Bradford G Smith (Brad)

🚀🤯 Episode 27 of Future Link just dropped! Real safety numbers are in — FSD is crushing it at 1 major collision every 5.3 million miles (8x safer than the U.S. average). Unsupervised Robotaxi is LIVE in Dallas, Houston & expanding fast. We’re talking point-to-point convenience that destroys fixed-route trains & buses, plus @BoringCompany tunnels turning cities into seamless 3D networks. As the 3rd Neuralink recipient, I’m already dreaming of thought-controlled rides. This is the future hitting different. Video attached — full deep dive inside! 👇 What’s your biggest takeaway on autonomous cities? Drop it below! @ALScyborg

Amazing.

@AssetInvestorr @CernBasher @herbertong did you watch the video?

@ALScyborg @CernBasher @herbertong I really don’t get how this means anything

Insightfu breakdown from @herbertong with @CernBasher: Tesla out-earns Microsoft, Google & Amazon on capital efficiency — 6.2x cumulative revenue per CapEx + R&D dollar vs their 3.5-4x. Elon times spending perfectly right before revenue hits (Optimus factories, Cybercab, robotaxi), unlike Big Tech’s long lags. Bullish signal for Tesla’s physical AI moat & future dominance. youtu.be/_CsRUbs2sTM

Cute

@joel_graff Thank you — this is a really fair and thoughtful set of questions. I appreciate the respectful tone. Quick thoughts: 1. You’re right — no theology is perfect. We believe living prophets help clarify and restore what was lost or obscured, not that we have it all figured out. 2. The NT writers used philosophy to explain existing revelation. Later creeds went further by making specific philosophical definitions (like “one substance”) the test of orthodoxy. 3. Our framework is the Bible + Book of Mormon + modern revelation through prophets, all interpreted through the Holy Ghost (Moroni 10:3-5, 2 Nephi 32:3-5). We test everything against the witness of the Spirit. 4. Examples of things we believe were lost or diminished: • Baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29) • Temple worship and covenants beyond the Jerusalem temple • Clear teaching on pre-mortal existence and the nature of the Godhead as three distinct beings • Continuing revelation and living prophets after the apostles The pattern in scripture isn’t just “progressive” — it’s also one of apostasy and restoration (Amos 8:11-12, 2 Thess. 2:3, Acts 3:21). We see the Restoration as God doing that again. Still, everything we teach points back to Jesus Christ as the only Savior. That hasn’t changed.

I appreciate the response. A few observations I feel compelled to make, here: 1. No honest Bible scholar would claim any given theological construct “perfectly captures” what was intended in the apostles’ writings, first for the challenge of contextualized interpretation, second for the fact that any theology may not go beyond what is laid out in Scripture. Our knowledge is always incomplete and imperfect. No view of Scripture is exempt. 2. The New Testament authors had no qualms with using contemporary philosophical language in communicating ideas. Why, exactly, is this practice disallowed in the centuries following? 3. What, specific philosophical or interpretative framework guides LDS interpretation of Scripture? How do we know this process does not introduce distortions where others inevitably will? 4. The “pattern” regarding Abraham, Moses, and the apostles, is one of progressive revelation. Previous revelation is not discarded, but instead built upon. Jesus and NT authors even reference Jewish apocrypha directly and indirectly. There is no parallel example in Scripture demonstrating the loss of truth as you claim occurred during the Age of Apostasy. Note: it’s true that Israel went through real, severe cycles of apostasy under the prophets, but that resulted from Israel refusing the revelation they were given, not corrupting it with alien philosophical constructs. It is also unclear to me what teachings, exactly, were so irrevocably lost in this Age of Apostasy that it precipitated a 19th century restoration. Leaving aside the Trinity, do you have examples?

