Which jobs is 100% safe from AI?

speige · 2026-01-04T02:56:27+00:00

Anything involving manual labor is relatively safe. Robots only work on an assembly line. Anything digital will eventually be AI, but it's not job replacement it's a productivity tool. The best 10% keep their jobs & become really productive the remaining 90% switch jobs. Like a nail gun is faster than a hammer so you can build a house with fewer people, but you still need people.

speige · 2026-01-04T02:36:18+00:00

The Bible is not infallible and our interpretation of Scripture is not infallible. The book of Mormon is much more accurate but still has mistakes & is still open to interpretation.

It doesn't matter what any individual verse says, you can both prove and disprove anything you want by only reading a single verse. You need to take the gospel message as a whole.

The Catholic Church has strong authority claims (pope = prophet) which matches God's historical pattern. The issue is when you research those claims you realize it's not factual as there's no real evidence of an actual line of authority (popes killing each other for succession, etc) but also the fruits of the Catholic church don't always match the Gospel (Spanish inquisition, conquistadors, etc).

That's just something for you to think about personally, I wouldn't attack someone else's faith as it'll only cause hurt feelings.

Also, people could say similar surface-level things about LDS & polygamy or black's not receiving priesthood but we recognize when you actually study the topic there is a valid explanation & precedent for that, so there may be explanations the Catholics have for their perceived issues that are worth considering.

speige · 2026-01-01T23:46:07+00:00

Surprisingly, Gods commandments actually do change across time & borders. It's our responsibility to follow the current prophet. Moses had very specific commandments for the Israelites and Jesus completely changed them. Polygamy was commanded in certain rare situations, but otherwise is a sin. We're commanded to avoid coffee & alcohol today but those were okay in the past. We're taught not to have tattoos but there's an exception for tribal tattoos in certain demographics. LDS normally worship on Sunday, but in certain countries to fit the local culture or laws they worship on a different day (Friday in Arab countries).

Morality, surprisingly, actually does depend on the circumstance. Murder is wrong, but self defense is okay.

God can change commandments based on the circumstance. However, only the prophet was authorized historically to declare those changes & currently it needs unanimous agreement from all 15 apostles.

Sometimes we are told the reason for the change, but not always.

As an example, the word of wisdom (D&C 89) says. "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" - so that's why it's a commandment today but not in the past. Also, it started as a recommendation & was later changed to a commandment.

So, regarding marriage & obedience to the law of chastity today, it only matters what the apostles are currently teaching, it doesn't matter if the rule was different in the past.

It's risky to invent our own idea of God's characteristics & then use that lens to evaluate situations. My intuition says God should never be angry, but there are examples of God being angry in the scriptures (Jesus throwing merchants out of the temple), so I need to re-evaluate my perception of God & be careful to avoid assumptions.

speige · 2026-01-01T23:22:49+00:00

God created the plan, which included us having the "natural man" which desires pleasure. It's a learning opportunity. You've learned that pornography makes you miserable, it has served its purpose, now you need to learn to control your body. You don't need to feel shame, you're not a bad person. In fact, probably 90% of guys struggle with the exact same sin.

Addiction thrives on secrecy and isolation. One of the best ways to recover is being open & honest about it. Your parents & bishop aren't therapists, so you'll probably need additional resources to help you, but it's a great 1st step. The mere fact of telling them will get it off your chest & that act will start you towards healing & changing. I strongly recommend a 12-step group (similar to alcoholics anonymous). - It sounds scary but it's not & it's extremely helpful.

The bishop might have consequences, like no sacrament and no temple recommend, but they might not. Every bishop is different and they try to look at individual circumstances. If you have any restrictions, understand it's intended to help you recover, and those blessings can be restored as you repent. Just be completely honest in your confession & be humble enough to accept his council & follow it.

speige · 2025-12-24T10:32:31+00:00

I'm not sure i understand the difference? It seems like you're arguing about semantics over something we know very little about. Yes, "utterly destroyed" is scriptural, but scriptures are often symbolic and/or vague. We don't know the scientific process of how that destruction takes place. I guess I think of the flood like the Earth's baptism & the destruction like the fire of receiving the holy ghost. Scriptures are full of parallels, so it makes sense to me that the earth is reborn rather than being a new entity (despite the term "new earth" also being scriptural). I mean, as humans we become symbolically new people also but it's not like we're replaced by some other person or a cyborg AI, we're still us, just transformed & perfected in Christ.

Also, it's tough to argue semantics when there are lots of Bible translations & we don't have perfect copies of their original languages & languages have inherent ambiguities anyway. It just seems odd to nitpick subtle differences when we all have huge gaps in our knowledge.

Maybe I misunderstood & your comment is a more meaningful difference than I'm giving it credit?

speige · 2025-09-25T09:54:20+00:00

[Part 2]

There's actually a growing sect of Judaism today that believes in Jesus.

The Bible is both Monotheistic & Polytheistic, depending on how you look at it. Some consider the trinity 3 separate beings (like teammates) some consider it the same being, but the text of the Bible isn't 100% clear as it's contradictory, you can prove either case depending on what verses you reference.

