Pyreaux

You'll find for many Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, Gethsemane is considered one of the primary "prooftexts" for the Hypostatic Union. This is the doctrine that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. Baptist theology often emphasizes the Substitutionary Atonement, that Jesus stood in our place. For this to work legally and spiritually, he had to be truly human. Baptists argue that if Jesus didn't feel fear, his "courage" on the cross wouldn't be courage, it would just be divine inevitability. Charles Spurgeon, perhaps the most famous Baptist preacher in history, spoke extensively on this in his sermon "The Agony in Gethsemane." He argued that Gethsemane proves Christ’s humanity because He possessed a "rational soul" that naturally shrunk from pain and death. https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-agony-in-gethsemane/#flipbook

From my study notes, many compiled from Margaret Barker: Traditionally Christians have interpreted Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song as the prophecy of Jesus Christ's suffering. Despite the uncanny parallels, scholarship has long held this to be a purely Christian innovation, because nowhere does Isaiah call his subject the anointed Messiah. However, only by the chance discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has this Christian interpretation finally been vindicated. The Dead Sea Scrolls contains a pre-Christian version of Isaiah, the Isaiah Scroll. In that scroll, the Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:14) is just one Hebrew letter different than the Masoretic text. The Bible usually translates the word into English as “marred [H#4893]” or “disfigured” but with the extra letter added the word becomes “[masahti (H#4888) anointed]”. We know that because that is the meaning of that word when it is used in Numbers 18:8, so the Isaiah Suffering Servant was originally a Messiah. The Isaiah Scroll says "I have anointed him more than any man in his appearance and he shall sprinkle many nations” (1Q Isaiaha 52:14). The Targums indicate the subject was a Messiah in the previous verse, “My servant the Messiah shall prosper” (Targum, Isaiah 52:13). ..... The Isaiah Servant, the Messiah, will suffer, become exalted, and will also perform an Atonement rite, as he says the Messiah shall “sprinkle [rhantise (H#5137)] many nations” (Isaiah 52:15) the same verb for the Atoning blood (Leviticus 16:19). The next chapter says the Servant will have “carried [yazzah (H#5445)]” our grieves and sorrows and upon him “laid” the “iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). He was “oppressed”, just as Christ was arrested, but "opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7) just as Christ would not open his mouth to the High Priests or to Pilate (Mark 14:61; 15:3). The Servant shall be ‘taken from judgment… cut off from the land of the living, made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death” (Isaiah 53:8-9), just as Christ died amidst two criminals and was entombed in a rich man’s tomb (Luke 23:39, 50-53). The Servant was “wounded [hll (H#2490)]” (Isaiah 53:5), this word means to “‘pierce” (Isaiah 51:9), pierced for transgressions and the “chastisement [mwsr (H#4148)] for our peace” was upon him (Isaiah 53:5). Isaiah means the 'bonds (of the covenant) of peace', as it’s the same word in Ezekiel, “bonds of the covenant [msrt hbryt]” (Ezekiel 20:37; Jeremiah 2:20; Psalm 2:3). Which is also in parallel to the next verse, “with his stripes [hbrt (H#2250)] we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). This is the same word for “stripes” is in Exodus and there it meant to “join” or “unite” the curtains of the tabernacle, as “[hbr’]’s” primary meaning is to unite (Exodus 26:4). In Hebrew poetry, chiasmus, the literary style of the Bible, parallel chiasmus will put two different words with similar meanings together in a verse. Since the first part of the verse, one word means a type of bond, the other line also contains a word that also is a type of bond, though it also means a type of bruise caused by a bond, the results from wearing bonds. These “bonds” are references to the Everlasting Covenant. The Servant pours out his “soul [‘sm (H5315)] for a sin offering” (Isaiah 53:10), a “[sm’]” is something that redresses as “[m’l]”, which is a violation of the covenant. Christ, the Messiah is offering to repair the Covenant. ..... Didn’t Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song