webbles

He was trying to show where to look for on the water tower. Then we drove around and showed several spots in town and showed how it is not easily visible (ignoring the big water container on top). In an earlier video, he did something similar but with large churches (several bigger than the temple) but none are actually in Fairview, though they are all a few miles away. Thus was an attempt to show its impact in Fairview itself.

I watched the video. He isn't comparing the scale. He is using it as a way to visualize if you can see the temple or not. He drives around the town and says that if you can see the white bar (the part underneath the big water container), then you would see the temple because that is the same height. The photo shown makes it look like the water tower is massive compared to the temple but the photo is taken above ground by a drone so he had to shrink the temple size to fit it in there.

This isn't from the King Follet Discourse I don't know why you are quoting it. Can someone read out of the King Follet Discourse that God had a Father? Yes. But I thought we were talking about what Joseph actually said (per what we have recorded). First, this is an internet forum. How about you link to the sources instead of copy/paste like this? Or least have page numbers, publish dates, etc. That is from the June 16, 1844 discourse. You can see the original sources at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/1 and https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-william-p-mcintire/1 and https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-george-laub/1. The one from Bullock is the only one that talks about infinite regression. The other 2 don't. They are much shorter, but it is odd that none of them mention it since, per Bullock's transcription, that's one of the major things he is trying to say. So, does it mean that the 2 just didn't see it important enough to write down or that Bullock's transcription doesn't give us a clean view of what he actually said. Additionally, you'll notice that he is referencing Abraham 3 (he quotes parts of it several times in and around the passage that you quoted). And in Abraham 3:19, That gives some weight to the idea that Bullock misheard or miswrote what was said.

None of them actually state that Heavenly Father has a Father. You can read all 4 at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-king-follett-sermon. There is nothing in there that states that there is an infinite regression of Gods. It is a possible reading but not a required reading.

Funny that you quote a 1985 article first (your quote even gives the year) and then say an article written in 1994 is earlier.

As pointed out by InCognitus, it depends on how you read the King Follet Discourse and the various transcripts we have of it (since we don't have an actual official transcript that is 100% accurate). If you read it to have Gods above God, then yes, Heavenly Mother would have a Mother and Father (and who Her Mother and Father are would be pure speculation as there is absolutely nothing revealed about it). If you read it that God is the first God, then no, She would not have a Mother (just like Heavenly Father wouldn't have one).

InCognitus has pointed out multiple times that this is claim might not be something Joseph even made. And there are several LDS who don't believe Joseph ever made this claim and can point to the King Follet Discourse for their reasoning.

That has puzzled me for a long time. I do agree that Satan wasn't actually necessary for the Plan of Salvation, I did work up a solution to this. Satan wanted more people to follow him (or be as miserable as him). If he left Adam and Eve there, he wouldn't be able to get access to the other 2 parts in heaven (since they couldn't be born). If he was successful in corrupting Christ (as I don't believe in perfect foreknowledge and so Christ could have messed up and frustrated the Plan of Salvation), then he gets all of those in heaven. But even without corrupting Christ, he gets a chance to have more under him. So, his hubris (which was his original downfall) led him to take that chance.

For me, the way he phrases things, it sounds like he is talking about abortion.

GPS only has 31 satellites. Starlink is the first mega constellation and there is over 10,000 satellites. But the valuation of SpaceX is not based on Starlink. If it was just Starlink, it would not be a valuable.

I like crunching numbers. I'm not trying to normalize it. It is definitely abnormal. But it isn't unique to Utah at the time. If it happened today, it would definitely be weird and frowned down upon. It breaks the the pop cultural math of "age / 2 + 7" for what is acceptable today. But go back earlier, that wasn't always true. A fairly famous case is President Cleveland's marriage to Francis Folsom in 1886. She was 21. He was 49. He was good friends with her dad and when her dad died, he became her unofficial guardian when she was 11. Their marriage happened while he was president. That marriage would raise a lot of eyebrows now a days but was a social sensation back then. But to say that the church taught or believed that woman should be young to be married (either here or in the afterlife) or that even those men wanted young wives is taking it further than the data suggests. If you look more deeply at those wives in the infographic, you'll find that all of those women didn't have their first child till years later. Clarissa Young was 21 with her first child, Sarah Snow was 21 with her first child, and Emma Woodruff was 19 with her first child. So, yes, they were married very young and that is problematic. But the data also suggests that it wasn't consummated until they were a bit older. If they had been a monagamous marriage and had married shortly before the birth of the first child, the age difference between the man and woman would have been fairly normal for the time period (pretty close to President Cleveland's marriage). Another thing that you seem to be missing is that there were several men who did write to Brigham Young and asked to marry young girls. This included 12 year old girls. He wrote back and told them to wait for those girls to grow up. That wasn't always specified as I have a ancestor's sister who was married when she was 14, but it shows that it wasn't normal to marry young women.

As I mentioned, pure speculation. And when we usually talking about "getting other planets", it isn't the planet we reside on, but the planet that our children would be born on and grow.

No idea. Most of what you are asking about hasn't been revealed and is almost always speculation.

