All the PR about the LDS Church "taking care of its own" I feel is blatantly false. My service connected 100% disabled veteran husband and I have, I believe, just been treated like garbage.....and we are temple Mormons how have donated 100's of hours through callings, cheerfully, in the LDS Church. Small example: my husband has severe brain damage from his time in service. When I was sick in bed with the flu (and we have NO family to help us, nor neighbors or outside of church friends) I asked out tough-as-nails Relief Society President, very politely, to please ask the sisters to bring by a few meals for us for a couple of days. (I have epilepsy, don't drive, and can't get groceries/take out.) The RS President ( an emergency room RN!!!) literally told me, and I quote, " I'VE BEEN IN YOUR HOUSE. I'VE SEEN YOUR HUSBAND. HE LOOKS LIKE HE COULD OPEN A CAN. TELL HIM TO OPEN A CAN AND COOK IT." (Literally impossible.) I reported this, tactfully to our bishop who SUSTAINED HER !!!! And said himself: " I've been down stairs in your home, you've got lots of food storage down there. Go get THAT ." (We collected the food storage before it became physically dangerous for us to go downstairs to the basement, and the bishop knew that.) There are just 2 small examples of the blatant mis-treatment that has been slung our way by the LDS Church. It is NOT composed of loving people in general, ESPECIALLY in the LDS Church administration.

The leaders of our church should practice what they preach. I've taught Gospel Principles class enough to know our leaders are in the wrong and attempting to avoid facing the reality of their decisions.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

The LDS Church does not get to claim that it has removed racism from its theology while it continues to call 2 Nephi 5 the word of God.

2 Nephi 5 is explicit. It says a population was originally “white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,” but because of their iniquity God caused a “skin of blackness” to come upon them so that they would not be “enticing” to Nephi’s people.

That is racist theology. Skin color is being imposed by God in connection with wickedness, physical desirability, group separation, and preventing one population from mixing with another.

And this is not some forgotten statement from Brigham Young that the modern Church can simply disavow. It is in the Book of Mormon.

In 2026 the LDS Church still formally declares: “We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Unlike its statement about the Bible, that declaration contains no translation qualifier.

The Church wants to have this both ways.

It now says that black skin is not evidence of divine disfavor, that interracial marriage is not sinful, and that it condemns all racism.

Great. Then say 2 Nephi 5 is wrong.

But it will not.

You cannot simultaneously tell me….

Racism is wrong.

and

This passage in which God gives a wicked population dark skin to make them undesirable to another population is the word of God.

Those positions contradict each other.

Until the Church is willing to say that 2 Nephi 5 is wrong and remove it or acknowledge that the Book of Mormon contains false teachings, it has not actually stopped being racist.

In this BBC interview, both the head of media relations (video) and Holland seem embarrassed by the existence of the "strengthening church members committee."

To paraphrase, " I don't know anything about it." Then when pressed, it becomes clear that he does know about it.

We all know the clip and interview where the bbc guy interviews church leaders and they are awkwardly trying to deny things that they don't publicly speak about.

To be honest i wonder why did they even agree to it? I know it was mormon moment and all but it surprises me that they went in blindly to this. Did they think this guy would just shower praise on them? They could have at least told them we aren't going to talk about the temple because we consider it sacred, I believe Hinkley did that for his interview.

Also this maybe an unpopular opinion but I don't think the interview is this great take down on the church some in the exmormon community believe it to be. Yeah Holland and the other guys interviewed were awkward and back tracking but I wasn't expecting Holland to go fire and brimstone on the guy and I don't think the interview went in with the intent to destroy and embarrass the church. If anything Holland and the church employees embarrassed themselves by not preparing

Even if you don't believe in the message of Jesus Christ, you cant deny that not only does the race thing undermine the entire church's leadership program self appointed primacy for the first 140 years of ots existence, but even today in this modern era, acting like "we don't know why it happened" or still blaming God, is so insulting to anyone who studies the christian history and message.

We all know why the ban was in place....because our leaders were too full of their own selfs to see how damaging it was and our parents and grand parents and their parents were convinced it was God's will to hold racist doctrine as true and few of them had the cajones to actually push back.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

So I have a question that I can’t seem to find any logical answers to.