describe the Messiah’s suffering as “Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…” (Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:17)? When exactly during the Crucifixion did Christ suffer “sorrows for sin” or “carry” the weight of our grief? During his Passion Christ expressed no complaint of his burdens, or express his pain, or utter any words of sorrow, He mostly kept his mouth shut (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:3). This is in contrast from when He was in Gethsemane, it was there He expresses how He was “sorrowful and very heavy” and “exceedingly sorrowful unto death”. Only there does the Bible say Christ was in “agony” (Luke 22:43-44). One could argue by these words about Jesus that Gethsemane might have been the scene of Christ’s greatest agony. We merely imagine that scourges and crucifixion must have hurt more than the act of simply praying in a garden, only He didn’t express His agony nor sweat blood during the crucifixion (Mark 14:61; 15:3). Unlike the prayers we've given, appears that for Christ, maintaining His effort to pray in Gethsemane became increasingly difficult, as he keeps asking for the cup’s removal, and an angel had to be sent to Him in order to strengthen Him to keep praying, and He was in such “agony” that “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground” (Luke 22:43-44). .... The final rite of the first portion of the Atonement in the temple was to purge the holy place, the artificial garden temple, representing all creation, with blood, on the that sacred ground (Leviticus 16:15). As he purifies the sanctuary, the High Priest took upon himself the sins of the people who confessed to him, he became the sin bearer, at least until he has the chance to transfer them on head of the second goat. During that time, the High Priest, is like Christ who is to have borne the sorrows and sicknesses of His people (Isaiah 5:4, 10; Matthew 8:17). Interesting to note here that excess sacrificial blood from sacrifices was sold to gardeners to use as fertilizer in their gardens (Mishnah, Yoma 5:6). .... The event at Gethsemane must be something important, for no other reason than that it is even mentioned in the Gospels at all. .... Denominations such as The Baptist Church figures that the scene of Gethsemane was about Christ expressing fear in anticipation of the pains of the cross. However, I think this is wrong, for Christ to be afraid to be persecuted and crucified is outside of the character He has ever displayed previously and shortly thereafter when it concerned the subject of suffering and death. To interpret this as fear of death would place Christ below the heroism of the Christian martyrs, like Paul, who anticipated harsh persecution and death, even crucifixion, for Christ’s sake with joy. The point of the scene is not a mere display of Christ’s humanity, weakness or fears of death. Instead of Christ being fearful of death on the cross, I would here interject it was the custom for High Priest who approached God (such as during the Temple's atonement ritual) to do so with “fear and trembling” (Genesis 9:2; Psalm 55:6; Judith 2:28; 4 Maccabees 4:10; 1 Enoch 13:3; Narsai, Homilies 17A). When the High Priest preformed an Atonement ritual, the proper thing to do was to approach the Holy of Holies with the purposeful attitude of fear and trembling, thus showing reverence and respect. In an Atonement, it was then that the Atoning High Priest would then open his mouth, praying in devotion until He knows his prayer has been accepted. The details about what the content of the Atonement Prayer is unknown, however what little we do know is the prayer was repeated three times as some kind of formula (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 8:15; 16:18; 17:18). It is with much interest that here, alone on a holy mountain, that Christ trembles and opens his mouth to pray, and does so three times as a formula, “O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: never the less not as I will, but as thou will.” (Matthew 26:39-44). If Christ was cowering over the suffering of the crucifixion, why did Christ not fear or tremble, cower or even open his mouth to respond during the Passion of Christ, but He was brave, calm and was lead as a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:31). .... Since the purpose of Atonement in the past wasn’t just about forgiving sins but to purify and cleanse the holy ground of the Temple (Leviticus 