** In particular, someone who has been properly baptized.

So, here’s an interesting thought that might lead to some interesting (entertaining?) arguments: I think that, were he ever asked or if he ever had to actually consider it, Joseph Smith would have believed that life begins at birth, and the spirit enters the body upon first breath. My only evidence being 3 Nephi 1:13-14 when Nephi is praying all day and finally the voice of the Lord tells him not to worry because he is coming into the world the next day, or in other words, it’s Christmas Eve!

So how could the Lord be speaking to Nephi if he is currently inside of a mortal body in Mary’s womb? The answer must be that he won’t enter the body until it’s born. That or the whole thing about needing a Holy Spirit because God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and bone is incorrect. Or it wasn’t actually the voice of the Lord speaking to Nephi, but the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, I just thought this had some interesting implications for people who want to argue about when life begins, and/or the nature of God and the trinity vs three completely separate beings. Please let me know if anyone is or was brave enough to bring this up in a Sunday school class full of ultra conservatives.

While you’re on a mission the real world kind of goes into hibernation. What popular movies, TV shows, music were you unaware of during your 1.5 - 2 years in the cultural/social bubble?

For me (in Germany and Austria 1977-79) it was:

Movie: Star Wars

TV: Mork & Mindy

Music: Pretty much the entire Bee Gees (Saturday Night Fever) disco thing.

The washing and and anointing in modern mormon temples are to cleanse and anoint the body to replenish the earth. How does that relate to ancient temples or Jesus. The flds Reference below is not the mainstream ritual but very similar.

https://archive.org/stream/TempleEndowmentTrueAndLivingChurchOfJesusChristOfSaintsOfTheLastDaysFundamentali/Temple%20Endowment%20-%20True%20and%20Living%20Church%20of%20Jesus%20Christ%20of%20Saints%20of%20the%20Last%20Days%20%28Fundamentalist%20splinter%20of%20LDS%20Church%29_djvu.txt

Never-mo with LDS convert family here with a question for current or recent ex-mos. Have missions changed in a huge way? Lisa Barlow of RHSLC claimed on the first episode of this season that her son who is on a mission to Columbia was messaging her daily on Facebook and going to Michelin star restaurants and then on WWHL claimed that he was shopping at Louis Vuitton and his life and mission was very bougie.

Have missions changed drastically since my LDS cousins were on their missions? They weren't allowed to have facebook on their phones, only got to call their parents once a week and they couldn't even go nice restaurants or do too many "fun" activities let alone go on luxury shopping trip or fine dining. Or is this just something rich LDS mission elders who's parents are sort of famous get to do? Is she making things up or is are some missions just vacays for rich kids?

I know everybody cites the CES letter, but this website was much more impactful for my family. It helped my wife understand the issues without feeling attacked. I credit it for getting my family all on the same page. It was much less biased. It seemed to actually care about the facts and truth, regardless of where it led rather than having a clear agenda on either side. . So thorough. Covered so many topics so well. It will be a huge loss if it is gone for good.

Does anyone know what happened? Is it coming back?

Mike, hope everything is good. If you see this, thank you for all your work. My family will forever be grateful for the light you brought into our home.

****UPDATE: The website is back up although the social media accounts are still gone. Leaving this post up just in case Mike has the chance to see this and is able to see what value all his work has added based on the comments. ***

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1f4yq52/giving_joseph_credit_where_it_is_due_for_his/

In the past above, the second item I gave Joseph credit for was the "elevated Eve" as being an original doctrine.

I have since learned that is not true.

It appears to have been an idea first adopted by Josiah Priest in his "The Anti-Universalist" Two Part book that it's claimed was published in 1828 (I can't verify that).

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Anti_universalist/Q3idJZ3JSfQC?hl=en&gbpv=1

(As an aside, this treatise is specifically targeted in part against Walter Balfour who I have previously referenced as a type for the stand-in Universalists in the Book of Mormon)

Not only are there multiple chapters on the Pre-Existence and War in Heaven, but in Part Second it literally has this rhetorical question:

"What would have been the condition of Eve, if when she had broken the law about the forbidden tree, and offered its fruit to Adam, if he had not received it; and what would have been the condition of our race, under such a view of the subject"

It must needs be however, that one read from 227 onward. I will copy and paste sections (notice the copying of the wording in the Chapter Headers of "An Account of" we see in the Book of Mormon but claimed to be on the Plates as "An account of Lehi" and also the copy of "&C" that is in the Scribe Manuscript)

HISTORY OF SATAN, &C.

