This scripture about sums up modern lds temple beliefs: 2 Timothy 4:3-4 NASB20 - For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Thank you. I simply want to be a resource for others who are questioning things. I probably am wrong about some things, but questioning should never be wrong.
I *so* love this episode. There's so much great stuff here--which if members would even lightly consider, they might go back and see what gospel Jesus, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith actually taught. If wards are forced to regurgitate conference talks in church every week, I suggest that people use your video as the discussion points on Eyring's talk!
Thank you. I remember back in EQ when we would discuss a talk it was always superficial. Essentially just repeating the "talking points" of the church. Certainly some discussions were better than others, but never are you allowed to question things. It is kind of absurd to think that we are required to talk about someone else's opinion of a subject every other week in church.
This is so true. I never feel comfortable questioning any aspects of the talks. I definitely watch what I say and bite my tongue quite a bit. It makes discussion feel stifled. We can either say, "what I liked about the talk was..." or we can share a personal anecdote that confirms a point made in the talk. No one told me I couldn't disagree or challenge things, but I just know that people would be uncomfortable if I did. I can "read the room." It was basically said or I should say intimated to us that the Brethren are basically speaking for God. So what they say kind of tops scripture because it's more recent. @@uncorrelatedmormonism
@@Student____2025__1 There certainly are some unwritten rules in Mormonism. For instance, like you mentioned, we can disagree with the church and its leaders. However if we do so then we can possibly be kicked out of the church. I personally disagreed with the leaders and spoke in class. As a result I was told I could promise to never talk again and be disfellowshipped, or be excommunicated. It was my choice.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I am very sorry that happened to you! That is horrible. I was just thinking about whether that could happen to me in my Ward, if I expressed disagreement or concern over certain things. What I know for sure is that it would make other members uncomfortable, and I fear they'd talk about me. Gossiping, hurting reputation, etc. Certain members might even officially complain, but others, the more "laid back" ones, probably wouldn't care. I'll tell you something I've noticed: I think my Stake leadership is trying to make it easier to discuss and debate CERTAIN issues, namely trendy, political issues. I don't want to get into political specifics here, but I'm sure you can imagine certain issues that are discussed often in the mainstream. It seems the church is very willing to go with the way the winds are blowing when it comes to those certain issues, and I think there would be less negative reaction to bringing them up. That bothers me, though that's another discussion. But bringing up things like the changing of the endowment ceremonies, why previous prophets' words are so easily discarded, or so it seems, why some important aspects of the church from its early days seem to have been abandoned... really, seriously raising concerns about these things would probably be a problem. It just seems like it isn't the same church today when I learn about its history. Today I often get a very corporate PR feel from the church, as if they're trying to be as inoffensive as possible and even distance themselves from previous leadership. Lately it has felt like they've been undergoing a corporate rebrand. And it makes me sad because I feel like they might be veering off track.
I was visiting with someone who worked for the LDS Church almost 45 years ago and found out he was not only a writer for Music & the Spoken Word but also for anything the church needed written... including the brethren's conference talks. Whenever I hear an error in scriptures or other doctrine, I just blame it on an uninspired writer. Too bad those who are put into the positions of authority don't bother to double check the sources. I still believe in the past we've been lead by good men trying to do their best, but in the last few years feel things have changed and not for the better.
I wouldn't be surprised. Essentially everyone does it, but nobody mentions it. When you reach a certain level then you have a team working behind you. This team are the ones doing all the work like you mentioned. The issue though is errors get introduced and then these talks are referenced in other talks and so on. This is how truth drifts over time. I don't doubt the leaders are good people, really trying to do good. I think though that if you claim, or require others to claim, that you are a prophet of God that you have a very high burden of truth.
All will be well is very misleading, all prophecies suggest that nothing will be well on earth except for those who really repent and turn to God completely.
