JVW

Did you watch the lawyer video he posted? I'd say cliffnotes are if you start at around 15:40 until the end of the video. Considering that she wrote in an email to the church basically "I always felt safe with Tim and was never abused" that kind of does her in as far as that allegation goes. We'll see how the rest play out.

I vote for you to be the next prophet. You've got some wildly progressive doctrinal ideas my dude.

Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve could have died if they never partook of the forbidden fruit? That's a really interesting idea that I've never considered before.

Oh crap, I'm too lazy to read through my own wall of text. I should try to be more concise and brief in my writings. Thank goodness for control+F! I stand by what I said, I think contextually the word "retarded" makes sense there. Now, I'm not suggesting that I'm smart or "quick" but I am saying that from my perspective Michael B. Rush is slooow in the head.

Yeah, hit the nail on the head. I haven't met very many high church protestants, but I feel like high church types of people tend to be less aggressive towards LDS generally because they're also skirting the line of "saved by works/rituals" like LDS are. What are those three things you referenced? Should I be taking time to look into them?

I'm going to venture and say "no" because I have never heard of any of those discussion topics you raised and I've argued with a lot of Christians in my day. I love arguing with people.

Maybe it had something to do with why Mary couldn't touch Jesus because He hadn't ascended to His Father yet. Since Jesus was in the spirit world before His ascension, maybe there were some mysterious limitations on where He could be. Maybe because He wasn't resurrected He couldn't contain His glory and His mere presence would have caused those in prison to have their eyes melt off and their souls evaporated back into primordial intelligence.

In this theory could Adam and Eve had had children before the fall? As far as I'm aware LDS believe that's not possible because of that one verse in 2 Nephi 2, but outside of that I don't know if we have a lot of support for that belief. Also, how did you ever reconcile the tree of life probably having been partaken of before they ate the forbidden fruit? I appreciate the symbolism of the two trees, but when looking at it literally I have a difficult time making sense of things.

Ward Radio video from 2 days ago. It's the ward radio guy filming and then like 3 other LDS YouTubers listening to the Moon's books guy talk about his first edition copy of the Book of Mormon that Hyrum Smith owned. He shows the receipts in the video. I don't have access to YT on the computer that I access this site on, so no link, sorry.

This video is the first thing I've watched of Tim Ballard and here's what I think in no particular order: - I hope that he does all of the lawsuits that he claims he's going to do. I'd be very interested to see depositions, documents, evidence, etc. Setting Tim aside, it would be interesting to get a peak behind the curtain of the church. Kind of like how it would've been interesting if the tithing case wasn't summarily dismissed and we got to see some financial statements. - As a pretty well acquainted conspiracy theorist let's pretend, for a moment, that his claims are true; and he goes to court and things start looking favorably for him (which isn't likely, as I'll get into later). If that is the case then he will be a dead man. The alleged secret Luciferian cabals do murder people who attempt to expose them, people have been murdered for less. A few examples that come immediately to mind are Isaac Kappy or John McAfee who literally had a tattoo on his arm that basically meant "if I commit suicide I didn't commit suicide". The reason why it's not likely that he would win in court if the conspiracy is true is because they have a whole system established to hide any evidence. They have hog farms where they feed dead bodies to hide murders; they birth and raise children without birth certificates to prevent evidence trails; they have 3-letter agencies who harass and storm residences to confiscate evidence; etc. See Epstein as a prime example of evidence destruction or protection of the perpetrators. Again, this is a thought experiment, I'm not suggesting that this is reality, but based on what I see of Tim in this thread, it is how he views reality. - Assuming Tim believes all of these conspiracies and isn't lying through his teeth for money, it is strange that he exudes such confidence and fearlessness in this battle against "the devil". He should reasonably suspect that any evidence on "the enemy" side will be gone by the time the trials start and that any evidence he has will slip away before it can be made useful. He should suspect that not only is his life at risk, but his family's lives as well, if he really believes in the conspiracies he's spouting. - Regardless of how sane or crazy the man is, there is a part of me that admires him and wants to emulate him. I am a very low-key, idle, dispassionate kind of person and I really wish I could feel motivated, passionate, conviction, dedication, urgency, and hard-work to my beliefs and causes. I really admire that about Tim even though I do not agree with him. I have this same view of James O'Keefe, Jordan Peterson, John D. Rockefeller, Fidel Castro, George Soros, etc. They are all men who, for better or for worse, are passionate and dedicated to their cause and have struggled to make the world a better place according to their views and Tim gives me that same feeling. It's a character trait that I envy. My mother had that kind of personality and broke me at a young age so I like to believe I could cultivate it one day, but so far I just am drawn to it and married to it so I can be close to that sort of personality as I strive to emulate it. - I don't believe in Tim's conspiracy, but I do believe that Tim is not entirely guilty. I don't believe that every slanderous thing said against him is true, and I'm willing to believe that if he was so well acquainted with so many high-level church officials that he would have made some bad blood with some of them somewhere along the way. - I don't like Tim's way of viewing the world. He reminds me of Michael Rush. I tried getting through an audio book of his once about the 10 lost tribes and I thought it was one of the most retarded things I'd heard in a long time. Tim and Michael both speak in a similar way, though Michael comes across as much less crazy even though a lot of what he believes is, in many ways, more crazy than Tim.

More like chefs making a primordial soup, delicious.

In a recent interview with the new First Presidency there is a moment where President Eyring says something to the effect of, "I'd like to venture to suggest a prophecy right now! That blah blah." He sounded so unsure of himself and like he was second guessing or just being naturally timid. A man who has been a special witness of Jesus Christ for decades and in the First Presidency for ages. Contrast that with what I hear about last night when Joseph Smith told a brother to close down his pub or he would go blind and the dude didn't close down his pub and dude later reported on a census that he was blind. I wish our prophets behaved like prophets and not businessmen or administrators. They have the power to go around healing the sick and cursing the wicked and exposing secret combinations of brothers secretly stabbing the chief judge for power, but all we get is "family is important, go to the temple, and I hesitantly venture a prophecy". Prophets should most definitely not be cautious. They should near rely on the arm of the flesh or fear what man can do because they have the Lord of Hosts as their front and rear guard.

You tease. I want to know about some of these, what other faiths are there that assure their congregates that nearly everyone on Earth will be in heaven one day because God is so nice?

To be fair, the story of the Fall is a very confusing story, the same type of confusing as trying to understand the Trinity or the Godhead. There are some things that logically make sense but I can't quite fit all of the puzzle pieces together. As far as I understand it, the translation of "on this day you shall surely die" means "today" and "physical death" not "sometime in the next 1000 years" and/or "spiritual death". Which, at least on the surface, means that God is lying and the serpent (who allegedly is Satan, but only because we believe in LDS stuff) is telling the truth. As much as I hate to say it (because I don't really like this friend all that much) the best theory I've heard about how to make the Fall make sense is that it is a priesthood ordinance. His view is that on every other Earth God administers the fruit to that Earth's respective Adam and Eve and they make the choice to accept, and that the devil got punished because he put himself in God's place through deception and blasphemed the ceremony. Anyways, addressing your question that was not to me, I was immediately reminded of this verse in Enos that struck me a few weeks ago, (Enos 1:5-6) "And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed. And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away." According to this verse knowing, or believing, that God can't lie is actually an integral part of repentance and accessing the atonement of Jesus Christ, or God's power. So believing that God has lied absolutely will impact anyone's faith journey or walk on the "covenant path".

This is my favorite article about God's name and "I AM". Very illuminating. https://www.oneforisrael.org/the-name-of-god/

I hadn't heard about that, that's crazy, and yet I imagine in all of the paperwork that the women fill out pre-op there is some wording in there saying this can happen and they can't sue. If that is the case, does that mean they consented? Or should the doctor or nurse be including this possibility in their communication with the patient as they're filling it out? And if the patient is aware of it and doesn't consent then they may not be able to get the procedure. So at that point, could it be argued that a patient is coerced into submitting to the pelvic exam because if they don't then they can't get the surgery? What do you mean by withheld? If the information is in lawyer or PhD medical language and it's on a form you sign, was the information withheld? What if the information is withheld from the doctors or obfuscated by scientific journals or pharmaceutical companies so the doctor can't inform the patient even though they give all the information they have?

I'll be interested to see how the court case goes. I imagine that before Toyota hatched this scheme that they spent a lot on lawyers to ensure that, while they may be bending the laws of consent, that they weren't explicitly breaking them. I saw a video a few years ago describing this sort of thing across a gamut of car manufacturers. Even after being informed of that, I still drive a vehicle made within the last decade, so I suppose I've given consent. *facepalm*

Your argument is very compelling. I'll be considering it as I continue moving forward in my faith journey, thank you.

I believe that one reason why Catholics and LDS get along so well is because we are both regarded as "not Christian" by the Christian world. Catholics don't count here. They aren't what I term "a New Testament church". They have a rich culture and history and balanced perspective on God's word. The red-letter Bible readers are like 90% New Testament and don't really see Jesus in the Old Testament. I am speaking in generalizations based on my experience as a missionary in the suburbs of Dallas TX, the online communities I participate in, and many conversations I've had with Christians throughout my life.

Hey all, I figured I would post this in here because it's not a religious topic. I've recently had a few debates with others, in real life, about informed consent, or consenting in general. In the medical industry informed consent is a thing, but when I try to define it I come up stuttering. I personally do not believe that informed consent is always present for the patient. I personally view the patient's responsibility regarding informed consent to be, at best, around a 3/10. My friend views patient responsibility much higher at around 9/10 as they are responsible adults and are responsible for their own health. My friend suggested that the ability to ask any question they want to the doctor and to the pharmacist as well as the package inserts in any medical intervention products constitute informed consent. While that may technically be true, I don't view that as the reality. I think because the entire system is in a position of authority that the dynamics are different and a lot of people naturally trust those in authority over them, and doctors take an oath to do no harm, so they have the patients best interest in mind. Also, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a non-expert who doesn't speak the language of medicine to be able to comprehend without an interpreter (i.e. a doctor or pharmacist). One of my recent conversations then shifted. I have mentioned to a friend many times that I do not consent to using AI, and it bugs me that I can't say no to using it. Anywhere I am on the internet I am subjected to AI, and many times it is outside of my conscious awareness I'm sure. My friend suggested that I do consent any time I use the internet, by virtue of using the internet. I mentioned the long legal things on every app that people scroll through without reading and accept in order to use a product. A lot of these policies no longer have a "do not agree" button on them, and I think that's a problem too. Again, the idea being that by simply using the product one naturally consents. But those policies, again, are not translated for the layman to use, in order to properly understand them they would need an interpreter (a lawyer). The last example of this is something I actually just learned about last night, Amazon Sidewalk. Any IOT product that's Amazon or Amazon Partnered has, by default, Amazon Sidewalk connectivity enabled. All of these devices are surveillance devices and as of this month they are using AI and facial recognition software (in Ring cameras, for instance) to monitor any activity they observe. There is also an application called Flock that works with the police to try and catch criminals though its facial recognition systems have errored and police have lost lawsuits from innocent victims of arrests. I don't consent to this, and I don't own any Amazon Sidewalk products, so how should I view consent here? I walk down the street and just by the act of walking past a neighbor's house who has a Ring doorbell I implicitly consent? So how do y'all define "informed consent"? Do you believe it exists, for the most part, in the medical industry? What do you think about other forms of consent like with updated application policies? Thanks for your time regarding this topic.

Hey I know this is a slight derail but I had a quick question for you about the apostasy as it's also kind of a pivotal consideration for why I haven't gone the Catholic/Orthodox route despite the personal appeal I have for those religions. The biggest reason why I believe that the church was in apostasy was because the world loved the church. The Catholic church being in bed with the world government for so many centuries, and the governments of the world actually -liking- the church, are what indicate to me that there was a problem with the church. Throughout the NT Jesus makes it pretty clear that Him and the world are kind of like diametrically opposed and that the world hated Him without a cause and would hate His followers (church) but to not worry about it because He overcame the world. So seeing a history of the church and the world not just tolerating each other, or trying to collaborate, but actually ruling together, hand-in-hand for centuries just kind of rubs me the wrong way. Hopefully I'm making sense here. There is also 2 Thes. 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first..." Granted it's only one verse, so not a ton of evidence to claim that an apostasy was to happen before the Savior's return. But if we are to believe that a falling away was to happen, would your view be that the protestant reformation was the falling away? Or the Orthodox split? Do you view any churches as being in a state of apostasy and how do you define that? Interested in your thoughts here, cheers.

I'd like to give my two cents on this. I believe that a Christian's general definition of "salvation" is to live with Jesus forever. I know that the Trinity is one God in three persons, so they'll say "salvation is to live with God forever", but the Christian world, at least in America, is hyper-focused on the New Testament and they very obviously worship Jesus, not the Trinity. According to the Holy Bible (see Matthew 7:21-23) there will unfortunately be many Christians who will be rejected by Christ, so they will not get to experience their definition of salvation. Because the LDS believe in the Godhead we have a bit more nuance to the afterlife and where people will end up. My definition of salvation is to be saved from the two deaths: physical death and spiritual death (separated from God). Jesus saves us all from physical death as a free gift that doesn't even require faith in Him, though there will be a period of time between death and the resurrection that will vary from person to person. This fact is implicit in 1 Cor 15:30 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." Adam had died many thousands of years before Christ was resurrected, so there was a space between his death and his resurrection. The sons of perdition (whatever that means) will be permanently separated from God, they reject salvation of any kind. God is dead to them, just as He is to the devil. Anyone who is not a son of perdition will be saved, regardless of what they believe. The wicked will suffer in hell for 1000 years (during the millenial reign of Jesus) before they are resurrected, judged, and receive a degree of God's glory and dwell eternally in the presence of the Holy Ghost. Those who repent and have faith in Jesus Christ, and follow Christ without hypocrisy and without guile, regardless of their belief system will receive a degree of God's glory and dwell eternally in the presence of Jesus Christ (the Christian salvation). They will be resurrected after the Celestial resurrection Those who repent and have faith in Jesus Christ, are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (under God's authority), and live faithfully until the end of their lives will receive a fulness of God's glory and dwell in the presence of the Father. They will be resurrected when Jesus comes in the clouds at His second coming (the Celestial resurrection). This is commonly referred to as "the morning of the first resurrection". In all three cases a person is physically dwelling blissfully with God forever. Salvation truly is a free gift. In the LDS church the terms "salvation" and "exaltation" are commonly conflated, but they do not mean the same thing. Everyone except for perdition will be saved, that is, they will be resurrected and dwell with God forever. Only those who make authorized covenants with God will be exalted. Another nuance here is that after one dies, before the resurrection, they are given time to repent. So one who is wicked or deceived, after they die there is an opportunity for them to repent and come unto Christ before the resurrection. So we truly cannot judge where our neighbor will go after they die, regardless of what "Jesus" they worship, or what idols they worship. Clear as mud? ............ ETA: The doctrine that is required for salvation is nothing, because it's a free gift, unless you want to not suffer in misery and hell while you're alive and/or before you are resurrected. If you want to live with God's peace then the doctrine that is required for salvation is repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

You make good arguments, thanks for responding, I'm considering them as I continue to think about this topic.