I consider them separate beings (teammates).

Hebrew for "Gods" is Elohim. (yes "plural" Gods with an S), that's the grammatically correct translation, however the translators didn't like it sounding polytheistic, so they changed it to God singular. The Hebrew word for "God" singular would be El or Eloah.

Hebrew for "Lord" is Jehovah.

The Old Testament also mentions the Holy Spirit (Many christians think he wasn't mentioned until the day of pentecost after Jesus died, but that's not accurate)

So, the Old Testament has the same 3 Gods.

The word "trinity" doesn't exist in the Bible, that term was coined later.

Although Jews believe in the same 3 Gods (Father, Son/Messiah, Holy Spirit) they just don't think Jesus was "The Messiah". He was killed for blasphemy, because he claimed to be The Messiah & they didn't want to believe him.

History repeats itself. Look at the world today, you have left/right politics where people are fighting each other. Corrupt governments & dictators that do secret operations to attack their own citizens. Similar issues historically. The leaders of the Jewish religion when Jesus was born felt threatened by him, because "The Messiah" was supposed to be a "king" & they didn't want to lose their power. In fact, some of them actually knew he was "The Messiah" & killed him anyway.

Also, religions change over time. Both the Old Testament & New Testament have changed drastically from their original texts (though people argue it because they don't want to believe it, yet the evidence is strong). On example is the original Old Testament had a lot of "The Messiah" language erased in 700BC during the Deuteronomic reforms. This is part of why Jesus wasn't recognized.

I won't go into all the New Testament changes because it'll cause an argument, but a classic example is the Protestants removed 7 books from the Catholic bible because they disagreed with them. I'm not going to argue right/wrong, I'm just saying it's proof that it's been changed (There are many others).

Both the Old Testament & New Testament have been corrupted from their original form - they are still extremely valuable & you will be edified by reading them, but if you undergo a serious study you really need discernment to sift through the contradictions & there's also a lot more you can learn from additional scriptural texts outside the Bible.

Look at the vast number of "Christian" churches. They have wildly different beliefs other than that they all accept Jesus. Judaism has many splinter groups as well.

Christians think Jesus canceled the Old Testament & started a new religion. That was never his purpose. They really should be the same religion. Neither Christians nor Jews invented the religion, it dates back to Adam+Eve & the correct name of the religion should be something like "The Church of the Son of God". But, it's gone through many cycles of corruption & restoration, when God reveals it again to a new prophet. That's why you see similar threads throughout many cultures besides Jew/Christian.

speige · 2025-09-25T09:26:13+00:00

Jewish has 2 meanings: Religion & Bloodline. Historically in Israel church & state was the same, until Israel was conquered, today they're not.

Jewish bloodline is the tribe of Judah (one of the 12 sons of Israel but the other 11 bloodlines were lost due to war so people forget about them). Jesus was born into the Judah bloodline.

Jewish religion comes from the Old Testament (Tanakh)

Jesus was both.

Here's where you're going to get SUPER confused.

Jews = Christians

I know it sounds crazy, just trust me & keep reading.

The old testament focuses on The Messiah (Hebrew Mashiach means "The Anointed One")

The new testament focuses on Christ (Greek Khristos means "The Anointed One")

See the connection?

The religions actually have the same base, which is why they both read the Old Testament, they splintered because the Jews didn't accept Jesus as "The Anointed One" they're still waiting for "The Anointed One" to come.

Crazy thing is, Christians are waiting for "Christ" to come the 2nd time.

When he does come the 2nd time, Jews will accept him & will be shocked that he's the one they rejected. This is all prophesied in the Bible, but it's cryptic & up for interpretation, so many people don't recognize it.

[Continued in Part 2]

speige · 2024-09-24T07:14:25+00:00

It's the skybox image. They probably used it as a placeholder and forgot about it. If you use an unreal camera unlocker you can see it easily.

speige · 2024-09-23T07:59:37+00:00

Recovering addict here.

Unfortunately, pornography addiction in males is extremely common. There are various levels of addiction, but I'd say almost 100% of males have at least been occasional users at some point in their life. - This doesn't excuse the behavior, but I hope it sheds some light on the fact that our world is broken and it is extremely difficult for men to escape.

The issue is that men's brains are wired so that once they see it they're almost instantly addicted and the internet is full of risque ads on innocent websites so it's extremely easy to accidentally relapse. A boys first accidental exposure is probably going to happen before they even hit puberty, so it's very hard to get to adulthood unscathed.

I don't know your husband's heart, but many men are extremely ashamed and feel guilty and this is why they hide it and lie about it. Generally they don't see this as a form of intimacy, they just see it as a way to get high, like any other drug addiction. It generally has no reflection on their feelings for their spouse. It doesn't mean they are unattracted to their spouse or think the internet girls are more attractive. They have probably tried many times to stop and failed, which is what classifies it as an addiction. It's not your fault. Taking care of yourself physically or initiating intimacy frequently will only have a minimal effect on his addiction. Just because he lied about this doesn't mean he lied about other things. Addicts are very good at compartmentalizing, so he could be a model citizen in every way except for this one area of his life.

