Pyreaux

But if you double the number of temples, even if these new ones will have new classrooms, you still double the human cost of keeping them running and patroned. These still function as temples, just with an extra 5th room, doing ordinances alongside classes, they'll require a constant supply of active workers who are worthy full tithe-payers and can commit 4–6 hours a week, plus patrons. Though I guess, if strategically placed, more temples mean less travel, making it easier to serve.

Independent researchers argue that the official membership count includes many who are no longer active based on census data. Countries like Brazil and Australia, national census data for people who self-identify as "LDS" is often 30% to 60% lower than what the Church reports on its records. Yet, its disputable, there are 10 operating temples and 10 more under construction in Brazil. You cannot sustain 20 temples with only 250,000 people if those people aren't extremely active and committed. Physical buildings are the hard data that proves the census is under-reporting. The continued announcement and construction of temples suggests there is a strong base of full-tithe paying members capable of staffing those buildings. Data from the Spiritual Seismology Survey suggests that the naysayers are misinterpreting the inactive list. The survey found that nearly 40% of LDS members who haven't attended a meeting in over a year still identify as "LDS" when asked by a third party. And many adopt a hybrid faith. They might still pray, believe the Book of Mormon, and keep some version of the Word of Wisdom, but they find the social cost of attending a struggling, under-staffed local branch too high. Concerning the new convert influx problem. In the U.S., you might have one active Melchizedek Priesthood holder for every 3–5 total members on the books. In parts of the Global South, that ratio can balloon to 1 leader for every 50+ members. A Bishop simply does not have the hours in a week to minister to hundreds of new converts. Without that support, the members stop attending, not because they stopped believing in the Book of Mormon, but because they weren't culturally integrated. The number of new wards/branches in Latin America often lags behind the number of baptisms. There thousands are on the books that can become paper. They may go back to Catholicism, but many are also "Believing but Non-Attending" members. Record-breaking Seminary and Institute enrollment and expansion of the missionaries shows the youth are not having as many problems. Seminary and Institute added 200,000 students in just the last two years. Interestingly, about 75,000 of those students are not members of the Church. This suggests that the youth aren't just staying, they actively invite their peers. That enrollment is directly feeding a massive expansion of the missionary force, which has reached 85,000+ full-time missionaries in early 2026.

Well, as long as we don't debate the politics, and just comment on it with little cross talk. I assume he's trolling because protesters say he's a king?

I acknowledge the difference between Latria (the worship owed to God alone) and Dulia (the honor or "veneration" given to created beings) is a bedrock of how Catholics reconcile honoring the Saints or a King without it being guilty of "idolatry." A valid notion in modern Catholicism. However, I am suggesting that the "Royal Cult" proponents like Maragret Barker goes a step farther. Barker focuses heavily on 1 Chronicles 29:20, where the assembly "bowed their heads and worshipped the LORD and the king." Not prostrating to God as an act of worship and prostrating to the king as an act of political respect. But Barker argues that in the original Temple context, it's a conjunction of identity. It is a single act of prostration directed at a single presence, who is both the king and the LORD. The throne wasn't a piece of furniture owned by Solomon; it was a ritual seat that belonged to God. When the King sat there, he was merged into the divine identity. You aren't worshiping the man and the God; you are just worshiping God in the man. In Hebrew, the verb for "worship/prostrate" (shachah) is applied to both subjects simultaneously. Barker argues this is because, the King is the "Anointed One" (Messiah). The king's anointing oil was believed to literally transmit the Spirit of the Lord into the King's body. The King often took a "throne name" that identified him with the Lord. There was no separation during the rituals. On the day of coronation, the King was the Presence of the Lord. To honor the King was to honor the Lord, and to not worship the King was sacrilege against the Lord. If Jesus is a Royal Cultist of this tradition, we see he isn't asking for a lower degree of honor than God. The King was the focal point of worship intended for the Lord, they aren't worshipping Solomon, rather the Lord inside Solomon. I want to point out the reason I still prefer the traditional real Resurrection, I believe though it isn't a completely original idea, it's not 1:1 as there are many features that are very unique in Jesus, rendering Jesus supremely significant. Like the idea of being the last blood sacrifice, opening up the royal priesthood to anyone worthy from a non-Davidic line is a unique change, not a mere Restoration of the old ways of David, but more like "fulfillment". While not every concept is unprecedented, some are. It's not safe to deny a literal death and resurrection, just because the story could be read as a mere royal resurrection drama or liturgy, because it's not all a pure throwback.

