What is wrong with this analysis of humanity’s future by Elon Musk? He has made two mistakes in there:
(1) Man has not “evolved!”
(2) There is already an “Intelligence” out there in the universe that is infinitely greater than, and superior to, any AI, cyborg, or anything else of the kind that man has made, or can ever create—and who is able to keep it under control!
And she is a professional climatologist, so she knows what she is talking about.
___________
P. S.
After I had posted the above video, I am beginning to see “Information Panels” appearing in it (or under it, when viewed in YouTube), implying that “climate change” fanatics have been complaining about it to YouTube, trying to have it blocked or banned. I hope that YouTube has a greater commitment to free speech, and will not yield to their pressures. If climate change fanatics were confident of their own ideas, they would not be so scared of people having and expressing alternative opinions. By the way, the video thumbnail is obscured by a lot of the other stuff on it, including the “Information Panel”. The video thumbnail reads, “There’s no climate emergency”.
An interesting interview of Erwin Lutzer by Alisa Childers. This interview was recorded a year ago, and some of the circumstances it refers to are not applicable today. But Erwin Lutzer demonstrates considerable insight into the rise of woke culture and cultural Marxism in Western societies today. I hadn’t noticed him before, but he sounds like somebody whose views deserve to be taken seriously.
I found the above talk by Don Bradley, author of the book: The Lost 116 Pages, in which he tries to explain his motives behind, and reasons for writing the book, and why he thinks it is important. I haven’t read the book, so I cannot comment on its contents. I am only commenting on what he has said in this talk. Skipping the initial introductory remarks, and starting at about 6:45 minutes into the video, he continues as follows:
“… I remember asking, we are missing part of the Book of Mormon? What was in it? Right, I mean, the Book of Mormon is so foundational to Latter-day Saint faith. So if you grow up a Latter-day Saint, like what do you hear more about than the Book of Mormon? Right? Like what is more foundational for you? And so the idea that part of it was gone, and nobody seemed to know what was in it, was what is strange to me. I think that whatever in life, whatever we experience over and over, becomes normal to us, we get used to it, right? So you look at different cultures around the world, and from our vantage point, sometimes their cultural practices might be really strange, right? But to people in those cultures, that people grown up with those cultures, it is not strange to them, right, because it is normal, this is something they have experienced repeatedly. So we have gotten used to it that the part of the Book of Mormon is missing, and so that has maybe ceased to be as weird to us as it should be.”
I would have to disagree. I can’t speak for him; but to me, it is not “weird” at all. In Doctrine and Covenants section 10, verses 38-46, it effectively explains that the Lord in his foreknowledge knew that those pages would be lost; therefore he instructed Nephi to prepare an alternative account of the pages that would be lost, that is actually more complete than those that were lost (see 1 Nephi 9:3-6; 19:3-4); so that in reality, nothing has been “lost” as a result. The designs and purposes of God cannot be “frustrated” (D&C 3:1-3). He is omniscient and omnipotent (Matthew 24:18; Revelation 19:6; 1 Nephi 9:5-6; Alma 26:35; Mosiah 3:5, 17-18, 21; 4:9; Ether 3:4; D&C 38:1-3; 61:1; 93:17; 100:1). He “knows the end from the beginning” (Abraham 2:8). He is able to ensure that his purposes are fulfilled, and his designs are accomplished. So in reality, we don’t have anything “missing” from the Book of Mormon that the Lord intended it to be there. Now this does not mean that the “lost pages” would not be important, valuable, or of interest to us if we had them; and therefore we should not look forward to a time when, in his wisdom, the Lord sees fit to reveal them to us again, as he has promised (D&C 10:37). But that is a separate issue from the assumption that something has somehow gone “missing” from the Book of Mormon that the Lord intended it to be there. The Lord has made it clear that that is not the case. God’s design and purpose was not thwarted by the loss of the translated pages. He then continues:
“And so my first motive behind this part of the ‘why?’ was just curiosity about what was in that lost text. As an adult, I added a new motive alongside curiosity about what was missing. In researching the Book of Mormon, studying the Book of Mormon, one of the things that I saw was that in Mormons abridgement, he would frequently allude back to earlier events, he would frequently allude back. It was like, I didn’t really see this till I read closely; but when I read closely, what I would see is that Mormon was developing certain themes across his narration; and that in order to understand what he is saying, let’s say at the end of Alma, you need the context of the other things that have happened in Alma. You need the context of what happened at the beginning of Alma … to understand the flow of a narrative—but also to understand how he is developing certain themes, how he is echoing things that he had said earlier. And it came to a kind of horrifying realization, because as I kept sort of chaining back things that Mormon said, I would go back earlier in his writings, and earlier to trace through the system of internal allusions, and echoes that he is creating; and then I got to this wall, the lost pages, right.”
