Pyreaux

Cool, global consciousness. Few hours later Cardon also says Cabot "stepped in it":

Cabot Phillips Really Stepped In It Cabot Phillips, a conservative political activist and media personality, currently serving as a writer and editor at The Daily Wire. Recently posted an anti-Mormon tweet because he believes a common conservative notion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is harmful to society, aligning with his conservative views and political activism. A recent tweet while dunking on a normal LDS girl who claimed all churches have a shady past, the LDS church has the least shady past. She now has 1 million views on her tweet on X because of Cabot Phillips' reply to her: "Before founding Mormonism, Joseph Smith ran a scam business using a magical ‘seer stone’ which he said directed him to buried treasure on people's property." In 1826 he was put on trial for ripping so many people off. In 1827 he just happened to dig up the "golden plates" that became the Book of Mormon. Totally not shady!!!!" (@cabot-philllips, X [formerly Twitter]) Mormon Stories I asked AI to search into this, it couldn't find the tweet, however the AI largely agreed with it. When I asked where the source for its information came from, it was all links from Mormon Stories webpages, with a blend of other primary sources that said no such thing. What I see as happening is, there seems to be a resurgence inspired by The Joseph Smith Papers and Gospel Essays in which critics say the church changed its official tone from a denial that Joseph engaged in any Treasure Hunting, to supposedly admitting Joseph Smith operated a scam business, implying intentional deception and fraud. He used a seer stone (a folk-magic object) to locate buried treasure on other people’s land. The discovery of the “golden plates” in 1827 is insinuated to be just another 'treasure' story. Because that is more or less what Ex-LDS say about every Gospel Topic. As for AI, I'm sure like many non-LDS do, just thinks Mormon Stories is a source for information. Was there a Shift? In the 2010s with the Joseph Smith Papers and Gospel Topics Essays, the Church supposedly shifted to acknowledge Joseph’s treasure-digging and seer stone use in a more open, contextualized way. But I don't see any past denials of treasure hunting nor mining, just not "money-digging", always distinguishing "treasure seeking" from "money digging." B.H. Roberts (early 1900s, LDS General Authority) in Comprehensive History of the Church (1902–1932), Roberts described "money-digging" stories but framed them as hostile exaggerations of his manual labor. Joseph "hired out to Mr. Stowell … to dig for the silver mine … for something like a month … they vainly sought to find the 'hidden treasure.'" Joseph Fielding Smith (Apostle, 1950s–60s) in Doctrines of Salvation acknowledged Joseph's participation in treasure-seeking, Joseph F. Smith emphasized that it was a cultural phenomenon and not indicative of fraud. “Joseph Smith never was a money-digger. The whole story is a fabrication.” “Informed people do not dispute the fact that Joseph Smith searched for buried treasure. The disagreement is about what it means.” The only "shift" as I read it, is the church officially calling out most arguments against all treasure hunting, as the Presentist Fallacy it is: Judging 1820s folk practices by 2020s standards of scams or devilry, instead of understanding them in their own cultural and religious context. In the early 1800s, many respectable American people (not just Joseph) engaged in treasure-seeking. To dismiss it as “scamming” ignores the wider cultural acceptance and reduces it to a modern insult. Critics proceed to exaggerate the evidence (Hasty Generalization) and misrepresent the church's admissions (Strawman). They also twist ambiguous facts into hostile certainty. There isn't hard evidence he scammed folk. Joseph in 1822 finds a Seer Stone as a Youth Historical sources (both friendly and hostile) agree Joseph found a brown seer stone while digging a well around 1822. It’s clear he experimented with it; looking for things, trying to find objects underground, and sometimes telling neighbors what he "saw." And before the Book of Mormon, he developed a positive reputation of success. The important note: this was as a teen - long before he organized the Church. Early American folk practices weren’t unusual in rural New York. Joseph Knight Sr. (an early, faithful believer) wrote in his reminiscences: “Young Joseph … looked in the stone and told them there was a treasure.” (Dean Jessee, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 4, p. 15) Joseph’s Mother, Lucy Mack Smith's memoir, she acknowledged Joseph’s reputation for looking into a stone and that the neighbors sought him for it. She framed it positively: he was known for “having the gift of seeing” - not as a fraud, but as someone with a spiritual gift. (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (1853)). Joseph’s 1826 Court Hearing as a Glass-Looker Surviving bills and notes from Justice Albert Neely’s 1826 Bainbridge, NY examination calls Joseph Smith a "glass-looker" under his name, thought not his crime but rather to distinguish between all other Joseph Smiths. “Glass-looking” itself wasn’t a chargeable crime under New York law in the 1820s. What could be a chargeable offense was the much broader “disorderly person” statute in New York’s Laws of 1813, which allowed local justices to prosecute anyone who: pretended to tell fortunes or otherwise made money by deception. He was never sent to trial, as we see there were no credible witnesses against him, but the documents show Joseph was at least publicly known as a glass-looker. Glass-looking: A clairvoyant looking into a stone or glass, or other medium to try to see hidden things - often underground objects, lost items, or distant events. (Wesley Walters, “Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trial” (1971), reproduces the actual bills and notes.) Joseph was Not a "Money Digger" Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph’s mother, in Biographical Sketches) said "Joseph … endeavored to divert [Stowell] from his vain pursuit … laboring for about a month. It was from this … that the very prevalent story arose of Joseph’s being a money-digger." In Joseph Smith History, Joseph said that him being a "money digger" was a "rumor" started he was hired to dig for a Silver Mine. He was accused of being a "money digger" as a “charge brought against him” by critics, but he denied being what that implied: a fraudulent swindler. There’s a big difference between occasionally participating in digging for a mine (a normal cultural activity) and being a professional “money digger” or scam artist. In early 19th-century New England, a "money digger" was generally understood as someone who: Claimed to locate buried treasure (often Spanish gold or pirate loot). Using any modernly non-conventional or supernatural means (peep stone, divining rods, astrology, etc.) to do so. They usually accepted payment or promised a share of the treasure if found, in exchange for their services. This practice was widely mocked and stigmatized. By the 1820s, a “money digger” was as a derogatory label, similar to calling a psychic a fortune teller. How it applied to Joseph Smith Joseph had a Seer Stone he found in a well as a child, and by his 20s had a positive reputation for occasionally helping people find things with his gift. An Ensign article states Stowell arrived in the Susquehanna area “carrying a purported treasure map” with a digging crew. A Church History Department interview transcript (Legacy radio) says Stowell “had a map of some kind” pointing to a Spanish silver mine. The silver-mine idea and location was already on Stowell’s radar, via a map, before Joseph got involved. He hoped Joseph would join. Promising nothing, Joseph just wanted to be paid as a digger, while Josiah may have hoped by just having him around would give him an edge. The title of “money digger” was applied by critics to paint him as a fraud or charlatan, triggered by the events surrounding the 1826 Court Hearing. Semantics Matter - Key Nuance There is no source I've seen, that Joseph regularly took money just 'find' treasure, how do we know he wasn't just helping out of curiosity or folk faith, without payment, then he wasn’t technically a "money digger" in the economic sense - he’d just been part of a folk religious/mining activity that was common in his community. Mining isn't money digging. Joseph could truthfully say he wasn’t a “money digger” if by that, he meant “I wasn’t a fraud who lived off of deceiving people,” even if he once helped a man search for a silver mine. He became absolved of any wrongdoing by both the law and even Josiah himself, against accusations of Josiah's nephews. 1830 Palmyra Reflector (Newspaper) It seems the neighbors only started sharing the 'negative' rumors in 1829 after Joseph found the golden plates. In 1830, the Reflector began publishing mocking reports about Joseph as a “money digger”. Abner Cole (using the pen name Obadiah Dogberry) disliked Joseph and in the newspaper parodied the Book of Mormon before it had officially released. Example: “This work [Book of Mormon]… is said to be a history of the first settlers of America, written by one of their prophets… translated from the golden plates by Joseph Smith, Jr., who has been known as a money-digger." 1834 Eber D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed Eber D. Howe was a newspaper editor in Painesville, Ohio. In 1831–32, right after the Church’s move to Kirtland, Ohio, apostates and outsiders in Ohio and New York were compiling negative accounts from New York neighbors about Joseph Smith. Howe collected these reports and in 1834 published Mormonism Unvailed, the first major anti-Mormon book. Mormonism Unvailed leaned heavily on affidavits gathered by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, a disaffected Mormon. These affidavits came from Joseph’s Palmyra and Manchester neighbors; Chase, Stafford, and Stowell families (of course not Josiah Stowell). They claimed Joseph was a “money digger” and “lazy", alleged that Joseph deceived people into believing he could find buried riches. I've seen nothing yet about being paid for just looking for treasure. Howe was also the origin point of the debunked "Spaulding Manuscript theory" that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from a lost unpublished romance by Solomon Spaulding. The dominate anti-Mormon argument for decades, though it has since collapsed (once the actual Spaulding manuscript resurfaced and bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon). It was Mormonism Unvailed that cemented the "money-digger" narrative in public discourse. Joseph himself pushed back: in his 1838 history he called such stories "folly and lies" used to discredit him. The critic kept the “money digger” stigma alive for decades. 2007 John Foxe and Wikipedia Editing Wars As early as July 2007, John Foxe was a pseudonymous editor on Wikipedia was actively editing multiple LDS-related pages, including the First Vision article, pushing for sections on "treasure-seeking" to be included as the lead paragraph, even when other editors argued it was undue detail. Foxe created secondary accounts, like Hi540, later exposed as sock puppet accounts used in the editing wars. The masquerade led to a two-week Wikipedia suspension. In the 2000s, Wikipedia became the first stop for casual research. Because Wikipedia ranks so high on Google, their framing disproportionately influenced journalists, students, and even lazy "scholars". The "money digger" gets "locked in" as neutral fact. 2010-2020 Ex-Mo Media Era Platforms like Mormon Stories, CES Letter, and ex-Mo Reddit all take the “money digger” framework and lean hard into ridicule - and strangely they become a source, creating another loop: Where mainstream journalists and editors like Cabot Phillips are Googling Joseph Smith, find ex-Mo takes, then amplify it in their own articles and X feeds. What make Cabot Phillips tweet striking is that even someone outside from Mormonism parrots this Ex-Mormon ridicule narrative as if it’s settled fact. That shows how effective the ex-Mo content machine has been. Cabot probably didn’t dig into the early sources, he likely picked it up secondhand through the ex-Mo ecosystem that dominates search and social media. Ex-Mo echo chambers, each retelling added more certainty. What began as “Smith was accused of glass-looking” slowly became “Smith was convicted of the fraud of glass-looking” (though no conviction exists). Each loop hardened the language and erased nuance. First it was Anti-Mormon books making exaggerated claims and quoting from and sourcing other Anti-Mormon books. Ex-Mormon forums, and YouTube amplified these recycled claims. Since digital platforms reward volume and repetition, these old, exaggerated claims got repeated thousands of times - giving the impression of being overwhelming facts. Oh, The Irony Ex-Mormon Critics often accuse the Church of lying to control the narrative but in reality the anti-LDS narrative has thrived through uncritical repetition rather than fresh evidence. Only when scholars, including the Joseph Smith Papers team, emphasize the need to go back to original documents because so much of the narrative was built on secondhand and thirdhand claims. The critics uses the documents the church published to claim the Church was hiding documents about Joseph Smith’s past because they’re too embarrassing or proves Joseph was a fraud. The Church funded, compiled, edited, and published the Joseph Smith Papers Project, making documents like the 1826 hearing record publicly available. That’s the opposite of a cover-up: If the Church wanted to bury them, they easily could have. Yet the documents still don’t support the critics’ most pointed claims. The hearing transcript doesn’t prove fraud or scam. It shows a subset of neighbors arguing, a second-hand testimony, and a justice letting Joseph walk without a conviction. Critics contently misstate it as a trial (it wasn’t), saying Joseph was convicted (he wasn’t), and claiming he profited by scamming (no evidence). The documents failed to condemn Joseph, yet ex-Mormon influencers accuse Joseph of fraud with no proof anyway and blame the Church for "lying" if they do not agree with their interpretation, and the Church "controls the narrative" through censorship. When it's them who clearly controls the wider non-LDS public narrative that dominates public perception. They rely on lying exaggerations that the actual documents don’t support. If anyone is controlling a narrative by omission and distortion, it’s the critics, not the Church. The only reason we even know about these documents is because the LDS Church made them public. That undermines the very conspiracy claim that the Church lies and hides evidence. And the documents themselves don’t prove the fraud claim, so the critics are left propping up their narrative with recycled accusations.