PART SECOND.

An account of the operations of Satan with the heads of our race, Adam and Eve, in producing their fall; with further evidence than is produced in the first volume, of the existence of Devils and Evil Spirits, who have a literal and personal existence, according to the Scriptures as we understand them, and as understood by Oorthodox Christians throughout the World.

That there is such a being as is called Satan, Devil, Serpent, Old Serpent, Evil One, Destroyer, Accuser, Apolyon, Abaddon and Evil Spirit, we proceed, in this second part of the work, further to prove, from the holy Scriptures, but more particular from the New Testament; and shall show, that he, as well as his associate evil spirits, are real beings, and not imaginary ones; or at most as some believe, are nothing more than diseases of the body and mind, the images of the heathen, and evil principles or passions of the human soul. In the book of Genesis, the oldest writing now in existence, 3d chapter 1st verse, is found the first intimation of the existence and character of Satan, who is there brought to view under the name of the Nachash; which word is erroneously translated, both in the Greek and the English, as we have shown on the first pages of the first part of this work. The reason this name, Nachash, was given by Moses to this evil spirit, the head of all evil beings, was because he entered into the mental and physical powers of a certain animal known to Moses by that name, or (as it is in the Arabic, which at that time was the same with the Hebrew,) K-ha-noos, and meant the Orang-outang-for the purpose of attempting to deceive our first mother, with respect to that which God had forbidden her. That this spirit, so entering into the organs of that animal, and who, by that means misled the mind of Eve, was Satan, the chief of the fallen angels, we think we prove by the following argument and Scripture. ...

...seeing all the world, from Adam till Noah, and from Noah till Constantines time, was given to idolatry, with the bare exception of one family before the flood,...

But as promised at the outset of this second part of the work, we proceed further to prove the being of the devil, chiefly from the New Testament. But before we enter upon this book of Scripture further than already done, we will examine again, but briefly, the famous 3d chapter of Genesis on this subject. In that chapter, it is stated that the serpent held a strange, yet interesting conversation with the first woman, in which he led her to believe that if she tasted the fruit of that forbidden tree, no evil could happen to her, but rather a positive good would certainly be the result, as that her eyes should be opened, &c. This must have been the devil, that fallen angel, who promised her this increase of knowledge, as there was no other creature who could have done it.

...

Is it good sense to suppose God would have forbidden the very and only means which himself had ordained in the creation of nature, by which the earth was to be replenished by inhabitants, making his own work the occasion of sin and death? Surely not. This would be to set God at variance with himself, his providence at war with his wisdom and holiness; one kind of life, that of animal existence, at war with another kind of life, that of moral rectitude; both of which were entirely essential to human beings and human happiness.

...

But here, it would seem, a question may arise, whether, if they had not been thus tried, they would have sinned and fallen from their innocence and first condition, in which they were made? If we say no, they would not, how then is the Divine Being to be cleared of being the cause of their fall, inasmuch as he willed their trial after some sort or other? If man had not been subjected to a trial, or probation, under such circumstances as should preclude from his knowledge at the time (but not afterwards) the reason of such trial, the virtue and exercise of the most glorious trait of intellectual being-that of free agency and free will could never have been manifest to men nor angels; out of which an endless succession of happiness was to arise; which could never have been developed in any other way. The abuse of free agency is sin; and free agency possessed by any being, and that free agency not tested or tried, would be the same as no free agency at all;

...

We will now enquire what would have been the consequence, if, when Adam saw that Eve had sinned and was fallen, and was in instant expectation of seeing the penalty inflicted upon her, if he had refused to have partaken with her of the prohibit ed fruit, and had withstood her solicitations and remained in his first and innocent condition? we ask what would have become of Eve? We do not perceive that we can answer this question otherwise than by supposing she must have then died and been damned instantly, as were the apostatizing angels; as it would have been impossible for her to have been saved, as no seed of the woman could have come into being, nor have been exhibited, as promised, and as an object of her faith to fix upon, nor to have made an atonement for her sin. 

