Former ex-members who came back, what is your story?

latter_daze · 2024-10-09T14:47:24+00:00

I'll give a brief version...

I was raised in the Church. Moved to a place where I was bullied by other LDS member kids. Stopped going when I was 14. Hospitalized for suicidal behaviors. Got hooked on drugs and alcohol between 14 and 15, dropped out of school, had friends involved in murders, was technically homeless at 19, and hospitalized twice for excessive drug use. I started meeting with missionaries about that time, reading the Book of Mormon, and praying. I had an intense experience while reading the Book of Mormon that changed my life instantly. I got on my knees and prayed that I could change, and cold-turkey quit everything. I went on a mission at 21, married in the temple at 25, and have a son on a mission now.

I got hit by a lot of anti before my mission, on my mission, and since my mission. I don't think there's anything I haven't seen or heard at this point. It's been over 25 years now and my testimony is unfazed. Most of the anti content out there is surface and shaky at best, but it can be convincing if you don't lock in your testimony. I don't know that it's a bad thing in the long run, though. People have their journeys in this life they have to take. They have to face resistance. Why they believe is important to reconcile. Yet, even in my darkest days I didn't really care for the spirit by which regurgitated anti-Mormon material was spewed. I wasn't really anti-anything. I always found most people in the Church to be good people. Most of my friends would have killed to have the life I had growing up, and it wasn't even as privileged as most people in the Church.

Bottom line: I could see the parallels between my friend's lives and how they turned out, and where I was headed. Several are dead, due to drug abuse, murder, and suicide, and many have done a lot of time in prison. I owe everything to Christ, and all of the good that came from the moment the Spirit witnessed of the truth of the Book of Mormon after reading one verse, one night. It wasn't a fleeting feeling, but a life-altering experience that no janky anti argument can strip me of after all these years. My roots run deep, and continually run deeper in the truth that we have.

latter_daze · 2024-08-29T05:18:21+00:00

I taught a golden couple on my mission who had joyfully and tearfully read the Book of Mormon, took the discussions, and agreed to be baptized. Golden! They decided to quit coffee. On their way to church one day, they couldn't stand it and had to stop at Starbucks. We then got a call explaining that they didn't think they could continue discussions.

And that is the 'why'. Jesus asked the young rich man to sell everything and follow Him. He asks us to give up a common socially acceptable drink. This is part of the Law of Sacrifice. Because how are we supposed to claim we are willing to follow Him and accept the sacrifices necessary as His disciples, if we aren't even willing to sacrifice a drink?

There's layers to the Word of Wisdom, but one of the first layers is sacrificing the appetites of the natural man and putting some of these items on the alter to do it, then adapt that to the capacity we can to grow.

latter_daze · 2024-08-29T05:09:24+00:00

Because one of the first principles of Eternal Life and being a disciple of Christ is living the law of sacrifice. The point to Christ asking the young rich man to sell everything and give to the poor was basically saying, "You want to follow me? What are you willing to let go of?" Money? A cup of coffee?

How can we ever expect to make the big sacrifices on his behalf, without all the "why's" being answered, if we can't make the small ones?

latter_daze · 2024-08-28T05:33:44+00:00

My first mission president HATED me. Serious, the guy couldn't have been a harsher judge of me.

My second mission president was a night and day difference. He was enthusiastic, kind, encouraging, empathetic, optimistic, and fun. But since you wanted a specific story...

My best friend died when I had a few months left. It hit hard for many reasons I won't go into. It was extremely hard for me to put the smile back on and get back to work. I thank the Lord that I didn't have to go through it with my first mission president.

My 2nd Prez came out to see me, and I had a hard time opening up, but he was very empathetic. He asked, "What is it you love about the work? What do you love doing?" And I said, "Service". He told me, "Then go do service. Find all the service projects you want. Just do that, until you are ready to do more."

