Pyreaux

I think for an open-minded Bible-reader, the most rewarding path to a "Gold Pill" moment (a term about how one awakens to the possibility the LDS church could be right, not being converted per se) is to point to certain Christian Bible scholars you can read alongside LDS scholars. These are people who attempt to reconstruct the "Royal Temple cult", a fairly new way to make sense of some of the Royal Psalms, identifying proto-Christianity bones buried in the Jewish texts, as I feel it gives the fullest explanation of the psalm imagery, Christianity, by extension LDS, as these ideas are deeply rooted in antiquity. These studies have become in demand among Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and LDS audiences. So even if you never become LDS, it will not be a waste of time. In the course of studying, just ask how might the Royal Cult manifest today, you will notice the similarities in LDS and Catholic traditions you wouldn't consider if you read the Bible only surface deep. Firstly, read the Royal Psalms (like Psalms 2, 24, 45, 110, and 132) maybe using a standard commentary too, and then go back and reread them after dipping into Barker or Heiser. Once you see the Davidic King as a priest, entering the Holy of Holies through a veil, surrounded by a Council of priests, and dressed in sacred vestments, you can never unsee it. Even if you don't walk into an LDS Temple, the intellectual barrier to the Restoration will be completely dismantled because you will realize that the LDS worldview is the only modern theology that actually acts out and embodies this ancient Royal Temple cult. At the very least you'll learn the concepts of the Temple weren't invented by the LDS in the 19th century; rather, they are certainly an independent reconstruction by modern people, inspired or not. Margaret Barker - Concerning the First Temple As a Methodist preacher and biblical scholar, Barker is the top brass for this approach. The Great Angel is perfect at dismantling the monolithic view of ancient monotheism. She argues that the Jewish Scribes in a "Deuteronomic reform" during the Second Temple period actually stripped away or suppressed original elements of First Temple worship, including the heavenly Mother, the visible human manifestations of Yahweh as a secondary divine figure (the son of El Elyon), and the ascension rites of the High Priest. For an LDS reader, this fall of the First Temple reads exactly like a historical blueprint of a later Christian Apostasy. Temple Theology: An Introduction, which directly connects the ancient temple rituals to the layout, robes, and cosmic architecture that feel strikingly parallel to modern LDS temple worship. The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy shows that early Christian worship wasn't modeled after the local Jewish synagogue (which was focused on reading the Torah), but was actually a conscious restoration of the secret, esoteric rituals of the First Temple's High Priest. Pay special attention to her chapters on "The Secret Tradition" and "The Angel Priesthood." When a Bible-reader encounters the idea that Jesus taught his Apostles secret things during the 40 days after his resurrection, they think its Gnosticism. But Barker uses the Dead Sea Scrolls and early Christian liturgies to prove that a "secret temple tradition" was widely accepted in the earliest days of the Church. It completely re-contextualizes the LDS idea of temple ordinances. She details the anointing with holy oil, the sacred vestments and the concept of a secret tradition of knowledge handed down to an initiated priesthood. It makes the entire concept of an esoteric temple liturgy rooted in the priesthood completely historical. Michael Heiser - Concerning the Divine Council Dr. Michael Heiser was a mainstream Evangelical scholar. His work is an incredible stepping-stone. The Divine Council webpage forcefully demonstrates from the Hebrew text (like Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32) that God rules alongside a council of divine beings (elohim: gods). He highlights that humans were intended to inherit the council seats and rule as divine sons of God. While Heiser maintains a traditional view of the Trinity, his defense of plural Elohim and human deification (theosis) completely reframes a Protestant's standard objections to the LDS doctrine of the Godhead and eternal progression. Raphael Patai - Concerning Kingship Temple rituals and marriages Patai’s focus on ancient Near Eastern folklore, myth, and ritual bridges the gap between historical text and actual practice. Man and Temple Patai reconstructs the Coronation/Enthronement rituals of the Davidic kings. He shows that the King was anointed, ritually washed, given a new name, clothed in royal/priestly robes, and symbolically adopted as a "Son of God" on the throne. Reading the Royal Psalms (like Psalm 2 and Psalm 110) through this lens shows that ancient salvation wasn't just a mental belief, it was a physical, ritual drama enacted in the Temple to bring a person into the presence of God. And The Hebrew Goddess, is the reference Barker uses in her work on a Heavenly Mother. There are like 32 other books. Howard Schwartz - The Ancient Judaism Lore The Tree of Souls demonstrates that the concepts found in the LDS Restoration are part of a massive, ancient stream of esoteric Jewish memory. When a Protestant reads about things like the garment of Adam, sacred stones (Urim and Thummim), or multi-tiered heavens, they often assume these are modern inventions. Schwartz shows that Midrashic lore is saturated with these concepts. It normalizes the specific texture of Latter-day Saint restoration theology. Michael Satlow - Concerning Polygamy Jewish Marriage in Antiquity traces the evolution of Jewish marriage from the biblical period through the Second Temple and Rabbinic eras. He establishes clearly that polygamy was entirely legal, normal, and unquestioned throughout the Old Testament era and well into the New Testament period. Monogamy only became the strict standard for Western Jews, much later, due to Greco-Roman cultural assimilation and imperial law. The Davidic King married (in the temple, I say) multiple wives and princesses (during the yearly Kingship Festival, as part of a re-coronation, I say) to build a massive, interconnected royal house that bound the kingdoms together in a web of covenant relationships. This is exactly how early Latter-day Saints viewed plural marriage, not just as modern families, but as a dynastic, dynasty of sealing, designed to link all of humanity back into a single, massive, royal patriarchal chain.

Its kind of semantics over what the Christian priesthood should be called, it's call a "royal" priesthood because it's from King Melchizedek, Davidic Kings had the right by lineage of Lord by adoption (2 Samuel 7:14; Royal Coronation: Psalm 110). 1 Peter applies "royal (kingly) priesthood" to the whole community, but Peter is referencing the Old Testament, God told the entire Israelite community, "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6). Yet, God still institutes a specific, structure of priests to administer ordinances and lead. Paul may have also said in Hebrews 5:4, "And no man takes this honor [of the priesthood] to himself," but as Aaron did. Authority required a specific call and ordination, it wasn't assumed, not even by Jesus. Just because the opportunity to be ordained to the priesthood (most often referred to as the presbytery, elderhood) was opened up to the general body of believers, rather than restricted to one specific tribe, it doesn't mean the offices like "Elder" ceased to exist as people were being formally ordained to the office of Elders. Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 give explicit qualifications for who can be ordained. If everyone was automatically an elder or deacon just by virtue of believing, Paul wouldn't have needed to give Timothy and Titus a checklist of requirements, including laying on of hands by the Presbytery. Christ is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7), "High Priests" do not exist in a vacuum. A High Priest implies a leadership role over a body of priests who share the same "order" (taxin, succession from person to person). The Melchizedek priesthood is a shared calling and profession, his "holy brethren" are part of a functioning priestly order over which He presides. Hebrews 3:1, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." Acts 1:20, an office of Episkopen or bishopric passed a portion of governing and teaching authority down to the Presbyters, Elders and Deacons. Acts 6 the first Deacons were called. The Apostles needed help looking after the widows, they didn't say, "Everyone is a priest now, so everyone can go do it." Instead, they told the community to look out seven qualified men, and then the Apostles laid hands on them to set them apart for that specific work. Paul and Barnabas didn't just leave believers to call themselves, they personally, actively had to travel to install these offices, "So when they had appointed elders [presbyters] in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord" (Acts 14:23). Titus 1:5: Paul leaves Titus in Crete specifically to "set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you".

Not literal Gnosticism. In Catholicism, creation can become "good," like water, wine, bread, oil, and the Incarnation. Catholicism doesn't explicitly call matter "evil" like the Gnostics did, but Catholicism did also adopt the Greek metaphysical definition of God that makes a physical body metaphysically impossible for the person of God the Father. Matter is somehow fundamentally incompatible with the supreme nature of God the Father, which I understood Catholicism affirms. Thomas Aquinas and Greek philosophy, say since God is defined as absolute perfection, because material things can change, be divided, occupy space, and decay, classical theology concludes that matter is inherently a state of limitations. Therefore, God the Father cannot have a body of flesh and bone, a physical form would mean He is limited, localized, and subject to change. They absolutely maintain that a material body is metaphysically beneath the nature of God the Father. The Incarnation actually highlights this. The Incarnation is viewed as the paradox that broke these rules of God’s nature.

You are missing some Jewish literature. Mainstream Judaism completely rejects the negative view of the Fall held by Catholicism and Protestantism. Judaism does not even have a doctrine like "Original Sin." Jewish scholars on Genesis 3 do not see a story about human nature becoming permanently depraved. The Talmud explicitly taught that every human being is born pure, innocent, and clean. In the Jewish view, the Fall made life harder, but it did not taint the human soul. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam's. Jewish view is you cannot be truly holy or make morally virtuous choices unless you fully understand the difference between good and evil. By gaining this knowledge, humans stepped out of an animal-like state of innocence and into the status of agents who can choose to obey God, it made them more like God, not less as Genesis 3:22, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". Enochian Literature In 1 Enoch 32, Enoch is taken on a guided tour, he beholds a magnificent tree emitting a wonderful fragrance. When he asks about it, the angel Raphael responds, "This is the tree of wisdom, of which thy father old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were before thee, have eaten, and they learnt wisdom and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden." (1 Enoch 32:6) Notice its called the Tree of Wisdom. "Wisdom" is at times defined as knowledge, knowledge normally possessed and reserved for the gods, the elohim-angels (Prov 9:10; 30:1). Knowledge thus is related to wisdom, and knowledge can be seen as destructive (1 Cor 8:1). Oil of the Tree of Knowledge came in its fruit were "pleasant to the eye" to "make one wise" granting Eve the secret knowledge of the elohim-angels (Gen 2:6-7). The Temple's anointing oil (Ex 28:41-43; 29:1-8; Ps 133:2) was a synthesized version of the fragrant oils of the Tree of Life, was applied to the head of the priestly messiahs "between his eyelids" (Talmud, b. Horayoth 12a). This was thought to open his eyes, giving sight, spiritual sight, prophecies, dreams, visions, the signs of the royal priesthood. The Rabbinic doctrine of the Yetzer Hara (the evil inclination) is viewed as a necessary engine for human existence and creation. Genesis Rabbah 9:7 (and Kohelet Rabbah 3:11) Rabbi Nahman bar Samuel says Creation was very good’ "But is the evil inclination 'very good'? Yes! For were it not for the Yetzer Hara, a man would not build a house, nor marry a wife, nor beget children, nor engage in trade." The sages recognized that the "evil inclination" encompasses human passions, ambition, sexual desire, and competitive drive. If humans were entirely passive and lacked this impulse, human progression, societal growth, and the continuation of the human race would completely freeze. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 69b (The Day the Chicken Stopped Laying Eggs) A famous, vivid story in the Talmud where the Sages of the Great Assembly manage to capture the spirit of the Yetzer Hara and imprison it in a lead cauldron to rid the world of sin. They thought they had saved humanity. However, the text records the immediate consequence. For three days, they searched throughout the entire Land of Israel for a freshly laid egg, and could not find one. Because the inclination was completely suppressed, all impulse in the world stopped. The Sages released it. Talmud Berakhot 17a (Leaven in the Dough) The rabbis often compared the Yetzer Hara to the leaven (yeast) in dough. Yeast causes the dough to ferment and rise. If you have no yeast, the bread is flat and lifeless. If you have too much yeast, the dough spoils and goes sour. So never eradicate the Yetzer Hara as if physical desires are an inherently evil defect, but rather to discipline and channel it through the commandments of God. Irenaeus of Lyons While later Western theology of Augustine viewed Adam and Eve as perfected, fully mature adults who committed cosmic high treason, Irenaeus argued that Adam and Eve had to be created weak first so that they could learn, grow, and eventually become like God. "Man was a child, and its mind was not yet mature; and for this reason he was easily deceived... It was necessary for him first to be created, then to grow, then to reach manhood, then to increase, then to be strengthened... and so at last to see God and become immortal." (Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 38) For Irenaeus, the deception happened because they were children, but the resulting journey through mortality was a necessary educational process designed to bring humanity to true maturity. The Felix Culpa Even though Catholic theology officially leans heavily on Augustine, the official Catholic liturgy itself features a positive statement about the Fall. Every year during the Easter Vigil, the priest chants the Exsultet (an ancient hymn dating back to the 4th or 5th century). "O wondrous condescension of your loving-kindness towards us! O inestimable affection of love: you handed over your Son to ransom a slave! O truly necessary sin of Adam, which the death of Christ blotted out! O happy fault (Felix Culpa), which merited to have such and so great a Redeemer!" It calls Adam’s transgression a "truly necessary sin" (O certe necessarium Adae peccatum). Because without the Fall, the full depths of God's love, the Atonement, and the joy of redemption through Jesus Christ could never have been manifested. The idea that the Fall was a necessary backdrop for human progression, agency, and ultimately the cause of the intervention of a Savior is woven deeply into ancient thought. I think there are Gnostic views where the entire physical world as a mistake. LDS theology views the physical world is necessary for progression. We are structurally opposites on the subject of matter. Gnosticism is anti-material and anti-body. It teaches that the world is a prison, the Creator of it is a villain, and salvation means escaping your flesh. LDS theology is profoundly pro-material and pro-body. It teaches that the world is a divine creation, the Creator is a loving Father, and salvation comes by being resurrected into an eternal, perfected physical body. All remnants of the apostasy are part true and part corruption. 2nd-century Gnosticism or 4th-century Creedal Catholicism are just two divergent, competing branches of Apostate Christianity that split off from the original root after the Apostles were killed. Anti-Fall views were late-stage innovations that scrambled the original by absorbing Greek philosophical ideas. In Neo-Platonism, spirit is inherently pure and good, while matter and the physical body are inherently corrupt, heavy, and evil. The Gnostics just took the "matter is evil" philosophy to its absolute logical extreme. The Catholic argued that God did make the world good, but for the Fall. Yet, their own definition of God as an immaterial being who cannot touch matter without being defiled is deeply Gnostic. Matter is fundamentally incompatible with the divine essence of the Father; God cannot be a material, embodied being. I think mainstream "immaterial God" is a late-stage innovation born. The Gnostics managed to hold onto a warped, mutated memory that humanity has divine potential and that the Fall was a forward step in a larger plan but they ruined it by attaching it to a hatred of the physical world. Gnostics are right to be against modern Christian Simplicity. Where the gospel is shallow and has nothing to teach beyond what base and evil men can understand. They are just wrong that it's meant only for a few.

I will. For some reason, I'm already getting a comforting feeling. My dad's company has been struggling since he got sick. So perhaps, RodheadLee, I might ask a little prayer for CSP Electronics, I guess all the Gulf boats struggling to pay them also.

Stephen Smoot often appears alongside Travis Anderson, I'm sure they have a bridge between these two views. I think he and Travis lean on the Accommodation Theory, that prophets didn't get a science textbook or a flawless historical archive from the sky when called upon. Instead, God "accommodates" human limitations, speaking to people within their own frameworks. Shifting the definitions of "inspired" texts away from "inerrant" texts. Ask Smoot if he believes there is evidence of a Flat Earth, I bet he'd say no. If he says no, did he just abandon his faith in the historicity of the Old Testament where the cosmos is consistently described that way? No. Arguing Isaiah, Moses and Paul didn't understand modern science or saying there is no evidence for Lehi in America is not the same as arguing that Adam or Lehi are purely fictional characters. Dan and Travis could always point to seeing the principles work secularly before they simply choose to believe, which is an approach embedded in Alma 32. You plant a "seed" of a principle or a belief. You nurture it and observe its effects. If it expands your mind, enlightens your understanding, and improves your life, the seed is "good." You don't need flawless archaeological records to prove to yourself that a weekly ritual of self-reflection made your life stabler and more meaningful. You experience the utility of the system in the real world, and then you make the conscious existential leap to choose faith in the divine source behind it. For those reasons, they refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater, not leave the church. From Stephen Smoot’s perspective, I'd think he is drawing a line with saying the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction or a purely spiritual revelation with absolutely no potential for discoverable evidence, as an intellectual cop-out. He argues that you cannot strip away all historicity without completely destroying credibility. I've not heard Dan say something ipso facto like Joseph wasn't handling real, physical, artifact, golden plates. That would be weird to hold to as an active member. Of the little I've seen of Dan, I'd guess he is, to an uncomfortable degree, trying to admit the state of current archaeology and realizes that defending absolute historicity is a losing battle if people are demanding total academic honesty from him at all times.

Maybe. Yet, top down, not bottom up.

Well, officially, but before that, the law of adoption, baptism, overrides literal blood descendant with legal descendants, like the adoption of Ephriam into Israel before Moses severed their right to the priesthood and the adoption of David's house into the Lord's lineage enabled his royal decedents, and royal initiates like the Christian legal right to be Melchizedek priests.

There seems to be many very active LDS apologists, former atheists and/or textual critics, like youtuber Travis Anderson, who seem to embrace Dan McClellan. Travis seems to have a less spiritually driven testimony, but a more practical secular draw to the church that is not concerned if many claims in texts are correct. Saints that prioritize academic data, textual criticism, and philosophical choice over tradition or emotion or even a spiritual testimony. McClellan routinely states that there is zero empirical data for the supernatural, for neither the resurrection nor the historicity of the Book of Mormon, while simultaneously remaining an active, practicing member of the Church. For atheistic leaning thinkers, like Travis Anderson, this approach to the church is very liberating. It removes the exhausting burden of trying to "prove" the impossible to prove. Instead, it allows them to look at the data objectively and treat faith not as something proven, but as an explicit, existential choice you make. The Bible and Book of Mormon don't need to be a literal or accurate records to hold value, it can still serve as a vehicle for a community and its rituals. The Church remains a highly effective, practical social and spiritual way for reducing suffering, fostering community, and navigating mortality until our end is revealed. For individuals who have never experienced the dramatic spiritual conversion that removes all doubt as others do, this approach offers a way to stay in the pews without intellectual dishonesty. You just admit history is messy, and the supernatural cannot be proven, but I choose this framework because it works for my life and my family. No need for the religion to be "objectively true" in a scientific sense to hold a pragmatic, almost cultural allegiance to the system.

You are assuming because the oldest fragments we have in the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Aramaic and date to 200 BC, that it couldn't be an ancient transmission. Well, according to Margaret Barker and several other prominent textual scholars, the Aramaic fragments we have are translations or transcriptions of a much older tradition whose roots are deep in pre-exilic Hebrew. Barker says it had to be retranslated into the living vernacular of the people who'd wanted to read it. Like the Targums. It's full of Hebraisms embedded in the text. You overlook the reason there are three versions of the Parables or Similitudes within 1 Enoch. The community that was preserving Enoch valued oral transmission over written texts so by the time it was written there were multiple strands of ancient oral memory, which strongly implies a long, slow cook-time before the ink ever hit the parchment. Means the book was not written at that time, it's simply the era when these ancient traditions were compiled because the official temple elite could no longer keep them hidden or control them. They didn't just invent books out of thin air after 500 BC, once Ezra's scribes returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, the scribes had memorized older books to preserve them against erasure. The variation in the parables is the fingerprint of an existing older source with three traditions finally being unified in one book. Dr. Margaret Barker argues that the Book of Enoch is not a late, fake invention because she argues that Enoch preserves the original theology of the older First Temple before it was destroyed and altered by the Deuteronomist scribes around the time of the Exile. Barker's view is traditions in Enoch represent the oldest stratum of Hebrew religion, albeit an apocalyptic tradition centered on the Council of Heaven, angels, and the pre-existence of a "Son of Man" figure. Barker argues that the New Testament authors and early Christians treated Enoch as completely authentic scripture because they recognized it as the original, uncorrupted theology of Solomon’s Temple. Jesus saw Himself as the "Son of Man" and like the Essenes saw the Temple as corrupted by Babylon and doomed to fall. The only reason the later Rabbis rejected Enoch after 70 AD, when the temple fell, was because the Christians were using it effectively to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Writing in the name of a patriarch like Moses and Enoch weren't forgeries. It was a mode used to convey either a certain theological school or oral tradition tracing back to that figure and was being faithfully represented. Saying "the rabbis knew it didn't come from Enoch" during the time of Jesus is anachronistic. The rigid, anti-apocalyptic Rabbinic Judaism we know of today didn't fully solidify until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. While during the life of Jesus, Judaism was highly diverse. Thus, Essenes treated the Book of Enoch as canonical scripture, stored alongside Genesis and Isaiah. Scribes of the Law penned books using the voice of Moses were not committing fraud. If you were a scribe in a specific prophet's school, writing your tradition down you did not write under your own name. You wrote under the name of the master who founded your order. Deuteronomy is penned late, but it was not invented then they penned and "found" it. Its frame has the distinct prose style of proto-monotheistic scribes, yet tucked inside the book are some of the oldest pieces of Hebrew poetry in the entire Bible, full of polytheistic signs.

On Youtube, I like to watch "prepper" videos. There is a bit of panic among preppers (food-storers from the reasonable emergency or self-sufficient preppers, to less so, "patriots" and doomsday preppers, waiting for an end that doesn't seem to come) all know and pay attention to what the church does, and assume that a facility closing means the Church is abandoning its emphasis on food storage or that they must know a major food crisis is imminent. In reality, it must have something to do with efficiency... or regulatory compliance. The traditional "self-canning" operations have been needing to meet modern food production and safety standards, that can be incredibly expensive. If Lindon is staying open reinforces that the supply chain isn't disappearing. The idea of an online store model is... Likely. And/or more automated fulfillment hubs to reduce overhead, require fewer volunteers, and keeps costs low for everyone, not just locals. They just dedicated a massive, state-of-the-art Global Distribution Services Center in Salt Lake City. It relies heavily on modern automation to pick, pack, and ship goods far more efficiently than an army of volunteers. The reassurance that the Bishops’ Storehouses are staying open is a good sign the actual emergency safety net for families is staying intact.

But when we are talking about covenant seed, the priesthood, and the way scripture handles inheritances, "direct" changes everything. An additional condition attached, it denotes unbroken transmission. In ancient law there is a massive difference between a direct descendant and a collateral descendant which travels sideways through brothers, uncles, and cousins. Every person on earth after the flood was a descendant of Adam and Noah, yet but the priesthood from there didn't scatter randomly to everyone. They were passed down a line of "firstborn" (righteous) heirs. If direct descendant just meant any biological relative, anyone could claim the right. Adding the word "direct" establishes an unbroken link of transmission. Ishmael and Esau are the ultimate examples. Biologically, they are direct descendants of Abraham. But covenantally, God told Abraham that the covenant would be established through Isaac (Genesis 17:21). Ishmael became the father of another great nation, but his line diverted from the specific patriarchal priesthood lineage of Israel. Ishmael and Esau are not regarded as possessing the direct line of the priesthood.

Cain and the Cainites. If you mean after Noah, there is our folk doctrine about Egyptus and in Jewish lore of surviving Cainites / Nephilim like King Og and the Rephaim. Some silly ideas but interesting how even the ancient Israelites thought that the scriptures allowed for there to be other people that weren't considered men / adams. Like the "beasts" of Ninevah.

The Covenant House of Israel (by blood or adoption), and the priesthood after the order of the Son of God. The most ancient, everlasting authority designed before the foundation of the world to bring Adam's children back home. When Genesis says that through Abraham's seed "all the nations of the earth will be blessed," isn't just that Christ would come out of that lineage, it's was the priesthood authority to bind on earth and in heaven would be preserved and offered to every soul through that priesthood. Heirs foreordained and elected to bear the priesthood and the missionary responsibility to the rest of the world. "And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father; ...and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood) ... shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal." (Abraham 2:10–11)

Based on both biblical chronology and Latter-day Saint theology, the short answer is no. Cain and Abraham belong to completely different lines and eras. Cain was the firstborn son of Adam, while Abraham is a direct descendant of Seth. Therefore, anyone tracking Eve's promised lineage is looking at an entirely separate branch of the human family tree than the lineage of Cain. In a sense, God the Father "foreknew" every spirit before they came to earth. He chose a lineage to carry the priesthood, the scriptures, and the gospel ordinances to the rest of the world and the firstborn as a savior would be born in the exact time and circumstance. The Jewish premortal existence was the Guf has much in common with Latter-day Saint concepts of the premortal existence than it does with Calvinist predestination. A pre-existing storehouse or community of conscious spirits waiting in a specific order for their turn on Earth. Wisdom of Solomon 8:19–20, Solomon explicitly describes himself as having a good, noble soul before he was ever given a physical body, "As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body." Notice the order of operations, "being good, I entered..." Solomon is explicitly stating that his spirit, his "goodness," was already developed before he descended. He did not start as a blank slate at birth; his spirit already possessed individual identity and nobility that entered the noble body, his "undefiled" house. LDS doctrine teaches the premortal life, individuals developed there and some were foreordained (appointed or set apart based on their faithfulness) to fulfill specific missions or roles during their mortal lives. Not destined to be fulfilled, per se. In both traditions, your soul did not pop into existence out of nothingness at the moment of your physical conception. You existed somewhere specific in the heavenly realm, waiting for a physical body. LDS theology also emphasizes that lineage is not a guarantee of salvation, neither is it a barrier. According to teachings from Joseph Smith and subsequent church leaders, anyone of any lineage who accepts the gospel of Jesus Christ and receives the proper ordinances is spiritually adopted into the seed of Abraham. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ... And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:27, 29)

I care, just not out of fear or a rigid taboo, but I do agree it's overused and prefer to avoid using Mormon too repetitively, or at other times to avoid confusion over the denomination, I may use it interchangeably, which seems like a fairly normal thing. I'm critical when others say that I must call them Ex-Mormons if I'm a decent person. If I dare to use an alternative term and they pretend they don't even understand English ('Ex-LDS') to force me to comply. The power dynamics of compelled speech. I use both terms casually. And it doesn't bother me when others use 'Mormon' either. I’m not the one policing their vocabulary, I'm resisting their attempt to police mine. Or that it's somehow a matter of courtesy. Choosing a completely neutral, vanilla descriptor like 'ex-LDS' inside a faithful forum isn't an attempt to make anyone unhappy. They are just unhappy contrarians trying to find any reason to be mad. We all might not be naturally rigid people in real life, but the internet forum sandbox often demands that we play a defensive role.

No, because I clearly used both terms interchangeably in this very topic, which means I'm not afraid of the terms, you are. My issue is the cultural enforcement you are trying to pull on me. Feigning ignorance of a term like "ex-LDS" even exists exposes that you are the one with the rigid ideology. When I talk about capitulation, I’m not describing a moral crisis or a blind refusal to use a term. Allowing an outside counter-culture to dictate the terminology allowed inside a faithful forum is, by definition, capitulation. You continue to confuse popularity with neutrality. Just because adversarial online subcultures may overwhelmingly chose highly politically charged labels doesn't make that label neutral. If tomorrow the community enters this forum and insists that they now collectively identify as the 'Enlightened Ones' or as 'Free-Thinkers,' am I uncivil if I refuse to refer to them how they identify? By your logic, I would be guilty of a 'rules for thee' double standard and failing a test of basic human decency. Yet, everyone here would know how ridiculous that would be.

Nope, you don't get to unilaterally define the conversation as a test of basic human decency and declare that I somehow failed it without objection. You haven't defined courtesy as me being able to absolutely hold my standards while being civil, without capitulation, surrendering my standards just because an opposing side demands it, which is exactly what you seem to be suggesting I do, assuming if I were a decent fellow. When Christians choose to call Latter-day Saints "Christians," they are indeed extending a courtesy by respecting how that group defines their own relationship with Jesus Christ. But "Ex-Mormon" is doing the exact opposite. Once a Christian enters an LDS space and insists on saying, "You aren't Christians, you are Mormons," they are intentionally ignoring the group's self-identity to score a theological point. Everyone recognizes that as a provocation. Nobody recognizes 'Ex-LDS' as a provocation. It's a massive false equivalency. Nobody is walking around getting triggered, offended, or baited by a literal descriptor like "Ex-LDS."

Here is the difference, "Ex-LDS" is a literal, technical description of a change in organizational status. If you used to be a Latter-day Saint member and now you are not a member, you are an ex-Latter-day Saint. It contains zero emotional commentary, zero theological judgment, and zero slang. It is completely vanilla English. "Mormon," on the other hand, is slang, a historically complex nickname that current Church leadership has explicitly asked members to phase out. I'm not the one marching onto r/exmormon and correcting their posts to say "Ex-LDS," then I would be weaponizing language to annoy them in their own home. But that isn't what is happening. I am participating in a faithful, academic, FAIR-aligned space, using vocabulary acceptable by the Church's style guide. I am choosing "Ex-LDS" to maintain consistency and institutional respect within a faithful environment. Expecting a faithful forum to adopt internet branding inside its own digital walls is upside down. I'm not saying "Ex-LDS" to make them angry, to mock them, or to get a defensive rise out of them. I'm using it because it is the most factually precise way to describe former members who are now in an adversarial relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without engaging with the word "Mormon." The comparison doesn't hold up under scrutiny, because 'Ex-LDS' and 'Mormon' aren't doing the same linguistic work. From a certain perspective, it diminishes a political effect and replacing it with a rather quiet, neutral, institutional description. Why focus on the minority? If you haven't noticed the minority is the group actively driving this conversation.

Find every Ex-LDS thread that refences the "major victory for Satan". Every title of an episode of Mormon Stories. The forums openly discuss that they intentionally lean into the word "Mormon" precisely because the current leadership was trying to move away from it. It's also a calculated business decision in a Search Engine Optimization standpoint, "Mormon" generates massively higher search volume than "LDS." Whenever an Ex-LDS enters faithful spaces and insists on using "Mormon" to provoke active members is weaponizing it. Using language not to communicate, but to score a tactical point. You can't seriously be denying online spaces explicitly double down on 'Ex-Mormon' and 'Mormon' as deliberate acts of reclamation and institutional resistance since 2018.

Academic literature, peer-reviewed journals, and university dissertations use "ex-LDS" as a standard analytical category because researchers require strict classifications rather than internet subculture shorthand. "Mormon" can refer to over a dozen distinct breakaway denominations, academic protocols default to referencing the specific institution being exited. I have several published examples demonstrate how standard and widely accepted this vocabulary is. I think it's a manipulation game. They only want to be called Ex-Mormons precisely because the Church doesn't want its members called Mormons. Even if you are calling current members "Latter-day Saints" to respect their wishes, you are still following a naming convention that the community is actively using as a point of defiance. Since, the vocabulary itself is a political battlefield, is exactly why a neutral, clinical descriptor is sometimes necessary. You speak of courtesy while they intentionally weaponize the word "Mormon". If they reserve the right to ignore the naming preferences of Latter-day Saints, they have very little standing to demand that a faithful LDS bend standard English grammar to match the online brand. By choosing to say "ex-LDS" I strip away the politics and return the conversation to a calm, clinical reality. As someone participating in a faithful, academic space aligned with FAIR, my baseline for language follows the Church's style guide, which asks us to phase out the cultural nickname 'Mormon.' While you are completely free to brand your own spaces however you like, calling someone who left the denomination 'ex-LDS' is factually accurate and aligns with the vocabulary standards of my faith. Courtesy goes both ways, if the online community can ignore the naming preferences of the Church, they shouldn't be surprised when faithful forum's member default to standard, literal descriptors instead of subculture branding.

Yet, sociology, psychology, and religious studies researchers almost exclusively use "ex-LDS." Should we really let an online forum's branding dictate what term to use? I am identifying them by the exact organization they left. If someone leaves the Jehovah's Witnesses, they are an ex-JW. Calling someone who left the LDS Church ex-LDS is standard English use. The "ex" is certainly an identity they already claim. I'm not forcing some new status on them. Perhaps you are trying to invalidate a term you personally don't like?

When news is slow, I look at ex-LDS forums to see what they talk about. A wave of discussion following the formal excommunication of podcaster and content creator Landon Brophy in mid-May for public apostasy. The event sparked debate among Redditers and Mormon Stories regarding how the Church handles online critics. Even though every organization, whether a corporation, a sports league, or a religious body, has standards of conduct, membership requirements, and boundaries. Church discipline is not an act of malice, it is a necessary mechanism for maintaining the integrity of the faith and the community. What Did Landon Brophy Do Wrong? On his show, he openly questioned and criticized the translation and authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Historical, DNA, and archaeological challenges regarding the Book of Mormon. The divine authority of Church leadership and modern revelation. All designed to undermine the faith of others. The podcast regularly engaged in direct, public criticism of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Church guidelines explicitly state that repeatedly and publicly attacking or campaigning against Church leadership constitutes clear grounds for a disciplinary council. Landon Brophy’s actions directly met the definition of public apostasy. While the Ex-LDS community often frames church discipline as a punishment for simply having doubts, the Church's guidelines distinguish between private struggles with faith and public opposition. As a co-host on the Mormonish Podcast, Brophy moved far beyond private disbelief. He used a public platform to consistently question, deconstruct, and criticize Church doctrines, history, and leadership. Brophy had a long history of high-level leadership, and his public actions created a fundamental breach of church integrity. When local leaders reached out to him after General Conference to discuss his status, Brophy admittedly ignored the correspondence, missed the certified mail, and chose not to participate in the local council. Church discipline is intended to be an invitation to repentance and a local, pastoral process. When a member completely withdraws from that process while continuing to publicly attack the Church, leaders are left with no choice but to formally update the records to reflect reality. Other Strange Ex-LDS Outcries The vocal uproar from the Ex-LDS community following Brophy's excommunication highlights several logical inconsistencies and double standards within that space. A common refrain in ex-Mormon forums is that the Church "has no power" and an excommunication letter is meaningless. Yet, the massive influx of angry posts, dedicated Mormon Stories episodes, and coordinated outcries completely contradicts this claim. If the decree truly carries no weight, the intense emotional and reactive preoccupation with it reveals that the community still attributes an immense amount of significance to it. Ex-LDS commentators frequently criticize the Church for maintaining inactive members on its membership rolls, claiming it is inflated with people who no longer believe. However, when the Church takes formal steps to clean up its records by removing a vocal, long-inactive critic like Brophy, the same community decries the move as an aggressive purge or attack. Every community establishes boundaries to define who is part of the group and who is not. If a member of a political party, a secular nonprofit, or a tight-knit club spent years publicly campaigning against the group's core mission, no one would question that organization's right to revoke their membership. The hypocrisy lies in demanding that the Church remain a free-for-all, forcing it to carry the name of a public antagonist on its records under the guise of tolerance. A membership council is not a hostile courtroom. It is a formal acknowledgment of a choice the individual has already made when someone spends years publicly acting outside the boundaries of Latter-day Saint fellowship.

Meteor (2009) A low-budget 2-episode TV miniseries. A relentless race against time to stop an asteroid three times the size of Mt. Everest from slamming into Earth. It starred Billy Campbell (best known for The Rocketeer). It co-starred Ernie Hudson, Michael Rooker, and Christopher Lloyd. Watch for free on The Roku Channel, Tubi TV, Pluto TV, and Plex.

I believe in the need for "priestly" authority because to induct people into the priesthood you need to receive it from someone with the priesthood to give it. Baptism is actually a part of the priestly born-again ritual. Baptism is needed to enter God's presence because the priesthood is what allows mortals to endure God's glory, just like it was needed in the ancient temple, incase God appeared in there. I also believe God will accept even a 'Gentile's" covenant or vow. Say, like it's an outward symbol of your inward commitment to Christ. Even an unauthorized baptism is acceptable to God on their own terms. A step up, on the steppingstones of the gospel. Though it's not what we call a baptism, but that's semantics. Like how "speaking in tongues" I don't believe is technically the same as getting struck "dumb" and babbling, yet that is not to say it's no less a miracle or sign from the Holy Ghost to them. The Holy Spirit can work in people, without "the gift" of the Holy Ghost, per se. You’re not wrong. The LDS Church has a lot of fences. Between worthiness interviews, dietary codes, and structured organizational boundaries, it absolutely operates with lines. But a well in an open wilderness can easily get polluted without a structure around it built to protect the purity of the well so that whenever someone does come to drink, the water is always clear and constant. It completely makes sense why a pure fence group wouldn't work for you. And maybe the LDS path is trying and failing to be both. Maybe it's not being a well very well. The well itself is often marketed around eternal family and priesthood. Sometimes we get so hyper-focused on that aspect when not everyone who comes to drink wants it, and we neglect ministering to the others, like the happily single person, or a perpetually just visiting person, or a pilgrim, or the excommunicated one who keeps coming anyway. There is something for you. We want to share the secrets with everyone, its meant to be shared, but at the right moment. The ancient idea behind temple privacy isn't about hoarding, it’s an act of pastoral care. It’s meant to ensure that people aren't exposed to a deep, demanding covenant too early, before they have the spiritual context to understand them, and ideally are already worthy before they attempt it too early and fail to keep the covenant. "Unto you it is given to know the secret of the kingdom... but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11). "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 3:2). Some truths you are not ready to receive. “For the unbelieving the truth is harmful... it may rather do harm than good, if it be not presented in the proper time and manner.” (Clementine Recognitions (Book II, ch. 5) When a dedicated Christian comes into the LDS community, they aren't converting from paganism or godlessness. The Book of Mormon explicitly defines the 'Church of the Lamb' not as an organization, but a divide of what is in the hearts of men. You always have had faith, love, and repentance, you have been a vibrant, active member of the Church of the Lamb for years. You aren't on the outside looking in. The LDS view differentiates between the power of the Holy Ghost which can rest upon anyone at any time and the covenant right to its constant companionship. When we talk about the 'Gift' of the Holy Ghost, we don't mean Latter-day Saints have a monopoly on God's Spirit and who it wants to be with. It's simply about a formal, covenantal anchor. I don't think a human can see the difference between the Spirit when in LDS people and Spirit in other people. I agree, the LDS teachings are very clear that a non-LDS man is saved if he would have joined the church had he known he needed to do so, they will absolutely inherit the Celestial Kingdom, the place where the Father and the Son dwell. The Church is often accused of being an exclusive club, its actual canonized doctrine regarding the afterlife is arguably the most radical, universalist, and inclusive vision in all of Christendom.