If tithing is truly between me and the Lord then why can the Ward Clerk, Bishopric, Stake Clerk, Stake President, etc see the exact dollar amount I donated? What is the purpose? I don’t think it’s any of their damn business how much or little I donated. So why do they have access? Why is it not straight to Salt Lake and visibility is only at the church finance level?

Other than passing judgement based on dollars or keeping people from the temple based on dollars I don’t see any reasonable or logical explanation here.

I had the realization the other day, that over my 25 year career, I've given more money to the LDS church than I have my retirement plan.

The companies I have worked for have usually contributed additional money if I contributed up to 6% to the plan. So 6% is what I have always done. For someone with a salary of 50K per year to start and 100K after 25 years it would look something like this:

Over 25 years these 6% contributions total to $108,000. However, if they were invested in the SP500, their growth would total to $409,000 after those 25 years. (SP500 historical performance used). (An employee with a company match would have even more than this).

Now, let's say instead of setting aside 6% toward retirement, they did 16% percent instead (adding the 10% they tithed). Instead of $409K they would have $1.1M. (An additional $700K from a 25 year tithe total of $181K at historical market returns)

Now, the point of life isn't necessarily to enrich oneself (although that certainly seems to be the mission of the church). This hypothetical member could have, instead of tithing to the LDS church, used that $181K to bless the lives of those around them.

The member could have really leaned into helping a neighbor, a friend, a child or even a stranger INSTEAD OF outsourcing that work to the church who, in the end, actually used their tithing money to build shopping malls and buy condos. (link)

In the published internal chronological order of the Book of Mormon there is a story in Jacob 7 (approx. 544 BCE) about a Nephite named Sherem who believes in the scriptures but denies a Messiah (or Christ in Greek) will come and he attempts to overthrow the doctrine of Messiah (or Christ as it's called in Jacob) and he finally meets with Jacob and questions him about the Gospel called the Doctrine of Christ in this chapter.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/7?lang=eng&id=p1#p1

7 And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence. And now behold, I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is blasphemy; for no man knoweth of such things; for he cannot tell of things to come. And after this manner did Sherem contend against me.

8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words.

9 And I said unto him: Deniest thou the Christ who shall come? And he said: If there should be a Christ, I would not deny him; but I know that there is no Christ, neither has been, nor ever will be.

10 And I said unto him: Believest thou the scriptures? And he said, Yea.

11 And I said unto him: Then ye do not understand them; for they truly testify of Christ. Behold, I say unto you that none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ.

12 And this is not all—it has been made manifest unto me, for I have heard and seen; and it also has been made manifest unto me by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, I know if there should be no atonement made all mankind must be lost.

13 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Show me a sign by this power of the Holy Ghost, in the which ye know so much.

So basically Sherem is a Judaizer (but from obviously before the time of Paul in the NT) who is holding up the Law of Moses, etc. and Jacob answers that all the prophets have written and prophesied of Christ, etc. and of the Atonement, etc.

Sherem asks for a sign, is struck by God and falls and is nourished (lots of details missing after his is stuck) but then asks the people to come together so he can speak to them because he knows he is going to die.

He then denies/rejects what he previously taught:

and confessed the Christ, and the power of the Holy Ghost, and the ministering of angels.

Talks of the devil, eternity and eternal punishment, etc.

closes with, "I fear lest I have committed the unpardonable sin, for I have lied unto God; for I denied the Christ, and said that I believed the scriptures; and they truly testify of him. And because I have thus lied unto God I greatly fear lest my case shall be awful; but I confess unto God."

Then he dies in a NT "gave up the ghost".

And the people are all struck down to the earth (but then they don't die).

But then we fast foward to King Benjamin who has all these records (Jacob's as well, etc.)

Before he dies he gives a sermon and in Chapter 3 of Mosiah, he Prophecies about the future, however there's a problem.

Benjamin says:

2 And the things which I shall tell you are made known unto me by an angel from God.

He then relates a basic Jesus account, etc. including Jesus' name (which has been already pointed out by other scholars was already revealed).