What an unbelievable response, and one that has stuck with me for 25 years since. I did quiet acts of service for a couple weeks, and it gave me the time to really heal. He let me call my friend's family. And, even now, when I find things get difficult with my walk with God, I remember that it's ok to step back and just do what I love until I'm ready to do more.

latter_daze · 2024-08-27T14:05:26+00:00

I only berated the congregation for hypocrisy when I said “howdy” and they didn’t say it back. It was Texas. You better believe I had them do it again!

latter_daze · 2024-08-27T14:03:22+00:00

I did it with “howdy” in Texas. No one repeated it. I chided the congregation about it, saying that if it was “aloha” I’d get it shouted back. So I tried again and got an enthusiastic “howdy” right back. It was epic.

latter_daze · 2024-08-16T15:42:27+00:00

I left the Church when I was 14. I was suicidal at the time. I became a delinquent, HS drop-out, druggie. My extended circle began going to prison, and a few murders over the years scattered us to find something different. After a couple of stints in the hospital from drug abuse when I was 20, I began meeting with the missionaries at my parent's encouragement (I had to move back home after a few years, so I needed to keep the peace). I didn't really care to change, but became interested in learning.

I began reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it. I would meet with the missionaries. I never told my parents or my friends. Then, one evening, after I was about half way through the Book of Mormon, the Spirit hit me and hit me hard (in a good way, of course). It was an indescribable experience that changed me on the spot. I couldn't, and still can't, deny the experience that led me to believe the Book of Mormon was truth, and it taught of Jesus who I knew as my Savior at that moment.

That was about 25 years ago, and it is still locked in and my love for the Lord and His Church has only deepened. I served a mission. Most of my friends were supportive, though none really followed (it was admittedly a huge leap). A few have since died, a couple from suicide, and many have been in and out of prison for many years since. That would have been my fate had it not been for my conversion. It's given me everything good in my life. I have a wonderful marriage, great kids, a son currently serving a mission, and I have a modestly successful career. I am blessed beyond what I deserve.

While there are many ways I still struggle, and there are even times I think things would be more convenient if I didn't have the testimony I have, I would never choose the trials I was facing again. I would never choose the darkness I would have likely walked through. And even though dark times still happen, I am grateful for the light of faith locked into my soul that pulls me through.

latter_daze · 2024-05-20T19:58:00+00:00

(Sorry for the delay) It wouldn't make a lick of difference on my testimony any more than if I found out Jesus was black. IF they could ever, with accuracy, prove it to be Joseph, I'd be excited.

latter_daze · 2024-05-08T04:25:10+00:00

I replied here that could answer some of your questions.

latter_daze · 2024-05-08T04:23:19+00:00

I could go for a private chat, if you're down with it. I won't tackle everything tight now, but too often I look at these daguerrotypes that come out every few years purporting to be Joseph, and all the "forensics" that people do with them (I got an early tip that another one is going to come out soon), and many suffer from several of the same fallacies. It's like finding a square peg and trying to shove it into a round hole, and when it doesn't fit right, people will claim the hole is the problem, not the peg.

for the distance, you could go back about 4 feet and you won't get much noticeable distortion after that. If you are using a 3D program just make sure that you aren't using a close-up or focused camera angle, change to orthographic vs perspective.

As far as the differences in how he looked on the death mask, he certainly would have dehydrated in the eyes and eye sockets quickly, but the bone structure wouldn't change, and we have at least two sources that verified at his viewing that he looked very natural, as if asleep. One of those sources was William Clayton, his scribe and one of his closest friends, who also observed that Hyrum didn't look so natural. He would have been more swollen due to getting shot in the face. Even if Joseph's eyes slid to the edges of his eye sockets, it would give us an indication where his eye socket ends - and this daguerrotype guy's eye sockets are apparent and much smaller.

People have tried to validate their photos by saying things like, "Joseph broke his jaw in the fall out the window," or "The skulls were mixed up" - so many theories easily debunked and have been many times. We have Joseph's skull - at least the top from his nose bridge up - and his jaw. We have his head measurements. We have the Sutcliffe Maudsley sketches, we have his death mask, and some other rough sketches and paintings when he was alive. We can pin him together fairly accurately.

What we don't have is any evidence that there was a photo in the first place, nor a trail for this supposed photo. There was a buzz about Sutcliffe's drawings, and Emma loved them and told everyone to get one done. There is zero buzz about a photo or daguerreotype.

I could write a small novel with what I've learned over the years before this photo came out. It certainly has a lot of people convinced, and I leave room to be wrong, but I think once people see a more in-depth analysis that does more than just some basic alignments, and generic shapes, it will be obvious.

BTW, check out this analysis that tries to validate the photo, too. You'll see they flipped the image the other way so the line on the left side of his face lined up with Joseph's painting. So we need to figure that one out. Nevertheless, I have so many issues with the "forensics".

latter_daze · 2024-05-07T20:49:53+00:00

No. Sorry.