Present Irene is correct, all will be well because of our temple covenants….. It goes back to the garden in the promise that Christ will be our covering and will make up the rest so we can be back with our father in heaven. The covering was Christ sacrificing a lamb to make skins to cover our sin. It’s like cutting a covenant with Christ , we have the cut, We have the blood and we have the healing. The cut or seperation from the parents, The blood is the heal power and then the healing is the promise. Every time we get cut we know the promise we will be healed. so we will be reunited we will be healed and put back to her natural frame or true state as before before.
The statement that the concept of eternal marriage didn’t exist until the 1890s is completely false. Hyrum smith in particular talked about it often. Particularly in his speech denouncing polygamy. Hyrum and Joseph both signed their names at the bottom of a publication in response to the nauvoo expositor as well, which outlined the concept of eternal marriage.
It falls in the same category as polygamy. It may have been taught, but if so it was a secret doctrine for a few select insiders. Certainly the general members were not being sealed in marriage. The Law of Adoption was very much actively used until almost the 1900's. So you may be correct, however if so only on a technicality. Does God reward only the top leaders of the church with eternal spouses with the rest of us being single forever?
I have also looked through the entire Nauvoo expositor text and never noticed eternal marriage in there. Certainly polygamy is, but that is a different concept. I don't think William Law would have an issue with eternal marriage, but he certainly didn't like eternal polygamy. He did supposedly get upset that Joseph wouldn't seal William to his wife, but Joseph supposedly wanted William's wife. There are a lot of he said, she said type of things here.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Hyrum was preaching these concepts pretty publicly. The speech denouncing polygamy was given at General conference, the publication speaking on eternal sealings was published in the times and seasons. In no way was it limited to top leaders, Hyrum said “you,” while speaking to a crowd of 3000 members, when saying you could get sealed to your wife. He even started off the talk by quoting Matthew 22:30.
@@zrosix2240 When was the talk given? I would like to read it. If what you are saying is true, then it seems strange to continue the Law of Adoption so long after this.
The major claims of the Nauvoo Expositor: 1. Polygamy: The Expositor accused Joseph Smith of practicing polygamy and teaching it secretly among select groups of the Church. It called for a public denouncement of this practice. 2. King Follett Doctrine: It criticized Joseph Smith's teachings that were outlined in the King Follett sermon, especially the concept that God was once a man. 3. Political Power: The paper objected to Joseph Smith's political influence and his candidacy for the United States Presidency, arguing that he was overstepping the boundaries between church and state. 4. Theocratic Rule: The Expositor accused Joseph Smith of establishing a theocracy in Nauvoo and abusing his powers as both a religious and a civil leader. 5. Denial of Redress: It claimed that Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo City Council were denying non-Mormons and dissenting Mormons their legal and civil rights, especially through the actions of the Nauvoo Municipal Court. 6. Misuse of Church Funds: The paper also accused church leaders of financial corruption and mismanagement.
I doubt all will be well for Mormonism though, because word is out about the 1630 book "Le Parasite Mormon" and about another person from the same time, as described in the book "Athanasius Kircher’s Cabinet of Wonder: The Man Who Believed in Everything and His Museum of the Miraculous, Universal, and Absurd". An interesting quote: "Kircher also claimed to possess a manuscript that deciphered the ancient languages of the world, supposedly written by Babylonian rabbi Barachias Nephi. French lawyer, scholar and antiquarian Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580-1637), who had been captivated by Kircher’s sunflower clock, hoped that the manuscript could be used to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs. Peiresc and other academics and noblemen had begun to believe Kircher capable of unlocking mysteries in nature." So, obviously, Joe Smith's little game won't hold up much longer. Might want to start a new sect because that one's doomed.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Well in Gnosticism YHWH is considered an evil demiurge. No it's just Kircher started the whole thing about finding secret scriptures involving modified Egyptian language and telling a story about Jews going to America and then others took it from there and eventually we got the Book of Mormon. It's all pure fiction though, not something to base a serious religion on. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but isn't truth an important thing?
@@Metallographer_1 I have never looked into this specifically, however I have looked into similar things like the Spaulding Manuscript. The thing about the Book of Mormon is there are so many internal consistencies and Jewish related things that it would be hard for me to think it was fiction. Maybe given by a false god, but not written by a man in the course of a few months back then.