16:9). If Christ’s Atonement is a final Day of Atonement Ritual, a temple is the proper venue for a temple rite. The Temple of Herod in Jerusalem was under the control of the Sanhedrin. Christians as a new upstart sect in Judaism, claiming to possess an extinct priesthood, did not have the clout to have free reign of that temple. However, a Temple quintessentially is an artificially constructed mountain with an artificial golden tree grove at its summit. In the past, before the temple was built, the Patriarchs built up many other more literally mountainous and arboreal types of temples, utilizing the more natural and rural features of the areas rather than creating artificial ones. They built an alter and pitched a tabernacle tent on top of actual mountains with an actual grove of trees in their midst (Bethel – Genesis 28:19; 35:8, and Sinai – Exodus 15:7; 3:2, etc). The Garden of Eden was a holy grove of olive trees (Zechariah 4:3). During the day light hours, Christ utilized the Temple of Jerusalem and could be found teaching the masses outside the Temple, while during the night, Christ taught only to his disciples on a mountain called the “Mount of Olives” (Luke 21:37-38) as was his “wont” or custom (Luke 22:39). While on the Mount of Olive’s western slope was an ancient grove of olive trees, the “garden of Gethsemane [(G#1068) Oil Press]” (Matthew 26:36). The olives that grew there were pressed under gigantic stones to extract its oils. Poetic as it was here that Christ would say that He had felt a “heavy” weight upon him (Matthew 26:17) and “blood” would be extracted from him. This Mount was always a holy and distinguished mountain, it is where King David himself worshiped (2 Samuel 15:30, 32). When the Temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground by Babylon, Ezekiel had a vision during the Babylonian captivity in which, “the glory of the Lord” vacated the Temple mount and came to rest of the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel 11:22-23). In the future, the Messiah was prophesied to appear there to save his people, God will send the nations to Jerusalem, the Lord will stand on the Mount of Olives (Zacharias 14:3-5). After the Resurrection, this is this same mount that Christ ascended into a “cloud” and angels were frequently seen there (Acts 1:9-12; Luke 22:43). .... For the next 700 years, the Christians that lived there called the Mount of Olives, “the sanctuary of the Lord, that is, the Temple” which is to be built in the future. Thus, Emperor Constantine’s mother built a “sacred church and temple on the very summit”. On the Mountain of Olives was also a cave, “authentic history informs us that this very cave the savior imparted secret revelations to his disciples” (Philip Schaft, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Eusebias [1994], pg 531). The narrative tells us that the Garden of Gethsemane even had a Temple-like Tripartite division, three main areas, just like a temple has. On the Day of Atonement, the Israelites stood outside the building in the Temple Courtyard, Priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place, and the High Priest was to go into the Holy of Holies alone (Leviticus 16:17). At other rural Temple-like sites like Mount Sinai, Moses, who was a non-Aaronic priest (Psalm 99:1) was attempting to renew the original covenant (before Israel sinned) and blood atoned there (Exodus 24:8). For this they triple partitioned Mount Sinai as a Temple, the Israelites stayed at the Bottom of the Mount, Aaron and the Seventy were able to go Midway Up, and Moses as a High Priest had to go to the Top alone (Exodus 19:17). Similarly, in Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives, the Disciples gathered in a main area of the garden where Christ instructs them to stay there (Matthew 26:36), only taking the Triumvirate, the three Chief Apostles; Peter, James and John, as the Priests, with Him into an Interior area of the Garden, that is until He asks them to wait there (Matthew 26:37), while Christ “went a little further” to be alone into a third Innermost area (Matthew 26:39). Being alone in a Holy Mountain Grove, Christ was in a position to act as a High Priest in an atonement ritual for a new covenant with his own blood and it was mentioned that there Jesus did appear to bleed (Luke 22:44). While Christ also bled on Calvary’s Hill, He was not alone on Calvary’s Hill as a High Priests should be, there were two crucified with him (Matthew 29:38).

