All Activity

More of 'em are than you might think. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-common-way-that-people-accidentally-lead-the-police-straight-to-their-front-door/answer/Ken-K-Gourdin For what it's worth.

Thank You for Your Service. 👍

God didn’t create hell. Fundamentally, hell is the inescapable natural consequence of one having to live within his own tormented conscience due his failure to comply with the eternal laws that alone are able to reconcile repentant souls to the God of truth and justice. In truth, hell is a naturally occurring spiritual condition that needs to exist as an essential manifestation of the immutable law of opposition in all things. Indeed, the existence of hell is powerful evidence of God’s infinite and eternal love for each of his spirit children, for it’s by the means of the torment of conscience for rebellion that recalcitrant human souls are finally able to awaken from the sleep of death and reach out in faith to the Savior (who suffered in the depths of hell for us all) for rescue and deliverance. The abolishment of hell would mean the end of existence for hell is an essential and indispensable manifestation of the law of diametric opposition in all things, and as father Lehi so eloquently testified, without opposition in all things nothing could exist. Without hell no one could be saved, for there would be nothing to be saved from and life would be totally meaningless. And lest we forget, with full foreknowledge we all joyfully signed up for this experience in the fallen state knowing that it was the right thing to do. By his own experience, Alma powerfully testifies how the state of hell is able to awaken souls to the wonders of God’s redeeming love… 13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments. 14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror. 15 Oh, thought I, that I could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds. 16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul. 17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world. 18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death. 19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more. 20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain! 21 Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy. (Alma 36)

Why would you think Nehor and others who see the OT and other scriptural version of hell as abuse believe that way rather than simply your premises that God, if there is a God who loves mankind, has set up such a hell? It’s not like they are rejecting only half of the story, but wholeheartedly trust in the rest of it. I don’t believe Nehor is suggesting there is no law if there is God, but rather that image of law where people suffer in misery due to circumstances that appear to be beyond their control isn’t actually all that lawful. It certainly isn’t just in the way we are taught to understand justice. We have to make quite a few assumptions to justify it. Some people don’t see it as wise to base their own lives and others on assumptions, especially when it doesn’t appear that such a version of God is trustworthy, not having fulfilled promises as others assured them God would.

Agreed! So, here's the thing: Can you expand your paradigm beyond what the scriptures and the Sunday School manual explicitly give you permission to believe and embrace? (This is a rhetorical question; I'm pretty sure I've seen you do so.) Some version of the vending machine approach arguably has a place in a paradigm where outcomes not only matter, but are pretty much the only thing that really matters. Which kingdom are you and those you love going to wind up in? That would be an outcome which matters. The vending machine approach is, at least theoretically, about being able to control outcomes, including that one. And I would have a really hard time arguing from the LDS canon that we don't need to worry about outcomes. Such is my opinion, and imo such is the unarticulated truth behind the oft-repeated injunction to “fear not”, but there are far more scriptures giving reasons to be fearful than giving reasons not to be. Personally, I think this sort of thing is by design. I think there comes an intentional point where circumstances call upon a person to apply what they've learned about how to recognize truth. Sort of like, “you've passed the lecture part of the course, now here's the lab where you put it into practice.” And of course I could be wrong. Thanks! Me too. Sometimes I can go straight "there" just by having the intention, but most of the time I have to consciously and deliberately choose thoughts which “tune me in” to that particular “radio station”.