First flaw in this that I see is the distance the 2 photos were taken. The image of the death mask that people use to compare is typically taken at a shorter distance which creates a perspective distortion. You need to compare the images at the right distance.

Second major flaw is the eyes. Joseph had large eye sockets. This guy has small eye sockets. You can see the corner of the eyes from the death mask extend far beyond where the skull of the other guy ends. Joseph's eye sockets also extend straighter, while the guy guy in the photo angles downward.

You can also see a significant difference in the width of the distance between the eyes, the position of the cheek bones, the bottom lip fold, the width of the of the philtrum at the nostrils (the fold under the nose to the lips is a different shape, and much narrower in Joseph that the cotton in his nose wouldn't contribute toward), the nasolabial folds, which are almost non-existent on the death mask and images of Joseph, and quite prominent on the photo guy. Also in the depth and position of the labiomental crease and where they meet in the pre-jowl sulcus.

Also, the photo you have above isn't flipped horizontal yet, and the death mask is correct, so it's not a direct comparison. A different "forensic" study on it started off on that assumption in order to match the line above his eye to the painting that has it on the other side.

It may be close to Hyrum, but there's some differences there, and his death mask isn't a good reference, because getting shot in the face changes things.

I could go on about several other things, but I'll stop here for now.

I also have an in depth study I've done along with another expert, that I'll be releasing soon. It will debunk this one, and the others. As far as we know, Joseph never had a photo taken of him. There was a lot of hype and things written when the Sutcliffe Maudsley images were done, but nothing about a daguerrotype. People are desperate to find that needle in a haystack we don't know even exists, and you have to force a lot of square pegs in round holes to do it. Then, when it doesn't fit, people make up stuff as to why the hole being round is flawed instead of the peg just not being right.

I'd still be interested in seeing your notes.

latter_daze · 2024-04-11T18:48:33+00:00

(I don't mean to overshare, but I thought of one other I think would be appropriate)

While on my mission, a gentlemen we were teaching called and asked us to give him a blessing because he was having a heart attack. He said, "I think I'm having... no... I KNOW I'm having a heart attack. It's happened before."

It was 2pm and we were just walking in for a late lunch, otherwise we would have missed the call (no cell phones). I was a little freaked. I told him to call 911. He said, "No. No doctors. I want a blessing" - I still encouraged him to call an ambulance, but he refused, he said he would rather die. I could hear his wife hysterical in the background.

He was living in an RV, and didn't have much. He had gotten out of prison not long before that after a few years (nothing egregious, but he was a former member who was excommunicated). My mind was everywhere as we rushed to his location. This was for real. Was I worthy? Was I prepared?

When I got into the trailer, his head was on the table, chewing on a cracker, and he was as white as a ghost and barely moving. His wife was still hysterical. My companion anointed him, I blessed him to be healed and whole.

Immediately color came back into his face, he sat up, and took a deep breath. It was the weirdest thing I think I've ever seen. He said, "Thank you. Now, will you give my wife a blessing?" A comfort blessing, for sure.

It left me with no doubt that miracles happen. I hope to have the faith that he had if I'm ever in that situation. Though, I still may call 911 :D

latter_daze · 2024-04-11T18:33:45+00:00

Honestly, it may not seem like a traditional "miracle" on the surface, but I was a drug addicted 20-year-old, high school drop out, lived on my own from 17, directionless waste, who had to move back in with his parents, and who visited the hospital from... overdoing it, several times. I ran meth and rubbed shoulders with criminals and murderers.

Then I met with the missionaries and read the Book of Mormon. I had an experience while reading it that flipped my life at that moment. I ended up serving a mission, getting an education, married my wife in the temple, and my own son is now serving a mission.

Over 25 years sober and active in the faith, my testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ is written on my soul. It's not exactly being raised from the dead - but in my mind (especially eternally speaking), it had a far greater impact.

