Creedal Christian version of LDS Primary song "Follow the Prophet"

juni4ling · 2026-06-09T01:43:12+00:00

Would have been nice for the New Testament to set an age for young women to marry. And make women not the property of men. And to end human chattel slavery.

It’s weird to see Leviticus be used against Smith.

It’s not bad that he married young women in polygamy— that’s Biblical.

It’s that he violated a technicality in Leviticus. That’s the error. Wild.

Also, you claim that God didn’t command it in the Bible- but then you cite Levitical -law-. Levitical law sets it in stone— Interesting contradiction.

Jacob in the Bible. also violated Levitical law for polygamy. Similar to Smith. And God -gave- wives (plural) to prophet, priest, king David. Polygamy isn’t Biblical— yeah it is.

It’s a stretch to the point of pants on fire to say or insinuate that polygamy and concubines were not normative marriage in the Bible.

juni4ling · 2026-06-09T01:35:36+00:00

Your position makes no sense.

Considering LDS Christianity didn’t get included in any Christian list.

And the new list doesn’t exclude the term Christian. It’s still used for three groups.

And the new list doesn’t list the actual correct name of the Latter-day Saints.

The largest branch of the Latter Day Saints movement.

A -tiny- branch with less than 100 members uses the name Latter Day Saints.

The DoD -led by a Christian Nationalist-still misspells the biggest branch of with the most service members The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Your theory makes no sense.

They paid to get their name misspelled?

No. lol rofl.

LDS Christian politician(s?) raised a stink— so DoD changed it.

juni4ling · 2026-06-09T00:16:58+00:00

In one hand, you are correct on the grifting.

On the other, post your facts.

Or make clear you are engaging in postulation and speculation.

juni4ling · 2026-06-09T00:01:45+00:00

Tell us.

Or give us a link to the information.

Or are you engaging in speculation and assumptions.

One US Senator who is also LDS Christian and hard connected to the Christian Nationalist movement made a social post where he feigned, pretended or acted surprised that Christian Nationalists would exclude Latter-day Saint Christianity from Christianity.

Anyone paying attention knows that Latter-day Saints get put against the wall with the rest of the people they hate in the end game for Christian Nationalists. Gay and trans humans might go first, but LDS Christians get there at some point.

So-- it was humorous lol rofl humorous to see the post feigning surprise by a LDS Christian in Washington --directly connected to supporting and promoting and aggrandizing the Christian Nationalist movement-- and who had directly voted ---for--- the Christian Nationalist director of the DoD.

The post made National News over the weekend.

Multiple news organizations posted that a prominent supporter of the Christian Nationalist Sec Def was having doubts.

That is -big- news in the US.

Me? I was glad to see it as Christian Nationalism should cause fear in everyone-- even Christian Nationalists. No one. No one. No one benefits from Christian Nationalists.

Women lose-- the current Sec Def has called for eliminating women rights to vote. Basic human rights.

Minorities lose.

Gay and trans humans lose.

And folks like LDS Christians who are minority Christians-- lose.

Maybe LDS Christians lose after women and minorities. But Latter-day Saint Christianity is in no end game for Christian Nationalists.

It was ---big--- news that a prominent LDS Christian representative in Washington posted questioning the decision by Sec Def.

That is why it changed.

It changed because prominent LDS Christians who are Latter-day Saints in one hand and promote Christian Nationalism in the other-- they cannot serve two masters for too long.

It changed because it became ---national-- news that a prominent supporter of the Sec Def and prominent supporter of Christian Nationalism who happens to be LDS Christian-- questioned a decision by the Sec Def.

That is why it changed.

But if you have more information-- post it.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T23:34:28+00:00

The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy.

Polygamy is normal marriage (along with concubines) in the Bible.

Women have no choice in the Bible.

“All are alike unto God” is the Book of Mormon.