...

But God, knowing his malice, knew that his aim was to ruin them both, and that by this very means he intended to prevent the future existence of the whole human race; supposing that if he could but bring about the extirpation of that first man and woman, that by this means the coming forward of the whole human race would be prevented, and therefore the earth would be created in vain, unless God would produce another human pair, which he knew was inconsistent. But heaven had him in derision; for by this very act he ignorantly opened the only door of hope to poor lost Eve and the whole human race, contrary to his will, his interest, or his meaning; as by that act there was opened a door by which salvation entered; and thus, in the fulness of his malice, he baffled his chief design, which was to have obtained cause of boasting, even over his Creator. 

3 Nephi 1-7

In these chapters we don’t just have the nonbelievers mocking the believers, but they set a date that if the signs predicted by Samuel don’t come to pass then they are going to put them to death.  Nephi who is Nephi’s son (Older Nephi has left never to be seen again) goes out to pray asking the Lord to help them.   It's interesting that Samuel (a Lamanite – was he one of the people of Ammon?) is the one to give this prophecy and the response is they may have guessed some right in the face of so many signs (someone said that to me two weeks ago).    It's interesting because the prophecy doesn’t come from elder Nephi and now his son seems to have to deal with the consequences.   It would have been one thing if his father had said it but instead it is said by a Lamanite.  He obviously believes it though and goes to the Lord to plead with him.

He prays all day and finally the voice of the Lord comes and tells him that on the morrow I (Jesus) will come into the world, the signs will come, and you will be saved from death. 

The sign does come and it's so dramatic that they start reckoning their time from that day.    

From the internet “The origins of the Christian Era date back to the sixth century when a monk named Dionysius Exiguus proposed the idea of dating events from the birth of Christ. Since then, the Christian Era has become the dominant way of measuring time in the Western world and has had a profound impact on our history and culture.” The Christian Era: What Does it Mean and How Did it Shape Our World? (christianeducatorsacademy.com)

This doesn’t solve the issues really for believers, sure they aren’t all killed, but there are still issues.   Giddianhi tells them that he wants all their possessions, or they will kill everyone (his is a robber).   Instead, they gather together build fortifications and try to wait out and starve out Giddianhi.  Just to make things confusing for me the Nephite captain is Gidgiddoni and he fights with the robbers who just want to live off the earnings of those who work – sounds again like our day.  He wins and Giddianhi is killed.     Zemnarihah takes his place and the fight continues.  Because the Nephites have the food they win and Zemnarihah is hanged.  (A plug to get our year supply). 

Mormon tells us a little about himself and that he believes in Jesus Christ the Son of God.  Maybe that is to give us hope?  

It gets bad again and pride, and riches are the issue.  The chief judge is murdered, and this is bad enough that instead of them being one nation they divide themselves up into tribes.  

Destruction starts and it’s a mess with tempests, earthquakes, whirlwinds and fire.   The darkness is so thick they can’t burn a fire I assume that this means that O2 level has dropped to the point where a fire won’t burn but they still have enough to breath.  Christmas Lectures 2012 - Lighting a fire in 15% Oxygen - YouTube – I thought this was interesting. 

Welcome to "[Mormonism Explained.org](Mormonism Explained.org)"

It took about 5 minutes to determine that:

1. Headquartered in Draper Utah.
2. Funded by (we're not telling but) clearly by someone as they are using paid advertisements on youtube and hiring at least one full time contributor.
3. Those writing bits include contributors to Scripture Central (i.e. Jack Welch's start-up that is funded by wealthy church members and some church related entities).
4. Full list of contributors = dead link on this page
5. They can't even spell "Joseph Smith" correctly. That's kind of embarrassing. Anyhow, hard for me to tell if it's an off-shoot of Scripture Central or the More Good Foundation. Of course, that's a distinction without any real difference.