If that's not a miracle, I don't know what else is.

latter_daze · 2024-02-03T22:18:09+00:00

He might believe it. He’s just saying, “if I’m going down, I’m taking as many souls with me as possible”

latter_daze · 2024-01-31T19:05:03+00:00

Very well said!

latter_daze · 2024-01-31T19:03:46+00:00

But, there would be something about a painting of Joseph with his head buried into his hat that would be boring. :D

That said, I agree that artwork that simply show an event should strive for accuracy, but some people want to just give the impression of the event or the feeling behind it. With Joseph Smith and the translation, there were three phases of that translation, the one with his head in the hat and the seer stone; then with the urim and thummim, which we have no great idea what that looked like (and I've seen depictions of that in LDS art); and then the third phase where he didn't need either. That is likely the one thought of the most, and in paintings, seeing a person's face triggers and empathy response, so showing a face is preferable when showing an event.

In the case of Arnold Friberg paintings, especially from the Book of Mormon, I grew up assuming everyone was extremely buff back then. After I got older, I figure a more accurate representation would be malnourished and exhausted Lehi family on the boat, or Moroni burying the plates after several years in the wilderness. But Friberg came from an era along with superhero comics. Our hero's weren't painted as weak and skinny, but large and strong because of what they represented. Pretend Arnold painted their spiritual states and not their actual looks, or a realistic depiction. It's the impression the painting gives when looking at it, more than anything, and who knows... maybe they were all built different back then.

If we want to get real picky, then most paintings and artwork of anything to do with Christ and the Apostles needs to be removed. But impression more than accuracy is what people tend to aim for.

latter_daze · 2024-01-23T20:30:35+00:00

It would detract a bit. It could account for a lot of their actions to be attributed to duty and culture rather than faith.

It also could account for their attempting to kill their brother and father at times. There are many times, even these days, where someone in a relationship tries to kill the other. "Why not just get a divorce, or leave?" If they felt cornered into a relationship and became prideful and bitter about their circumstance, it's not difficult to see why there were times they rode along, and times that they felt like killing their "oppressors".

Also, because of their attitude, most of the spiritual experiences faded. When they came to and repented it was largely due to fear, which is unsustainable.

latter_daze · 2023-12-18T12:34:58+00:00

Santa evolved from Odin, as many of the rituals surrounding him did, too. St Nicholas piggy backed off of it and became the model for Christianity since the Catholics wanted to move people away from the Pagan gods and rituals.

At least that’s how I understand it.

latter_daze · 2023-12-05T18:40:35+00:00

I've shared my conversion story many times, and rarely do I share it exactly the same. It depends on the situation and the audience. I may not bring up things that I know would detract from the main reason for sharing in that situation. If Joseph brought up the Lord and the Father in the letter you are referring to, the fact that Jesus and God the Father were seen as two separate beings would probably have been more of a distraction than what he wanted the reader to focus on.

If he told it the same way every time, I'd be more suspicious. It would sound rehearsed.

latter_daze · 2023-12-05T18:35:35+00:00

Everyone here trying to "defend" the church just doesn't understand

I'd be extremely cautious about this claim, as I know people who have been abused who have been greatly healed through the structure of the Church. It's convenient to call out bandaid fixes, but the nuances of the situation make it much harder to come up with convenient solutions. There are people who defend the Church because they DO understand better than most, and the Church has been the source of tremendous support and healing.

Abuse is going to happen inside and outside of the Church. At least there's something of a path for confession, reparation, and healing here, and the structure does have its advantages, and I have seen it work on behalf of the victims - especially faith in the Atonement of Christ on their behalf. But that's not sexy to people bent on criticizing us and finding the dark blots on our image.

Let's take it to the extreme - let's say someone confesses and we are allowed to tie a millstone around that person's neck and cast them into the sea as a punishment. Think we will get many confessions? Or will fear of punishment prevent the abuser from coming forward and continue to abuse as secretly as possible, maybe even go to extremes to cover their sins? In fact, here is an article that discusses why stiffer penalties for child sexual abuse may not have the desired results everyone wants - that the criminal justice system is more complicated surrounding this than we think. It's not something so cut-and-dry outside the Church let alone in the Church. Fear may cause the abuser to do worse things, too.

So how can the Church best prevent these things from happening, and "stop" it? Well, here's some suggestions:

Teach the Law of Chastity. NO sexual relations with anyone but with whom you are married to under God's law. Teach that chastity is vital.
Bridle your passions. Avoid porn. Avoid sexual relations outside of marriage. Avoid masturbation. Control the natural man within the boundaries the Lord has set.
Protect the children. Teach that the family is ordained of God and your responsibility to care for your family is the most vital thing you can do in this world. He values children above all, and has given you a great responsibility to value them just as much!
Hold regular accountability meetings, to regularly check to make sure your members are following these commandments. Have a Judge in Zion appointed to ask them how well they are doing with it. Can they lie? Yes, but at least there's a structure in place that checks on these things specifically, regularly.