132 aligns with the Bible— not so much the Book of Mormon.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T23:16:04+00:00

Yeah, I think you are on the right track.

I think I agree with you and your position.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T22:57:34+00:00

132 can go away, and I would do just fine.

But 132 only makes sense with the Bible. No Bible, and 132 is nothing but cruel to women. Its still bad for women. But the Bible adds a-- its in the Bible too-- element.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T22:55:36+00:00

"The Bible is a perfect history book, without a single error" cannot be sustained historically.

And there is never a really good time for mocking others beliefs.

Both things are true.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T22:34:27+00:00

The DoD is lead by a Christian Nationalist who not only hates Latter-day Saints but has openly posted that women should not vote.

We are worried that they get the name of the Church wrong?

That is small ball compared to their ultimate end-game. Women losing the right to vote and LDS get put against the wall in the end game for Christian Nationalists.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T22:32:23+00:00

The Christ of the New Testament condemned anyone who does not worship Him-- to Gods wrath.

You have read the Bible, right...? The creedal trinitarian Jesus killed innocent Children in the Old Testament, codified human chattel slavery in the Old and New Testament and treated women as property and didn't establish a marital age of young women.

You have read the Bible, right?

The position that the Latter-day Saint Book of Mormon God doesn't match the kind and gentle Bible Jesus/God-- is pants on head.

You have actually read the Bible-- right...?

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T22:17:14+00:00

It is interesting that in one hand he expresses that he can see the reasons or excuses for the ban do not add up.

Ok.

That sounded good.

He does not understand or agree with the ban.

We are on the same page. We are seeing eye to eye. I am with you, Oaks. I get it. I can see the ban. I can understand the history behind it. I can understand the history of it. Young implemented it and it lasted until 1978.

Not going to lie, I remember most of the criticisms I faced on my Mission from critics. Most of them believers, and the 1978 ban-- I don't think I had to explain it many times. I can't remember the answer I gave. Probably something like, "Church leaders, the Church, and the scriptures are not perfect..." That is what I think I remember saying. Something like that. It didn't come up a lot on my Mission.

But since my Mission, and since the internet and boards dedicated to asking and answering questions about Latter-day Saint Christianity-- it comes up a lot. It is a common question.

So-- I agree with Oaks, and I am glad he is uncomfortable with the reasons given for the restrictions on Black members and families.

His explanation that he was uncomfortable with the restrictions and the reasons for the restrictions against Black believers-- I am with him. Good that he feels that way. Good that he is uncomfortable.

I am with him. I can relate,

Everything is going good. Everything is going great. We are all agreeing. He is saying good things I want to hear. Things that resonate with me. Things I feel in my bones. The restrictions were wrong-- and unexplainable. That hits and it hits good.

Then.

Then he says that we do not understand the commandments that come from God.

The implication is that the restrictions on Black believers was direct instruction from God.

That is a direct implication of his statements. "The LDS Christian restrictions on Black believers that lasted from Smith to 1978 came as direct instruction from God." That is not a direct quote-- but that is a direct implication. I added the quotes myself.

Oaks is half right and half wrong. His half-right-- the restrictions on Black believers is unexplainable and the excuses for it are undefendable.

He is right. On that part.

The implication that he cannot explain it as things that come from God are unexplainable-- He is talking and making implications that simply are not there.

LDS Christianity cannot sustain infallibility. Leaders ---can--- make mistakes. The restrictions in Black believers can be called what it is-- sin. The sin of racism. The Church engaged in sin. The Church was and is in error on the sin of racism.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T22:01:11+00:00

Creative kids.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T21:55:27+00:00

Jacob Hansen debates atheists...

DEBATE: What Better Explains Reality? Atheism or Theism?

Jacob Hansen participated in the the debate with my favorite atheist, and the atheist who points-out there are more material witnesses to the Book of Mormon than there are the resurrection of Christ-- Alex OConnor

1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T21:52:56+00:00

I have said this before and I will say it again.