Why does the church and its proxies create so many of these "independent voices" like mormonism explained and keep pretending that they are independent? It looks like they're trying to make sure that any random person looking for information will see so much information from the church that they will be unable to find any actual independent information.

Quotes from their web site:

Our approach involves thorough research and consultation with diverse sources to ensure impartial and unbiased explanations of topics concerning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

yeah. right. Is that why you state things like:

The records that discuss Smith using a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon have not always been readily available. However, with the advent of the internet, many more Mormon church historical records can be accessed by the public.

Funny. BH Roberts had no issue finding the sources in 1905, even though he literally rewrote some of the quotes to remove the seer stone from the record.

The art favors depictions of Smith translating with the Nephite interpreters, often called the Urim and Thummim. Some Mormons feel that they have been deceived by this artwork.

Many Mormons agree that the artwork that shows Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon is not a purposeful deception. Firstly, because the accounts of Smith’s translation that most artists have access to are in Mormon scripture. These scriptures share Smith’s and Oliver Cowdery’s accounts of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Smith never recorded the manner of his translation (JS-H 1:62).

Guys... don't you get it? We've talked to the artists. They've told us (and stated publically) that they were told EXACTLY what to paint by the people in the church who commissioned the artwork. They're not going to the scriptures and thinking, 'gee, I wonder what I should paint'. You're telling them to paint Joseph and Oliver with a blanket between them and Joseph looking at the plates.

And you're going to pretend that Joseph never recorded the manner of translation? But remember guys, you (i.e. apologists) already told us in "The truth about the Godmakers" (1985 or 6) when you were denying that the seer stone was used that we had three valid 2nd hand accounts which indicate Joseph alway insisted that it was done with the Urim and Thummim (described as large spectacles). So why change the story now? Ah yes, that's right, the internet.

So we get more deception. But this time it's not the official church deception, it's deception by people who are working with only loose, unofficial, hard to trace ties to the church. How does this make it better?

If the church wants people to stop feeling like they've been lied to, it needs to stop the systematic lying. It needs to stop setting up these "independent" resources and having them lie on its behalf. The church needs to make these inaccurate apologetics sources go away. Otherwise, it needs to take responsibility for their content. It's not the breakin at watergate that did the damage - it was the cover-up. It's always the cover up.

rant over.

Sorry - I hate rants. They're immature. I get it.

So I'm not Mormon and not super invested in learning about Mormonism, but just now I was at a store and a girl in front of me at the self checkouts was a Mormon on her mission. She left something personal behind at the self checkout and I only realized after I finished doing my own purchases. I'd like to make sure it gets back to her, but all I know is that she's from Salt Lake City (another customer asked her about her mission while we were all waiting in line).
If I just contact the temple here in this city and give the item to them, will they know who she is and be able to see it returned to her, or are Mormons on their mission kind of just doing things as assigned by the temple they came from without a lot of contact with the local temple?

If the Temple won't know who she is I guess I'll just tell an employee at the store here and leave it with them, hope the girl realizes that she lost it soon enough to realize WHERE she lost it, and hope that store actually does a good job of carefully storing lost items.

I was a little unclear on what flair to go with but I guess this is technically a question about the institutional workings of a part of the Mormon church, so I went with that.

Sup to every flavor of mo on here. I'm a recent convert and coincidentally, a beginner on the piano. Ergo I wish to combine these interests and learn a hymn on piano.

So - what is the ABSOLUTE BEST hymn that is so fun and makes you just like YES YES MORE OF THIS HYMN. Thus I'll be motivated to practice piano more lol.

Thanks!

UPDATE: I ended up ignoring everyone's advice and choosing O My Father lol

This appears in the Book of Mormon in the Book of Moroni chapters which act as a late catechism added to the Book of Mormon as a foundation for a "soon-to-be-formed" church. (appears to be taken from Hopkins' "System of Doctrines V2, chapter V mostly but that's another discussion for another time)

Chapter 8 of Moroni purports to be an Epistle from Mormon to Moroni that centers on the status of "little children" with regards to Baptism.

However evidence is pretty clear that this is a 19th Century/KJV Post Biblically dependent treatise.