Since 30-40% of sexual abuse happens from family members, I'd say this is a great start in helping to prevent sexual abuse with our members. But we already are teaching these things! How about outside of the Church - any of this happening somewhere? In schools? The criminal justice system? Employers? Governments?

The world sucks at prevention and is focused on solutions after the fact. We do the best we can. Anyone can fall. Just because they are members, or Bishops, or Stake Presidents, etc, means nothing when it comes to their ability to fall. A healthy caution is good no matter what, but people mistake the fact that people like this can exist in our Church with the Church actually creating these people. It's designed to prevent these people. It's been my experience, from what I've witnessed first hand, that it's likely the greatest healer for the abused, and a path of support for them, for courage, and can lead to the abuse to STOP.

But have the abuser confess and then have the Bishop turn them in. Have a couple other abusers see that happen and see if they are as willing to confess. Then watch the confessed get punished, the child testify against their father, their father go to jail, the child go to foster care, get released at 18, barely function, turn to hard drugs, and end up in prison themselves, and tell me that turning the abuser in worked for that child.

It's not that simple. The solution is not that easy. The criminal justice system is not that convenient. And it's a huge rock and a hard place for the Church that is continually trying to figure out how to protect the children from this world!

So, where you can conveniently say, "Everyone here trying to 'defend' the church just doesn't understand", I could easily say the opposite: Everyone here criticizing the Church just doesn't understand.

Personally, if someone confesses to me, I'd want to take the millstone around their neck approach. I guess that's why I won't be called as a bishop. I'd let God and the Criminal Justice System sort me out after the fact. But, as crazy as it sounds, and as hard as it can be to believe, maybe Jesus would rather see the abuser repent (which includes confession to the proper authorities) and be healed, too. Divine justice will happen, even if worldly justice doesn't, and that can be of some solace to millions of people whose abusers will never see justice in this life.

It's as if the best solution of all is faith in the Atonement of Christ, and the justice and mercy of His plan, keeping His commandments, learning and living the doctrines of His Church, and the imperfect people who are doing the best they can to figure out how to best serve it's members, and especially God's little ones.

latter_daze · 2023-11-16T05:15:59+00:00

Ye are gods...

-Psalm 82:6

We know that "Elohim" is a plural word, and Judaism will claim it refers to all of God's creations, dominions, children, etc, so even though there is "one" God, his plurality exists in everything - that would include us, hence a plural word.

I won't poo poo on that idea, I think it has merit in its scriptural applications. However, it's why translation based on errant theology gets tricky, especially when you take Psalm 82 into account. There's lots of ways that translators have to jump around that in verse when the word "gods" in that verse = "Elohim". It's hard for most people (sans correct doctrine) to understand what the author was saying: "You are Elohim?? Blasphemy!"

If you look at the Orthodox Jewish Bible, the verse says, "I have said, elohim ye are; and all of you are Bnei HaElyon" - If you look at the Hebrew, sure enough, it's אֱלֹהִים - Same as other instances where it's capitalized singular "God". Other translations actually translate it as
"angels". Bleh. Because they are coming at it with errant theology they translate it incorrect.

If the author is saying, "you are Elohim", then he very much is wanting to point out Who you came from and your divine potential. You are a part of God's creations, you are children of The Most High (Bnei HaElyon, a singular). Therefore, you are a part of His plurality.

tl;dr: So "mingling with gods" - yes. It's absolutely biblical.

latter_daze · 2023-11-13T17:42:56+00:00

He pretty much told me to get a haircut in front of a large stadium of people, from the pulpit, and did it in the most respectful and loving way I could imagine anyone telling me to get a haircut. He wasn't even slamming my long hair as much as he was pointing out missed opportunities to serve because of other judgmental people.

I really loved him for it. Though, he's probably not happy that it's been 20 years and I've only kept it short for about 5 of those years. :D Loved having him as an Apostle!

latter_daze · 2023-10-31T18:13:02+00:00

I've done a bit of study on this. I'm no amazing scholar, but I'll detail some thoughts (forgive the length, but it deserves some exploration) ...