These are "clarifications" he's inserting based on what is doctrinally true to him, but not necessarily a "mistranslation" at all. Reminds me a little of Joseph's edit to the Book of Mormon, "mother of God" to the "mother of the Son of God" wasn't really a mistranslation, rather we presume it sounded very Catholic, and he made a clarifying distinction that was important to Joseph. Similar to why he needed to clarify John 1, it was and is one of the most misunderstood verses. It might be instructive to discuss the Logos. Greek-speaking Jews and the Logos Philo (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE) was a Greek-speaking Jewish scholar in Alexandria who was from a High Priestly family, and representative of Hellenized Judaism at the time of Christ. He often used λόγος (Logos) as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew דבר (Dabar) = "Word," especially from "the Word of God." Genesis 1: God created by His Speech "And God said…". Psalm 33:6: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made." The Jewish idea is that God’s Speech or Word was a being, an agent of God through which God created the world and through which God interacts with the world. To Philo, the Logos was the agent of creation (“through the Logos God created the world”), a kind of “second god” (deuteros theos in Quaestiones in Genesis II.62). The mediator between the transcendent God and the material cosmos. Our heavenly High Priest, interceding for humanity (On Dreams 2.173). Who spoke to prophets "In the place of God, as though there were another” (On the Confusion of Tongues 146). Philo is a monotheist, he avoids calling the Logos "God" in the full sense, but to say it is divine, preexistent, and active, much like what John 1 later says. Philo does not mean there are two equal gods. For him, a "god" here means a divine agent, not God Most High. He is comfortable using "god" for the Logos in a lesser sense. New Testament Usage of Theos There are several examples where theos or "god" is applied to beings who are clearly not part of the Godhead. Even in John, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods [θεοί]'?" (John 10:34–35) "The Logos was with God" = a distinction. "The Logos was God" (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) = sharing in God’s divine nature. For "indeed there are many 'gods'" (1 Corinthians 8:5) Paul acknowledges the term "god" can be applied to many beings, though there is only one God in the ultimate sense, the Father. What John Is Actually Saying We know the Logos wasn’t a blank-slate word in the 1st century. I don't think John is inventing any new Logos doctrine; he’s only identifying Jesus with it. That’s why John doesn’t have to stop to explain what the Logos is; he just says it and asserts the well-known properties of the Logos, and his readers would already know there was already a "god" who is not the Father category for this being. To say the Logos was with the Father and somehow was God the Father would be a radically new idea and paradoxical. John is not saying, nor would he be understood as saying the Logos is the Father. The Logos is already a well-known distinct "god". All John is saying is the Logos is a divine, yet distinct, pre-existent Jesus. Only much later Trinitarian theology leans heavily on John to prove "Jesus is fully God." But John is in no way altering the established beliefs by calling the Logos a god. John assumes you know the Jewish Logos that is "divine-but-not-God", he merely asserts the Logos you know from your Greek Jewish theology is real and is now Jesus of Nazareth, the Son. Joseph Smith is correct to dispel this historic error, the Logos was divine, but not the Father, it is the Son.