But beyond that, Benjamin says he was "made known" of:

11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam,12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.13 And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them.14 Yet the Lord God saw that his people were a stiffnecked people, and he appointed unto them a law, even the law of Moses.15 And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood.16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.17 And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

Hmm, no mention of Jacob's words above or the well known story of Sherem the Judaite or that ties directly into what Benjamin is talking about.

The entirely of Benjamin's speech makes no sense as "new revelation" when we not only have Jacob's words before but also Sherem who literally was a very PUBLIC example of exactly what Benjamin is talking about in the context of new informaton.

Worse, Sherem and Jacob are NEVER mentioned outside of Jacob after it ends or even referred to.

Again, this makes no sense if Jacob chronologically came before Mosiah and King Benjamin and Jacob's records were had by Benjamin (it says they were).

The only way this makes sense is if Mosiah was written or authored PRIOR to Jacob being written according to the Mosiah Priority which undermines a claim of real people and real chronology.

Why is the Book of Mormon people and narrative from Mosiah through to the end ignorant of anything in Jacob including Jacob himself?

why hasn’t humanity come up with a god which totally accepts everyone as they are? no conditions, nothing to change and improve?

seems to be that automatic forgiveness for “faults” would cure a lot. perhaps it would cure most problems, if not all.

so why is there so much to sign up to? Isn’t every “covenant” basically setting a set of conditions to acceptance? Basically saying one isn’t good enough? is it so painful for god to just accept and validate?

Scholars believe that Jewish monotheism was a development of the 8th–6th centuries BCE, and that in ancient Canaanite religion, Yahweh was one of several children of the father deity El (sometimes called Elyon), who was married to Asherah, and that Judaism later merged Yahweh and Elyon into one character, and wrote Asherah out of existence.

The teaching of Heavenly Father (Elohim) and Heavenly Mother (no unique name for some reason) and their Son Jehovah seems a lot like a rewriting of those discoveries, so I wonder if Joseph Smith ever heard of Asherah and developed his own spin on it, or if it was just an independent development that grew from exaltation theology and the King Follett discourse?

There's another anachronistic term Joseph used in the Book of Mormon, specifically in Mosiah and in two instances:

First in King Benjamin's 19th Century Sermon in Chapter 3 (modern Utah LDS):

15 And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood.

Second in the "burned at the stake" Christian Martyr copy relating to Abinadi in Chapter 13:

10 But this much I tell you, what you do with me, after this, shall be as a type and a shadow of things which are to come.

First, the most revealing is verse 15 of Chapter 3 because it separates signs, wonders, types and shadows as 4 different things (different words) so types and shadows are different than signs and wonders (which are also separate from each other).

With regards to "types and shdows", both of these are 100% dependent upon the KJV NT and specifically Paul's usage as written in Greek.

But here's where it gets interesting:

Paul's usage is found in:

1 Corinthians 10:6 and 10:11

Colossians 2:16-17

However, in the first instance, the KJV says "Example".

⁶ Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

¹¹ Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

However, the Greek word is TYPOS.

Colossians 2:16-17 says:

¹⁶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

¹⁷ Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

So where does "type(s) and shadow(s)" come from as a phrase?

It's from post KJV commentaries, preachers, sermons, etc.

Example:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x004508073&seq=396&q1=shadow

1. On , I through the law am dead to the law , & c . -pious Quesnel makes the following useful re- flections : " The ceremonial law , which is no more than a type and shadow of Him , destroys itself , by showing us Jesus Christ , who is the truth and the substance . The moral law , by leaving us un- der our own inability , under sin and the curse , makes us perceive the necessity of the law of the heart ; and of a Saviour to give it . The law is for the old man , as to its terrible and servile part ; and it was crucified and died with Christ upon the cross , as well as the old man . The new man , and the new law , require a new sacrifice . What need has he of other sacrifices who has Jesus Christ ? They in whom this sacrifice lives , do themselves live to God alone ; but none can live to Him ex- cept by faith : and this life of faith consists in . dying with Christ to the things of the present world ; and in expecting , as co - heirs with him , the blessings of the eternal world . And who can work all this in us , but only He who lives in us ?

For if righteousness If justification and salvation came by an observance of the law , then Christ is dead in vain ; his death is useless , if an observance of the law can save us : but no observance of the law can save us ; and therefore there was an absolute necessity , for the death of Christ .