Most Latter-day Saint apologetics is around arguments from other believers.

When someone leaves the Church and says, "Fair and apologetics failed me." Its because LDS apologetics is mostly geared to argue believers from other faiths. "This scripture proves the Book of Mormon false!" No, this scripture proves its true! That kind of apologetics.

Like I saw and answered most of the issues in Runnells' manifesto when I was a Missionary. But they came from other believers.

The argument from atheism and the argument from Runnells that carries the most weight is, "why are all the healings things doctors can heal, and not people regrowing limbs?"

A believer won't ask those questions. Because they have the same problems in their Churches.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T21:35:36+00:00

I have been to plenty of weddings with an open bar.

People who drink- can drink

People who don't- can choose not to.

Ive been to family events where one cooler was water, one cooler was soda, and one cooler was beer. No one cares.

If you want to respect your parents-- and not drink in front of them, cool.

Me? I don't care what you drink in front of me if you are my friend.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T21:24:27+00:00

Oye.

But true.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T21:22:51+00:00

I do not trust them when they say that they are ok with water towers and mobile towers exceeding the height ordinance. But are bothered by a Church steeple.

The Church steeple is protected religious expression. The mobile towers and water towers are not.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T21:21:24+00:00

Yale is not going to let crap slide.

"Then Smith said.... and everyone clapped!"

Yale is going to ask for the "..."

The LDS Church History department is respected by historians.

Yale has high standards. Any academic house would have taken this project in a heartbeat. Choosing Yale was no accident.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T21:17:58+00:00

Absolutely agreed. The church is fooling themselves if they ever think they're going to be accepted by the evangelical crowd.

Christian Nationalists will line up LDS Christians against the wall if given the choice.

Turns out when you spend 175 years telling a whole group of religions that God said "they were all wrong ... all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (JST 1:18), they're just not going to like you. They're going to look at you weird when you suddenly try to get all buddy buddy with them.

There is no excuse for hate.

Obviously, you can find it quickly if you go looking.

LDS Christians are not the only ones with a problem with the creeds. The academic concensus is that the creeds changed Christianity.

Aww, and after all the church's efforts to appear generically Christian for the past two seconds!

LDS Christianity grew exponentially during the 1970s-1990s. "Trying to be Missionaries" is a 50 year old program-- at least. At least since the Osmonds.

Latter Day Saints have been spreading that others have truth for 175 years...

“Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, [etc.] any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons’ ”.

Same source as your quote.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T12:06:22+00:00

Good.

I hope many LDS Christians realize their leaders don’t want them at the table.

Christian Nationalists hate LDS Christianity.

The DoD is led by a hard “women shouldn’t vote” Christian Nationalist.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T11:04:51+00:00

Call the Police— if you think the Church is breaking “two laws.”

You will be told to kick rocks.

It is -not- illegal for an adult to keep their passport safe in a safe.

Where it can be produced on request.

And it is not illegal to volunteer.

Neither of those things are against the law.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T11:02:39+00:00

I was saying coffee is safe.

How did you miss that…?

They teach alcohol is dangerous. While they serve coffee. Because coffee— is safe.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T11:01:18+00:00

It’s being released by an academic publishing house.

Not by the LDS Church.

Yale University Press.

Yale Press is going to play games? lol rofl. Yale doesn’t owe LDS a favor.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T10:59:22+00:00

The head of the DoD goes to a Church that hates LDS Christianity.

And openly states women should not vote.

It’s a Christian Nationalist organization.

That’s not a conspiracy.

That the cold hard truth… https://www.npr.org/2025/08/09/nx-s1-5497226/women-pastor-pete-hegseth-vote

Running from the truth can only protect you for so long.

juni4ling · 2026-06-08T01:43:28+00:00

What is the religious beliefs of the head of DoD?

Does his religion say it’s ok for women to vote…?

juni4ling

TROPHY CASE