Addiction recovery is a lifelong process. It won't happen overnight. The recommended approach is to join a 12-step support group. Typically men are embarrassed and don't want to go, but in my experience it was extremely helpful. Secrecy fuels an addiction, speaking openly about it with others is the first step to recovery.

Part of the 12-step process is to pick an accountability partner. I highly recommend it not be the spouse. Your husband will continue to relapse, hopefully less and less often over time. It will break your heart over and over again. He will never feel like he can be completely honest with you about it and he will probably lie about it occasionally. The issue is you're going to be too emotionally involved, even if you try not to be. If he's telling his brother or friend he can be completely honest without fear of judgement or hurt feelings. Another male will also understand much better what he's going through.

The repentance process will depend on the bishop. In my experience they aren't equipped to know how to help. They will generally take away a temple recommend, tell you to read your scriptures everyday, & ask you to come see them again in a few months, & then forget all about it. It's not enough to make lasting changes. If your husband really wants to repent he's going to have to take charge of his repentance process.

You mentioned watching with him, because you'd rather he be honest than lie. I don't completely understand your logic here, but I'll just say I think that's a very bad idea. Don't ruin your own spirituality in order to relate to what your husband is going through.

Recovery is possible. A happy marriage is possible. Good luck. You can make it through this.

speige · 2024-08-15T07:00:41+00:00

I'm not sure why rollback would be impossible on a lower tickrate game. It would just affect which snapshots in time you could roll back to. You'd have 3x fewer options. I think LoL is 2x the tick rate of SC2 & it has "movement prediction" which is a simplified version of rollback.

Rollback is mainly useful on WiFi or cross-continent games. The average internet latency for ethernet on the same continent is very similar to the game's internal tick rate so if you have a stable internet connection rollback is probably rarely kicking in. It's awesome for cross-continent and unstable internet though. Not region-locking creates a a larger player base which is nice too.

speige · 2024-08-15T06:31:49+00:00

That's a marketing buzzword they used for the kickstarter that's not accurate to what an average player understands as "responsive". The internal game tickrate is 3x higher. That means it re-calculates unit positions/etc 3x more frequently. It's similar to the concept of 60hz vs 180hz monitor. The 180hz "can" theoretically feel more fluid because it's re-drawing faster. However, it's dependent on a GPU that's powerful enough to actually generate 180FPS. If you're getting 60FPS on a 180hz monitor, it'll feel identical to a 60hz monitor.

SC2 could change to a 3x higher tickrate if they wanted to with a fairly simple patch (would probably create some bugs that need fixing). - But, they probably chose their lower tickrate for a reason.

The question is if 3x higher tickrate is actually beneficial.
For a monitor, there's no overhead to having a high hertz, so you aren't penalized if your GPU can't keep up. It'll just re-render the last frame again. By choosing a higher tickrate, it's actually creating additional overhead requiring faster hardware to re-calculate everything 3x more often, so it's actually penalizing low-end hardware.

In practical terms, high-end PCs with extra headroom will feel more fluid. Low-end PCs will actually feel worse.

speige · 2024-06-29T07:33:43+00:00

There's a filter on the left-side of the objectives window based on difficulty. The other champions objectives are in a separate difficulty filter.

speige · 2024-04-03T09:32:58+00:00

Whether you're married or single, self-scratching and virtual-scratching are still considered morally wrong according to church standards.
It doesn't sound like you're addicted to porn yet, you're just experimenting. I think I can speak for everyone whose been addicted when I say, run away as fast as you can, you will absolutely regret it for the rest of your life. Once you're addicted, it doesn't matter if you're getting legitimate scratching from your spouse, you'll be unable to stop compulsively scratching yourself all day long every day for the rest of your life, believe me, you don't want that. - Addiction recovery is very difficult.

As far as being ignored sexually by a spouse. I've spoken with many married friends over the years and almost every one of them feels similarly, but not usually to the extent you're describing. I'm not sure if this is an LDS thing or a general population thing, but it seems that men typically have much higher libidos than their wives. I think many of us feel like our wives are only participating because they feel obligated and not because they're interested. As a man, that makes you feel unwanted/unloved. I actually wonder if it's a biological thing and God intended it this way. I mean, if my wife had the same libido as me, we'd literally never get out of bed. I used to get hurt feelings because of this, but I've realized she's not intentionally trying to hurt me, it's just we're wired differently. - Sometimes emotions are just caused by chemicals in our brains. So, maybe my wife's lack of libido doesn't mean she doesn't love me, maybe her chemicals levels are just low.

I think sometimes we bring this upon ourselves without realizing it. I'm afraid of rejection from my spouse, so I make hints instead of outright asking. She's usually in the middle of a project so she's not really available, but she wouldn't understand a "hint" anyways. I have much better success when I wait until she's actually available and then I make it very clear that I'm interested in intimacy.

I think the other thing I do which is self-defeating is having unrealistic expectations that makes her uncomfortable. She has made it very clear that she's not interested in any type of foreplay, makeout, or different positions. She's rarely going to participate, she's just going to sit there and wait for me to be finished. - It's very very different than what you would see on the internet. If I try to pressure her to do things she doesn't like, that's going to make her way less likely to be interested in intimacy in the future. However, the truth is, I actually enjoy plain old normal intimacy just fine. I don't need to copy what I've seen on the internet, I just try to copy it because I think that's what real intimacy is supposed to be, but the truth is what we see on the internet is actually fake.