It would have been more helpful if he had provided some quotations to support that assertion. In my own personal experience of reading the Book of Mormon, I have not observed such anachronisms as he describes. The whole of the Book of Mormon is an abridgement of much larger records, so the whole of it is likely to contain allusions to events not directly or in detail recorded in the book. That is to be expected. He then continues as follows:
“So we have all heard the lost pages referred to as the ‘book of Lehi,’ and with reason, because Joseph Smith used this term to refer to the text, and actually talk about the ‘why’ behind that in chapter 5 of the book. But because of that many of us have had the impression that the Book of Mormon lost pages were just a variant story of Lehi; it is just a more detailed version of Lehi’s narrative. Now it was a more detailed version of Lehi’s narrative, for sure; but the lost pages were told by Joseph Smith in the preface to 1830 Book of Mormon, and by section 10 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the lost pages were replaced by the Small Plates. The Small Plates cover the same time period as the lost pages. So the lost pages then, like the Small Plates, covered from Lehi and his exodus from Jerusalem down to the reign of King Benjamin, early reign of Benjamin. So when people have calculated the chronology for this, like the LDS Scriptures Committee, the people who did the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and so on, they have calculated this development time period here to be about four hundred and fifty, four hundred and sixty years. So the ‘book of Lehi’ is a really long time; it is more than just a missing story of Lehi. In fact, I eventually came to realize just what proportion of Mormon’s abridgement this is, right. So the Book of Mormon says it starts 600 years before Christ, with Lehi in Jerusalem. Then you know Lehi’s calendar restarted with the birth of Christ, and then you know there is Christ’s coming; and 200 years of peace, and so on. So at the end of 4 Nephi, the last record keeper before Mormon, a record keeper named Ammon, writes his final things on the record, and then he buries the record in a hill, and he leaves it for a successor. And so he tells Mormon, when Mormon is about 10 years old, someday I am going to go and bury this record, and you are going to create a record of your own life. So this tells us Mormon’s abridgement, right? So one is an abridgment of everybody up before him, from Lehi all the way through. Then Mormon picks up with not an abridgment, but a first-person account of what happened in his lifetime. So how long is the period of Mormons abridgement? With the 600 years from Lehi to the birth of Christ, and then the 320 years from the birth of Christ to the time of Ammon buries the plate: 600 plus 320 … it is nine hundred twenty years. So how long was it that I mentioned that people have calculated the missing part of Mormon’s abridgement to be? It is the first 450 or 460 years. 920 divided by two is 460. We are literally missing the first half of Mormon’s abridgement, the first half, so this is fascinating. It is a little kind of appalling, like works out how can we understand this text, when we are missing so much of it, right? Like, so your challenge tonight is to take any one of these books sitting by you that you have never read before, right, rip out the first half (I think I would have to pay for it first!), rip out the first half, okay, and then have somebody else give you a thumbnail sketch of that first half, and then you read the second half, and see how much sense does it make—not having the first half. That is the situation we are in with Mormon’s abridgement.”
Not quite! I wouldn’t agree, for the reason explained above. The Small Plates that Nephi added as a substitute for the “lost pages,” is actually more complete, and contains a more detailed account of what the Lord intended to be included in the Book of Mormon (which has more to do with teachings and doctrine, rather than mere historical narrative, see 1 Nephi 9:3-6; 19:3-4; D&C 10:45-49), than the book of Lehi did. He continues:
“That is why I did this project, right? That was the thing that was motivating me. I wanted to know what was in the lost pages of Mormons abridgement, so I could understand what was in the part of Mormon’s abridgement we still had. So that took it from just curiosity, right, curiosity about what was lost, was now combined with really wanting to understand what we still have.”
Like I said, I have not read his book, so I cannot comment on its contents. It is quite possible that it contains interesting material that is worth reading. So my aim here is not to discredit his book. I am only expressing my views on the justification he has given for composing it. But if it genuinely contains original material that is informative and interesting, then it is a good book, and worth a read.