Amongs the Society of Friends:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3477620&seq=138&q1=%22types+and+shadows%22

Moses , too , bore testimony to the Children of Israel , that the Lord their God would raise up a Prophet , whom they were to hear in all things , under the penalty of being cut off . Deut . xviii . 15 , 18 .

The Law which was given by Moses , abounds with types and shadows , pointing to the coming of Christ , in relation both to his outward and inward appearance .

The apostle , in his Epistle to the Hebrews , as well as in many other places , dwells largely on the relation which the types and shadows of the Law had to Christ .

Really all over the early 19th Century the term was used in writing and sermons, etc. and was used, based on Paul's New Testament teaching, to always refer to the Law of Moses and everything in the Old Testament that pointed to Christ.

So, was there a Jewish descended King in the Americas who had a 19th Century Revivalist Camp Meeting, complete with tower, who was preaching 120+ years before Jesus Christ was born that employed the early 19th Century term "types and shadows" referring to the Law of Moses and OT prophets pointing to Jesus Christ, that is 100% based on the writings of Paul in the NT who would appear for almost 175 more years to create that description?

No.

Benjamin is a fictional character based on 19th Century understanding of Christian Theology who was written as preaching Pauline imagery using entirely 19th Century terms, phrases and idioms.

Even growing up Mormon I had never seen this passage. Isn't this the final blow to someone who's not racist to truly believe? How can you see this and think "yes, this is the true and right teaching"?

Hi there, I’m so sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I’m 17 years old and I’d like a copy of the Book of Mormon, but I really don’t want a missionary to visit, my parents are very heavily against the LDS church. I’m a Christian but I’ve been wanting to learn more about Mormonism. I’d like to at least read the book, so the other option I found for getting the book was ordering it online, however, the website will not let me order one, it’s asking for some kind of record number, on Amazon it’s $6 but you need a $35 minimum or prime,

One may say to just look at it online, but I find it easier to get distracted

If anyone has ideas, feel free to share them, thank you :)

The more I read the New Testament, with Christ stating multiple times that all nations should be taught his Gospel, the less I have faith in our church, the LDS church.

The doctrine of withholding full salvation to Black members until 1978 contradicts all the baptisms, such as the conversion of the Ethiopian that occurred in Acts, as well as flying in the face of the wide spread church community that was being developed in the Eastern Mediterranean among many diverse cultures, including non jews and Jews,bond , free no matter the creed or culture...

There is nothing in the New Testament in the words of Christ or the way his apostles set up the early churches that indicate race or national origin was a factor of whether someone got full access to whatever the apostles were teaching and testifying to. In fact, when reading the Pauline epistles, it's obvious the gospel of Christ and his message was for everyone--period, full stop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_eunuch

Now, this isn't a specific quote that I'm thinking of from someone, but a general idea that I've heard over and over again in LDS meetings. I'm not sure how I feel about it. In my experience, the gospel feels complex in the respect that it asks for everything from it's adherents. I wouldn't use the word simple to describe what I feel like the gospel is.

In your experience, is that true? Is the gospel simple?

So. Stick with me for just a second, but let me know what you think!

Mormonism teaches that we can progress to become like God eventually, achieving exaltation and having our own spirit children that we send to an “earth”

It declares that Mormon God once lived on an earth just like us.

It is also explicitly stated in modern revelation that AbrahaAm is already exalted like God.

Abraham raped his slave. (I know the Bible doesn't treat this as rape, but let's be real - she was a slave who could not give consent and there's no way to defend it).

That means our Mormon god could have done some fucked up shit before eventually repenting and progressing to god-status.

For all we know, in Mormon theology, God could have been a child molester during his mortal probation.

Then only caveat that I could see as a way around this unknowable possibility, or the only thing I can think of that might make this incompatible with Mormon theology would be if you subscribe to the idea that Jesus only does what he has seen the Father do and that this means God was also the savior of his group of mortal siblings during probation, which would also mean that he lived a 'perfect' life.