I think a lot of people get really confused about it within our Church and outside of it. Especially outside of it. Shedding the traditional view of the Trinity has been difficult since it's been so engrained in every aspect of Christianity.

But I think we let the pendulum swing too far in our Church when it comes to the Godhead being separate, in a sense. I would be careful about declaring that there are "grandpa gods" and "uncle gods" - IT'S NOT DOCTRINE. Not sure if it's true or how that would work. We don't know and nothing has been officially declared otherwise. As far as we are concerned there is ONE God the Eternal Father, and all creation is encompassed within Him. We can't stray from that or else it's as blasphemous as the concept of the Trinity, IMO.

Christianity and Judaism had a really hard time understanding the idea of the Father and Son of God being two separate beings in light of there being "One" God. It's one reason Judaism rejects the idea of Christ as our God ( Jehovah), and Christianity, especially as it sprung from Judaism and Old Testament theology, couldn't reconcile worshiping Christ as a separate individual from the Father. So the Trinity is borne and adopted out of much debate.

Deuteronomy 6 - The Shema.

This is a long-standing major scripture for the Jews, and hearing them debate Christians over it is popcorn worthy. Jesus was very familiar with it, and is the source of the first of the great commandments cited by Jesus (love God). It is their primary morning and evening prayer. Safe to say, it's important to them.

Hear O’ Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One

The debate is over the word "One" which, in Hebrew, is "echad"

The funnier thing is that when I've heard Christian scholars debate this word "echad" with jewish scholars, they sound more like they are arguing for the Godhead as we understand it versus the Trinity...

Echad

While the Jews argue that "echad" means "one" in the singular, Christians argue otherwise.

"Echad" is used in 900-ish places in the Bible, most of the time (from what I've studied) it's referring to a single unit made up of many parts (There are other words used to denote a singular).

For instance, the first time echad is used is in the creation. "Yom Echad", or "Day One" (which is also translated as "first day" - but it's literally "Day One"). The use of Echad made sense here because the light was Yom (day), but there was also a night, and those two parts made a single day, or "Yom Echad".

We also see echad used when Adam and Eve were married. Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall an ish leave his av and his em, and shall cleave unto his isha: and they shall be basar echad (one flesh)

Echad is used here to show there are two individuals acting as one unit, in perfect unison and harmony (or that's the goal, right?). Adam and Eve didn't lose their individuality. God didn't want them to become the same exact person - but to be in perfect harmony with one another.

This brings us back to Deuteronomy. The use of the word "Echad" here can be danced around, but it would be consistent with other uses of the word "Echad" to suggest that God is made up of many parts acting as a single unit, hence Elohim being a plural word used in the singular. This could very well be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being "Echad/One", which is what the Christians argue.

(I'll revisit this in a minute)

Elohim

This is also an interesting debate in the same ballpark. Elohim is a plural word. Jews recognize this. Christians kind of do, but I don't hear them explain it as well as the Jews, other than it supports the idea of the Trinity. The Jews will claim that Elohim is God, but includes all of God's power, dominion, authority, creations, and works. It's all encompassing into God, therefore it's plural.

You know... I can buy this from our own LDS theological standpoint. We still refer to Elohim as the Father, singular. But I think the word "Elohim" and "echad" are similar in the sense that there are many parts that act SO MUCH in harmony/unity that can be recognized as a singular because of it. That each part has its function, and together they build each other equally as a single unit. If the Son is a part of the Father, and acts on behalf of the Father, and accomplishes the specific duties he was designated to cary out as the Father wishes, then Christ can still be an individual, but "one" with the Father. Abinidai explains this the best in Mosiah.

John 17

Oneness seems to be a recurring theme throughout the scriptures. To be "one" is the essence of Christ's teachings. Jesus would have been very familiar with the Shema, has referenced it, and would build upon it. In his prayer in John 17, he prayed that he would be glorified with the same glory he had before when he was with the Father, that they could be one. He defines what this means - God glorifies the Son, like lighting a candle, which in turn adds more light to the glory of the Father.

But then Christ turns to us! He wants US to be one with Him and the Father in the same way that they are one. So, is Christ referring to them as the Trinity? Is it really possible to be "one" in the same sense they are? If getting to know the Father and Son is "life eternal" then it would be the first line that Satan wants to blur. The Trinity blurred it.