With full and complete exposure to all the possibilities we might encounter while in this fallen state, we all had complete foreknowledge and agreed to the Father’s plan of salvation before we were born. You and others like yourself likely said, “Lord, if causing me to experience the full, unalloyed effects of my sinfulness turns out to be the only way you’ll be able to save and reclaim me from an endless hell, then you have have my permission to cause me to experience what it’s like to live with myself in my unconverted, unredeemed state until I finally wake up realize that the only way to escape the perfectly natural effects of my rebellion against truth is to repent accept Christ as my Lord and Savior. But I guess you think it would be better to just let the unconverted wicked spend all eternity in the endless sorrow and misery of hell without the Lord even trying to rescue them? It’s hard to kick against the pricks wishing to live in a fantasy world where good and evil have no consequences. 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

I need to remember there is someone else on the board watching for these things now and see if you posted before I report stuff, lol. (there may have been others before, just quiet about their assistance to the mods)

I am highly annoyed that dark chocolate became touted as a health product and available without much sugar like I like it just as I phased into the chocolate triggers rls stage. I had been way too smug about not having this common attribute of rls, smirking at those who did. Hubris

Here's another way to look at it. There is a ton of apologetic scholarship that argues the Book of Mormon is a translation from an ancient text. Some of those make very specific claims (EModE, Hebrew/Egyptian wordplay, Nahom, etc). Why is there so little independent engagement with that? With the Book of Daniel, a scholar can argue for the 6th century origin and not be dismissed out of hand. The 2nd century scholars will engage with the argument, even if they think it is weak. They'll attack problems in the argument or even concede if the argument has value (for example, the idea that there are parts of the Book of Daniel that are much earlier than the 2nd century seems to be gaining strength). With the Book of Mormon, just because independent scholars treat it as a 19th century text doesn't mean that they've refuted that it could be a translation of an ancient text. It may just be that since we don't have the ancient text and that we don't know what language it was in, it's difficult to make a good, independently testable hypothesis about the underlying text. And then you add on the supposed supernatural origin which creates its own set of problems. So, when you say "There is no argument to be made or someone would have made it already", I don't agree. Just because no one has made the argument doesn't mean that there isn't an argument to be made. It could just mean that scholars don't see the question as sufficiently testable or worthwhile to pursue, given the evidence available. That's not the same thing as saying that the evidence has been examined and refuted.

Is God a species or a role? If a role like a judge, just because all judges are human, doesn’t mean all children or even all adult humans are judges.

Perfect I also see the purpose of ritual as getting our brains aligned with a certain mindset that makes us more receptive to the Spirit. Others may see that as just more suggestible if they don’t believe in the Spirit. I am okay with that. Only make use of it in a good way, not to manipulate people. I have noticed it with the Sacrament at home. It does little for me because it doesn’t ‘feel’ like the sacrament. The sense of community when doing it at church is very powerful for me. There are quite a few other things that I do as secular rituals to help me transition from one mindset to another to prepare.

The unknown scribe and the other non-Cowdery scribes are all in the small plates text. As far as we know, Alma through Moroni was all done with only Oliver Cowdery as the scribe (except for the one line where Joseph himself wrote it).

Yeah, but the new model is just the old ‘vending machine’ model with extra steps. You may not get blessings in this life but, trust us bro, you are scoring all kinds of brownie points in the next. When you test God’s promises and they fail does it really make sense to rationalize that the promises work but just work in an untestable way? Maybe….kind of….I dunno, I don’t find it that comforting or helpful.

I think it is something where people are filling in the gaps. But then I treat scripture like a cafeteria. 😛

I agree with the scholars. That doesn’t mean it is not about the end times. It is just that the writer of Revelation thought the end times were going to hit very very soon.

The case is definitive. Which is why the positive case is only made in apologetics publications, not in historical journals. None of the apologetics around an ancient BOM are publishable within the realm of critical historical scholarship. Anyone who has a good grasp of academic Biblical scholarship can see insurmountable anachronisms on practically every page of the book. "(which result in many apparent anachronisms pointing in the other direction)" This isn't actually true. Update: A few insurmountable anachronisms: Quoting passages from the New Testament or OT written after the departure of Nephi from Jerusalem The appearance of Satan as an evil cosmic entity opposed to God The idea of rewards and punishments in the afterlife The idea of a coming messiah who would suffer and die for anyone's sins Alluding to stories from the New Testament like the virgin birth or the 12 apostles, etc References to specific names of New Testament figures Double anachronisms - references to New Testament texts not even in the oldest manuscripts, but ones added centuries after the fact (long ending of Mark, Jesus sweating blood, etc) All of these and more tell historians that there's no case for a historical Book of Mormon.