@@Metallographer_1 I am not saying it would be impossible. However this argument was never brought up during Joseph's life so I think it is incredibly unlikely.
President Irene is correct again on feeling safety with his family, it’s like prepping when you are prepared for something there is no need to fear. When disaster hits like Teton Dam, if you are prepared and have food and have water and have plans for this disaster, there’s no need to fear
Honestly guys are you ever happy all ex mo àre together on that misery trian that leads to nowhere that never stops you left couldn't live by faith now your bitter Ths is sad you watch a apostle of the lord a mouthpiece for him and deny everhing he says because you think you know better than the lord thats dangerous ground be careful God will not be mocked and he always fights for his people
Really mate good for you listen to the Holy Spirit did you hear it speak to you of the truthfulness of what the Lord is teaching you concerning the temple or are you deaf to revelation
You can be a member and not follow the prophet the Lord made it clear to remove the name Mormon, Mormonansim ECT and you reject that shows your intentions Apostasy of the individual starts first loss of spirit fights against the truth It's good to have questions but we are to go to God with our doubts only he can reveal his will to us and he will never lead us astray nor his chosen Prophets
@@MRRANDOMZ11 Why do you assume the prophet can't lead us astray? There are several scriptural examples of prophets testing people so God wanted people to not follow the prophet.
This scripture about sums up modern lds temple beliefs:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 NASB20 - For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
That is a very good scripture for this.
I've said this before but you are totally underrated. You are amazing and should be getting thousands of views. But I feel lucky for discovering you
Thank you. I simply want to be a resource for others who are questioning things. I probably am wrong about some things, but questioning should never be wrong.
I *so* love this episode. There's so much great stuff here--which if members would even lightly consider, they might go back and see what gospel Jesus, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith actually taught.
If wards are forced to regurgitate conference talks in church every week, I suggest that people use your video as the discussion points on Eyring's talk!
Thank you. I remember back in EQ when we would discuss a talk it was always superficial. Essentially just repeating the "talking points" of the church. Certainly some discussions were better than others, but never are you allowed to question things.
It is kind of absurd to think that we are required to talk about someone else's opinion of a subject every other week in church.
. How true this is on a practical level
This is so true. I never feel comfortable questioning any aspects of the talks. I definitely watch what I say and bite my tongue quite a bit. It makes discussion feel stifled. We can either say, "what I liked about the talk was..." or we can share a personal anecdote that confirms a point made in the talk. No one told me I couldn't disagree or challenge things, but I just know that people would be uncomfortable if I did. I can "read the room." It was basically said or I should say intimated to us that the Brethren are basically speaking for God. So what they say kind of tops scripture because it's more recent. @@uncorrelatedmormonism
@@Student____2025__1 There certainly are some unwritten rules in Mormonism. For instance, like you mentioned, we can disagree with the church and its leaders. However if we do so then we can possibly be kicked out of the church.
I personally disagreed with the leaders and spoke in class. As a result I was told I could promise to never talk again and be disfellowshipped, or be excommunicated. It was my choice.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I am very sorry that happened to you! That is horrible. I was just thinking about whether that could happen to me in my Ward, if I expressed disagreement or concern over certain things. What I know for sure is that it would make other members uncomfortable, and I fear they'd talk about me. Gossiping, hurting reputation, etc. Certain members might even officially complain, but others, the more "laid back" ones, probably wouldn't care. I'll tell you something I've noticed: I think my Stake leadership is trying to make it easier to discuss and debate CERTAIN issues, namely trendy, political issues. I don't want to get into political specifics here, but I'm sure you can imagine certain issues that are discussed often in the mainstream. It seems the church is very willing to go with the way the winds are blowing when it comes to those certain issues, and I think there would be less negative reaction to bringing them up. That bothers me, though that's another discussion. But bringing up things like the changing of the endowment ceremonies, why previous prophets' words are so easily discarded, or so it seems, why some important aspects of the church from its early days seem to have been abandoned... really, seriously raising concerns about these things would probably be a problem. It just seems like it isn't the same church today when I learn about its history. Today I often get a very corporate PR feel from the church, as if they're trying to be as inoffensive as possible and even distance themselves from previous leadership. Lately it has felt like they've been undergoing a corporate rebrand. And it makes me sad because I feel like they might be veering off track.