It’s true that in rural and wilderness settings, water was often perfectly fine to drink, especially from springs, wells, or streams. Yes, people did drink water regularly. However, towns like Nauvoo, even Kirtland during the cholera outbreaks, water supplies could be contaminated with human or animal waste. The epidemics of cholera, dysentery, and typhoid were directly linked to bad water sources. Even in the frontier, clean-looking streams could still carry parasites or bacterial contamination, and people didn’t understand microbiology. I don't know how many times my family members caught dysentery, cholera, and "camp" fever from the water on the Oregon Trail (j/k) but seriously, people often did get sick from water contaminated by upstream camps or livestock. Families certainly brought whiskey and cider partly because it was both safer and comforting. But another factor was preservation: alcoholic drinks stored better and far longer than water, milk, or juice. If you wanted a drinkable liquid in late winter or after long storage, cider or beer was the safer choice than stagnant water. “Evil and designing men” adulterating wine wasn’t paranoia. There are documented cases of adulterated or dangerous alcohol in the 1800s. Merchants diluted expensive wines with lead acetate (“sugar of lead”), which sweetened it but caused poisoning. Cheap whiskey and rum were often “cut” with turpentine, sulfuric acid, or other additives to stretch the supply. So, as newspapers say. So, when the Word of Wisdom mentions “evil and designing men,” it is very likely alluded to both Joseph’s present-day liquor merchants and a future trajectory (corporations, industrial food/drink systems). After the 1840s, many of the Word of Wisdom items listed were deliberately altered with additives or processing methods that made them more harmful, more addictive, or both. 20th century industrial alcohol production (esp. during Prohibition in the 1920s) sometimes used methanol, denaturants, or contaminated processes that killed thousands. In modern times, some low-quality spirits (esp. in black markets) are still being cut with methanol or other toxins.

Yeah, wine at least, even the original 1833 wording of the Word of Wisdom (“strong drink is not for the belly”), “strong drink” meant distilled spirits (whiskey, brandy, rum, etc.), not wine. In fact, the revelation itself explicitly says: “Inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good... only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.” (D&C 89:5–6) Evidence of Joseph Drinking Wine Liberty Jail (1839): He and his companions requested and drank wine in jail. Joseph himself recorded that the guards got drunk while the prisoners had “a little wine,” clearly differentiating between moderation and drunkenness. Nauvoo period: Several contemporary accounts mention Joseph drinking wine on social occasions (e.g., at a wedding, or with close friends). Evidence of Joseph Drinking Spirits? Very slim to none. The accusations that he drank whiskey or hard liquor usually come from hostile later sources or secondhand reminiscences. There’s no solid contemporary record of Joseph consuming distilled liquor. Joseph didn’t treat the Word of Wisdom as an absolute prohibition. Beer and wine were still common. The Practical Difference In early 19th-century America, water was often unsafe, so beer, cider, and wine were everyday beverages. Distilled spirits, however, were strongly associated with drunkenness and the destructive alcohol culture of the frontier, which is why “strong drink” in the WoW meant whiskey, rum, brandy, etc., not all alcohol. Brigham Young in the late 1800s/early 1900s under Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant tightened the Word of Wisdom until it became the total abstinence standard we know today. So the best-supported conclusion is: Joseph position at 7 was consistent with his later conviction to avoid “strong drink” (spirits), even if he drank wine.