I came across the above video in which Eli Ayala interviews James White. It is a long video, and I am only going to briefly comment on what was said at time reference 1:17:21 into the video, where the following question is asked of James White:
“Here is a question from the Provisionist perspective. Question: What does White think, quote: ‘It is not too difficult,’ mean in that Deuteronomy 30 passage? In other words, if it is not teaching libertarian freedom, then what is the point of saying, ‘It is not too difficult?’ It seems like they are saying, ‘Hey, the choice should be easy, to pick the right thing. You know, you are not being withheld by God’s determining forces.’”
The reference is to the following passage of scripture, with regard to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and predetermination—canceling out freewill. The following quote is given from the KJV, so the wording may not be identical to the reference given, but the meaning is clear:
Deuteronomy 30:
10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
(See further Deuteronomy 4:5-9; also chapters 28-29; and Joshua 24:13-28) To this then James White gives the following answer:
“Well, once again we do see that the people of Israel did eventually come up with the idea that it was too difficult, because of what had happened to their fathers. It is not too difficult for the regenerate heart, for the heart of flesh. Yes, if we love God, and have been changed by God’s grace, then we love his law, and we desire to live in such a fashion as to glorify him. But what do you hear from those who refuse to obey God’s commands? Well, it is too difficult. We can’t do that. That is what the people of Israel said, ‘We are surrounded by people with other gods, and it is too difficult to just worship the one true God, because they will attack us etc.’ So there was a context of the people of Israel, and then there is a context to us today. It is not ‘too difficult’ for whom? That is, just let the rest of the entire revelation of scripture speak. It is too difficult for those who are spiritually dead, but provisionists don’t believe that there really is anybody who is spiritually dead, so they might struggle with that. But you have to deal with heart of stone, heart of flesh. It is right there in the text. You gotta let the whole thing speak.”
That is an illogical argument. If chapter 30 is spoken only to (unconditionally) “regenerate” people, then according to his Calvinist theology, once you are “regenerated” you will automatically “believe,” and you will automatically “obey,” and you will automatically be “saved,” and there are no “ifs” about it. The scripture presents an “if” conditional. It presents it as a real choice, to either obey or disobey—and expect the consequences. “Obey and prosper, or disobey and suffer”—that is the choice. If his theology is correct, then there is no “choice” involved. You are either “regenerated” and automatically go one way; or you are not “regenerated” and automatically go the other way—by a unilateral and unconditional action of God. The fact that scripture presents it as a choice (which may or may not be obeyed) invalidates both his argument, as well as the theology that he is trying to defend. The subsequent history of Israel also confirms this. As long as the Israelites collectively and nationally obey this law, they prosper; when they start disobeying them (against the warnings of their prophets), they are brought into bondage, and chastened until they repent. And when they repent, they are delivered from bondage and prosper again—proving and demonstrating that they had a genuine “choice” all along.
That is a big subject in the world of interactions between LDS and non-LDS, and is brought up and discussed or challenged often. That is to be expected of course; mainstream Christianity in general are not going to accept the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy. They would be signing their own death certificate, and putting themselves out of commission if they did. Hence this is a subject that I had also previously discussed in several other of my previous blog posts, the main one of which can be seen here. This message was posted some 14 years ago in 2008. Since then my views on the subject have evolved; I have therefore now edited it to reflect more closely my current views on the subject. Other blog posts in which I had previously discussed this subject are listed here: (Links: 1, 2, 3, 4). These together provide a pretty comprehensive response to the points he has raised, so there is no need to discuss it again at length here. I will only highlight a couple of main points:
1. Apostasy does not mean that all Christians lost their faith, and there were no more true believing faithful Christians left in the world, who had a saving faith in Jesus Christ. It means that the ecclesiastical structure of the church, with proper priesthood authority, under the inspired leadership of the Twelve Apostles was lost.
2. From the LDS point of view, Apostasy is not the evidence of Restoration; the Restoration is evidence of Apostasy. I am not a Church member because I believed in the Apostasy; I believe in the Apostasy because I am a Church member. I am a member of the restored Church because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true; and that is how I conclude that there was an Apostasy. If there had been no Apostasy, there would have been no need for a Restoration. My conviction of the Restoration leads me to the conclusion that there was an Apostasy.