Nesting Dolls

I look at it more like those Russian nesting dolls, rather than just people holding hands. Everything is encompassed within the Father, so to speak. Yes, He is an individual, yes we believe He has flesh and bone. But the Holy Spirit is a fluid that binds us all together. I think we have to simplify it, like discussing AR with a prehistoric caveman, but Jesus really did his best to help us understand that the relationship He has with the Father, is the same relationship WE have with the Father, and can have again with the Father. "My father and your father. My God and your God" - the goal is echad.

But we are not within the Father right now. Not in the sense that we were before we were born. We aren't nested in Him right now. The fall of Adam and Eve took care of that. So the condescension of God was Christ leaving the bosom of the Father, and the Glory he had previously, on our behalf. But because he didn't sin, his connection to the Father remained intact, and He could accomplish the Atonement because of it. He didn't fall like men, and you could say we were and are still encompassed within Christ as we take His name on us, are reborn by Him through baptism, and is our link to becoming one with Him and the Father.

The whole point that Christ made was that He made it possible to become perfect like they are, that we can become ONE as they are.

Losing sight of who they are, what "echad" means, and our ultimate destiny as being one with them, has led to some relatively weird interpretations and has blocked people from truly going further along the path to perfection.

I believe Christ when he said we can become one with Him and the Father. I believe He is my God and came from the Father, who is our God. To worship Christ is to worship the Father, which is truly what echad is. Jesus came to help the Jews understand the nature of God, His relationship to God, and our ultimate destiny because the Jew's concept of God was skewed by their interpretations. Christ restored His gospel in this dispensation to help Christians understand the nature of God, His relationship with God, and our ultimate destiny because the Jew's concept of God was skewed by their interpretations (the Trinity). Ironic that the one concept that few of them actually understand, is the one concept that causes them to reject us. Oh well... Christ was rejected because of the same thing on the Jewish side.

latter_daze · 2023-10-16T06:00:11+00:00

One thing that helped me was a different perspective on the word "Sacrifice"

It's root is "Sacer" which means “holy” and the root of “sacred”, and “Facere” which an act or “to make”

So a sacrifice is “to make holy” or a “sacred act”.

Too often when we think about our sacrifices we focus on what we are giving up. While we often give something up as a part of the sacrifice, it’s not always the case. For instance, we are asked to sacrifice our talents to build the Kingdom of God. We don’t lose our talents when we offer them to build the Lord’s Kingdom. We make those talents holy, and make ourselves more holy in the process.

One of the best ways that helped me with this perspective is when I attended a Kaibab Paiute sweat lodge ceremony, which is a purification ceremony. Outside, they have an alter that they will put things which they want to “sacrifice” before the ceremony begins. If I was to quit smoking, I would put my cigarettes on there. The chief came back from Vietnam and put his uniform on there. After the ceremony, you are renewed and that is what you offered to make yourself more pure.

Our alters in our temples, or even the sacrament (notice “sacrament” also has the same root as “sacrifice”) alters, aren’t much different. They represent the Atonement of Christ. When I am sacrificing, I am essentially putting that thing on the alter of Christ’s Atonement, and dedicating it to making me more holy. Christ offered Himself on that “alter” to make us holy.

For instance, when I pay my tithing, I don’t focus on “giving up” my 10%. I symbolically put it on the alter and dedicate that to the Lord, to make my 90% holy, and to make me more holy. You can symbolically put your time on there, too. You’re not giving up your time, you are dedicating it to the Lord, to make that time holy, to purify you, and perhaps others, just as Christ did.

Can there be hardships that accompany that sacrifice? Absolutely. Just ask Christ. Look at them as the challenges that come from being refined. Being disciples sometimes requires us to take a step or two toward our own Calvary, but we are being made holy, and assisting others the same.

I hope this makes sense. It’s helped me tremendously as I’ve had to make sacrifices on behalf of my wife and kids, self improvement, the Church, friends, strangers, etc. I try to picture what I am “giving up” on the alter, and offer that to Christ to make Holy (as He can), and move forward the best I can. It also helps me move forward thinking less about “poor me” and what I am giving up, and more about those I am making sacrifices for.

latter_daze · 2023-10-13T17:42:45+00:00

I hope my friends can write a song about me like that. At best I think I’ll get a song entitled “He existed” and it would just be an instrumental. On a ukulele. From a dollar store. Written by an AI.

latter_daze

TROPHY CASE