I was visiting with someone who worked for the LDS Church almost 45 years ago and found out he was not only a writer for Music & the Spoken Word but also for anything the church needed written... including the brethren's conference talks. Whenever I hear an error in scriptures or other doctrine, I just blame it on an uninspired writer. Too bad those who are put into the positions of authority don't bother to double check the sources. I still believe in the past we've been lead by good men trying to do their best, but in the last few years feel things have changed and not for the better.
I wouldn't be surprised. Essentially everyone does it, but nobody mentions it. When you reach a certain level then you have a team working behind you. This team are the ones doing all the work like you mentioned.
The issue though is errors get introduced and then these talks are referenced in other talks and so on. This is how truth drifts over time. I don't doubt the leaders are good people, really trying to do good. I think though that if you claim, or require others to claim, that you are a prophet of God that you have a very high burden of truth.
All will be well is very misleading, all prophecies suggest that nothing will be well on earth except for those who really repent and turn to God completely.
All will be well through Christ, but not the LDS temple.
All will be for Zion not for Babylon
I looked up D&C 128:18 - and it's just as you quoted!
I am glad you looked it up. I try not to lie, but of course I could have things incorrect. 😊
Present Irene is correct, all will be well because of our temple covenants….. It goes back to the garden in the promise that Christ will be our covering and will make up the rest so we can be back with our father in heaven. The covering was Christ sacrificing a lamb to make skins to cover our sin. It’s like cutting a covenant with Christ , we have the cut, We have the blood and we have the healing. The cut or seperation from the parents, The blood is the heal power and then the healing is the promise. Every time we get cut we know the promise we will be healed. so we will be reunited we will be healed and put back to her natural frame or true state as before before.
This is because of ordinance in the temple? How is that covenant different from the one we take at baptism?
Temples are a mystery for a reason…. Good question…
Amen
Don’t you reference section 137 in this video? It’s only available in the 2013 edition of the Doctrine of Covenants
No. What about that section though?
The statement that the concept of eternal marriage didn’t exist until the 1890s is completely false. Hyrum smith in particular talked about it often. Particularly in his speech denouncing polygamy. Hyrum and Joseph both signed their names at the bottom of a publication in response to the nauvoo expositor as well, which outlined the concept of eternal marriage.
It falls in the same category as polygamy. It may have been taught, but if so it was a secret doctrine for a few select insiders. Certainly the general members were not being sealed in marriage. The Law of Adoption was very much actively used until almost the 1900's.
So you may be correct, however if so only on a technicality. Does God reward only the top leaders of the church with eternal spouses with the rest of us being single forever?
I have also looked through the entire Nauvoo expositor text and never noticed eternal marriage in there. Certainly polygamy is, but that is a different concept. I don't think William Law would have an issue with eternal marriage, but he certainly didn't like eternal polygamy. He did supposedly get upset that Joseph wouldn't seal William to his wife, but Joseph supposedly wanted William's wife. There are a lot of he said, she said type of things here.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Hyrum was preaching these concepts pretty publicly. The speech denouncing polygamy was given at General conference, the publication speaking on eternal sealings was published in the times and seasons. In no way was it limited to top leaders, Hyrum said “you,” while speaking to a crowd of 3000 members, when saying you could get sealed to your wife. He even started off the talk by quoting Matthew 22:30.
@@zrosix2240 When was the talk given? I would like to read it. If what you are saying is true, then it seems strange to continue the Law of Adoption so long after this.
The major claims of the Nauvoo Expositor:
1. Polygamy: The Expositor accused Joseph Smith of practicing polygamy and teaching it secretly among select groups of the Church. It called for a public denouncement of this practice.
2. King Follett Doctrine: It criticized Joseph Smith's teachings that were outlined in the King Follett sermon, especially the concept that God was once a man.
3. Political Power: The paper objected to Joseph Smith's political influence and his candidacy for the United States Presidency, arguing that he was overstepping the boundaries between church and state.
4. Theocratic Rule: The Expositor accused Joseph Smith of establishing a theocracy in Nauvoo and abusing his powers as both a religious and a civil leader.
5. Denial of Redress: It claimed that Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo City Council were denying non-Mormons and dissenting Mormons their legal and civil rights, especially through the actions of the Nauvoo Municipal Court.
6. Misuse of Church Funds: The paper also accused church leaders of financial corruption and mismanagement.
I doubt all will be well for Mormonism though, because word is out about the 1630 book "Le Parasite Mormon" and about another person from the same time, as described in the book "Athanasius Kircher’s Cabinet of Wonder: The Man Who Believed in Everything and His Museum of the Miraculous, Universal, and Absurd". An interesting quote:
"Kircher also claimed to possess a manuscript that deciphered the ancient languages of the world, supposedly written by Babylonian rabbi Barachias Nephi. French lawyer, scholar and antiquarian Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580-1637), who had been captivated by Kircher’s sunflower clock, hoped that the manuscript could be used to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs. Peiresc and other academics and noblemen had begun to believe Kircher capable of unlocking mysteries in nature."
So, obviously, Joe Smith's little game won't hold up much longer. Might want to start a new sect because that one's doomed.
Essentially Gnosticism? There is some secret knowledge that unlocks everything?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Well in Gnosticism YHWH is considered an evil demiurge. No it's just Kircher started the whole thing about finding secret scriptures involving modified Egyptian language and telling a story about Jews going to America and then others took it from there and eventually we got the Book of Mormon. It's all pure fiction though, not something to base a serious religion on. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but isn't truth an important thing?
@@Metallographer_1 I have never looked into this specifically, however I have looked into similar things like the Spaulding Manuscript. The thing about the Book of Mormon is there are so many internal consistencies and Jewish related things that it would be hard for me to think it was fiction.
Maybe given by a false god, but not written by a man in the course of a few months back then.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism It wasn't written by Smith, obviously, somebody else wrote it and he got it and made the Book of Mormon from it.
@@Metallographer_1 I am not saying it would be impossible. However this argument was never brought up during Joseph's life so I think it is incredibly unlikely.
President Irene is correct again on feeling safety with his family, it’s like prepping when you are prepared for something there is no need to fear. When disaster hits like Teton Dam, if you are prepared and have food and have water and have plans for this disaster, there’s no need to fear
There is no need to fear with Christ. However he is saying it is the temple ceremony instead.
Honestly guys are you ever happy all ex mo àre together on that misery trian that leads to nowhere that never stops you left couldn't live by faith now your bitter
Ths is sad you watch a apostle of the lord a mouthpiece for him and deny everhing he says because you think you know better than the lord thats dangerous ground be careful
God will not be mocked and he always fights for his people
If your house was on fire and I told you, but you didn't believe me, what should I do?
I am not an "ex mo", but still a member.
Makes sense. On my mission when relating Moroni 10:3-5 we’d use the word exhort and this makes sense to me
Really mate good for you listen to the Holy Spirit did you hear it speak to you of the truthfulness of what the Lord is teaching you concerning the temple or are you deaf to revelation
You can be a member and not follow the prophet the Lord made it clear to remove the name Mormon, Mormonansim ECT and you reject that shows your intentions
Apostasy of the individual starts first loss of spirit fights against the truth
It's good to have questions but we are to go to God with our doubts only he can reveal his will to us and he will never lead us astray nor his chosen Prophets
@@MRRANDOMZ11 Why do you assume the prophet can't lead us astray? There are several scriptural examples of prophets testing people so God wanted people to not follow the prophet.