Joseph Smith did not start the Church from the premise of an Apostasy. He did not say, “Christianity is apostate, therefore let’s start a new religion.” That may be the Protestant position, but not the LDS one. Joseph Smith was just 14 years old when he had his First Vision; and he didn’t go to the woods in order to start a new religion. He went there to ask God which church was right, so that he could know which one to join. It was God who then informed him that none of the churches were right (thus implying that there had been an Apostasy); and that the true Church would at some point in the future be restored through him.
Pastor Jeff has put out his latest video, in which he responds to comments left mainly by LDS viewers on his previous videos. The first question that he responds to relates to the beliefs and practices of various different Christian denominations, and how they relate to each other. Skipping the initial introductory remarks, his response is as follows:
“As I have talked about in previous videos, I have actually been associated, or even a part of a lot of different denominations; and here is the main thing that I want to kind of point to. When it comes to core or essential doctrine, almost every Protestant denomination agrees on fundamental issues that we believe the Bible teaches, and are essentially non-negotiable, meaning if you believe something different, you are straying away from the truth that God has revealed in the scriptures. And though I am about to release a video that goes through all of these essential doctrines that are shared amongst Protestant denominations, for the sake of this video I will just point you to a creed. A creed is essentially a statement of faith that outlines sort of the main essential points of belief that is often memorized by Christians, and also even recited in different worship gatherings. For example the Nicene Creed, which says:”
Quotes the Nicene Creed, which I will skip, and then continues:
“So we essentially believe that if you adhere to these beliefs, ... this is a summation of the essential doctrines that tie all Christian denominations together. Now where there are going to be differences, are tied to non-essential beliefs, or doctrines that go outside of a lot of the things stated here. ... But at the end of the day, a lot of these issues that are outlined in the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and other statements of faith, usually agree on these fundamental issues. Now to be fair, I do need to point out that sometimes Christian denominations don’t play nicely with each other, that some of those distinctive issues, the non-essential issues, that they don’t agree on, can cause there to be a lot of debates, and maybe even some contention between denominations. And for the vast majority of those of us in Protestant Christianity, that grieves us, because we don’t believe that it is necessary for us to be fighting and dividing over non-essential issues, though to be fair, it does happen.”
That is a somewhat misleading and deceptive argument. He is trying to make out that because all Protestant denominations agree on the Nicene or the Apostles Creed, therefore they all agree on the “essentials,” and there are no serious disagreements among them. Any disagreements relate to the “non-essentials”. There are two problems with that. The first is that the Protestant churches are not the only ones who adhere to the Nicene or the Apostles Creed, the Catholic Church does too—and no two churches are further apart than Catholic and Protestant churches. The Protestant churches are bitterly opposed to the Catholic Church, its theology and doctrine, and consider it to be idolatrous and false, and they don’t have very nice things about the Pope, the sacrifice of the Mass, or the veneration of Mary etc. So just because the Protestant churches generally adhere to the creeds, it does not logically follow that they are in “general agreement,” and cannot have serious disagreements—any more than it prevents them from having serious disagreements with the Catholic Church. The differences and disagreements between the various Protestant churches and denominations are not “negotiable,” otherwise they would “negotiate” them away, and come to a unified agreement. That is point number one.
The second point is that, although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not formally adopted the Nicene or the Apostles Creeds, we generally agree with the basic doctrines that they contain. I can’t think of any major doctrine taught in either creed that I would disagree with—from an LDS perspective. And for the record, the Nicene Creed does not teach “Trinitarianism”—the theology of “three persons in one God,” or “three persons in one essence”. That is a later development. The Nicene Creed simply declares belief in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost (as do Latter-day Saints); but it does not attempt to describe “how” the three “Persons” are joined or related to each other, or united into “one God”. I had previously discussed this topic in an earlier blog post which can be seen here.
At 5:28 minutes into the video he responds to someone who objects to his not adhering strictly to the Church’s guidelines concerning the proper use of the name of the Church, and avoiding nicknames like “Mormon” or “LDS,” when referring to the Church or its members. My answer to that is that the Church is not as fussed up about that now as some Church members might think, or as the Church’s original statement might imply. As long as people are sincere and genuine, and do not deliberately use such nicknames to disparage, denigrate, or belittle the Church, the Church would not have too big a problem with that. (“Mormon Church” for example would not be appropriate, but “LDS Church” would not be too far off the mark.)