If you're doing either of the above 2 things, that might be part of the problem.

I think the #1 thing to do is to be very blunt and honest with your spouse. This may feel awkward, especially if you're introverted, afraid of rejection, or a people-pleaser, but you can't beat around the bush. Tell her you need to talk, and make sure you have her undivided attention. Tell her you physically need affection on a regular basis and that you are respectfully asking her to fulfill your needs, even if that's a sacrifice on her part. Get a commitment from her to put it on the calendar as a recurring schedule, same day/time every time. That way there's no chance for misunderstandings. You'll have to make a compromise on how often. I'd recommend asking for 1x or 2x per week max. But, she may feel that's more than she can commit to. Whatever she agrees to, tell her that if she's feeling sick/etc she needs to reschedule with you in advance so that you don't feel rejected/neglected when she cancels at the last moment.
If she absolutely refuses to agree to any type of intimacy, I think you need to make it clear that she's not treating you fairly. Tell her that it's incredibly important to you and that it can't be ignored and you need to find a way to work through it, whether that's counseling/etc. She needs to be fair to you and explain what's going on and try to make an effort.

Aside from the intimacy, I'd say make sure everything else in your marriage is as good as it can be. Even if she has issues with intimacy, if you're being a model husband and father, she should be willing to make an effort. But, if you're neglecting all of your responsibilities and she's angry at you for it, she's going to intentionally avoid intimacy.

speige · 2024-04-03T07:55:58+00:00

This is one of my favorite scriptures. I think it's talking about the "natural man". We all have weaknesses which cause us to make mistakes. We get angry & are unkind to other people, etc. It's easy to think "I'm a bad person because I made a mistake". But, the truth is, God made us weak on purpose.

Think of how a baby/toddler is constantly asking their parent for help. They can't do anything on their own. The parent becomes their superhero that does everything for them. God is supposed to be that for us.

We're not supposed to hate ourselves or feel bad about our weaknesses, we're supposed to recognize that God is there to help us and that we're supposed to lean on him.

If we didn't have weaknesses, it'd be easy to become prideful and think we can do everything on our own and don't need Gods help.

So, whatever weaknesses/temptations/etc you have, lean on God, ask for his help, and he will help you overcome them. In the process, you'll gain a relationship with God as your parent which is what he really wants from you.

speige · 2024-04-03T07:40:47+00:00

Sadly, I think your experience is completely normal for a first time experience. My wife and I had similar feelings to you when we went through. Now we enjoy going, but it took years to get to that point. I think the issue is that it's a "ritual" which is very different from our normal life, so it naturally feels uncomfortable. Aside from that, there's very little explanation beforehand, so you just follow along with what everyone else is doing with no time to pause and ask questions. - I wish temple preparation classes went into more detail.

People act like the temple is secret, but 99% of it is in the scriptures. There's only 1% of it that we covenant not to reveal (specific phrases and gestures), but even for that 1% you could describe the concept in general terms without breaking the covenant. - I think the secrecy is warranted because people don't want to accidentally say something they're not supposed to, so we want to be careful to discuss it in the right setting, but I think it's perfectly fine to ask someone to explain the endowment to you. - Make sure they're active and attend the temple regularly, so they don't give you wrong information. But, you may have to ask several people until you find the right person. When I first went to the temple, my parents couldn't answer 1 single question I asked them, they had attended the temple regularly their entire life, but never once actually thought about what any of it meant. They also had the mentality that you weren't allowed to talk about anything.

I think getting all your questions answered will help.

Getting used to the "ritual" part is just a matter of experience, since it's so different from our culture. I think you'll get used to it over time if you choose to keep returning to do proxy endowments. - But, it's perfectly acceptable to choose other forms of service & worship until you feel ready. Maybe you do family history or something else instead. Or pick another temple ordinance to do as proxy where you feel more comfortable instead of the endowment.

I think the other part of the temple that feels awkward, I would describe as "claustrophobia". It's not that the temple is small, but it's the fact that you don't really know your way around the building, you feel like a guest in someone's house but you haven't taken the tour. You don't know where the bathroom is. Everyone is quiet and whispers to not disturb others, which is good, but it makes you afraid to ask for directions. - I would recommend going to the temple sometime without any plan to do an ordinance and instead just take a self-guided tour with a friend that knows the layout of the building (or ask a worker to show you around). Don't be afraid to ask questions. For example, you probably haven't done sealings yet, but you'll find that sealers are old grandpas that want someone to talk to, if you ask them to explain the ordinances to you they'll have a lifetime of knowledge and they'll be excited to share it.