That is not actually abnormal for the US. Yes, it doesn't fit the average, but there are other men and women with that same age gap at the same time. As I mentioned, I did a deep dive into the census of the time period. Here's a link to a post I made about the numbers. Teenage women marrying men several decades older than them was not unique to Utah but happened in several other states. In fact, if the census is to be believed, there were 13 year olds married to 50 year olds. Utah itself was fairly close to the average if not above the average.

I really don't think you read the article or even know much about what Joseph and others said about children being raised in the after life. That quote that you are pointing to is from the article, yes, but is not from what Joseph said or from any other authority. That is from the author of the article itself. Sorry, none of that shows any hope or evidence that they think that is what will happen in the hereafter. Yes, I know that many man had younger wives. It was not a very common practice but did happen through out the United States and was acceptable (I did a fun deep dive into the US census and statistics a while back to look at that). But to say that they taught or believed or even speculated that they would have 'teen-brides' in the Celestial Kingdom is pure speculation on your part. The very concept of a "teen-bride" makes no sense in the Celestial Kingdom. You have yet to show any evidence that that is an idea from anywhere except from your own personal ideas. So, no, your caricature is just a really poorly thought out caricature.

Your speculation is fascinating but it is pure speculation. So, as long as you say it is speculation and what you are hoping for in the hereafter, sure. But to say that it is what the church teaches or what members believe or what we expect is wrong. It is your own beliefs that are sneaking through. And that is where the caricature comes from. You are taking extremes of the ideas and turning it into a caricature of your own fantasy. You are right it doesn't say there are no young girls. It also doesn't mention anything about "maturity" (what does that even mean for a person who has lived millions of years) or "geriatric" (what does that mean for a resurrected being). People have speculated what Joseph meant and that is what it is, speculation. But the most information we have about it is that he was trying to comfort a grieving mother and tell her that she will be able to see or raise her child in the here after. Nothing to do with marriage or "maturity". You are the first person I've ever heard that decided that this meant that there will be teenage weddings in the Celestial Kingdom. The connection between the two is extremely faint in my view and the only reason to connect them is to make a caricature.

No, we (male and female) all live on the celestial Earth.

You were talking about after resurrection. That's why it is a caricature. You are picking several things, taking them to the most extreme reading, and then putting them together to make a really bad caricature even though none of them were ever put that way together and they don't even logically go together except as a caricature. Since you actually know what we believe, you would know that we believe we are far older than our earth years. So after we are dead, we will remember our original age. And we will all be well over 18 years old. Plus your "hot young wife" might even be older than you. About one paragraph later, it says: And then a few paragraphs later it also says: So, did you actually read that article?

And this is why it is sometimes called a caricature. Because it makes no sense to say "no shortage of young girls" when we are all dead and don't really have an age. Sure, it might sound funny, but it makes no sense and is kind of offensive.

I've gone back and forth. A relative of mine who is probably far better read in deep doctrine (his library had 1000s of books that he had personally read) argued (and was fairly convincing to me) that God is the most intelligent and he figured out everything (going from spirit essence to spirit body to physical body to full resurrected body) and then turned to the rest of us and provided a plan to help us accomplish what He did all by Himself. So God is the first to do it all, there isn't any before Him.

I'm confused on what you are trying to say.

How would a person know that they are excommunicated or not? What does it mean to "formally adhere" to SSPX and how does one know if they are formally adhering or not? I'm asking because I have a hard time understanding how a bishop or priest is supposed to know that someone is excommunicated through this process and help them back into communion. For example, say I attended SSPX and formally adhered to it. Thus I'm excommunicated. I then visit my parents who don't adhere to SSPX and do attend a non-excommunicated parish. If I went to mass with them, how would any one know that I'm excommunicated?

The phrase "Faith that is based on Truth is no longer faith" makes no sense to me. Faith is based on true, untrue, or partially true things. The trueness of those things has no affect on whether I have faith or not. I have faith that God exists. After I die and meet Him, I'll then know that my faith was based on a truth. But just because it is based on a truth right now doesn't make it any less faith. I have to have actual knowledge before my faith is no longer faith. And if you ask me to define "actual knowledge" for a spiritual idea (like "God exists"), I can't really answer that. I, at this time in my life, do not see how I can have actual knowledge. If I had a vision, I probably wouldn't trust it. I think only after I'm dead is when I'll finally be able to move past faith and into knowledge.

Some transmen have already joined men's teams. Schuyler Bailar is a trans man who joined Harvard before transitioning and was on the women's swimming team. After he transitioned, his coach offered him to either join the men's or women's team. He chose the men's and competed there. He finished his college career in 2019. Chris Mosier is another trans man who was on the men's olympics team in 2020. He competed at the olympic's trials but unfortunately was injured so didn't pass that stage. I think we would need to see a trans man actually win some competitions before any outrage would occur. The whole fairness issue on the transwomen side (men taking women's podium spots) hasn't yet occurred with transmen. They definitely can be stronger than the average man, but it doesn't seem like they can be stronger than the top tier athletic men (still to be determined, though).

In the explanatory letter from the Vatican (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2026/07/02/0568/01078.html), it says: Does that mean that any laypeople who get married by these excommunicated priests/bishops would have to get remarried by a non-excommunicated priest for the church to accept it? What does it mean that the sacrament of penance is invalid? Would a layperson have to redo it? What if they don't redo it? And what about other sacrements, like baptism and eucharist?