Certainly, and I pray I'll make it to 92. Thought I guess that may have slightly more to do with how good and willing my AI doctor will be at that time.

The rabbis of the Mishna and Talmudic periods (1st to 6th centuries) show evidence that plural marriage still occurred, although they placed severe restrictions on it. For instance, a man had to prove he could financially and emotionally support multiple wives. Josephus mentions that King Herod the Great had nine or ten wives, illustrating that first century polygamy existed among the Jewish elite (Hasmoneans and Herodians were actively practicing it), even if it was uncommon for the average Jew. "For it is of old among us an allowed custom to have several wives at once." (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17.1.2)

That seems to be a traditionally valid interpretation of the OT, "But when Sarai, at God's command, brought to [Abraham's] bed one of her handmaidens, a woman of Egyptian descent..." (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.10.4). Josephus interprets either Sarah's prompting or the legal customs of the time as a mandate from God. Justin Martyr defended the patriarchs against critics who accused them of immorality. He argued that their actions were not driven by lust but by dispensation (oikonomia). And suggests that these marriages were part of a "mystery" or a specific divine arrangement to fulfill the promise of a multi-national posterity. He argues that Abraham did nothing without the "counsel" or "will" of God. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 141) The Midrash's "Sarah as Prophetess" Tradition, she divinely "commands" Abraham. Jewish tradition and Rashi notes that when God told Abraham later to "hearken to her voice" (Gen 21:12), it confirms in their thinking that Sarah's previous directives regarding Hagar were inspired. Though this command was for Abraham to send Hagar away, not to take her. But the Jewish tradition often views Abraham’s initial taking of Hagar as also an act of "hearkening to the voice of his wife". Alternatively, it's subtextual, the "Law of the Concubine" in Nuzi Tablets and the Code of Hammurabi (Laws 144–146) provides the "legal command" of the era, that a barren wife was legally obligated to provide a handmaid to her husband to provide an heir.

Yet most people in history lived and died without the Priesthood. That is not irreparable, "no blessing will be denied the faithful" in the eternal scope. If one believes God is in charge, the argument is that He allowed a flawed human policy to persist, knowing He could rectify the "missed" blessings. It’s the only way to reconcile God's involvement with a flawed, prejudiced leadership. A Prophet is a student much like we are, he's not omniscient; their important role is to hold the authority for when the revelation finally comes. In massive strategic blunder, a General still holds the legal authority to command until the Commander-in-Chief (God) replaces them or issues a new directive. In any disciplined organization, the ability to course-correct is actually a sign of health, not just failure. A believer might be inclined to see gaps as a "wilderness period" where God waits for the leadership or membership to be ready to receive correction.

Uh, that conflates "being wrong" with "losing the keys" or "jeopardizing salvation". The military analogy, that there is a distinction between an error and a war crime, actually helps clarify the Church's position. A General orders to take a hill that turns out to be strategically worthless, is a wrong order, but it is not a war crime. Those who refused to obey the lawful order are wrong. In an LDS context, the most solid example is the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada, or policies that are later retired. These don't jeopardize the "salvation" of the membership. Even Priesthood ban, the Church continued to provide the "Saving Ordinances" (Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the Sacrament) to all members. The core mission of the Church remained intact. Church is not the military, but the psychology and emphasis on order is very similar. I recall Wilford Woodruff said the Lord would "remove" him before he could lead the Church astray, he was speaking specifically about the Manifesto ending Polygamy.

Many Bible authors seem to suggest they were temple priests prior to their calling, like Isaiah. Not saying that its typical for all prophets, maybe just ones with the priestly art to write books. A few had overlapping authority. Like Samuel was first in the line of the Great Prophets, last of the regal Major Judges, and a Levitical Priest.

Jacob just now heard the demographics of anti-LDS channels and how there are signs of struggling... Though he may have known it a while but between debates, only now had time to make a video.

Better late than never.

Many were called to the Royal Melchizedek Priesthood, like Prophets, while they were still Levitical temple priests. But the Melchizedek Priests ideally have lesser priesthood within them. Patriarchal Priesthood was prophet, priest and king before Moses split them up. Priesthood came through Shem to Abraham (1 Chronicles 1:24-27)

Most certainly.