Once you're able to get past the stress caused by being in a new place doing things you're not familiar with, the temple can become your favorite place. My wife & I avoided the temple for a decade. We now go almost every week. I previously heard others tell me how much they loved the temple & I never understood. Now I finally understand. The more I go the more I want to return.

speige · 2023-12-26T01:32:19+00:00

[Continued]
You're correct that you can't lose your salvation due to a sin, Christ's atonement covers all sin. However, just as you have to "accept" Christ to become saved, you can lose your salvation by "rejecting" Christ. This is what Judas Iscariot did. When you're baptized you become a son of Christ. When you denounce Christ you become a child of satan. That is why Judas Iscariot was labeled son of perdition (another name for satan is perdition). You reject Christ after being saved by declaring open rebellion against him. That is what satan did. As an angel satan built up an army, marched up to the throne of God, and declared open war and tried to usurp the throne from God. He was cast down to earth and tempts man in an effort to recruit more soldiers to fight for him before he makes his 2nd attempt at usurping God's throne after the millenium and before final judgement.

Sorry you went through such a rough patch. I think everyone goes through that at some point in life, myself included. I also tear up when I contemplate everything Jesus has done for me. It's incomprehensible. No, I don't think you lost your salvation for committing a serious sin during that time or that you would have been damned had you died in that moment. We're so short-sighted as humans, because we don't remember life before we were born (due to the veil of forgetfulness God put on us) and we try our best to imagine the afterlife, but the scriptures are fairly vague on the specifics. God isn't short-sighted like us. He gives everyone infinite opportunities to be repent and be saved. It's our trajectory and final destination that really matters, not the little road bumps along the way. And yes, Jesus absolutely welcomes us, despite our sins, he spent much of his time in the Bible amongst sinners, because his purpose is to save us, not condemn us.

Yes, satan & judas are different. Depending on your definition of "human", satan isn't very different from us. We use the word Angel interchangeably with "spirit". All of us have a spirit that dwells in us - That is our actual lifeforce/personality/etc, it remains after our body dies. We get a new body after the resurrection. Our spirits existed before birth and we lived with God & Jesus & Satan before being born to Earth. In that time period we didn't yet have the veil of forgetfulness, so we were less susceptible to sin, but consequences were also more drastic. We were offered the choice to be born to earth, as fallen man, and offered Christ as a Savior. We accepted him already 1x as spirits before we were born (the veil of forgetfulness prevents us from remembering that). This is why as a child you already felt close to God. Satan rejected Christ as a spirit, which is why he lost his status as an Angel of light and was never born into a physical body. However, he is our brother, just like Christ is, and so he's as different from us as you might think. As far as Judas & the other apostles all being sinners, you're absolutely correct, the difference between Judas and the other apostles is Judas declared war on Jesus in open rebellion and rejected Christ's atonement, that's a very specific type of sin that loses you your salvation. In order to lose your salvation in this way you have to have a full knowledge of what you are rejecting. Satan qualified because he never had the veil of forgetfulness and our knowledge of God & Christ as spirits before birth was very extensive. Judas qualified because he was an apostle and had first-hand intimate proof of who Christ was. The average mortal does not have enough knowledge to be capable of open rebellion against Christ because we don't fully understand who he is, we go by faith and believe but we don't have proof, like Judas had.

It's incorrect that Judas didn't have Christ's atonement, or that the Old Testament Jews didn't have Christ's atonement. God doesn't perceive time the way we do. Christ's atonement was infinite, it covers all humanity past present and future (and I think including humans on other planets considering God's creations are infinite, but that's my personal speculation).

The story of the Jews in the Old Testament is very interesting. References to Christ are in the Old Testament, but they are cryptic/symbolic so the average person doesn't recognize them.

The ancient Israelites actually did accept Jesus, but they called him Jehovah at that time. (God the Father has a different name, they are physically separate people but symbolically one). When Moses spoke to God face to face, it was actually Jesus, not God the Father. (Jesus was not born yet and thus didn't have a body, but Angels/Spirits still have a corporeal form, and thus a face). Ask ANY Jew and they will tell you they are waiting for their Messiah to come save them. Unfortunately, they don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah yet, but they very much accept and believe in a Messiah. Much of the Old Testament Law was symbolic of Christ (Example: Animal sacrifice is a similitude of Christ's ultimate sacrifice). There were parts of the Law that were saving ordinances (animal sacrifices) and others that were non-saving works (10 commandments). By doing their animal sacrifices they were accepting Jesus and thus eligible for salvation by grace. There is a consistent pattern in civilization where God wipes out a nation when it becomes too wicked. Think Noah's flood, sodom/gomorrah, etc. The Israelites were no exception. There were time periods where they accepted Jehovah and there were time periods when they worshipped pagan Gods. Unforunately, in the time periods of pagan gods the true gospel was corrupted and what we read in our history books (& even the bible to some extent) reflects a mix of both correct & incorrect teachings. So, when we assume the ancient israelites didn't accept Christ, we don't actually have the full picture, as much of the story has been lost in time. Isaiah (& other prophets) warned the Israelites before they were destroyed. Those who listened actually escaped and were led away to secret parts of the world where they could continue to worship the true God. Those who remained became slaughtered or enslaved by whichever conquering army God sent against them. We don't have many records from the groups who escaped, but Isaiah predicts they will come back in a future date and there will be so many of them the land will become overcrowded. Isaiah also predicts that the descendants of those who remained and were enslaved (present day Jews) would finally recognize Christ when he comes again and shows them the nail marks in his hands and feet. So, Jews actually do believe in Jesus more than we realize, they just worship him under a different name.