Have we? I feel like we haven't been following the same thread. I haven't seen anything explained away, just a conversation around the nuances of morality. I mostly agree, and I personally don't like it. I have a punk soul and the culture we find ourselves in today where everyone loves "the man" is really unsettling for me. Makes me wish it was the 60s when I could be part of a society that wanted to stick it to "the man". WHO. IPCC. Big Pharma. Government. All loved and defended. What a shame. And many churches are in lockstep with the same sentiments. However, as time has gone on I do feel like being a Christian has started to have a rebellious connotation, and I believe that one day the words "Jesus Christ" will be the ultimate form of hate speech. Christianity is not in vogue. Christians are dismissed, mocked, and belittled. Standing up for Biblical values is becoming more "against the grain" as each year passes, which makes me happy in a weird way. I'll also note here that during the 19th century the LDS church was very much against the grain. They literally left the United States and started their own shadow government of Deseret and went to war against the U.S. very cool. It's possible that I have rose colored glasses, but I don't think so. I just think the scope of the evil that was done was naturally much smaller before electricity, cars, phones, planes, internet, etc. I also believe that we overemphasize the "big bads" of history and give little attention to how many people quietly lived their lives piously, seeking to do God's will and doing their best to live morally upright. During the 19th century in America, there were a bunch of wealthy nasties doing slave stuff, but there were so many more, even in the South, who were quietly living Godly lives. If we look at America now, how many are living Godly lives? Pretty much nobody is anymore. People have become nasty, uncivilized, selfish, arrogant, selfish little creatures now. Morality is not measured by how much suffering or how much freedom is in the world. It's measured by how many people are trying to keep God's commandments. Because without a definition of a commandment and a sin, there is no morality, only ethics. And this thread we are talking about morality. Morality is an inherently religious term. I'll defer to you because you are very well read and intelligent. Right now I'll take your word on blind faith but I'm open to be persuaded to personally believe more in line with your position. I'm not being facetious here. I'll have to take your word for it. People are literally dying from working too much in Japan. Apple had to but nets on their Chinese factories to stop people from dying when jumping off the roof, it was that common. That sounds at least "equally bad" to me as the results to a slave during chattel slavery. [https://www.news.com.au/travel/destinations/asia/japans-deadly-hustle-culture-is-making-a-grim-return/news-story/c401e0a0648931ca82bad688234f1cea] I don't think in the past that exploitation was more pervasive, I think it was just easier to see it. I think stuff is obfuscated now. Whether we use the Bible or not, people will justify their evil acts in whatever manner they want to. In America we exploit in a kind of "don't ask, don't tell" kind of way, but we all do it.

I agree except I want to add a distinction. Just like in AA it's key to believe in something stronger than me that can lift me out of my addiction. With morality I believe it's important to believe in an objective moral law that exists outside of my subjective perception. Part of the reason this is important is because if a person doesn't believe that sin exists, and that there are negative consequences to sinning, then it will be difficult to make adjustments that align with good morality. As humans, we can make ourselves believe anything is right, we can justify anything, "the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions". I think that not believing in sin shifts the moral journey from an introspective one into one where other people are the reason I'm not happy, nothing is ever my fault and I don't have any personal responsibility for how I feel. I'm open to be persuaded to adjust my views here, but this is where I currently stand. I am trying to emulate Jesus Christ who showed us what God would do if He were walking among us. When it comes to what God does outside of the time in which He was on the Earth, I am not God and I cannot judge Him. I do not have His perspective, His love, His responsibility, or His stewardship. I would never let someone die. I would let everyone live forever. I would never let someone get kidnapped or tortured, or let someone invent weapons, or cheat on their spouse. Yet God allows all of these things to happen. It's not my realm of responsibility or my concern. My responsibility is to relieve suffering everywhere that I see it to the best of my ability. To "love God and love my neighbor as myself". I know that God is love, therefore everything that He does I have to believe that His choices are the most loving choices He can make, even if they cause me intense pain and brokenness. For the record I believe in a literal Great Flood. I've stated on this forum before that God is mean. In the society I live in today "niceness" is the highest virtue, but I have never read anywhere in the scriptures a command to be nice, and God certainly isn't. Thanks for the book recommendation. Speaking specifically to opioids - the problem was similar to the same problem as the South during slave times in America. A small conglomerate of wealthy businessmen doing whatever they could to maximize profits and influencing public opinion to agree with them. To date there has been nearly $58 Billion in settlements related to opioids [https://www.opioidsettlementtracker.com/globalsettlementtracker] and, since 1999, there have been around 800k deaths in the U.S. alone [https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-the-opioid-overdose-epidemic.html]. That is a lot of harm done by wicked men, and many are complicit in it. It wasn't due to bad science, they knew what they were doing. They still obfuscate data in big pharma funded studies today. See https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/study-329-the-big-fraud-is-finally as an example, but there are many, many more. If child abuse is way down I shudder to think about what it used to be: [https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/] In America, I agree, in many ways life is better than it was 100-200 years ago. Living conditions globally are improved, but that's not related to morality, that's related to scientific advancement. However, we do force children to work, just not American children. We have labor laws and safety rules in the American workplace, but how much of what we buy is produced here? I think most of the evil in the world is obfuscated now, I wish it was clear and plain to see, but it isn't anymore. I know I'm going on a tangent, but it's been really fun chatting with you. Thanks for conversing with me, brother.