I am reminded by what the Lord has said in Doctrine and Covenants 107:1-4. According to this account, the “Melchizedek Priesthood” was originally called, “the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God”. But the early church in the days of Melchizedek, decided to call it the “Melchizedek Priesthood” instead, “out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name”. The same principle I believe would apply to the official name of the Church. It is indeed the correct name by which the Church is and should be known. But out of respect for the name of the “Supreme Being,” it would not be wise or appropriate to casually repeat it too often. It is also true that in some situations, such as when creating a video thumbnail like he says, or in a Twitter message for example where you are very limited in the number of characters you can use, it is sometimes not possible to use the full name of the Church, and fit everything else you want to say in the Tweet.
At 7:32 minutes into the video he responds to someone who questions his objection to the LDS belief that angels are or can be resurrected, glorified, and sanctified human beings. I had previously responded to his objections in an earlier blog post which can be seen here. In this video he tries to justify his opinion further by providing additional scripture references to support his views, which require a further response. He begins as follows:
“This is a good question that was on the video that I did in Palmyra, when I first learned that the LDS Church teaches that Moroni was not just an angel, which is what I thought he was, but he was actually a former warrior and prophet. That is not what is taught in the rest of Christianity, and I said that in that video, which is where this question is coming from.”
That is already presenting a false dichotomy. Moroni was “just an angel”. His former earthly identity and ministry as a prophet and warrior does not prevent him from now acting as “just an angel”. And he was not the only such “angel” that visited Joseph Smith. There were many others, including Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, and many others. There are no other kinds of “angels”. And they are all now “just angels”. Then he quotes two additional scriptures in support of his theology of angels, as follows:
“And there are a few passages of scripture I will point to as to why we don’t believe the Bible teaches that mankind becomes angels. One of the main verses I would point to is found in Hebrews chapter 1, where it is talking about Jesus’s relationship to mankind, and how Jesus was actually sent to mankind. He came below the angels in order to minister to mankind. It says in Hebrews 1:13-14, ‘To which of the angels did God ever say, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet? Are not all Angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?’ In other words, angels are specifically meant to minister to those who inherit salvation, which means angels don’t inherit salvation. They serve those who inherit salvation, which is mankind, which is who Jesus was sent to in order to bring Redemption.”
That is the most absurd and illogical scripture interpretation I have heard for a long time. The main theme in Hebrews Chapter 1 is centered on describing the greatness of Jesus, and how he is even greater than angels. That is what the entire chapter is all about. The bit that he quotes occurs right at the end of the chapter, and is as follows:
Hebrews 1:
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time [like he did to Jesus], Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
The entire passage is about the greatness of Jesus, that he is even greater than angels. It effectively puts the angels just below Jesus in greatness. The chapter contains references to Psalms 8 and 110. And just because one of the functions of angels [not the only function] is to “minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation,” it does not logically follow that they are not themselves saved, or “heirs of salvation”. That is the most absurd biblical hermeneutics imaginable. How can they minister salvation to men, if they are not themselves saved? How can they act as ministering agents for God, and be in his presence, if they are not themselves “saved” or “heirs of salvation?” If they are not “saved,” or “heirs of salvation,” then they must be “heirs of damnation!” In the economy of God, one is either ultimately saved or damned. You can’t be somewhere in the middle. So Pastor Jeff thinks that all the angels of God are damned! And according to the Bible, the function of angels is not just to “minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation”. That is one of their functions, but not the only one. In the Bible, there are many functions assigned to angels, both of destruction as well as salvation. In the Old Testament, God sent two angels to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, and rescued Lot (Genesis 19). In 2 Chronicles 32:21, God sends an angel to destroy the armies of the Assyrians who besieged Jerusalem. In 1 Chronicles chapter 21, God sends an angel to destroy Jerusalem because of the sin of David. See also Numbers chapter 22, and 2 Kings chapter 6. In the New Testament, likewise many different functions are assigned to angels, including descending with Jesus to judge the earth (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 2 Thes. 1:7). See further Matt. 13:41, 49; 16:27; 24:31; 25:31; Luke 12:8-9. If angels are not “saved,” if they are not “heirs of salvation,” how can they dwell in the presence of God, act as his messengers, and perform such great works that they do for the Lord? Then he continues as follows:
“I think another verse that I would point to would be in 1 Peter 1:12, where Peter is trying to encourage the local congregation that he is writing to, to have confidence in the truth that was given to them through the prophets. And he even makes a reference in verse 12 of chapter 1 where he says, “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves. But you (talking about the prophets), when they spoke of the things that have now been told to you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit Sent from Heaven. Even angels long to look into these things,” which means angels are separate beings that are sort of standing on the sideline, or being used by God in the Redemptive plan, but they aren’t the ones who are receiving Redemption. They are actually longing to look into these things, to understand God’s Redemptive work for mankind. So those are just a few examples out of the Bible as to why we don’t teach, nor do we believe the Bible teaches that angels were at one point men, or that we will in some way progress into being angels.”