Great video from @TheLatterDayKnight: "False belief is NOT a sin - Exposing the HATE in judgmental religions." Why sincere wrong beliefs don't condemn good people to hell — God judges by works, desires of the heart & actions, not orthodoxy. Other faiths inspire good as part of the divine plan ("milk before meat"), and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teachings uniquely balance justice with mercy, rejecting cruel eternal torment for honest mistakes. Refreshing truth that prioritizes becoming like God through love over condemnation. youtu.be/_awZDGZVuUU

I appreciate the thoughtful defense of the creeds. We actually agree that language is a tool, not truth itself. Where we differ is whether the 4th–5th century formulations perfectly captured apostolic teaching or introduced philosophical overlays. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sees the Restoration as God continuing the pattern He used with Abraham, Moses, and the apostles — not as a rejection of all that came before, but as a recovery of what was lost!

That the creed was a response to Arianism is irrelevant to the accuracy of its statement on the Trinity. That’s a genetic fallacy. The fact that non-biblical terminology is used in the expression is also largely irrelevant. I do not expect 4th century theologians to think or talk like first or 8th century theologians. It is not a question of what terms were used, but what the authors meant in their use. Context is everything. Employment of contemporary concepts to express biblical truth is also legitimate. John used the Greek “Logos” to contextualize the Word of Genesis 1 and Psalm 33 in the New covenant. Paul leaned on Greek philosophy in Acts 17 to make his case in the Areopagus. The use of “shadow” and “copy” in Hebrews is decidedly Platonic in origin, but is used to express Christ’s fulfillment of the old covenant in terms that were more meaningful to its readers. The rejection of the orthodox Trinitarian view isn’t necessarily problematic given the diversity of views of the early church. But the rejection of Christian thought and expression because it bears the marks of the philosophy and languages contemporary with the era of its expression is simply untenable. It requires that truth may only be expressed in the limits of the fixed language and philosophical constructs of the original texts. That requires that language itself is truth, not merely a way to express it. Such beliefs did not hold across the Old Testament writers, much less across the Old / New Testament divide. To insist that language and thought frameworks must be frozen to prevent corruption of truth is simply special pleading and inconsistent with the example of Scripture. Thus, to reject orthodox Christian thought on this basis, declare the era from ~100 AD to Joseph Smith as the Age of Apostasy, and then grant Smith exclusive authority to “restore” the Bible is, at minimum, an historically risky practice introducing potentially distracting doctrines which divorce it from the body of Christian history and thought.

🚨 NOW: Elizabeth Warren is being brutally SLAMMED for facilitating the destruction of 17,000+ American jobs after Spirit Airlines is officially SHUT DOWN In 2024, the socialist called it a "win" to block a merger with JetBlue This aged HORRIBLY. Her bad faith attempts to "save Americans money" actually backfired massively.

Nice job, Pete.

“What is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for?” - Thomas Sowell

Worth reading!

The “receipts” show the early church was diverse. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and others used language that doesn’t neatly fit the later Nicene formula. The creed was a specific response to Arianism that introduced terms and concepts not found in the New Testament. We’re not rejecting the Bible — we’re rejecting the idea that 4th-century philosophy perfectly captured what the apostles taught

In Christianity, it’s clear that God judges men by the law written on their hearts. Everyone is exposed to knowledge sufficient for their salvation. In the LDS Church, salvation is fundamentally different and simply not compatible with the Christian view. They are not the same things. I do not say LDS members cannot be saved, but they do certainly hold to a false belief when compared to what Christianity teaches.

Thanks for the detailed response — I appreciate the engagement. A few points: Yes, there are early references to Father, Son, and Spirit, but the Nicene formulation (one substance, co-equal, co-eternal in the philosophical sense) developed over centuries and used non-biblical Greek terms like homoousios. Many early writers held views closer to distinct personages than the later creed. We believe the Bible is true, but also that “plain and precious” parts were lost or altered (1 Nephi 13). That’s why we need living prophets and the Book of Mormon — not to replace the Bible, but to restore clarity. The early church wasn’t “Mormon,” but neither was it fully Nicene. We see a restoration of what was lost, not a contradiction of the Bible. Happy to look at specific “receipts” you have in mind

The Nicene creed summarizes what Christians believed from the earliest days. We have written evidence of Trinitarian views from as early as 110 AD, indicating it’s a very early view of the early Church. The fact that the creed was written in response to the Arian heresy does not make it an illegitimate statement of what the early church believed. To claim that it does (as you did) is called a genetic fallacy. The rise of the Arian heresy simply gave the church the opportunity to formally articulate what it has always believed. This, in fact, is why creeds and statements of faith are often written. Further, the creed’s later date is not problem given it was simply asserting a documented early belief. Nevermind the fact that after you make that claim, you appeal to texts written nearly 1,500 years after the creed as more authoritative. Here’s the point: If Christians never held a Trinitarian, 3-in-1 view of God, we would see no evidence of it in church history. The Nicene Creed would be the first mention of it. But we do see earlier evidences, two centuries before the Nicene creed was drafted. This vets the creed as formally articulating a long held belief, not inventing a new one. And to claim the Trinity isn’t scriptural because it isn’t in the Bible is sheer nonsense. The question is of metaphysical precision here, not literal description. Is God one or three in being? Christians have held from the earliest traditions that all three members of the Trinity are one, each fully God, coexisting eternally and unchanging. You may take exception to the language of the Creed as going too far (many have), but you can’t reasonably argue that at its core, it aligns very well with what is taught in the Biblical canon and believed by the early church. To be clear, the early church did not believe what Mormonism teaches. We have receipts to prove that.

@joel_graff Most Christians already disagree on salvation (faith alone vs. faith + works, Calvinist vs. Arminian, Catholic vs. Protestant). LDS simply add restored priesthood authority and temple covenants. We still center everything on Jesus Christ as the only name whereby man can be saved.

The answers to many modern problems are simple but politically incorrect. So instead of solving anything, everybody pretends they don't know what's going on, and spend years misdiagnosing the issue, talking in circles, and wasting time.

Nicene Creed was written 300+ years after Christ to settle specific controversies. We honor the early Christians’ intent, but we believe the Bible + living prophets are sufficient — no need for later creeds that added concepts (like the Trinity as “one substance”) not explicitly taught in scripture. We center everything on Jesus Christ as the only name whereby man can be saved (Acts 4:12). Every temple ordinance, every covenant, every teaching points to Him. We’re not “adding” to Christianity — we’re restoring what was lost!

The denominations you mention all affirm the Nicene Creed in its entirety. The creed outlines beliefs that are of far greater importance than the mechanisms by which believers live out their salvation. The LDS Church, in contrast, does not affirm the Nicene creed. If I recall, it rejects later creeds as byproducts of Greek philosophy and uses that as a justification for its restorationist claims of original truths delivered through Joseph Smith. To be clear: insofar as the gospel is concerned, what the LDS Church affirms is not what orthodox Christianity proclaims. I do not say Mormons cannot be saved in the Christian sense. But it is a gross mischaracterization to claim the LDS Church is a Christian denomination.

Wife Beginning To Suspect Husband's Thoughtful, Relevant Responses To Her Texts Might Be A.I. Generated buff.ly/9ygjKrS

If the government just had more tax revenue, they would use it to solve all our problems

Sharp critique from @FareedZakaria on CNN: NYC Mayor @ZohranKMamdani’s $127B budget is unaffordable — nearly doubled since 2014 despite a 5% population drop, per-capita spending crushes LA (+30%) and Houston (2x), middling schools despite $40B education spend, and taxes already among the highest in the world. Blue cities keep overspending with zero results. Time to prioritize real affordability: more housing, safer streets, better schools — not endless entitlements. youtu.be/NHCo6MaNvJ0

Grok's ability to let people fact-check claims in real-time on X is proving powerful. AI-powered truth verification may be the only thing that can restore trust in information.  Do you agree?