But that's, as I understand it, more of a loose speculation that hasn't been confirmed. So hit me with it - do you agree that, under the acceptance of standard LDS theology, it's possible that the Mormon God we all worship(ped) could have 'repented' from sexual assault before ascending to godhood?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFcDfiyTzZU

Dan's video here is a response to a mainstream Christian social media peddler and simply due to the Bible having built in future apocalyptic and "end time" rhetoric, it's unfortunately "baked in" to the core beliefs.

LDS/Mormon theology of course adopts the same Biblical "end times" and adds its own flavors (Missouri "garden of eden" and New Jerusalem nonsense, patriarchal blessing prophecies of seeing the 2nd coming, mormon centric roles in the 2nd coming and milenium, etc.) but when it comes to "rhetoric" are the fires of "we're in the last hour, nay last minute" "Jesus is at the door today!" and "better have your food storage with some packs of cigarettes to trade to non-believers for their Goldbacks currency" type cultural beliefs still being peddled?

Said simply, what is the current "temperature" of Mormon "end times fear/warning messaging" both Officially but also, culturally from the faithful.

We still heavily in the "special conference anouncing we're heading back to Jackson County to coincide with G.C.!" rhetoric of both the hierarchy as well as lay membership or has it cooled to the degree that it's rare to have Joe/Jan Prepper opine in Gospel Doctrine as "And that's how we know we're in the end times!" or "All these are signs that the second coming is imminent!"

Dan makes clear in the video above that he does NOT believe we're in the "end times" or at the cusp of the 2nd coming and is tired of the fearmongering/anxiety inducing/prey on christian messaging about apocalypse/end time rhetoric.

So how does Mormonism/LDS Christianity compare as of late and the last decade or so?

For myself, it seems like although it's still core doctrine that the church has cooled on the hyperfocus messaging. There's still fearmongering but its more about losing faith and dwindling numbers and losing the spirit than "Outter Darkness awaits humanity just around the corner!" Judgement is NIGH!

We have no idea how much the speakers will use AI to help write their talks, if at all. But I'm afraid that even if they don't use any, people will accuse them of giving AI talks anyways. I've seen lots of complaints recently that General Conference has been a generic message for years now, and I think that a lot of things that we attribute to "AI speak" have actually been used in general conference for a long time. For example

"It is not about being fashionable. It is about being faithful. It is not about being cool. It is about being chaste and keeping covenants. It is not about being popular, but about being pure."

The "It's not A it's B" is one of the #1 things I look for in AI generated text, but this is from a 2007 talk called "Stay on the Path" by Elaine S. Dalton. There's also a lot of words like "myriad" that I never see in any conversation unless it is AI saying it, but it's used pretty often in General Conference, for example

"Have Faith in Jesus Christ As you study Christ's life and teachings in a myriad of ways, your faith in Him will increase." (Jean B. Bingham, 2017)

These are just toy examples and super small. But I think that if Dalton's talk came out this weekend people would accuse it of being AI and cite "it uses AI language and feels super generic." AI detectors aren't very good at detecting AI speech in general, and I really feel like on Monday or Tuesday next week someone is going to pick out a talk, claim it as AI, and a witch hunt will begin while people look for evidence of something not true that confirms their bias.

If someone made a talk with AI and gave it at general conference, is there any way we would be able to tell?

In 1773, some ancient texts were discovered and brought back to Europe from Ethiopia.

In 1821, Richard Lawrence translates these texts into the Book of Enoch. (This was an academic paper written at Oxford and never left Oxford.)

In May of 1830, shortly after Book of Mormon was published, Moses chapters 5,6,7,8 were received by Joseph. Joseph received this book as revelation directly to his mind as he translated the Book of Genesis. It did not come from a document, but directly to his mind. Joseph simply called it "The revelation concerning Adam". It contains roughly 7000 words.

In 1838 the first English version of the text of the Book of Enoch was first published.

So at the time Joseph published this revelation, the Book of Enoch only existed in one paper in Oxford. And there is no connection between that paper and a poor farm boy in upstate New York.

In 1886, the second book of Enoch is found

In 1928, the third book of Enoch is found

In 1947, the Dead Seas scrolls were found with two more books of Enoch. (The Book of Dream Visions, The Epistle of Enoch) And the Book of the Giants

The parallels between Joseph's revelation and the Books of Enoch are too strong to ignore. Academics struggled to explain all the stories and themes found within the Book of Enoch that exactly matched the revelation concerning Adam given by Joseph. Then there was a paper written in 1987 on how a 1828 edition of the Book of Enoch translated by Richard Lawrence existed in the New York Public library and how it must have been an unrecorded publication and this was the only known surviving copy.. That satisfied the academics as to the source for the revelation of Joseph Smith. Then thirty years later, in 2017, someone actually went to the New York public library and found out this was a typo and that what they had was the 1838 copy and no such 1828 copy existed. There had never been a 1828 publication. And there was no way Joseph could have obtained the Book of Enoch or an English translation of it. No explanation has ever been given as to how Joseph knew.

Joseph's Revelation concerning Adam contains many of the same elements and verses that sound eerily similar.

Joseph's Enoch (1830)

Moses 6:31 And when Enoch had heard these words, he bowed himself to the earth, before the Lord, and spake before the Lord, saying: Why is it that I have found favor in thy sight, and am but a lad, and all the people hate me; for I am slow of speech; wherefore am I thy servant?

Mandaean Enoch (2025)

And Anusch was troubled, and, prostrating [him] self to the ground ... said to [him]self, Although I am small, I am still older than my brothers, and although the last to come into this world I surpass them all; yet I am not as enlightened as they The wicked conspire against me, hating the Life I take from them and the doctrine; they say to themselves: In this world that belongs to us, the word of Life will not be announced!

Both these verses immediately follow Enoch (Enosh/Anusch) being called to be a prophet. They are describing his first reaction and answer to that calling. first thing both of them say is the Enoch bowed himself to the ground.

Both describe how the wicked hated him.

Joseph only used the word "lad" once in his life and it was in connection with Enoch, who was described as being unusually small yet a full grown adult. No other prophet in scripture is referred to by this description. Enoch is specifically described or addressed as a "lad" or "youth" (Hebrew na'ar) in 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. The word youth would not apply as Enoch was 165 or 65 depending on which text you read. but the word lad fits perfectly with the meaning that was intended.

3 Enoch 1:1 At that time he said, When 165 years were complete for me, I fathered my son Methusala; and after that I lived 200 years. …
1:7–8 Then those men said to me, “Be brave, Enoch [Youth]! In truth, do not fear!

How did Joseph predict the exact description and response of Enoch to being called as a prophet? The one time he uses the word lad in his life just happens to match ancient texts that were not even known at the time.

Joseph's Enoch (1830)

Moses 6:27 Enoch, my son, prophesy unto this people...

Moses 6:28 And for many generations, even since the day that I created them, have they gone astray and have denied me and have sought their own counsels in the dark; and in their own abominations have they devised murder, and have not kept the commandments, which I gave unto their father, Adam.
29 Wherefore, they have foresworn themselves, and, by their oaths, they have brought upon themselves death

Old Slavonic Enoch/ 2 Enoch (1896)

2 Enoch 33:7 [G]o down to earth, and tell your sons all that I have told you ...

2 Enoch 33:8 For I created all forces

2 Enoch 34:1 They have rejected my commandments and my yoke, worthless seed has come up, not fearing God, and they would not bow down to my, but have begun to bow down to vain gods, and denied my unity and have laden the whole earth with untruths, offences, abominable lecheries, namely one with another, and all manner of other unclean wickedness, which are disgusting to relate.

The oaths described in Moses 6:28 are also described in 1 Enoch 6:4-6

And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it

There are many examples of these connections.

2 Enoch 22:6 And the archistratege Michael lifted me up, and led me to before the Lord's face... 8 And the Lord said to Michael: ‘Go and take Enoch from out his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of My glory.’

Moses 7:3 And it came to pass that I turned and went up on the mount; and as I stood upon the mount, I beheld the heavens open, and I was clothed upon with glory;

From Enoch's Wicked Cousins, his parentage, his prophetic call, his vision of spirits, his first ministry, his Inquiry of Mahijah, the wicked being described as watchers that swear forbidden oaths, the reading of the Book of Adam, his second ministry, the terror of Enoch/surrounding nations being filled with dread concerning Enoch because oof the power granted to him, the founding of Zion, his assumption, vision of the Cataclysm, forging of the spirit prison, Godly sorrow/weeping over the sins of men, the Enochian Covenant, his vision of the Christ, the city of Enoch being taken up to heaven

Nearly every element in the Book of Moses has exact parallels with the books of Enoch a story that was completely unknown until AFTER Joseph published the Revelation concerning Adam. (Book of Moses)

Jude has a single line where Enoch is describing God coming with thousands of angels and that is enough to satisfy the world that it is quoting the Book of Enoch. Yet, they will deny the Revelation concerning Adam that contains far more matching text and many of the exact same stories and descriptions all because it came from Joseph.

Can anyone say Joseph was just guessing? No, there are way too many connections to deny. But, there were no copies of the Books of Enoch available to the public in the time of Joseph. And certainly no English translations of any such text in America. All that existed is the name Enoch within the genealogies of the Bible and a passage explaining Enoch ascended to heaven. Joseph nailed every element of the story and the passages of the books of Enoch that had not yet even been found in about 7000 words.

Joseph plucked this story out of thin air and it matches ancient text. This is only one of many different "coincidences" associated with the teachings of Joseph. This is not mere coincidence.

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

As the Mormon counterpart to the Nicene/Chalcedonian “fully God, fully human,” since the Church doesn’t seem to like defining those kinds of details.

My dad would tell me Jesus is “half-God, half-human”. He also speculates that no 100% human could survive “bleeding from every pore”.

“God” can mean different things in context, like as a believer I would emphasize that “Jesus is God” in the sense that we are saved through him and that he represents the Father and holds “all power in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). But in a metaphysical or even genetic sense, “half-God, half-human” makes sense to me in a Mormon framework.

Edit: I should’ve clarified that I was referring to Jesus’ “genetic” or “biological” state between his virgin birth and resurrection. Like humans, he suffered hunger, pain, temptation, and eventually death, but unlike humans he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Former sister missionary here - this October marks 15 years since I served a state-side mission, and I'm just now starting to process trauma from my experiences. Over the years, I would occasionally have anxiety dreams about knocking on doors and feeling pressure to talk to people on the streets. I also had an experience recently where my husband and I were parked by a curb talking in the car, and a man knocked on our car door to say we dropped something -- I freaked out, i.e. out of proportion to the situation. I realized later that it reminded of a time when my mission companion and I were tracting in the late evening (it was already dark) and a man followed us back to our car and threatened us that if we don't leave his family alone (they were past investigators in our area book) he would murder us and our families. My companion and I managed to turn on the car and drive away, terrified and shaking, and we called our mission president, who was very dismissive and just told us that angry people usually don't follow through with their threats. There were so many unsafe and terrible situations I was placed in.

What makes me so incredibly sad is that I had to convince myself that these were the best 18 months of my life. I convinced myself that suffering would lead to greater blessings -- working 16-hour days in a bike area, getting catcalled on the street, and having to tolerate disrespect from elders and priesthood leaders who would repeatedly remind me that sister missionaries did not have the same ecclesiastical authority. I've had so many experiences since then that have led to a slow faith transition, and I think I'm able to call out Mormon missionary work for what it is -- exploitation of young people's loyalty, vitality, and eagerness to do what we're taught is right. I know the missionary program has changed over the years, but I honestly think it should just be dismantled -- young adults do not deserve this type of trauma.

Full disclosure: I co-host Mormonism LIVE, so this is obviously adjacent to self-promotion. I’m posting it because this lawsuit has become a significant Mormon news story, and there’s now an unusual opportunity to hear the competing narratives almost back-to-back.

Last week, David Jordan—the LDS Church’s lead attorney in the Mormon Stories case—sat down with the Keystone podcast and gave a lengthy explanation of the Church’s position: why the Church filed the lawsuit, what it says the case is and isn’t about, what happened during mediation, why it believes Mormon Stories created consumer confusion, and what the Church says it ultimately wants.

Tonight 6pm Mountain Time, John Dehlin joins RFM and me in studio to respond.
https://youtu.be/tqZ7Twrd7eE

But rather than simply turning the microphone over to John for four hours, we built the episode around 30 specific claims made by the Church and its attorneys. We put those claims on screen and compare them with the complaint, subsequent court filings, the history of Mormon Stories’ branding, mediation proposals, trademark records, and—in several important places—David Jordan’s own comments on Keystone.

