Acts of the Apostles

I should probably introduce myself. And let people know where I stand in regards to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I want there to be no mistake. I am Bryan Summers. I am 49 years old. I'll tell a little of my history and then bare my testimony. Below I'm on my favorite trail in the world. The Timberline Trail on Mt Hood.

@TomorrowsWar @Ashleyhays2089 It's not just poetic, and the cosmology in the Bible is, in fact, a geocentric flat earth. That is an example of the principle of accommodation, whereby God speaks to humanity in terms they can understand, & uses their understanding of things in his communication.

@punished_bobda Excellent

You want a link? You won't want to miss this link. Here, catch! (links you in the face) substackfwd.xyz/?url=https://d…

Feeble False: An investigative letter. On the satanism of liberal Christianity, and whether mercy requires you to marry an insane former prostitute. A cozy analysis of coziness, and a deep dive into our kids clothing drawers, courtesy of our children. Please Read my blog: 🔗⬇️

Called to Serve: One of my new assignments is to serve on the Missionary Executive Committee. It has been inspiring to see the work of the Lord hastening across the entire world. This week as part of a series of leadership meetings in United States West Area, I accompanied Elder Gary E. Stevenson and Elder Peter M. Johnson on a mission conference in the Washington Kennewick Mission. I was inspired as we met each one of the missionaries and felt that their commitment to proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I just think it's funny the guys that have been telling me 'you aren't Christian, you are white muslims' are in the replies saying 'nooooo don't be nice to muslims'

Possibly. But I don’t think so. I think you are dramatically overestimating it. I don’t know if you’ve read my stories about Orson Hyde, Thomas B Marsh and Lyman White leaving the twelve. Or if you’ve read about Brigham Young’s dealings with the Godbe-ites. Or John F Boynton who left the original twelve and became a prolific inventor and stopped by Salt Lake as much as he could just to say hi to his old friends. Never rejoined the church but everyone was happy to see him. The belief that tons of people who have left are going to outer darkness has just never really been the vibe notwithstanding one or two quotes that maybe can be interpreted that way. But again this is all a non-sequitur.

@actsofapostles_ @TrueTTFaith @ThoughtfulSaint I think you are dramatically underestimating how this doctrine was taught/understood in previous generations and how that way of thinking still influences how it's talked about.

Apparently not… —— But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest⁠, shall be servant of all… But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

@dortner1 @TrueTTFaith @ThoughtfulSaint Yeah, I disagree but all that is a non-sequitur. Zac is claiming that members are telling him he’s going to outer darkness. I guarantee you nobody tells him that, nobody thinks that and when he was a member he didn’t either. Why do ex-mo’s do that? It is so weird.

@actsofapostles_ @TrueTTFaith @ThoughtfulSaint I actually think the interpretation that almost no one ends up in outer darkness is the misinterpretation, if you are judging by canonized scripture alone. But I agree that it is the modern consensus.

Sure. But if they turn back to Christ they are forgiven by Christ. Christ is the only one who can forgive sins. I assume when you were a member you agreed with me on that. I mean yeah, somebody could interpret it that if you leave the church you get outer darkness. But nobody does. Cause we als have the rest of the scriptures that makes that interpretation not feasible. And until somebody does misinterpret it in that way I’m not sure what you are trying to convince me of. That our doctrine can be misinterpreted if scripture proofed? Yeah. I know that.

@actsofapostles_ @TrueTTFaith @ThoughtfulSaint I was reading D&C 84 in the context of another conversation. Look at v 39-41, those who break the oath and covenant of the priesthood are described as not having "forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come." Sounds a lot like those bound for outer darkness, no?

@jmillincook Act the stories out. It will be your children’s favorite part of the day

I need to get back to this 🥲 does anyone have any good tips for scripture study with young kids? I need to involve them too!

Fun fact, Lewis and Clark traveled more than 4x the distance Frodo and Sam did. Frodo and Sam: 1,800 miles Lewis and Clark: 8,000 miles American, remember who you are descended from.

A 2024 peer-reviewed article asks, "Does serving a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints impact self esteem?" Finding: Serving a mission is associated with higher self-esteem. The most commonly cited reasons among those who reported an increase: — Stepping out of the comfort zone and a sense of achievement — Building a stronger relationship with God — Improving social and communication skills — Being able to serve others Source: Mental Health, Religion, and Culture; Volume 27, 2024 - Issue 3

@dortner1 @TrueTTFaith @ThoughtfulSaint I’m not going to ignore it but I’ll interpret it the way that makes the most sense in regards to all of the scriptures and the writings of the GAs. I don’t scripture proof.

@actsofapostles_ @TrueTTFaith @ThoughtfulSaint No, my views as a member were in line with yours. I have often seen that language from King Follett used to support your position, but they always omit that nearby sentence about how this is true for "many apostates" who leave the church. I don't think you can ignore that either.

When you were a member did you think that quote meant if you left the church you went to outer darkness? Cause I’ve heard that quote a bunch from members but always to say leaving the church doesn’t mean outer darkness. Cause you have to see the sun and say it doesn’t shine etc. etc. and we all have people we’ve loved leave the church and that obviously doesn’t fit them. I do think if he was thinking of that quote he was using it in bad faith since that isn’t the contemporary interpretation. (And remember he was talking about people now.). I’ll let you have the last word

@actsofapostles_ @TrueTTFaith @ThoughtfulSaint That isn't an obscure quote; it's from Joseph Smith in his most famous sermon.

He said people now a days are saying that. I try to be charitable but I can’t imagine he really thought that when he was a member nor that he thinks that now. (And I’ve never come across a historical quote that says that either. Maybe there is one or two but I highly doubt it cuts either way.)

@actsofapostles_ @TrueTTFaith @ThoughtfulSaint Couldn't' see the original at first since Jacob did a screenshot. Looking at it, I'd say that one could find quotes from early leaders cutting either way, but I agree that the historical consensus cuts against the idea that run of the mill apostates will go to outer darkness.

@TrueTTFaith @dortner1 @ThoughtfulSaint This. Right here. The original poster, Zach, said our religion teaches he is going to outer darkness. He either doesn’t know the doctrine or is dishonest.

@dortner1 @ThoughtfulSaint Ex members are constantly told they didn't understand the doctrine because they constantly demonstrate that they didn't and that they don't. It's not about pride or shutting them up, it's about telling them to find a better argument.

An old thread, but I think about this a lot. There are many men on this app who wistfully wish they possessed sincere religious belief because they see how necessary it is for raising a family right, but correctly perceive that faking it isn't good enough. I have some ideas...

I appreciate your genuine tone both here and in the other replies I've read. Here's how I understand it right now, as someone who's put a decent amount of study into it to try to understand it as well as I possibly can. 1 - It seems to me he was only sealed to Helen Mar Kimball in an "eternity alone" sealing, not a sexual relationship, and set up at the request of her father in a dynastic way, focused on uniting their families. 2 - Don Bradley has some interesting stuff to say about this, which seems to suggest that Joseph was sealed to these women so that he could help "raise up [their] seed unto the Lord," not so that he could have sexual relations with them (his research suggests that most, of these were pregnant when they were sealed to Joseph, and that sex during pregnancy was something people thought was unhealthy in that time period). It's a really interesting angle, and one that I think makes sense when considering the rest of the landscape of the history of polygamy in the Church. 3. This one makes sense to me in that revealing it to the public would have likely led to the death of him and the saints (it certainly played a role in his death), and as for lying to Emma about it, he seems to be chastised for that part of it in D&C 132. 4. The more that I have studied the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, the more I have actually come to believe the Joseph actually made the right call in destroying it. It was a public nuisance that was aiming to inflame public opinion against him and the saints and bring people out to attack them. Look at what it wrote, and the history of the men who put it together, and add in the writings of the Warsaw Signal and Thomas Sharp and the Anti-mormon sentiment in the area, and it makes sense to me. They may have even won their court case on it, and seemed to have put together a decently compelling case based on Blackstone's lawbooks. Remember, the saints had gone to Nauvoo because the United States Federal Government was not enforcing first amendments rights. Those needed to be administered on more local levels, and that's what Joseph and the Nauvoo city council were doing. At most they should have been fined, even if found guilty. Sorry that got long 😅 But the TL;DR is that I don't believe polygamy was driven by Joseph's libido. There were far simpler ways for Joseph to have affairs if he wanted to, rather than starting a church, then waiting 6+ years to try once, and then a bunch more before really going for it - It would look much more like John C. Bennett's spiritual wifery than what Joseph and his followers actually did. And people always miss that he was sealed to a few much older women too, but that's not as salacious so it flies under the radar. I believe Polygamy really was something God commanded for a time, and that Joseph had to figure out how to bring that commandment to the Saints, and that the process was difficult. Still, I think it likely saved the Saints when they were driven out to the wilderness of the west. The more I study the history, the more I also appreciate how much we DON'T know - as with the Nauvoo Expositor situation really getting flipped on its head for me, since I'd heard many talk about how it was a mistake and he was violating the sacred right to the freedom of the press, when looking into the real history of it, that didn't seem to be the case at all. Aaaand... the TL;DR got long too lol, sorry! Hopefully my answers are interesting and/or helfpul.

"If the Book of Mormon were true, we'd see archaeological evidence for it!" Common attack. Let's address it: 1. Don't hold Old World standards to New World archaeology In the arid desert, things stay well preserved. We know the language, it's been consistently inhabited, and we've had millennia to research it. So of course you're going to find some corroborating evidence of 6,000 years of history of large, multidynastic people groups. Contrast that to the humid volcanic jungles of Mesoamerica, where the forest consumes abandoned cities in just a few years. We've only been digging a few decades; archaeologists have set foot in less than 1% of the known ancient sites from Book of Mormon times (and they're finding entirely new, unknown, extinct civilizations under the jungle floor every year using LIDAR). And we're likely talking about a relatively small people group in the middle of a larger tribal ecosystem, lasting only 1,000 years before most of them were extinguished. Holding an Old World archeological standard for New World archaeology is either ignorant or disingenuous. Of course you're going to see less archaeological evidence for specific Book of Mormon cities, peoples, and events this early in the game. Whining that "we haven't found Zarahemla" is like my kid whining that he can't find his toy when the only place he's searched is the broom closet. 2. "Scant evidence" doesn't mean "no evidence" Critics overplay their hands all the time: "There's no evidence for the Book of Mormon." And yet there is, particularly in the Old World where the first 1% of the Book of Mormon is set (again, where conditions are ideal for that). When Latter-day Saint apologists bring up Nahom, Bountiful, Shazer, the seal of Mulek, the river of Laman, and the valley of Lemuel, critics sometimes get flustered and say, "Well, that's a possibility but not concrete!" Be very careful holding the standard that "a lack of compelling archaeological evidence disproves religious texts." That sword cuts two ways. Historical and archaeological evidence of Eden, a global flood, a mass Israelite migration out of Egypt, or even Jesus is pretty sparse, too. 3. Look at the trend of evidence Critics feel pretty smug throwing all the Book of Mormon anachronisms at you. "Hebrew in ancient America? Advanced metalworking? Ha!" But if they took a moment and did their research, they'd feel far less anguine. When the Book of Mormon was produced in 1830, there were hundreds of these supposed anachronisms. But as research has advanced, 90+% of that original list of contradictions is now debunked: Turns out some tribes were using cement during that time. Turns out there was a cousin of the horse before Columbus. Turns out Alma was sometimes a male name in Hebrew. Turns out some Old World Jews and New World tribes did record on metal plates. The ocean of anachronistic "slam dunks" critics swim in has shrunk during the past 190 years to a little puddle (though they'll still arrogantly strut in it every chance they get). This isn't an archaeology problem anymore so much as a statistics problem. Suppose you take the critics' view that "some things [he] may have guessed right among so many." The likelihood of him correctly "guessing" so many supposed anachronisms as he did is astronomical. As in "it's more likely you'll find a specific electron in the universe" level (there's a great study on the math here: scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewconten…). The trend is our friend. The purpose of all this That's just archaeology, to say nothing of the doctrine, the Hebraisms, the poetry, the Tolkien-level world-building, the genius-level yet consistent intertextual complexity, chiasms, and most importantly, the undeniable fruits of the text on its readers. I love the research, the science, and the studies, and I love using them to defend the Book of Mormon. But there can never be enough evidence to convince an atheist that Jesus is the Christ. And there will never be enough evidence to convince some Christians (whose arguments are often indistinguishable from atheists') that the Book of Mormon is true. If we found a certified ancient monument "to Nephi, son of Lehi" Central America, critics would pivot their argument to: "Sure, the Nephites existed, but maybe the devil inspired Joseph Smith to mix true history with his false theology to lead people to a different Jesus!" Because convincing people isn't the point. God doesn't want people to be "convinced" (forced into belief because all other options are removed). No, the purpose of research is defensive-- to show that there is space for faith, that believing doesn't make you an idiot. As Austin Farrer taught: "What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

@PioneerPaperTrl And it is a pity cause this is an amazing hymn. (It didn’t go well in our ward either

Interesting note that if you don’t prepare congregations for these unfamiliar - and culturally/stylistically different - hymns, you’ll leave a bad taste that may banish a nice song for a long time x.com/ciaoboytx/stat…

The congregational singing of this hymn did *not* go well today.

For the record the William Blake stans are correct. But man this made me laugh.

I highly recommend this short book (about 100 pages) for your pre-Easter reading. (I may read it every March from now on.) It explains exactly what crucifixion meant in the ancient world. And why the story of Christ is so strange. Paul's statement "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" has become much more poignant and understandable. The only reason Christianity could survive is that it happens to be true and the Holy Ghost witnessed that it was indeed true.