Yet the Book of Revelation is not about the end times. But rather is addresses Rome under the rule of Nero. At least according to Bart Ehrman and other NT scholars.

Yup, the vending machine approach was the standard Israelite teaching until the apocalyptic period. After that it became about rewards in the afterlife, since it was becoming apparent that following the law did not guarantee a good life (after centuries of persecution and occupation). But the old vending machine approach from Isaiah and other scriptures didn't disappear from scripture.

Update: Not only am I an Eternal Bachelor in a Family Church, I have been assigned to lead a discussion in my Elders Quorum on Elder Neil L. Andersen's April 2026 address, "Eternal Marriage is an Eternal Journey." "OK, Brethren, let's discuss what the Eternal Bachelor knows about Celestial Marriage." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2026/04/55andersen?lang=eng Somebody, somewhere has a sense of humor, I see!

This is advertorial content designed to sell Umrah travel packages. This is very inappropriate on an LDS board with rules against advertising. Dallin H. Oaks is the only person Latter-day Saints recognized as God's living prophet today, so do visit Utah sometime. *Reported*

Cataclysmically

Did someone say ... Cookies?!??!!???!!!

The general scholarly consensus is that the early Christians didn’t have hell (eternal conscious torment) for a long while. Then the lurid revenge fantasy that is the Book of Revelation snuck its way into the canon and here we are.

The problem is it is very hard to get rid of the ‘vending machine’ approach because the scriptures are full of it. The Old Testament is overflowing with it. The New Testament is a little better but it is still there. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are more like the Old Testament than the New in terms of promising fairly specific blessings.

ITEM 9 — CRITICAL CASE: What the names establish The name evidence has several distinct inferential steps that should not be collapsed: (1) a form occurs in an ancient source; (2) the proposed etymology fits this name; (3) the meaning creates a deliberate pun in this passage; and (4) the pattern identifies an ancient source, much less a particular American history. Evidence for one step does not automatically establish the next. Alma is a valuable ancient parallel, but ancient attestation shows that the name existed; it does not show that this text came from the particular ancient setting proposed. A nineteenth-century author with biblical learning could encounter ancient names without having access to the specific inscriptional parallels later identified. The “Alma/young man” reading adds another proposal: it depends on a Hebrew derivation and on how a source-language pun would survive translation. Those are testable questions, not conclusions supplied by the name alone. Jershon is the more interesting contextual case because inheritance and possession language recurs near the name. But the English text is what we have. To infer a pun in a lost source, we need a stable account of the source-language form, the derivation, and the translation rule that preserves the connection. Otherwise the English semantic fit could partly reflect the translator’s choices, or a proposed meaning selected after noticing the nearby wording. There is also a denominator problem. If researchers can search many names across multiple languages, roots, spellings, and proposed translations, some matches are expected by chance. A persuasive result would start with a complete name list and rules chosen in advance, report failures as well as hits, and compare the same procedure against ancient and nineteenth-century name corpora. Hoskisson’s methodological introduction explains why controlled linguistic comparison matters: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss1/5. The Egyptian-component proposal is explicitly conditional on morphology and historical assumptions, so it belongs in the exploratory column until independently tested: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/an-egyptian-linguistic-component-in-book-of-mormon-names. The Alma 30 “dumb/foolish” proposal is an interesting Mayan hypothesis, but the original text is unavailable and it is not systematic Zoquean evidence: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/dumb-puns-in-alma-30/. Maya–Zoque contact in ancient toponymy makes regional language contact a reasonable research question; it does not connect this text to a particular group or event: https://doi.org/10.22201/iia.24486221e.2025.59.1.88005. So the cautious conclusion is that some names and proposed wordplays are ancient-compatible and may show literary design. The present examples do not yet distinguish an ancient American source from later composition using biblical or other learned material. That is the historical question this item still needs to answer.