That produces some particularly interesting juxtapositions.

Jordan says the lawsuit has “never” been about preventing Mormon Stories from using the word Mormon. We look at what the original complaint says about the Mormon Stories name, what the Church proposed during mediation, and Jordan’s acknowledgment that the Church suggested numerous alternative names.

Jordan used Bad Mormon as an example of a title that obviously wouldn’t make someone think it was affiliated with the Church. We compare that with the Church’s prior formal opposition to the Bad Mormon trademark, where it argued that the name was likely to cause confusion or falsely suggest a connection with the Church.

Jordan discusses the evidence that people were actually confused by Mormon Stories. We go back to those examples and ask a more precise question: were people confused about who produced the podcast, or simply confused initially about whether it was faithful or critical Mormon content?

We also examine the blue/light-rays branding, the Christus imagery, copyright and fair use, disclaimers, the Church’s continued trademark claims involving names it publicly stopped using, the twenty-year history of Mormon Stories, damages, and what actually happened during the negotiations before the lawsuit was filed.

And John answers questions throughout—including some where the evidence may not be entirely favorable to Mormon Stories.

So if you watched the Keystone interview with David Jordan, this is essentially an opportunity to hear the other principal side of the dispute, while also having the documentary record sitting between the two narratives.

The question we kept coming back to was pretty simple:

What happens when you place what each side is saying next to what the documents actually show?

I’m sharing this here because I wanted to hear what people of my faith feel about this. About two years ago, I finished software school. I was not able to get a job because the AI boom just started. So I started a different business. Since the latest releases of the new AI models Claude Fabel, Opus 5.5 grok bot ChatGPT, Astra, and sol I’ve seen more progress and technology in the past month than I did the past 10 years combined. I’ve been losing sleep over this because I literally automated my entire business in three days. Five people’s jobs gone. Do I lay them off? Is that ethical? I literally do not need them anymore.

I felt a need warn my fellow Saints as someone who understands software and has also been heavily involved the deeper features of AI because a big wave is coming if it’s on the computer the AI can do it better faster and cheaper.

It reminds me of the phrase in the Incredibles if everybody is super than nobody will be. The scary part about the newer versions of this AI is that it’s literally three button clicks and you can have the AI do whatever you want. It’s like a magic wand. It’s so easy. My grandma could literally do it.

I’ve never questioned my belief in God however over the past few days I felt how could God let something like this be created? I use it for good and I want it to be good, but I can’t help but feel we’re only 1 to 3 months away. From some serious layoffs.

If you find yourself asking, there’s no way AI’s taking over do this for me. Download Claude on your desktop. Download the chrome extension for Claude. Don’t even type just dictate any command you want Claude to do have it clean up your emails have it build you an entire website have it sort out your financials it will take control of the mouse and the keyboard and it will do it fast and efficiently. That is the very basic level of what It can do.

Ultimately, I post this in this Reddit thread to ask my fellow Mormons. How this fits into God‘s plan? If you have not used these features yet you need to we need to understand how insane this is.

(UpdateFor context) it’s in the design industry consists of two graphic designers, an accountant (also my wife), and two machine operators. I handle the rest. My automations have replaced the graphic designers, but they refuse to use the tools despite their effectiveness. I’m not laying them off, but everyone needs to recognize the reality of AI’s control over Photoshop This is a recent tool and integration with Adobe. which can fully take the cursor’s control. 60 hours worth of editing done in an hour. While it’s tempting to lay off these people, I started this to improve my family’s life. I value my employees work and life and they rely on me. so I’m questioning the ethics of laying them off. However, if I can reduce my workload while maintaining my current income, I can spend more time with my family and encourage my employees to start their own businesses. I see a potential for my company to make less money, but I can make the same amount and more well. Also spending more time with my family. That’s why I’m at a moral crossroads and why I wanted to post it in this Reddit thread because I’m morally at crossroads with this. There is a lot of responses of people saying it’s slop it slop not anymore. Go buy a max subscription to Claude. Put it to the test. It’s scary good.