That again is entirely an incorrect interpretation of 1 Peter 1:12. What that scripture means is that angels are not omniscient. They don’t know everything. There were great things being revealed at that time that even angels were not fully aware of. At the time of Jesus, things were being revealed to babes that had not previously been revealed to the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25; Luke 10:21). Jesus came to “utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 13:35). No wonder that the angels were also interested to look into what was being revealed. It does not mean that the angels are not “saved,” or not “heirs of salvation”.
Jesus taught that the “greatest” in the kingdom of God are those who minister to and serve others (Matt. 20:25-28; 23:11; Mark 9:34-35; 10:44-45; Luke 22:24-27). What made Jesus the “greatest” is that he served others (Luke 22:27). He in fact performed the greatest act of service to others, by giving his life a “ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). The fact that angels minister to and serve God and man, does not make them somehow inferior to or lower than men, but greater. He has it all backwards. That is what Calvinism, Protestantism, and “Reformed theology” does to people I guess; it makes all their theological brains get twisted and wrong! He has also missed this bit of scripture (among many others):
Hebrews 12:
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
To be “saved” means to have the privilege of coming to the “city of the living God,” to an “innumerable company of angels,” to “God the Judge of all,” to the “spirits of just men made perfect,” and to “Jesus the mediator of the new covenant”. How could that be, if angels are not “heirs of salvation?” How could they dwell in the presence of God, and act as his agents, if they are not “saved?” I did a search, and found that the word “angel” (and its derivatives) occur 283 times in the Bible: 108 times in the OT, and 175 times in the NT. Here is a link to the search results. A careful reading of all of those will prove a good education on the nature, purpose, and mission of angels.
At around 15:50 minutes into the video someone asks him a question about his understanding of “Mormon epistemology,” more specifically about: “How do Mormon methods of learning true things differ from your own?” To this Pastor Jeff gives a long and rambling reply—and also a partially incorrect answer from a Latter-day Saint perspective on the subject. To keep it brief, the Latter-day Saint understanding of the subject is expressed concisely and completely in the following quote from the Book of Mormon:
Moroni 10:
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
All truth is revealed and can be known by the power of the Holy Ghost, which also agrees fully with what the Bible teaches (John 16:12-14; 1 John 2:20, 27). None of the complicated stuff that he likes to add to it need to be added. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon agree on that. He likes to make it a lot more complicated than it is, as taught in the Bible. I suppose that is because he can’t defend his theological position otherwise, by sticking with the simplicity of the biblical teaching.
_______________
P. S.
Talking about the “essential” and the “non-essential,” since I posted this message one month ago, I have discovered the following interesting video on YouTube which has a good perspective on the “essential” vs. the “non-essential”:
Putin has been at it again, warning the West of their obsession with woke ideology! I found the above short video clip on Twitter. I haven’t researched to find out which one of his recent speeches it is coming from. I wouldn’t be surprised if it came from the main speech he reportedly gave recently on the war in Ukraine. Whatever you think of the war in Ukraine, however, you have to give him credit for his foresight into the rise of woke culture in the West. The Russians have already experienced this kind of thing under the old Soviet Union, so they are wiser than the rest, and they are not going to fall for it so easily this time round. Here is the transcript in English:
“Do we want schools to impose perversions on our children that lead to degradation and extinction? Do we want them to be infected with the false idea that there are other genders besides men and women, and offered gender reassignment surgery? Is that what we want for our country and our children? All of this is unacceptable to us. We have a different vision for our future. Let me repeat that the dictatorship of the Western elites targets all societies, including the citizens of Western countries themselves. This is a challenge to all. This complete renunciation of what it means to be human, the repudiation of faith and traditional values, and the suppression of freedom is coming to resemble a “religion in reverse”—outright Satanism. Exposing false messiahs, Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount (Gospel of Matthew): “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And these poisonous fruits are already obvious to people in all countries, including to many people in the West itself.”