The Chatbot is correct, the commonly called "First" Temple is Solomon's Temple, the time of Davidic kings, as opposed to all shrines like Bethel. The Second Temple being Herod. They split these eras up in by their different beliefs. The First Temple era believed in a 3 partitioned heaven like Solomon's Temple had 3 areas, Second Temple Jews from Babylon believed 7 heavens because Harod's Temple had 7 areas.

Thanks Brother Bradley, it's nice to see you around these parts still. I often find myself leaning on your opinions a lot these days. In fact, I was just talking about you today. Talking to the Ward Secretary while waiting for the Bishop "You know Don Bradley?", he's like "Yah!" he was familiar with your work and spiritual journey, and he is a young man (or a youthful 30ish man) and had been inactive for a period. I'm certain he has absorbed a few podcasts with you and so I'm sure you helped him on his way back to activity.

There was a mortal king who died named Melchizedek. Yet he was often viewed by some as not just as a historical king, but as a heavenly being and a resurrected immortal figure. Hebrews 7 describes him as having been "raised up," or rather "resurrected", with "neither beginning of days nor end of life". In a royal cult context, this refers to his enduring office, not the biological man. When a Davidic king was anointed, he became "another" Melchizedek. He stepped out of linear time and into an eternal priesthood. Maybe Jesus successfully ascended into this very specific, pre-existing "immortal" royal office. In many ancient royal cults, the king underwent a symbolic death and rebirth during his coronation or high-holy-day rituals. When Jesus receives the "white and seamless robe," he is being ritually "clothed" in his resurrection body. Hence, in Philip's or Pseudo-Phillip's reckoning, the spiritual "Resurrection" had already happened before he died. If the disciples and Jesus were part of an older mystery tradition or a royal cult, their language was technically accurate within their framework. To the cultist, the ritual is a reality. If the ritual says you are now an immortal god of after the order of Melchizedek, then you are. Even if you died. The Roman Empire could kill the man, but they couldn't kill his status as another Melchizedek. It's a bit distasteful and a far less romantic notion. But it's difficult to parcel out the difference between an ancient king and Jesus. Technically, Jesus wasn't the only would-be incarnation of the Lord. Margaret Barker said Solomon was worshipped as an avatar of the Lord. The First Temple period, the King was the human presence of the Lord. Solomon was anointed and he didn't just represent God; he was "begotten" as the Son of God (Psalm 2:7), when he sat on the "Throne of the Lord" the people were "worshipping the Lord and the King" at the same time because the Lord was embodied inside the man Solomon (1 Chronicles 29:23).

No, the accounts about the weight is rather consistent. Eyewitnesses who claimed to have hefted the plates and who commented on their weight generally provided a consistent weight range. With William estimating them at 60 lbs, Martin Harris suggested 40 to 50 lbs. The account of Joseph, a young male running through the woods about 2-3 miles carrying 40-60 lbs of dead weight is a feat of extreme athleticism, but not physically impossible, and there are other factors that would help, such as if he really thought he was in danger he'd have an adrenaline response. Joseph didn't start running the moment he picked up the plates. He was likely more than halfway home. Lucy Mack Smith describes three distinct attacks. After the first attacker struck him with a gun, Joseph knocked him down and then he "ran at the top of his speed" for about half a mile before a second attack. Following the third attack, the record states that Joseph reached a fence corner within sight of his home and "threw himself down... in order to recover his breath." Moving in half-mile bursts fueled by an adrenaline spike is very plausible. Its supported by the aftermath. When Joseph finally entered the house, he was described as being "altogether speechless from fright and the fatigue." He collapsed from the physical toll. Joseph reportedly dislocated his thumb. He was so focused on the flight response that he didn't even notice the injury until he finally stopped at the fence. Josiah Stowell testified under oath he saw Joseph Smith that night, he had a goldish object when he got home from the woods. By the accounts, he had something with him that day, and they were not light to carry. The story of Katharine as a 14-year-old girl, a 50 lb object covered in cloth on a wooden table creates significant friction. For a young teenager, unbudgeable is a reasonable description for something that weighs as much as a standard bag of concrete when you push it horizontally. This is harder than a vertical lift because you can't easily use your legs or body weight for leverage. When Katharine supposedly hid the plates in her bed, the accounts typically describe her taking them from Joseph and moving them a very short distance. A few feet onto a mattress is a vastly different physical task than sliding them across a table. The plates were clearly heavy enough to be a significant physical burden, difficult for a 14-year-old girl to slide on a table, but light enough that a man in his early 20s can transport them, even run if properly motivated.

Link didn't work for me. I trust you, but by "taught" you mean someone at General Conference thought so and took it upon themselves to broadcast their thoughts, which are generally distinguished from being the unanimous voice of the Twelve. Just as Christians might commonly say the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers are the same rivers in Genesis, but if you've read the book carefully, you know it can't be.

A very astute observation. Many used to assume the Hill Cumorah is in New York, but in reading the scripture it can't be, and now we have a better candidate in Mesoamerica than Heartland. I don't think Sorenson considered places like India or Ethiopia when making his statement.

Mesoamerica theory has more going for it with the temples, writings and iron work that Heartland doesn't have. Sorenson rejects Heartland specifically. I don't think Sorenson considers many other 300-mile possible geographical areas because of the wealth of parallel evidence in Mesoamerica.

Alternatively, people are indeed seeing things, like some people maybe are inducing trances, which I believe happens, whether it's by conventional means like prolonged fasting or using magic mushrooms. Whatever method, I don't dismiss the validity of visions. Belcher account, Joseph reportedly had success. He used a stone to find a cow that had been missing for two days. He allegedly "saw" the cow in the stone and directed the owner to it. I think in this video actually mentions a similar story involving Sally Chase, where a neighbor’s cattle went missing. In that specific account, the cattle were found in the opposite direction of where Sally said they were. Joseph Smith, even in the eyes of Josiah Stowell and the neighbors who kept robbing the Smith house, consistently viewed Joseph as the real deal, that he was actually finding things. It seems like Joseph successfully helped neighbors find stray livestock and lost tools for pennies or a meal.

And the peer-reviewed academics at FAIR are just liars too I suppose? https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Why_were_"penalties"_removed_from_the_Endowment%3F Their contributors are often professional historians, archivists, and scholars who have direct access to the Official Church Archives, the 1877 Master Script when Brigham Young first had the temple ceremony written down and subsequent official revisions in 1927 and 1990 to confirm exactly when words changed. The Church did take them seriously, as covenants, not death threats. When you take a wedding vow "until death do us part" doesn't mean your spouse is then authorized to kill you if you leave them. That's stupid. I'm not saying the Church told people to not take them seriously. A personal pledge is not the same as agreeing to a literal execution. The fact that there are zero executions in 180 years in fact IS the Church's 'statement' that the vow had no teeth. History proves those words were removed decades before Romney was born. If you can't distinguish between the versions, you aren't doing the research, you're just repeating what a blog told you. Holland corrected the reporter’s wording because the reporter was wrong. Accuracy isn't a lie. Romney never said 'slit my throat.' (Fact) Holland admitted members used to say that but not Romney. There are no physical penalties and never have been (Facts) No one has ever been executed by the Church for telling secrets. (Fact)

CFR? You mean prove a negative? Here, in the 180+ year history of the Church, there isn't a single documented case of the Church executing someone for breaking a temple oath. That is my proof. If I'm wrong, wouldn't there be a paper trail from law enforcement? Instead, we find the exact opposite. Ex-members leaving, speaking out, and even publishing the rituals without any physical retaliation from the institution. Still alive. That is proof. Elder Holland can absolutely say "That's not true" when asked if Romney swore to have his throats slit, because he didn't say those words. To describe his life vow as a real threat is a distortion of the truth. You want me to find a very specific, unlikely-to-exist document with a transcript to validate the reality of a historical change that is already fairly well-documented, though unofficially? The penalties were neither "fake" or "real" in a legal sense, it's a ritual, a well-established ancient ritual, which is super awesome, by the way. As the Reddit comment noted, everyone involved including Holland knew exactly what Sweeney was asking. He was asking if Romney had ever stood in a room and promised to slit his throat as a penalty for revealing secrets. He did not say that, nor is that a real penalty anyone suffered. If I'm lying, CFR. You are just trying to shut down the conversation.

Millennium I think. There could be preparatory work now and a full-scale operation during the Millennium. The "sealing" of these servants as mentioned in Revelation 7 is generally viewed by scholars as a protective and ordaining act that happens before the greatest destructions of the last days. I'm 120% with Joseph Smith's interpretation, the "seal in their foreheads" is most definitely the High Priest’s diadem or the High Priest's anointing with the sign of the name. The 144,000 are indeed priests. Whether they are all currently on earth now or yet to be called or if many are serving from the other side of the veil and will return, I don't know.

Well, cross my heart and hope to die, there never was a real penalty. You are aware this wasn't a friendly chat, it was a confrontational interview described as an ambush. In that high-pressure environment, if someone asks you, "Do you have a policy of execution?", you get to say "No" and you are telling the truth. The "penalties" never existed in any legal or physical reality or time. If you really care about leading people to believe something that is not true, then you should care more about what Mormon Stories is getting sued for.

You admit Romney did not "say" that. You claim Holland misled Sweeney by not explaining it immediately, but he does explain 3 seconds later. You guess that Holland would say nothing if the interview had ended there. That isn't a logical argument. Argue what Holland actually did, not what you imagine he would have done. In any high-stakes interview, a subject waits for the full question. Naturally the reporter will followed up, "You used to?", because the reporter knew Holland was being accurate, and he didn't hesitate to say, "We used to." Holland didn't lie. He corrected a false quote, the 'slit throat' line Romney never said. He explicitly confirmed the line existed when asked. It's not Holland's job to do the reporter's job and answer follow-up questions he was not asked yet.

Sweeney was asking if Romney swore to literally 'slit his throat.' That’s like asking if a Catholic eats human flesh weekly. If a Priest says 'No,' is he lying? Also, it seems you lied. Swearing "to have my throat cut" ended in 1927. From 1927–1990 people swore, "I would suffer my life to be taken". You and Mitt Romney did not say you would slit your throat. Holland says, "That's not true," to the claim that Romney swore to "slit his throat," he is being factually accurate. "We used to" before 1927.

Wrong all day long. When Holland says, "We do not have penalties in the Temple," he used the present tense. Thus, Sweeney then asks, "You used to?" and Holland immediately replies, "We used to." Holland is being precise. The words describing the consequences were removed in 1990. Sweeney is trying to get Holland to admit that Mitt Romney is currently under a literal, physical death threat. Holland is refusing to validate that interpretation because such a "penalty" doesn't literally exist, your standard symbolic "blood oath" is just a sacrament. When Holland says "That's not true," he is rejecting Sweeney's characterization of the ritual as a "death threat" there are "no such penalties". There never were, he is 100% correct in a modern legal and literal sense. There is no hit squad and no one is being instructed to harm oneself. In Israel, you didn't delete yourself, you went to the Tabernacle and offered a substitute animal. Put that knife down Notatbm, just repent.

Critics are loaded with assumptions. Like, why do you assume Jesus isn't wishy washy? Why can’t Jesus have whimsy? It's an apostate human obsession to be so intolerant of new revelation, which is always, by definition, a change of some sort. Since when has revelation ever been static or predictable? Why can't Jesus decide that the term "Mormon" served a purpose in 2010 and be over it by 2018? Why do you assume its wishy washy at all? Looks like a long game from a legal and strategic standpoint. In trademark law, you often have to show that you are the primary user of a mark to defend it. By spending millions on the "I'm a Mormon" campaign and owning mormon.org, the Church effectively occupied that word. They flooded the zone, making the word "Mormon" legally and culturally synonymous with the Church. Once they established dominance over the term, they retire it. Now, when a critic makes use of it, the Church can claim trademark dilution or infringement, arguing that the public still associates that word with them. From now on, every time a headline bleeds "Mormon" or a show is named something like Secret Lives of Mormon Wives they will finally get sued for damages. Y'all going to be sad when your boy John goes bankrupt once he can't trick people anymore? Mormon Stories is predatory branding and the legal complaint is the "likelihood of confusion." The podcast is clearly designed to lead people to believe the podcast is an official Church resource. The top of search results for "Mormon" while using Church aesthetics effectively traps those looking for faithful resources. Their refusal to adopt a specific disclaimer is a primary reason the matter moved to federal court. He's going to lose. Open Stories Foundation was already hemorrhaging support before this. Now all their ill-gotten gain from exploiting a federal trademark is going to a defense, after he loses for deceptive branding to solicit will result in damages on top of losing all their built-in Search Engine Optimization. If "Mormon Stories" has to become "Open Stories Podcast," they vanish from the top of Google overnight. I'd think that alone will lead to insolvency. The Church has requested a trial by jury, which will likely focus on whether an "average consumer" would be tricked into thinking the podcast was an official product of the Church. They are going to win. RIP Mormon Stories

The podcast implies that Joseph’s use of stones means his work was born out of magic rather than revelation. This narrative is a modern rhetorical reframing of history and displays blatant ignorance of Biblical divination and the assortment of physical tools used, like the Urim and Thummim in the Old Testament. The host claims that biblical objects like Aaron’s rod, that turned into a snake and bloomed while dead, was just a "stick," while Joseph’s stones were "enchanted." This is a distinction without a difference. When Moses strikes a rock with his staff to bring forth water or tells the Israelites to look at a bronze serpent on his staff to be healed, God is imbuing a physical object with power. Joseph explicitly taught that the stones were useless without the Spirit of God. When he lost his gift after losing the 116 pages, the stones didn't work anymore. This proves the power wasn't in the stones. While Joseph was aware of Sally Chase, the podcast portrays Joseph as her apprentice. There is no historical data, not even from the critics that describes any relationship between Joseph Smith and Sally Chase. The Chase family lived about 3 miles from the Smith farm. Records confirm Sally Chase was known in the neighborhood for her "green glass" around 1819–1820 when Joseph was approximately 14 years old. Later neighbors' affidavits collected by E.D. Howe in 1834 state Joseph was intrigued by her stone and once went to see it. Seeing it does not constitute an apprentice. The podcast cites a school friend saying Joseph "inquired of her where to dig." This is a hearsay account recorded decades after the fact. If Sally was his teacher in the use of seeing stones, one would expect their methods would be the same. Sally's primary method involved holding her green glass up to the sunlight to see "wonderful things." Joseph’s method involved placing a stone in a hat to exclude all light, the stone glowed, like the Urim and Thummim stones did. It produced a book. The historical record shows Joseph was often reluctant to participate in money digging, and Josiah Stowell coaxed him to do it. The podcast claims the Joseph Smith Papers prove Joseph was a money digger before Josiah Stowell hired him. For those in extreme poverty, "treasure seeking" was a common, desperate, pursuit for many. Even if that is the case, it misses the idea of any transformation of a young man, and that Joseph had to redirect his gifts. He mentions a failed attempt to sell the copyright in Canada as proof of a false spirit. A well-known story, as Joseph’s response was that some revelations are from God, some from man, and some from the devil. Joseph had to learn to distinguish his own thoughts from the promptings of the Spirit. It portrays the prophet is still growing rather than a perfect robot. The host uses Acts 19's burning magic books to say Joseph should have disposed of his childhood stones. It seems Joseph did move away from folk treasure hunts. He didn't ditch his stones because he viewed them as sacred instruments provided to him by God for a specific reason. By the time Joseph was an experienced Prophet in Nauvoo, he largely stopped using stones altogether, stating that he had learned to receive the spirit of revelation directly. The outcome matters most. A naturalistic theory that requires a magic stone doesn't come close to explain how he gets several other people to see angels, ancient prophets and golden plates. How magic trickery generates the literary complexity of the book or if its devilry, how it birthed a pro-Jesus book that exudes a positive spiritual witness millions feel when reading it? No amount of 'magic' produced the Book of Mormon. The podcast links September 22nd to folk magic. This is because it's the timing of the equinox. The equinox also coincides with the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles which is linked to the gathering of Israel. The claim September 22nd was chosen for its 'magical' properties ignores the biblical significance.

There is a controversy over the Joseph Smith portrait at Morehouse College, an HBCU in Atlanta, GA escalated from campus grumbling to a national debate in March. On February 27, some "Morehouse Men" (clergy alumni) published a scathing open letter demanding the portrait be removed. They argued that Smith’s early defense of slavery and his practice of polygamy made him unfit to hang alongside civil rights icons like MLK Jr. The Dean of the Chapel, Lawrence Carter, continued to defend the move in March, calling Smith’s 1844 abolitionist platform morally ambitious. In a rare public clarification, the Church officially stated in March that the Church did not donate money for the portrait or for the induction, attempting to squash rumors by these alumni that the honor was "bought." Why Joseph Smith’s portrait at Morehouse is causing a stir – The most cited article. Opinion: Morehouse should not have honored a man who owned slaves Morehouse College Faces Community Pushback Over Joseph Smith Chapel Portrait Joseph Smith Inducted into Morehouse Hall of Honor – The Church's perspective. In these high-profile cultural debates, the public arguments often mask deeper, more personal biases. For many individuals, including clergy alumni at Morehouse, I believe are only doing this because of a pre-existing aversion to Mormonism. Confirmation Bias. They already believe a group is "wrong" or "other," so they will find the specific historical facts that confirm that belief while ignoring anything that challenges it. They are Chery-Picking remarks Joseph Smith made to avoid persecution in Missouri, completely ignoring the fact that he was the first U.S. presidential candidate to run on an abolitionist platform. He was also assassinated, in part, because of it. Joseph Smith’s Changed Stance on Slavery Joseph Smith had always lived in non-slave states, but in Missouri, a slave state, Smith and other leaders in 1836 wrote a letter defending the rights of Southern states from being told what to do by the Northern states, fearing that abolitionist rhetoric would lead to violence, particularly against themselves. The old settlers already believed the Mormons were inciting slave revolts. This neutrality ended at the time he ran for U.S. President, by which he fully shifted. His platform called for the total abolition of slavery by 1850. He proposed that the federal government sell public lands to buy the freedom of every enslaved person in America. For these Ideas, and for interfering with the election, Governor Ford and Warsaw Militia killed him. As if it's a bad thing if he had changed his mind. Abraham Lincoln, whose portrait hangs right next to Joseph Smith’s, started with prejudiced views and changed his mind, in part to political pressure. Lincoln explicitly stated: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." If Morehouse clergy alumni celebrate Lincoln's portrait despite his early rhetoric shows anti-Mormon bias. Joseph Smith Only became an Abolitionist for Votes? They argue Joseph Smith wasn't a real abolitionist. He only supported it to get votes during his presidential run. Sounds like a theory, but this ignores that in 1844, being an abolitionist didn't get you votes, it got you killed. The Illinois and Missouri neighbors hated abolitionists. By running on that platform, he wasn't "reaching" for votes, he was risking his life to stand for a moral principle that he believed would save the country from a Civil War. Furthermore, he proposed a practical solution, compensated emancipation, that Ralph Waldo Emerson would later be praised for suggesting a decade later. "Curse of Ham" Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham, which contains verses that were later used by his successors to justify, not slavey, but the priesthood ban. Alumni argue that Joseph Smith is at fault by bringing these "cursed lineage" ideas into modern scripture (they are presuming Joseph Smith is the author). Defenders, including the Dean of the Morehouse Chapel, argue it’s unfair to blame a founder for how later generations misinterpreted or weaponized his writings. This, dear exmos, is called an Anachronism (applying later ideas to the past). While Smith mentioned biblical lineages common in 19th-century thought, he never used them to bar Black men from the priesthood. In fact, he did the opposite. He ordained Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis. The priesthood ban was a policy started by Brigham Young after Smith’s death. This is guilt by association. Blaming Joseph for the ban because of the Book of Abraham is as daft as blaming James Madison for later Jim Crow laws because the US Constitution was used to justify those laws. Joseph Smith was never a "Slaveholder" Joseph Smith did not buy or sell human beings. The confusion often stems from Jane Manning James, a free Black convert who lived in the Smith home in Nauvoo. She was a domestic servant, not a slave. She was paid for her work and was free to leave. After Joseph Smith's death, Jane many times petitioned to be "sealed" to the Smith family. Church leaders in 1894 eventually performed a ceremony sealing her to Joseph Smith as an "eternal servant" rather than a wife or daughter. Its these notions modern critics claim to be offensive and cite this as evidence of a "slave-master" mindset. Bottom line A pattern seen, like this claim the Morehouse College image of Joseph Smith as a triggering symbol of exploitation, is just one of among many attempts by detractors to either beat LDS in courtrooms, usually failing, yet often getting to win in the court of public opinion by putting disputable and controversial history on blast. Just like many other historical figures are being re-litigated in the court of public opinion using modern standards and expectations. As many Courts often ruled in favor of the Church, like Huntsman v. LDS Church, success seems measured by how very often people get to accuse the church of exploitation, cover-ups, and complicity as facts. Even if dismissed, the news blast of negative buzzwords often leaves a permanent stain on the organization's public brand. The goal often looks like it isn't to win per se, but to win the narrative. I feel the clergy alumni are simply poisoned against the faith, they are bypassing historical nuances in favor of a simpler, more explosive headlines. While the Church may "win" by keeping the portrait hung, the blast of controversy cannot easily be smoothed over.

I can't read it. It looks like it starts by just accounting what happened, not a model for other people. No two lives are the same, it's a case-by-case basis. If it had told a story about a woman who felt the spirit tell her she should end her career to be a mom and having no regrets, is not condemning the next woman who didn't do that. But social media would probably blow up anyway. Women are the majority of physicians now, stories like this only going to be more relevant. We are a High Education culture, particularly for our women so they aren't dependent and have means to make it either way, despite ex-mo social media gaslighting that we aren't.

I'm going to lay out some proofs. Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflector We can get visible confirmation of things left on the moon from earth. During the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions, astronauts placed small arrays of corner-cube reflectors (high-tech mirrors) on the lunar surface. Any scientist on Earth can aim a high-powered pulse of laser light at the exact coordinates of those reflectors. The mirrors are designed to reflect the light back exactly in the direction it came from. We can time exactly how long it takes for the light to travel to the Moon and back, 2.5 seconds, and we can calculate the distance between Earth and the Moon with incredible precision. They still do the experiment today, it has proven some pretty amazing things, like the fact that the Moon is slowly drifting away from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. India went to the Moon In August 2023, India became the fourth country to successfully soft-land on the Moon with the Chandrayaan-3 mission. India would have no reason and every incentive not to follow along with a fake. India would be the first to call NASA out. It would be nearly impossible to keep a secret like that globally.

Gnosticism is often oversimplified. Gnostics were diverse groups that had different nuanced views. The sort of 'Gnosticism' found in texts like the Gospel of Philip isn't always the dualistic 'matter-hating' philosophy of other Gnostics we often hear about. The Gospel of Philip is quite unique and scholars often see Philip not as a finished book, but as a florilegium, a collection of excerpts or speaker notes. Because the paragraphs are often disconnected, we are likely missing the oral context that explained how these ideas fit together. It’s hard to claim he is being purely anti-material when we only have the 'bullet points.' The text says the Mount of Transfiguration was an Endowment Ritual. Philip suggests the resurrection was on the 'Mount.' Those eight initiatory days that ended on the 8th day, Sunday, was when Christ received his white robe, the Robes of Resurrection. He's seems to stress the importance of earthy ordinances (initiatory death rituals), like baptism (death), chrism (quickening) and endowment in white (resurrection) before you physically die. Philip says, 'Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.' This resurrection is a transformation or 'clothing' of the person in resurrection while they are still here. It is a common misconception that the Nag Hammadi library is a "Bible" In reality, it includes many different and sometimes conflicting worldviews. Gospel of Philip was discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi library, often categorized as Valentinian Gnosticism because it has all five sacraments. The Apocryphon of John belonged to Sethian Gnosticism and is more rebellious about the physical world. The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth belong to the Hermetic tradition of Egypt, focusing on mystical ascent through knowledge of the stars and the divine mind. The library includes a poor translation of Plato’s Republic. The Sentences of Sextus is a collection of ethical proverbs that would have been perfectly acceptable to mainstream Christians of the time. The variety suggests that early Christians were reading a massive spectrum of thought before they were cracked down upon.