Hugh Nibley highlights that the "Seed of Noah" represents a specific priesthood lineage that survives the world's wickedness. "The promise to Enoch is not merely that humans will exist, but that the righteous order (Zion) will have a remnant on earth. The 'Children of Noah' are those who are reclaimed from the world... They are the heirs of the priesthood who allow for the return of the City of Enoch." (Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 45) The "Other Survivors" Theory is in a more literal reading of ancient texts like the Book of Giants (which Hugh Nibley famously compared to the Book of Moses), suggesting that some of these "mighty men" (gibborim) might have survived,, if not literally, in other ways, like the "Rephaim" may refer to a spiritual or political class rather than a separate biological race, and not 50-foot monsters. In this view, the fulfillment of the covenant in Moses 7:60 is about Christ returning to settle the score between the "Seed of Noah" (the covenant people) and the "Remnant of the Giants" (the systems of wickedness). That kind of reminds me of the Jewish serpent's seed narrative. Jesus' "sons of vipers" and "your father the devil".

Hmmm. A belief that God works through a specific, authorized order, even if the individuals in that order are imperfect. A common teaching of Dallin H. Oaks is that God will bless a member for their faithfulness to the principle of order, even if the specific direction given by a local leader is suboptimal. God values the humility and discipline more than correctness. My deep thoughts about Priesthood Ban are I wouldn't be the surprised God let it happen just to humble the Saints. Though in the military, you follow the orders first and complain later. In LDS doctrine, there is a concept of dual testimony. The leader receives the revelation for the group. The individual is expected to seek a confirming witness from the Holy Spirit that the leader's direction is correct. If a member feels the leader is "wrong," the cultural suggestion is often the member should check again or check at least their own humility rather than publicly correcting the leader. Like "insubordination" in the military.

In the administration of the church, they have the absolute right to make policies, if we value our membership, we must comply with even if they are wrong and we might disagree. I'm thinking of the priesthood ban, while wrong, those excommunicated for openly violating the policy were also wrong. The military "Lawful Order" doctrine, if a culture allows individuals to choose which orders to follow based on personal judgment, the chain of command dissolves. When they give an order, it happens. Order must be followed, even if it seems tactically "stupid" or "wrong", as long as it is legal.

You can edit the title. Must we fully agree with the 12 to fully sustain them? I don't suppose. They disagreed with each other. B.H. Roberts, John A. Winstoe and James Talmage disagreed with the Prophet Joseph Feilding Smith on evolution and successfully left the matter open, that is with the Prophet still disagreeing. But I'll be thinking about it for a while.

I know Andrew knows nothing about Mormonism, the last thing I heard him say was rudely dunking on a girl when he found out she was LDS, saying her prophet is in prison for heinous crimes (mistaking Warren Jeffs to be the LDS prophet). She couldn't correct him, partly because she may not know what he was referencing but, also, he was being very obnoxious. A critic who prides themselves on logic while committing the fundamental category errors, conflating the FLDS and the LDS Church. If Wilson is operating from a position of absolute logic, he’s vulnerable to the very standards he tries to set. Here are some of Andrew's arguments, why the reasoning is flawed, and what the LDS scholarly position is. Argument from Incredulity and the "Ninja Assassin" Wilson uses the "Ninja Assassin" analogy to mock the possibility for the Catalyst Theory or the Lost Scroll Theory. It's a Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity). His logic is if you can just invent an unprovable, 'miraculous' theory to keep your faith alive, then I can invent an equally unprovable, 'fantastic' theory to tear it down (I can say a ninja went back in time to make a fool of Joseph Smith)." Stephen Smoot points out that the Missing Scroll theory isn't invented out of thin air to save face, it is based on contemporary eyewitness accounts from the 1840s, like those of Charlotte Haven and others, who described the length and appearance of the scrolls in ways that do not match the small fragments we have today. Joseph Smith’s "translation" was a revealed process. If Joseph was using the papyri as a catalyst for revelation (The Catalyst Theory), then the content of the ink becomes secondary to the inspiration received. Wilson's logic is a bit circular, "Joseph is a fraud because he didn't translate linguistically; I know he didn't translate linguistically because he's a fraud." The Missing Papyrus as a Cope Wilson calls the missing scroll theory a "cope." According to Smoot, this is simply the math. Eyewitness descriptions like those from Jerusha Walker Blanchard describe long, beautiful scrolls. The fragments recovered in 1967, the "Small Sensen" text, account for only a tiny fraction of the original purchase. Misuse of Burden of Proof. Andrew assumes LDS scholars must prove a specific reconstruction of the lost papyri. Historical reconstruction always involves probability, not certainty. When evidence is fragmentary, multiple viable models remain legitimate. Therefore, Andrew’s model is not falsifiable either, he simply prefers it. Either Joseph Smith Was Wrong, or Abraham Wrote the Book of the Dead Andrew repeatedly frames the issue as a forced binary. Either Joseph Smith falsely translated Egyptian funerary texts, or Abraham authored the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This framing excludes well-documented alternatives recognized in both LDS and non-LDS Egyptology. Stephen Smoot explicitly rejects this binary. The Book of Abraham is not required to be a direct, word-for-word translation of the extant papyri Joseph Smith’s use of "translation" reflects 19th-century prophetic language, not modern philological terminology. Ancient texts were often used as revelatory catalysts, not sources in the modern academic sense. Smoot notes that ancient Jewish and early Christian pseudepigrapha regularly attribute texts to ancient patriarchs without implying autograph authorship. Andrew’s dilemma assumes a modern documentary standard that neither Joseph Smith nor ancient religious communities operated under. Written by His Own Hand upon Papyrus Andrew insists the phrase “written by his own hand upon papyrus” must mean Abraham personally authored the physical papyrus Joseph Smith possessed. Its Anachronistic Literalism Andrew imposes modern legal-document expectations onto ancient and pre-modern religious language. Smoot points out that, "Written by his own hand" is a known ancient literary trope, not a forensic claim. Biblical texts use similar language without implying physical autograph manuscripts. Egyptian and Jewish scribal cultures routinely used ascribed authorship to convey authority and tradition. Example: The Book of Daniel claims first-person authorship, yet critical scholars agree it was compiled centuries later. Andrew selectively literalizes LDS scripture while granting flexibility to biblical texts, a double standard. We Have the Papyrus Joseph Smith Used Andrew asserts there is a "proven chain of custody" and claims the extant fragments must be what Joseph Smith translated. Smoot emphasizes eyewitness accounts consistently describe scrolls far longer than what survives today. The Chicago Fire in 1871 plausibly did destroyed a significant portion of the collection. The LDS Church’s 19th-century assumption about the fragments discovered are not binding doctrinally and were revised once Egyptology matured. No contemporaneous source explicitly states Joseph Smith translated only the surviving fragments. Andrew assumes completeness without evidence and dismisses contradictory eyewitness data. Egyptologists Have Falsified the Translation Andrew thinks because Egyptologists translate the fragments as funerary texts, Joseph Smith is falsified. Andrew assumes if a text does not linguistically equal the Book of Abraham, the revelation is false. Smoot clarifies Egyptology can only evaluate what the papyri say, not how Joseph Smith received revelation. LDS scholarship does not claim the English Book of Abraham is a direct academic translation of the extant fragments. The Bible quotes many passages that do not exist in their supposed source texts. Good Outcomes Don’t Make False Prophets True (Jim Jones Argument) Andrew compares Joseph Smith to cult leaders, arguing moral or theological value proves nothing. This is rhetorical, not analytical. Revelations must be evaluated on its own theological terms. The LDS Church Changed Its Story Andrew accuses the LDS Church of backpedaling once Egyptology developed, a Genetic Fallacy. He implies because understanding evolved, the claim must be false. All religious traditions refine interpretations as knowledge grows. Biblical scholarship has radically revised views on authorship, dating, and composition without invalidating faith. Development is not dishonesty. Overall Performance Unfortunately, Andrew won his little debate. He likes to control the narrative. He repeatedly forces his opponent to defend positions he lays out. He uses dismissive labeling as a rhetorical weapon. Reducing arguments to absurdity. Wilson demonstrated superior preparation for this, and so was able to catch his opponent off guard. While this wins points with his "ortho bro" audience, it can be seen as "punching down" when debating someone who is clearly not a trained apologist.

It is a thread woven through several LDS scriptures and the teachings of modern prophets who define the difference between being a physical descendant and a spiritual heir of any given Patriarch. LDS commentary on these verses emphasizes that being a "child of Noah" or "Abraham" by birth is insufficient; the "fulfillment" occurs only when the remnant is "called" (as in Moses 7:51) and responds. Joseph Smith taught that the "Holy Ghost" has a physical effect on those who are not of the literal seed of Abraham. He taught that when a person from a "Gentile" (non-covenant) lineage receives the gospel, the Holy Ghost literally "purges out the old blood" and grafts them into the covenant line (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 149–150). Doctrine and Covenants 84 describe transmutation from biological to covenant seed upon receiving the priesthood. "For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God." (D&C 84:33–34) This reinforces the idea that "Noah’s Seed" isn't just about a family tree; it’s about recovering the line of Priesthood authority. Latter-day Saint theology leans heavily on Romans 9. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children... That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Romans 9:6–8) When you read Moses 7:60, where the Lord says He will "fulfil the oath... concerning the children of Noah," He is doing so via The Law of Adoption. Verse 1 "children of men" is biological, ideally the Covenant seed as the target of Enoch's missionary "call." Verse 26 "children of men" are biological, fallen as those who "hate their own blood" and face the flood. Verse 33 "children of men" are biological, fallen being identified as those without affection for God. Verse 37 "children of men" are biological, fallen as those whose "doings" cause the heavens to weep. Verse 45 "my children" is biological, all of Earth's inhabitants causing her pain through wickedness. Verse 51 "children of Noah" are the Covenant seed, those whom the Lord will "call" out of the nations. Verse 60 "children of Noah" are Covenant seed, the group for whom the Second Coming fulfills an oath.

According to hearsay of someone claiming to have reached out to her family, her siblings, like in many of these stories, want to believe "something" probably happened to her, but unfortunately the reality is now buried under a layer of things that don't seem possible to separate now. She has siblings who have memories at the time but don't remember seeing her pregnant. They also say she's a diagnosed Paranoid Schizophrenic, but that doesn't mean nothing happened. Ah, the Algorithm clickbaited me, it's a good video but the title made me think MJ's son was dead of something... He's fine. https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peopleandplaces/the-tragedy-of-michael-jackson-s-son-prince-is-so-sad/vi-AA1NFlqm

I can't find anything about the ex-boyfriend Caleb Hayden Fosnaugh being a member himself. He may not be, maybe his connection to her is through the Uniting for Ukraine program, which requires a private sponsor in the U.S. to sign a form (I-134A) promising financial support. Many single female refugees find sponsors through online matching groups or social media. This creates a dangerous power dynamic. If Fosnaugh or his family served as her initial point of contact or sponsor when she first arrived in the U.S. perhaps in Ohio before she moved to North Carolina, it would explain how a native-born American from Ohio met a woman from Ukraine. It is also possible Kateryna initially lived in Ohio when she arrived in 2022, met Fosnaugh there, and later moved to North Carolina to seek a fresh start. "Ex-boyfriend" suggests a relationship of some duration. Kateryna Tovmash was a relatively recent convert after her arrival in the United States. Kateryna grew up Seventh-day Adventist (family history suggests this), and the ward members in North Carolina have described her as a "shining example of a new convert." The photo of her at the Raleigh North Carolina Temple was taken in the last year or so. In the Church, a person typically waits at least one year after baptism before they can receive temple ordinances. This timeline fits with a conversion that took place shortly after her 2022 arrival. Domestic violence experts have warned that predators sometimes use platforms to find vulnerable women who lack a local support system or legal status. He may have viewed himself as her "rescuer," which often turns into obsessive or controlling behavior when the woman tries to gain independence (like moving to away or joining a new church). If she moved to North Carolina to distance herself from an obsessive relationship in Ohio, North Carolina should have provided the safety she needed. Making this Valentine's Day murder even more chilling.