Scholars call it the “divine first-person” or ipse dixit voice is deeply significant and not unique, there’s a lot of historical, literary, and theological context that helps make sense of the practice. 19th-Century Methodist and revivalist language, ministers sometimes “spoke as the Lord directed,” even adopting first-person divine phrasing during sermons or revival "exhortations." So the cadence of "Hearken, O ye people…" would have felt familiar and authoritative. Shakers and others also produced texts written in God’s voice, in a frontier setting where literacy, competing sects, and uncertainty were rampant, speaking in God’s own voice carried weight. It bypassed debate: these weren’t just opinions, they were God’s will. Joseph Smith’s Theology of Revelation Joseph did not always claim "word-for-word dictation." Sometimes he spoke of revelations as ideas impressed upon the mind and will, then clothed in language. Other times, he used direct dictation language. This is why some sections of the D&C read differently in tone and vocabulary. Joseph frequently edited D&C revelations before publication (compare the Book of Commandments with later D&C sections). This suggests he didn’t see the words themselves as untouchable, but just the revelatory encounter was authoritative. Community of Christ The RLDS/Community of Christ maintained the “God-voice” style well into the modern period. By the late 20th century, however, they shifted to more pastoral, reflective styles of revelation, partly because members realized the problem you’re describing; that writing in God’s voice creates an expectation of inerrancy and certainty that the human element doesn’t always sustain. The Deuteronomic Scribes speak for Moses who Speaks for God There is scholarly consensus that the “Deuteronomists” (or group of scribes) compiled, edited, and framed many of Israel’s traditions in the 7th–6th century BCE. When Deuteronomy says “These are the words which Moses spake…” modern scholarship generally holds that these speeches were not stenographic transcripts of Moses’ sermons but traditions shaped centuries later. In that culture, the priestly scribes of Mosaic documents, writing in the “voice of Moses” wasn’t considered forgery but a way of giving theological legitimacy and covenantal authority. It was about the continuity of their tradition via Moses as the covenant mediator, so later writers used his persona as the authoritative voice for God’s will instead of their own. The Gospels preserve Jesus’ Voice Not in the sense of stenographic accuracy. Instead, they are honest attempts to capture the meaning and impact of his life and teaching, even when no one could have literally been present to take notes. Temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4, Luke 4): No disciples were present. The only way we “hear” the dialogue between Jesus and the devil is through a narrative shaped by later reflection. Gethsemane prayer (Mark 14:32–42): The disciples are asleep yet we get detailed prayers. This is more likely a reconstruction of Jesus’ anguish than a word-for-word report. Private conversations (John 3 with Nicodemus; John 4 with the Samaritan woman): In some cases, the narrative is so intricate it reads more like literary theology than eyewitness transcript. Oral Tradition and "Voice" Ancient cultures transmitted sayings and stories orally. Jesus’ disciples remembered themes, teachings, and style, then retold them in ways that fit their community’s needs. By the time the Gospels were written (40–70+ years later), these sayings had been shaped into narrative form, with the evangelists giving them structure, framing, and sometimes expanding them. The result is not dishonest fabrication but what scholars call "faithful memory" or "interpretive tradition." Hearing a Voice ≠ Hearing Words The heart of the question, ancient prophets themselves often experienced revelation in non-verbal visions, impressions, or an overwhelming sense of God’s will. Translating that into words may require contributing their own language, imagery, and culture. That’s why Isaiah sounds different from Jeremiah, or why Joseph’s revelations are in King James English. To say prophets could "make up" the words isn’t to accuse them of invention, but to recognize that human language is the necessary vehicle for ineffable divine encounter. God’s "voice" in this sense is real, but non-verbal - more like understanding, imagery, or directive force that must be dressed in words. Theology of Mediation This leads to a theory held by some LDS and non-LDS scholars alike: God doesn’t necessarily give prophets sentences, He gives encounters, impressions, truths, or visions. The prophet then gives God’s voice words. Those words are inspired but also culturally and personally inflected. This makes scripture both divine (in origin) and human (in form). The power is in the covenantal relationship and the inspired witness, not in the perfect transcription of God’s speech. Joseph himself wrote (1831, in the preface to the Book of Commandments): “Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” (now D&C 1:24) That’s one of the clearest scriptural statements in LDS tradition that revelation comes through the prophet’s own mind, weakness, and language. Joseph’s dictated revelation to Oliver in April 1829, when Oliver wanted to translate: "Behold, you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you…" (D&C 9:8) Even translation-revelation is the process of thinking, testing, and feeling, rather than a simple word-for-word dictation.

One report mentions that the bullet hit the torso - just below the sternum - passed through without striking vital organs or arteries, which some described as a "miracle." I was surprised he was shot. Specific statistics on how often robberies escalate to shootings are low, though the generalized violence of such crimes with firearms is higher compared to many other countries. In Mexico, those most often deliberately targeted for violence include Catholic priests and evangelical pastors who confront organized crime or refuse to pay. LDS members and leaders do not appear on those lists. Foreigners, particularly Americans, may be targeted more frequently, as they may be perceived as wealthier or more likely to have cash or valuables, making them attractive targets for theft, extortion, or even kidnapping. Mission homes, like the one broken into in Mexico City, may be perceived as wealthier properties than the surrounding homes - raising robbery risk.

I made it only part of the way, I was struggling to pick up the exact "why", my impression is Joseph is not having alcohol was for his dad's sake, evidence he was a good kid and nothing to do with the word or wisdom. I'm appreciating the small details, the bone drill and chisels, the 4 pieces of bone extracted, the screaming heard over long distances and his mom who can't stop barging in and seeing the table is covered in blood, Joseph is white as a corpse. I had to take a break, but I'm not done watching.

Platitude: "But don’t you believe God is sovereign?" Obviously my point of view is what matters here. And in my point of view, the churches I accept are exactly the way they are is clearly divine providence. You see, in my theological economy, every denomination I agree with has been perfectly shaped by God’s sovereign hand - and every denomination I don’t agree with… well, that’s just a deception of Satan. Convenient system, isn’t it? Platitude: "Don’t you believe God has the power to preserve His Word?" Look at this here Bible I’m holding, right now, at this time, in this place, in this translation, in this leather-like binding, with the gold leaf pages that stick together because I don’t use them much - is exactly as God intended for me to have it or God via my dad would have given me another. Pure providence, my friend. And yes, my point of view is in the Bible… somewhere. I know it’s there because I’ve been told it’s there - many, many times - by people I already agree with, via this platitude they told me, somewhat based on these verses. Not verbatim, but its right there. Check and mate.

I realize there might be few active posters that are likely to defend the Evangelical position that LDS aren't saved. I guess I'll try to Steel-man what an Evangelical may say, and I'll be the opposition. If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in your Christian walk did you know enough to be truly saved? Steel-man Answer: The moment you trust in the biblical Jesus and His finished work, you are saved. Correct theology matters because believing in a false Jesus (e.g., denying His deity) means you’re not actually trusting the real Savior. Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity? Steel-man Answer: No. Some theological errors are serious enough to indicate you’re trusting in “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4). Denying the Trinity undermines the biblical identity of Christ, so it’s not a small detail - the nature of God is central to salvation. How much doctrinal error does it take to forfeit salvation? Who decides that threshold? Steel-man Answer: The threshold is defined by the Word - the "essentials" like the deity of Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1–4). Church tradition and historic creeds help identify those essentials. If the Holy Spirit reveals truth, why doesn’t every Spirit-led believer have identical theology? Steel-man Answer: The Spirit’s revelation is perfect, but humans are flawed interpreters. Sin, pride, and ignorance create differences, not the Spirit. Over time, genuine believers tend toward unity in the essentials. Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity, as long as they trust Christ? Steel-man Answer: Yes, if they are trusting in Christ as revealed in Scripture, even without the formal term “Trinity.” However, if their belief denies core truths of who Christ is, that’s a different matter. Steel-man Answer: The Bible is the complete and sufficient word of God. If an answer to a spiritual question is not found in Scripture, then the question is unnecessary for salvation, or God chose to withhold the answer for His own purposes. God gave exactly what was needed. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 “All Scripture is God-breathed… so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. 1. “If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?” The thief on the cross (Luke 23:42–43) had minimal theological knowledge but had trust in the real Jesus and it saved him with no works. The “point” is the moment of faith in the real Christ. Correct theology matters because wrong beliefs can point you to the wrong Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4). LDS believe in a false parody of Jesus in a pro-Jesus fan fiction who can't save you mainly because he isn't real. 2. “Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity? If not, why is faith alone not enough?” Yes, a person can be saved without fully understanding the Trinity - if they are trusting in the biblical Christ, even with limited knowledge. The early disciples believed Jesus was Lord and trusted Him before they grasped all of His divine nature (John 14). However, persistent, willful rejection of the biblical God, such as denying Christ’s deity after clear exposure to the truth would be evidence that one’s "faith" is in a different god entirely. Faith alone saves, but the object of that faith must be the real Jesus. 3. "How much doctrinal error does it take for a Protestant to forfeit salvation? Who decided that threshold?" Salvation is not “forfeited” by accident, but by rejecting the gospel itself (Gal. 1:6–9). There’s no arbitrary “error quota”; the dividing line is whether someone has trusted the biblical Jesus in the biblical gospel or not. The "threshold" is defined in Scripture. Paul draws it around “another gospel” (false Christ, false way of salvation). 4. “If the Holy Spirit reveals ‘true’ theology, why doesn’t every Spirit-led believer have identical theology?” The Spirit leads into truth (John 16:13), but human believers are clouded by sin, bias, culture, and partial knowledge (1 Cor. 13:9). 5. “Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity?" John 3:16 - belief in Christ results in eternal life. The Trinity is the reality behind who God is; the person doesn’t have to use the term or articulate it, but they must ultimately be trusting that God was revealed to us in Christ. 6. “How did Christians get saved before there were Creeds or a canon?” They were saved the same way, by grace through faith in the real Christ (Eph. 2:8–9). The apostles’ had oral teaching and letters that were sufficient. The gospel existed before the Nicene Creed; the creed simply codified what Christians already believed from Scripture. 7. “If rejecting Catholic authority was right, why must we rely on Catholic-defined doctrines as salvation tests?” We don’t rely on “Catholic authority” but on biblical truth that predates the Roman Catholic Church. Doctrines like the Trinity are not “Catholic inventions” - they are drawn from Scripture, and the early church councils merely affirmed what the apostles taught. The authority is in the Word.

Cobra Kai (2018) Cobra Kai is more than a nostalgic throwback - it’s a surprisingly layered, character-driven drama that "flips the script" on the original Karate Kid saga. While the series tells both sides of the decades-old rivalry between Johnny Lawrence and Daniel LaRusso, it's Johnny who unexpectedly steals the spotlight. Johnny is a fascinating anti-hero. Rough around the edges, stuck in the ‘80s, and living in drunken, quiet obscurity after peaking in high school. He's ignorant at times, politically incorrect, and bluntly unaware the world has changed. But that’s part of his charm. His unintentional insensitivity is offset by a surprising vulnerability and a genuine desire to mentor Miguel, his young Hispanic neighbor. In contrast, Daniel is successful, respectable, seemingly has it all, but he too is haunted by the past. Ironically, while Daniel appears to have moved on, he’s still just as reactive and ego-driven as Johnny. They’re opposites on paper, but deep down, they’re both very alike, which is probably why they don't get along. Surprisingly immature in ways that reveal just how much they still have to grow. Johnny’s early remarks toward Miguel are basically racist - a reflection of his outdated worldview rather than genuine malice. The next episode, its mirrored when Daniel stereotypes an Asian student by offering him sushi, assuming he’d appreciate it based on his ethnicity. These moments highlight how both characters are similarly flawed but capable of growth. That said, the show mid-seasons, the focus tries to shift heavily to the teenage dramas. While the stories aren’t without value, many viewers are really tuning in for Johnny’s arc, bravado, hilarious ‘80s one-liners, and his painfully relatable journey from washed-up has-been to unlikely mentor. Any time the spotlight moves too far from Johnny, the momentum noticeably dips. But despite those lulls, the series remains addictive. If you watch the first episode, odds are you'll keep watching. The storytelling is sharp, the characters are compelling, and the moral lines blur just enough to keep you guessing whose side you're on. I think its a fan theory that the idea to do a show featuring a story from Johnny's point of view of Daniel being a jerk was inspired by this viral video. I'd recommend watching this, there is an episode where Johnny tells a brief story of Daniel this way.

Online the popular LDS Youtubers have all been confronting "Do we worship Christ?" and a clip of Bruce R Mcconkie saying we don't, we worship the Father. Now we do instruct members to pray to the Father as Jesus instructed, whether or not you can do otherwise. We certainly bend the knee. So what if we didn't worship Jesus, just the Father, and are wrong. Assuming its biblically wrong to pray only to God the Father in the name of Jesus, what happens to us if we don't know we can pray to Jesus? Inspired by the first 10 mins of this Pro-LDS video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5d9FApAub8 The Double Standard of Salvation by Doctrinal Works of Righteousness This video starts by explaining that when other Christians describe LDS state of salvation are often espousing a "Salvation by Theology". Correct Theology is a work you must preform to be saved. Shifting the “works” from moral deeds to intellectual assent; though salvation is not earned by good living but it is earned by good definitions. Protestants rejected Catholic authority precisely to avoid being told salvation hinged on both accepting their authority’s theology and ordinances. Yet, in practice, some Calvinist/Evangelical circles simply reinstall a different authority - their own doctrinal system - and get around it by calling it "biblical." They enjoy freedom from Rome, yet restrict fellowship or salvation status to anyone over disagreement on doctrines that aren't in the Bible that came from Rome (Trinity formulation, canon of scripture). If they truly believe “differences between denominations aren’t salvific,” but these differences are salvific is a sacred cow. Its a Reverse Papacy; rejecting Catholic Magisterium to setting up your own infallible council of pastors/authors. Judging hearts by their doctrinal vocabulary - assuming someone’s salvation status based on whether they can articulate a doctrine. Sola Gnosis I also thought is this is classically a heresy called "Gnosticism", which was not just the belief that a Gnosis (The Knowledge) exists, it was also a belief that Salvation came by Knowledge. As Basilides taught that "salvation comes through knowledge and not faith," relegating faith to mere natural assent. If we don't accept the Trinity because we don't know or comprehend the mystery of the Trinity its not just a mistake but a damning sin. The Reformers officially had five solas: 1. Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone. 2. Sola Fide - Faith alone. 3. Sola Gratia - Grace alone. 4. Solus Christus - Christ alone. 5. Soli Deo Gloria - Glory to God alone And I thought maybe an unstated 6. Sola Gnosis - True knowledge alone. A distortion of Sola Fide where the "works" of salvation are no longer moral deeds (like keeping the law) but intellectual correctness. Salvation is measured by your ability to recite, accept, or precisely define certain doctrines and using the right vocabulary. The "good works" have simply moved from the muscles in your hands to the muscles of the brain or the tongue. If you say, “I don’t think I believe in the Trinity” but describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one, equal and eternal - you actually believe all the same Biblical vocabulary words, but you still aren't using the right extra-Biblical vocabulary, or inversely the same words but different definitions, you can't be saved. Then there is the gatekeeping salvation with insider epistemology: "The truly saved will just understand it this way" - implying your inability to see it their way proves you aren’t saved. When ironically, the Reformation was largely a protest against the idea that salvation depends on an elite class who holds the "correct" system, like the medieval scholasticism or the Church Authority. Yet, in some modern Calvinist and Evangelical circles, it’s functionally recreated - just swapped the Church Magisterium for their Doctrinal Statements. If knowing the "right theology" becomes the determining factor for salvation, its, in essence, Gnostic. It transforms salvation into an elitist, knowledge-based club rather than the open grace of God accessed through faith as they sometimes claim. I think Calvinism and other Reformed theologies overlap with ancient Gnosticism. They might deny it, because technically the elect "just know" because the Holy Spirit told them - not because they were educated or learned secret knowledge from a hierophant, but it's God's sovereignly that enabled them to both know and believe. The Reformed tradition puts huge emphasis on right doctrine (orthodoxy) as evidence of election. The Circular Reasoning The truly saved will know the correct theology. If you don’t know the correct theology, you were never truly saved. Therefore, those who know the correct theology are the ones who are saved. It becomes self-reinforcing: you "know" because you’re saved, and you’re saved because you "know." No room for: people in process, honest misunderstandings, or believers who simply never learned a certain doctrinal formula. Ignorance =/= damnation Reformer: Ignorance = proof you weren’t elect. LDS: "No one is damned in ignorance" - judgment is based on light received. They might accuse us of being Gnostics because LDS possesses secret temple knowledge and rites. They are revealed through ordinances that are accessible to anyone willing and worthy, for exaltation. You must eventually receive the knowledge and ordinances, but in LDS teaching all will have the opportunity, regardless of when or where they lived. So, unlike Calvinism there’s no permanent exclusion for those who didn’t learn it. You can be saved (from death and hell, be resurrected, enter in a degree of glory) without accepting all LDS-specific truths; the “knowledge” is tied to exaltation, not basic salvation. Conversation Starter Questions If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved? Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity? If not, why is faith alone not enough, alone? How much doctrinal error does it take for a Protestant to forfeit salvation? Who decided that threshold? If the Holy Spirit reveals "true" theology, why does every one you know that is a Spirit-led believer not have an identical theology? Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity, nor how to read, as long as they trust Christ? How did Christians get saved before there were Creeds or a canon? If rejecting Catholic authority was right, why must we rely on Catholic-defined doctrines as salvation tests?

[Re-done, I was talking about Fanny when I was supposed to be talking about Helen. That would have been weird.] Even historians who are critical of Joseph Smith tend to agree that the Helen Mar Kimball sealing was not a typical “marriage” in the conjugal sense, and that the primary motive was a dynastic or covenantal union. Helen’s own writings (especially her later reflections) make no mention of ever being with him unescorted and no cohabitation. She portrays it as a spiritual arrangement initiated and pushed by her father, Heber C. Kimball, to “link” his family to Joseph’s in eternity. Heber thought it had to happen soon before she was proposed to by another suiter. Don Bradley and others have pointed out that these "sealings" had assorted types, some were indeed “for time and eternity” (with full marital rights), while others were “for eternity only” and Helen’s case appears to be the latter. Joseph’s marriage patterns included women of all ages and circumstances young, to elderly widows, to women already married which suggests that motives varied greatly, case by case. I don't know why critics are so uncreative. I would assume all the marriages had to happen, because he was fulfilling his own theological understanding of “restoring all things” from biblical patriarchal precedent. If I were a critic, I might assume if Joesph is not a prophet, he's still modeling himself as one, and if he is a narcissist, and the great prophets had multiple wives, then to him numerosity equals status. For his legacy's sake, sealings had to happen even without romantic or sexual intent. Historians often do treat “eternity-only” sealings as a distinct category from a full marital relationship, though the terminology can get tricky because of the marriage language that still gets used. An “Eternity-only” sealing was more like an "Eternal Engagement" sealing than a fully realized "Eternal Marriage" because its all future-oriented - the bond was about afterlife association, not daily married life. Even critics have compared it to a non-sexual concubine in the sense of being “attached” to a man’s household line without conjugal relations. Historically accurate in some ancient contexts (a secondary wife without conjugal rights), but it still sounds deliberately provocative. Critics will seize on “concubine” to imply sexual exploitation even when a “non-sexual” qualifier is there.

Yeah, I know we see "Cognitive Dissonance" thrown around online. You've surely seen the Ex-LDS use it to label the condition they might have had before leaving, so they think in order to remain LDS in the face of Anti-LDS materials, unlike they did, millions of people must all exist in a constant state of mental discomfort from the conflict, because they think the beliefs can't be reconciled. That isn't reality, because that isn't a natural state to constantly be in. The reality is people do reconcile their beliefs, because despite they being unable to reconcile it, people just don't all think like them. The strange phenomenon can simply be: Disagreement. They have a framework that makes the historical issues fit their worldview, whether you agree with it or not. In your case, any LDS may reconcile it by: redefining what "true church" means to them (e.g., "God’s truth was restored but leadership can sin or personally apostatize for a time"). That’s an interpretation, not an unresolved mental conflict. A better description might be: (Theological) Compartmentalization – mentally separating historical claims from doctrinal claims so they don’t clash. Narrative Dissonance – believing in a spiritual narrative while rejecting parts of its historical continuity. Prophetic Exceptionalism (in the Critical Sense) – believing a prophet can restore the truth but still be deeply immoral in his personal life. Selective Legitimism – choosing which leaders/eras count as “legitimate” based on one’s own standards, while still claiming continuity of authority.

Tender mercies.

I feel ya, long ago I've lost little "Beefy" who got chased down the street by a male cat. We just had to console ourselves. With belief that young stout cat won't starve in our neighborhood. He's going to approach someone who is going to feed him. I pray she'll find her way back.

Thank you, though my point was there is no need to for the Church to normalize or apologize that Joseph had 14-year-old "wives", that is just a much later interpretation of the sealing records, journal entries, and rumors, without always clear evidence that these relationships were 'marital' in the 'intimate' sense, at least not at the time they were 14.

Or, if no one remembers, historians Don Bradley and others like Christopher Smith, have suggested that some early plural or dynastic "marriage" sealings (notably with younger women, such as Fanny Alger) may have actually been adoption-style sealings, later historically conflated with plural marriage. The Church historians attempting compile lists of Joseph’s "wives" sometimes treated any female sealed to him as marital. Since the only category in most minds was “marriage,” the adoption-style relationships got lumped in. Or they were sealed and evolved into wives when they got older. Fanny Alger sealed at 14. There’s no known firsthand statement from Fanny about Joseph Smith or being his wife. Our information comes secondhand from people like Benjamin F. Johnson and Oliver Cowdery. Johnson called her a plural wife, but that was his later interpretation, decades after the fact. Oliver Cowdery famously called the relationship a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair,” but he was also an embittered ex-member at the time, and this was also 3 years after the sealing when Fanny was 17. Helen Mar Kimball sealed at 14, in her own later writings (especially her autobiography and letters) explicitly says her sealing was not consummated and was for dynastic/familial purposes. “I was young, and they did not think it proper to enter into marriage relations.” She married another man later, with no suggestion of impropriety or of leaving Joseph.

D&C 138:51 is set at the Dawn (Beginning) of the First Resurrection of the Dead. It begins with Christ’s resurrection. Includes all the exalted Celestial heirs of "eternal life" first. Saints are those who had already completed their mortal probation faithfully - they had kept the covenants available to them in their own day. Then accepted the fullness of the gospel when it was declared to them in the spirit world (D&C 138:33–35). Then Christ’s resurrection opened the way for their resurrection - they are part of the “first resurrection” (Mosiah 15:21–23; Alma 40:16–17). Just as the Biblical imagery, a “Crowning” is a scriptural metaphor for receiving eternal life (2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12), and in this passage it marks the formal bestowal of what they already received through grace. The text does not quite say all Old and New Testament saints received the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, only that those described here did. Nothing in the passage requires that every righteous person before Christ received the same reward at that moment; it is simply focusing on this particular group who were ready to go, going first.

Back to the Future: Doc Brown Saves the World (2015) Hey, did you know there’s a Back to the Future short film starring Christopher Lloyd reprising his role as Doc Brown in 2015? It explains why the futuristic tech we see in Back to the Future Part II (like flying cars and home fusion reactors) in 2015 doesn't come to pass. It's like an in-universe retcon that explains the timeline shift. The official “Doc Brown Saves the World” short film runs about 10 minutes. It was released as an exclusive as part of the 30th Anniversary Back to the Future Blu-ray/DVD box set on October 20, 2015. SO, Its not available anywhere else. However, I found a video on YouTube labelled “Doc Brown Saves the World – The Ride,” with a much longer runtime, as part of a defunct Universal Studios simulator attraction. It looks like it contains segments of that film. Doc Brown Saves the World - The Ride

Yeah, here are some but many of them are hidden behind a subscription wall. Aggregations are large and expensive - effectively out of reach for family farmers https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/who-owns-australia-why-institutional-investors-are-flocking-to-aussie-ag/news-story/82fbd7217d58f2e828e2102be2ff491a https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/victoria-business/who-owns-australias-farms-2025-biggest-investors-landholders-ones-to-watch/news-story/f4b6b5a12e1070e0d7576b27e2891cc3 Thusly they were always destined for institutional buyers like Macquarie Agriculture or PSP Investments https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/victoria-business/who-owns-australias-farms-2025-biggest-investors-landholders-ones-to-watch/news-story/f4b6b5a12e1070e0d7576b27e2891cc3 Similar buying behavior by other large buyers of Australian agriculture include: Canadian pension funds (PSP Investments, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan), Macquarie Agriculture, Rural Funds Group, TIAA-Nuveen, Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Agriculture https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/tasmania/who-owns-tassies-farms-biggest-investors-landholders-named/news-story/4e076f586b6f1a517d8d17ec55ac5009 Farmland Reserve explicitly leases farmland to local operators, indicating they retain ownership while enabling agricultural use https://www.deseret.com/business/2024/10/14/latter-day-saint-investment-auxiliary-farmland-reserve-agrees-to-buy-46-farms-in-eight-states/ https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/mormon-church-lds-buys-farmland/729368/ Benefits of Farmland Reserve’s long-term ownership model favors long-term, sustainable agricultural use, with structure and investment for improved productivity, not flipping or development https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/mormon-church-lds-buys-farmland/729368/ https://www.deseret.com/business/2024/10/14/latter-day-saint-investment-auxiliary-farmland-reserve-agrees-to-buy-46-farms-in-eight-states/ [[Edit: Trying find Free Sources]] Aggregations are large and expensive - effectively out of reach for family farmers and always destined for institutional buyers “Buyers above $30 million are nearly always corporates… often investing funds on behalf of large international investors.... There is a reasonable number of well-capitalised family-run businesses capable of buying farms up to about $30 million.” https://www.hancockagriculture.com.au/revealed-australias-top-farm-sales-of-the-past-year/ The same behaviors are seen by other Aussie buyers. A long-term, stable investment rationale that Farmland Reserve shares, contrasted with short-term speculative models, and will benefit Australian farming “Institutional investors … capitalised on the opportunity … while family farmers struggled… notable players like PSP, Macquarie Agriculture, and TIAA-CREF significantly grew their holdings … The allure of Australian agriculture lies in its stability and inflation-resistance.” https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/who-owns-australia-why-institutional-investors-are-flocking-to-aussie-ag/news-story/82fbd7217d58f2e828e2102be2ff491a

No, the farms aren't being sold as chunks, and the church isn't buying up chunks. Yes, it will prevent it from being sold as chunks later. When large farms are sold, they could be broken up by the seller and sold in smaller parcels for families, that is typically how small farms get created. If a corporation buys corporate land, its land that doesn't usually get parceled out. So, it shrinks the potential pool of land that then could be subdivided. Once Farmland Reserve owns it, they'll likely run it as one big farm, maybe leasing it out - but not selling off chunks. Families will be locked out of owning that land for the foreseeable future. However, even if the LDS Church didn’t buy the land, it's highly likely another large institutional or corporate buyer would have and likewise kept it too, yet it would not be a news story or a political talking point. But because it was "The Mormons" who are outbid Australian superannuation funds (e.g., Aware Super). Foreign pension or wealth funds (e.g., Canadian or Dutch). Agribusiness giants (e.g., Macquarie, Rural Funds Group), who would have also kept it out of family hands, we're somehow the culprits. The land is too large and expensive for most family farms. They were marketed specifically to global agribusinesses, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and institutional investors. Large farms usually stay in the large-farm, corporate buyer pool, not the family farmer pool. Rather than a loss, it can be a gain to Australia, because Farmland Reserve (LDS Church) has a reputation for long-term, sustainable land use. They're not developers, not flippers, and not known for over-farming or environmental damage. The land will likely stay in agricultural production, not converted into housing or mines. Local farmers who can’t afford to buy land still get a chance to work it. This helps younger farmers, new entrants, or those locked out of ownership. The LDS Church is known for long-term thinking, not flipping properties. Farmers may get longer leases, better terms, or less pressure than under private investors who want high short-term returns. Farmland Reserve often improves land (irrigation, soil health, etc.) because they’re playing a 100-year game, not a 5-year one. The news isn't crying because small farms that didn't exist before and had no guarantee of having existed if it were bought by an Australian entity. It's just the news's hot take the land will remain in the hands of a dirty, rich, foreign, religious entity, even though the reality is more mundane. The Core Fallacy Implying that LDS Church purchases are the reason family farms are disappearing, even though these particular properties were never in the price or size range of family buyers. The Novelty Fallacy "The LDS Church just bought $488 million worth of farmland!” Factually true, but not new, therefore not news, other buyers have done the same. PSP Investments (Canada) $500 million Kooba Aggregation, 30,000 ha AIMCo & New Forests (Canada) $600 million Lawson Grains, 90,500 ha Agriculture & Natural Solutions Acquisition Corp (United States) $780 million for a Massive 225,000 The emotional picture being painted - small Aussie farmers vs. a wealthy US church - is vivid and easy to understand. But it glosses over the truth that these farms were already outside the reach of small buyers and would have gone to some corporate/institutional entity no matter what. They’re making it sound like the LDS Church took something from local farmers that the farmers were never realistically going have in the first place. The only ones negatively affected by the church are all those other corporations they outbid. If there were someone to blame for why family farmers might be struggling or unable to own their own land, it's Australia itself and its system, not whatever corporation or institute bought the land.

Are we “Cannibalising” food production No. Buying farmland will not inherently reduce production - it just changes who owns it. The LDS Church is not removing farms from use, destroying crops, or exporting land. They typically lease the land or manage it for long-term, sustainable production. In fact, Farmland Reserve is notorious for long-term, productive land stewardship - not short-term exploitation. National food security risks (as implied) No. There’s no evidence that food is going to be diverted away from domestic markets due to these purchases. Australia already exports most of its agricultural output, and unless the LDS Church starts hoarding or redirecting food exports exclusively to the US, food security isn’t currently threatened. Will the Church “outcompete Australian farming families”? No. It's true, the Church like all major investors can outbid local families because it has virtually unlimited capital. It doesn’t need FIRB approval unless the deal exceeds $1.46 billion, unlike most others. It likely enjoys better financing terms than local farmers. Farming families are price-takers, often borrowing money at higher interest rates and dealing with rising costs. Competing with a global church isn't feasible for them. However, in practical reality, Farmland Reserve Inc. is buying large “aggregations” meaning massive farms, often over 10,000 hectares that: Most families couldn’t buy anyway. They were already being marketed to corporate or institutional buyers. These are not typically the small to medium farms that locals bid on. These conditions favor any large-scale investor. If it wasn’t the LDS Church making these purchases, it would be another major player, not a farming family. Will this cause Farmland costs to rise? No. LDS Church's purchases could contribute to higher prices of land, but they are not the main driver of that at all. They're a small piece of a much larger trend. Prices are rising due to strong global demand, limited supply, high commodity prices, and favorable conditions for large investors not just LDS purchases. Again, if it wasn't us, it'd be another investor, and the cost of land would rise anyway. Is this about Religious Bigotry? Very likely, partly. Let’s be realistic. Though the LDS Church owns the land, the purpose appears to be investment, not religious influence, yet that seems to be the issue. Many other global entities, including sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, also own farmland in Australia without this level of scrutiny. LDS Church is not well understood by many Australians. Often slammed in media, especially about: Its wealth, any tax advantages due to religious status and financial practices. This article has that typical vibe, there is no real problem other than a no-good, superrich, US-based cult is buying Australia's land away from our poor Aussie farm families. The use of the phrase "the Mormons" in Littleproud’s statement singles us out, not for being a big US investor, but as the infamous religious organization which carries emotional and cultural weight. US investors are favored over Chinese investors, because China is treated as a national security risk. The only reason they want us to get treated like China is because "The Mormons" buying land is framed as a cultural/religious intrusion. It's the usual media sensationalism and a growing public skepticism toward the LDS religion just for making use of the legal and tax advantages they gave them. If there is any real issue, its the system itself not one buyer in particular.

I've never got to chat with her, yet I think I do know GardenGirl is from around here or I strangely recall a video, maybe SaintsUnscripted. I'm sorry to hear she's left us.

You're grasping the spirit of "skillful means" (Sanskrit: upāya-kauśalya), a core Mahayana Buddhist concept. I've been studying Bodhisattva Buddhism, which is my favorite branch, especially the concept of "skillful means" (upāya). It's a powerful idea often used to explain how different teachings or paths can all lead to Buddhahood, even when they appear to contradict each other. Each path or teaching may be true in its own context or stage of development. For example, one school's teaching might focus solely on fasting, while another emphasizes fasting and serving others. Even if they seem to conflict, each is valid for the stage of spiritual growth it's meant to address. What matters is that each method helps beings move forward on the path. This idea is beautifully illustrated in the Lotus Sutra, particularly in the Parable of the Burning House. In the story, a father sees his children playing inside a house that's on fire. They are too distracted to notice the danger, and they won't come out despite his warnings. So, he uses a skillful means, a lie: he tells them he has wonderful toys waiting for them outside. The children run out, only then do they know why they truly needed to follow him out of the house, and once they're safe, the father gives them even better gifts than he had promised. The parable shows that the father’s "lie" wasn’t a malicious lie, it was a method to save his children. In the same way, the Buddha may offer teachings suited to people's capacity at the time, even if those teachings are provisional or symbolic. Once someone progresses further on the path, they can see the deeper truth behind what they were taught. These different teachings can be true at different stages, like steppingstones. Always meet people where they are, all learning will lead to the One Vehicle (the path to Buddhahood), even if they seem different on the surface.