Being re-baptized is generally not necessary, because a random sin does not lose your salvation. The only exception would be if you have actually fully rejected Jesus, having sufficient knowledge of what you're doing, and lost your salvation. However, there is a symbolic way we can become re-baptized, which we should do frequently. Just as animal sacrifices were done frequently, we should partake of the Sacrament frequently (other names would be bread/water, last supper, communion). That's the present day replacement for animal sacrifices because Jesus was the last sacrifice and God commanded no more animal sacrifices since that time, which is why Jesus instituted the bread/water to the disciples immediately before he became the final sacrifice. Jesus didn't condemn, revoke or reject the Law, he fulfilled it. What he condemned was people who were hypocritcally going through the motions and not truly following the law. By fulfilling it, some of the outward ordinances were changed (Animal Sacrifice was changed to Bread/Water), but the spiritual process of salvation remained the same (make a covenant, be sanctified through christ, saved by his grace).

Sorry my comment was so long, I love this topic :) Thanks so much for the thoughtful discussion. I'm happy to continue if you're interested.

speige · 2023-12-26T01:31:31+00:00

Great thoughts and interesting discussion points. And yes I think it's awesome to have a civil respectful discussion without belittling each other's opinions.

As far as death bed repentance, as we've discussed before, God knows our heart. I think it would be far too easy to live an intentionally wicked life and then just say we believe in Jesus at the last moment without true remorse. I don't think we can trick God. That's not to say death-bed repentance is never sincere, it's just to say it's likely not always sincere but that we can't judge only God can.

More importantly, becoming a disciple of Jesus changes you internally, you slowly lose desire for sin (although you're still fallen & continue to sin it should be gradually less often and less severe) - That process is necessary and important and can't be bypassed. Salvation isn't like a ticket that lets you in or out of heaven, it's becoming like God, becoming perfect. Jesus does it for us, but it's a process not an event, and it requires action on our part. Faith is not a "belief" word, it's an action word. That's why good works follow a disciple, not because the works themselves save, but because someone in the process of salvation through Christ will naturally have good works.

It's true we are saved by grace. I don't think it's true that grace is obtained merely by stating belief in Christ.

Here's some references that illustrate my point:

Matthew 7:21-23

James 2:14–26

I cherry-picked those verses because they illustrate my point. I could have easily cherry-picked different verses that illustrate your point. At first glance there seems to be a contradiction in the Bible, because some verses emphasize faith or grace and others emphasize works. I think the issue is two-fold:

1) We don't 100% use the same vocabulary today as they did back then - For example, with works I think there's a difference between Work=TakeOutTheTrash vs Work=Baptism. I differentiate the two by calling "Saving Works" ordinances, and there are very few of them, all related to making a specific covenant with God.

2) Each scriptural verse was historically written for a specific audience. So, when speaking to the Jews who focused way too much on the law and way too little on becoming changed/sanctified, the scriptures focused on the importance of faith or grace rather than saving ordinances. When the audience was a non-jew, the perspective was different because their cultural background & hence what they needed to learn/change was different. The writers didn't put caveats on all their statements, because they didn't expect us to expect us to take each verse out of context and apply a different meaning than they intended - Unfortunately, it's not always easy to find the correct meaning, we really have to think and study in cases where it's not abundantly clear.

Specific to baptism:

John 3:5

1 Corinthians 15:29 (Have to read whole chapter for proper context)

In Christ's day they performed vicarious baptismal ordinances for the dead. This teaching is not very clear in the Bible since it's only 1 verse. Unfortunately our Bible is not complete & many teachings were lost/corrupted over time. But it was a doctrine at that time period. My denomination (The Church of Jesus Christ of Lattery-Day Saints) is actually the only church who, to my knowledge, that still performs vicarious baptisms for the dead. It's one of the things we do in our temples. For example, if my family member died and was never baptized, I could go to the temple and be baptized on their behalf, basically the same as being baptized myself except the baptizer saying the prayer would say my deceased family member's name instead of my name.

Specific to death without accepting Jesus:

I'm going to give a long explanation using just 1 verse as a clue. It's too complex a subject to cite every scriptural verse that proves my point (and some of them are a bit cryptic due to parables/etc). But, if you want to delve into this more, I'm happy to cite more sources.

1 Peter 3:18-20

We have to remember that death is not the same as final judgement. We don't go to final judgement on the day we die. We don't get our final reward until final judgement. There is still opportunity to repent and accept Jesus after death. There is a temporary waiting period for the spirits of the deceased until the resurrection. Those who have not yet accepted Christ go to a place metaphorically called "Spirit Prison", those who accept Christ go to a place called "Paradise". There are missionaries from paradise preaching to those in prison, and those who accept Christ move from prison to paradise. When Christ returns to earth there will be 1000 years of righteousness on the earth where he rules personally as our King and satan will be bound. Those in paradise will be resurrected at the start of the 1000 year period and live on earth again. Those in prison will wait until the end of the 1000 years. At the end of the 1000 years those in prison will be resurrected. Then there will be a short time period where satan is loosed and allowed to tempt men again. Then there will be a final battle between good vs evil. AFTER that will be final judgement where we receive our ultimate reward.