Yes, Kateryna Tovmash was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. An active member of the Holly Springs Ward of North Carolina. In the photo she is standing in front of the Raleigh North Carolina Temple. Second Ukrainian Refugee Kateryna Tovmash Murdered in NC Ukrainian refugee, 21, and military boyfriend shot dead by ex-lover Her brother, Mykhailo Tovmash, set up a GoFundMe to cover funeral costs and support their younger siblings who were present in the home during the attack. Caleb Hayden Fosnaugh of Ohio allegedly drove 7 hours to North Carolina, broke into the home, and killed Katya and Matthew Wade, an active-duty U.S. Army soldier. Fosnaugh was apprehended in Ohio on February 14th after a multi-state manhunt. He faces two counts of first-degree murder. This is the second high-profile killing of a Ukrainian refugee in North Carolina in six months leading to significant political and social debate in the state regarding the safety of refugees. Members of the Holly Springs Ward have spoken to local media (like WRAL and ABC11), describing her as a "shining light" in their congregation. They noted that she sought refuge in the United States not just from the war in Ukraine, but also to build a better life within her faith community. Kateryna arrived in North Carolina in 2022 under the "Uniting for Ukraine" program. Local church members were instrumental in helping her settle, find work, and navigate the transition to life in the U.S. Her death has hit the local ward particularly hard, as many members were involved in supporting her through her transition and her efforts to maintain a safe home for her son.

You see the last phone call Michael Jackson made? It was to his manager. Sounds like he feared a non-government "They" were going to silenced him.

It’s ironic that in your quest to decry prejudice, you’ve reduced a human being with decades of service to nothing more than a demographic. Isn't that the definition of the sort of bias you claim to have grown out of? If the Church called an African Apostle tomorrow, would you actually sustain him? Or would you just move the goalpost? If so, then your concern about representation isn't about the people of Africa, it's just a weapon to use against a leadership you've already reject. Pointless.

It’s easy to throw stones at the speed of change but look at the trajectory. Its more diverse than ever before. You seem to be arguing that a successful professional career is a disqualification for apostleship. As a complainer, if he were not, you’d likely complain they lacked the competence to run a global organization. Your issue isn't with the resume, but apparently with the fact that the calling happened at all. You keep using 'orthodoxy' as a dirty word. Since when is it prejudiced or extreme for a religious university to expect its faculty to be aligned with its sponsoring religion? You’re framing a basic institutional standard as a 'loyalty oath' to make it sound more sinister. Every organization, secular or religious, seeks leaders who are aligned with their core mission. Of course it looks 'corporate' to you, you’ve already discarded the possibility that God is involved. You'll always start with the premise that any choice the Church makes is inherently uninspired. It renders your opinions compromised by a circular logic trap.

Ah, so your Exit strategy is to frame my defense of the Church as an attack on abuse victims so you can exit the dialogue on your high horse? No, it's a Straw Man Fallacy that I think no one deserves compensation. The Church actually provides more help to victims through its Counseling Assistance Program than many other institutions, often paying for years of therapy regardless of legal "technicalities." Protecting the Church's legal integrity is what ensures those funds remain available for actual victims. You claim you never demanded the Church waive its defenses, but your entire argument contradicts this. You called the Help Line protocols "dishonest", a "shell game", "Stone Age" or "amateurish," you are clearly demanding that the organization stop using it. You can't have it both ways, you can't attack the legal shield while claiming you aren't asking the Church to drop it.