The whole epistle is rife with terminology and phraseology that is from the KJV of the Bible or even later than that and only from 16th to 19th Century English Christianity.

"Solemn Mockery" is a modern phrase only.

"Endurance of Faith" is so modern as to only appear from the 1800's onward.

"Gross Error" is literally written all over tracts, sermons, treatises regarding infant baptism (both for and against).

"Awful is the wickedness" is simply "Awful Wickedness" which is also from 1800's onward as a phrase.

"Accountable and capable of committing sin" is also from the early 1800's.

"Should he be cut off while in the thought" is not only 1800's but poor English as it's not "cut off" but "cut down". Cut down means to die. Cut off is only used as a separation. However the phrase "Cut off while in" is used to refer to Baptism by Immersion as a Baptist argument in likeness to Christ being "cut off while" in the grave.

To demonstrate, I'll do a simple comparison:

Moroni 8:

6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

"True liberality : a sermon preached in Boston on the first anniversary of the American Society for Educating Pious Youth for the Gospel Ministry", Oct. 23, 1816

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.090318304&seq=9

Can we, then, believe; that their; mode of baptism only is scriptural and valid? If so, what becomes of the faithfulness of God to his promises? If for many centuries, the whole Christian world were in an error, which, in effect, destroyed the validity and the very being of the first sacrament or seal of the church; if for several ages God's true and faithful people were almost universally in an unbaptized and unchurched state; and if now only that small proportion of his professing people, who deny the Abrahamic covenant and church, are to be accounted the true church of Christ; what then becomes of the design for which the Abrahamic church was formed, and of the covenant provision which was made for its continuance throughout all generations.

Can it, my brethern, be believed, that so vastly the greater part of God's most faithful and praying people, of his purest and most enlightened churches, and of his most approved and successful ministers have been for so many hundreds of years, in such a state of gross error; and wickedness, as that their baptism, their covenant vows, their church state, their ordination solemnities, their sacred celebration of the holy supper, and their whole ecclesiastical order and administration, have been not a mere nullity only, but a solemn mockery of God, an offensive smoke in his nose!

"A compendious view of natural and revealed religion. In seven books" by the Rev. John Brown, published in Philadelphia, 1819

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.40637698&seq=9

If the children of manifestly ungodly parents have any real right to baptism, the church ought to put them into possession of it. But what could be done in this matter? The parents are incapable to educate these children in a Christian manner. It would be but a solemn mockery of God to bring...

His Holy Child is expressly late/post biblical.

In fact this tract from Jabez Chadwick, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Uttica, New York (printed 1811) may be specifically what Chapters 7 and 8 of Moroni are commenting on (refuting as to Child Baptism)

"Four sermons, on the mode and subjects of Christian baptism" (these are in favor of infant baptism)

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.ah4gn5&seq=7

I see no reason to conclude, that God might not, on the one hand, consfer grace on some, who did not join themselves to the commrunion of the disciples; " for the wind bloweth where it listeth ;" and on the other, cause wonders to be wrought in the name of his holy child Jesus, by those who were not savingly ' acquainted with him, in order to prepare the way for the more ready reception of Christ and his gospel, when the time of its more extensive spread should arrive

Or this one printed in Utica in 1827 in response to Infant Baptism:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiuo.ark:/13960/t5q85n09j&seq=5

There can be no question IMHO that Moroni 8 (if not all of the Book of Moroni) is not of any ancient origin other than what was available in 1829.

I find it highly doubtful and improbable if not impossible that 400CE Native Americans were having debates regarding Infant/Paedo-Baptism using the exact same English terminology and phraseology and arguments as existed in heated discussions and writing in 1829 Christian New England after 1700 years of Christian dogmatic evolution.

8 year olds do not have the mental capacity or maturity to make any sort of life decision. Most of them still believe in Santa Claus for heavens sake. They are told their whole lives they must be baptized in order to be with their family in the next life. They are then given the choice to either do what they've been groomed to do, or disappoint everybody they know. Why do we keep pretending 8 year olds are making any kind of "choice" here when in reality the choice has already been made for them?