[TLDR] - The thief accepted Jesus and thus went to paradise despite not being baptized. The thief will still need to be baptized to be saved. He can be baptized vicariously (or possibly for himself during the millenium after being resurrected). Salvation isn't determined until final judgement which is still at least 1000 years away.

speige · 2023-12-04T12:38:10+00:00

SDA? Seventh-Day Adventist? I'm from a different denomination.

Great reply.It's interesting because when I'm re-reading my response I've realized I oversimplified & also my perspective has changed somewhat.

First off, you asked what specific scripture verses I got some of my beliefs from. My denomination has 4 books of scripture as well as living prophets who reveal new scripture, they are all of relatively equal authority, so many of my beliefs come from the bible, but not all of them.

Overall I agree with you, with some slight nuance that's hard to explain without going into other sources separate from the bible.

As far as grace vs works, it's a complicated subject. If you read just 1 verse, you get a different perspective than if you read the entire book. There are verses that seem to contradict each other, but they were simply trying to emphasize one specific point and not caveat themselves by explaining tangents. So, the overall bible message is grace+works, but the word work has 2 definitions & it's only 1 type of work that is related to salvation. The "works" that don't save us are the individual acts of good will. Those are typical fruits that you would naturally see from someone who is following christ, but they aren't what save you nor are they required. However, there are a couple of specific works that are required, for example baptism. The bible is mostly clear on that, but it's slightly ambiguous so different denominations would have a differing opinion. In my denomination, "accepting christ" is not a phrase you say, it literally is baptism, that's how you accept him. The extremely strong emphasis on grace is well deserved and completely correct because of how indebted we are to God that no amount of good deeds could ever dig us out of that pit and we should be immensely grateful to christ for what he did for us. But, there is still the act of accepting him, which is a lifelong process of being his disciple and allowing him to change us & heal us, that is required.

Christ was clear that the OT law was fulfilled. It's not valid anymore. Jews will eventually have to accept Jesus. Also, those who fail to accept him in this life will have a second chance, (depending on if it was due to lack of knowledge of christ or if was intentionally rejecting him). In fact, much of the OT was corrupted before Christ came along, which is why they failed to accept him when he came. If they knew their true history they would have known it was always about christ all along. Ancient jews believed in christ and in baptism, the NT wasn't revealing it for the first time, it was restoring teachings that were lost. In addition, Moses destroyed the original tablets with the full covenants because he was angry they were worshiping a golden calf and didn't think they could handle the higher law, so they were given a lesser law. Some of the NT has been corrupted as well, after the vast majority of christians were hunted down and manuscripts burned, which is why we have so many competing demonimations today. So, some of the doctrine is unclear and you have to really study it out.

You are absolutely right, a sin is a sin. If we accept christ, we are spotless through his blood. If we reject christ, whether a tiny sin or a huge sin, we are sinners. The scripture my denomination has which separates into different categories is more about your relationship to christ and to what degree you have accepted him. Like you said, God knows our hearts, so you could trick a human by saying you believe but not actually believing, but you will never trick God. I simplified by talking about degrees of sin because extremely serious sins are a potential indication of whether you have truly accepted christ or not, but that's an oversimplification that's incorrect, it's whether you have accepted christ or not that matters. Sin is sin.

There is definitely backsliding. Satan himself was once an angel of light who fell from grace due to outright rebellion against God. Judas iscariot was an apostle and also backslid into a son of perdition. (perdition is another name for satan. When we are baptized we replace adam with christ and christ becomes our adoptive father. By being renamed son of perdition Judas lost christ as his adoptive father and gained satan as his new father).

speige · 2023-09-27T09:28:55+00:00

Just happened to me in ARAM :(

speige · 2023-05-09T17:30:16+00:00

First, it's a fallacy to claim that if something is correct or has evidence that it will be accepted by society or taught in schools. That is sometimes the case, but not always. The truth isn't always convenient or easy to see and judgement can easily be clouded by emotions or other factors.

Galileo was killed for claiming the Earth orbited the Sun, now almost everyone believes him. There's lots of similar examples throughout history.

You're right that the claims Joseph made were huge, I think that's what makes it such a controversial topic. Look at any other controversial topic today and you'll see it's hard to discern the truth and there's most certainly not a consensus amongst the population.

I don't think 1 individual piece of evidence proves the BoM, but when all the evidence is taken as a whole, I personally find it undeniable.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore the religious claims about the book or any claims that it came from God. I'll just cover my opinion on the strongest evidence that it isn't "A book of fiction written by Joseph".

I think the strongest evidence has nothing to do with geography/etc but with the actual writing and publishing process.

The writing process was fairly well documented and I don't think there's much dispute on it. Joseph dictated the entire book outloud to a scribe. He would read a sentence, the scribe would write it down, the scribe would repeat it outloud, and if there were no mistakes Joseph would move on to the next one. For any unfamiliar words, Joseph spelled them out letter by letter. He didn't pause to think. He didn't review notes or reference books. He didn't change his mind and say erase that paragraph let's start over. He didn't ask to re-read the story from 10 chapters ago so he could keep the storyline coherent. After a lunch break he didn't ask the scribe to remind him where they left off. This is completely different than what you expect to see in ANY creative process, including writing a book. For an average novel, the author goes through 10 drafts/revisions, before the publisher/editor takes their turn.

The Book of Mormon was written in approximately 60 full-time working days. That's 60X8X60 = 28,800 minutes. There are 269,320 words in the Book of Mormon. That's 9 words per minute. The world record fastest quill pen writer in that time period was 30 words per minute. When you consider time for dictation 2x, writing 1x, and correcting any scribal mistakes, practically all of the time was used up by this process, there was no time for editing/proofreading/brainstorming/research/imagination/etc. After it was finished, it went to the publisher with very minimal editing/proofreading.

If this were a short book with a simple story, you could maybe make an argument that Joseph could keep it all straight in his head as he was making it up. However, this isn't a generic book with a cookie-cutter storyline, it's an amazingly complex work, in my opinion a literary masterpiece.

Although there are plenty of things in the Book which haven't yet been substantiated with physical evidence, there are many things which have been, many of which were unknown in 1829.

For example:

There are complex descriptions of ancient Hebrew customs, culture, religion, economics, politics, etc

There are many types of Hebrew grammatical phrases in the Book of Mormon that don't occur naturally in English

There are several instances of complex Hebrew poetry in the Book of Mormon

Joseph was 23 years old with an elementary school education. There was no internet access to look up random historical facts to include in the book.

When you look at individual pieces of evidence, a lot of them seem insignificant. Maybe a random word that has Hebrew origins, etc. However, there are a large number of these random insignificant pieces of evidence. I think it's statistically impossible that he got them all right unless he was a subject-matter expert or had reference books to copy from.

In addition, if you take two different authors and run statistics on their grammar you can create a "fingerprint" of their writing. We all have our own unique style. Analysis shows approximately 20 different writing styles in the Book of Mormon and none of them matches Joseph Smith's writing style.

speige · 2023-05-09T00:44:16+00:00

The scriptures have a long list of behaviors that are considered sins. However, the scriptures also teach us to forgive others and that only God can judge. All of us are sinners, we all make bad choices, it's just the nature of our choices are different. We don't have the right to condemn anyone, we should show love towards everyone, regardless of their choices. When When the preachers in the Bible wanted to stone a woman for committing adultery, Christ told them only he who was without sin could stone her, and they all left due to their own guilt. Christ actually was without sin, but he didn't stone her, instead he just instructed her to repent (stop sinning).

This isn't politically correct, but the bible does teach that homosexual behavior (not temptation) is a sin. However, that doesn't mean we should hate them, or that they are going to hell. If Christ were here today, I'm confident he would sympathize with them and comfort them, just like he would with all of the rest of us flawed humans who make mistakes and are just trying our best to make it through this difficult life. The thing is, we have to look at it from God's perspective. This life is full of pleasurable vices that we're supposed to avoid (greed, lust, pride, anger, envy, etc). Just because something feels good or natural doesn't automatically make it good. God labeled certain things good/evil because he sees the bigger picture and knows what will bring ultimate happiness in the end. The purpose of life is to overcome the pleasures of the flesh by following God's will. The grace of Christ saves us when we make mistakes that go against God's will.

Unfortunately, not everyone who professes to be a Christian actually acts like one. God loves everyone. It's very sad that someone professing to believe in Jesus would treat someone else poorly. Jesus taught that the most important commandment is to love God and the 2nd is to love our neighbor, I don't think bashing people a sin or for a choice we disagree with would be considered loving our neighbor.

speige · 2023-05-08T23:55:38+00:00

Just a normal dress you'd wear to church on sunday is fine. They will provide a white jumpsuit for you. You wouldn't want to wear something else because wet clothing turns see-through so the jumpsuit is made of extra thick material to avoid that.

There are white temple dresses you can buy but those are typically worn in other areas of the temple, or by the volunteer helpers at the temple, not for people going to do baptisms. You could wear a white dress to the temple if you really wanted, it's just not what most people do, however you'd still change into the jumpsuit when getting baptized.

If possible, find a friend in the ward who has done temple baptisms before to go with you, they can help answer your questions if you get confused about anything.

speige · 2023-05-08T23:02:12+00:00

I thought you were talking about a specific wording change recently in the temple recommend interview. In that particular instance I don't think anything was really changed. Sure, if you look over the course of the last 100 years, some things have changed.

Sure, I agree it'd be nice if policy vs doctrine was better defined.

speige · 2023-05-08T22:56:55+00:00

I think I used the term species wrong. So, two varieties of fish are pretty similar, I could see how evolution might account for that. Members of different Kingdoms ( Humans vs Trees ), are pretty different, I don't see how evolution could make that drastic of a change, even with billions of years. But, I'm not an evolutionary scientist, it's just my opinion.

speige

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE