Видео

@@GeorgeDemetz Hah, you are right to ask that question when I had that in my title. But actually it's a question for you my viewers. 🤣😜 I'd say watch Part 1 and decide for yourself. The answer may not be: "LDS are ahead 3 points" or whatever precise answer -- but it's a complicated answer and a function of location and search terms and black box algorithms. But I tried to at least show the data so you can make some preliminary conclusions yourself.

Yes, m with the m is a slightly mixed bag so I purposely left it out, but you're right, I should have included it. Scriptural Mormonism I haven't heard of, will check it out thanks!

@@alexblake5743 Absolutely! ❤️ I feel like faithful and still-fun/-engaging channels have been a little late to the game... But we're here now and growing, and ain't going anywhere. Bring it.💪🏼

@@iowaguy6470 That's the adversary's voice telling you they won't take you back. The Father of lies. Don't listen. Please come back, we are stronger all together! Just show up on Sunday to your local ward or an adjacent ward if you prefer to have new faces! Look up ward addresses at LDS.org/maps

I left Mormonism after 60 active years. God led me out just like He did you. Put your faith in His Word the Bible and trust in the Holy Spirit. If you go backward and reunite yourself with Mormonism, you'll probably realize quickly it was a mistake. God bless you in your decision to make the right decision.

This Saint's Theory

I just remembered another one. There's a fairly small channel called HaleStorm49 that does LDS videos. He doesn't post often, but I like his content.

Thanks, I didn't know of these ones, thanks! I'll check em out now

@@MasonPayne I know, right? It's like, there will always of necessity be the possibility it was luck, because faith will never not be required. But I've seen far, far too many coincidences to believe they were all dumb luck.

Loved having you on! ❤

A nice completely random statement with no justification. I can do that too: "JS was a prophet of God!" See? No justification. Except, I do have plenty of justification, as I will share on this channel over coming months and years.

Obviously not, what?

@@MonkeyBreath-w6d How do you pronounce it? Kind of a weak attack, mate. Does the pronunciation matter? If it does, without a time machine to go back and ask Enoch himself, either one of us could be right, or neither of us. Thinking that anyone today has the truth about the pronunciation of an ancient word is rather presumptive, no?

@ it just shows your illiteracy in theology. As we all know, Mormons struggle with basic history.

@@MonkeyBreath-w6d Did you watch the main video? There is plenty of evidence, it's just a question of how much evidence you need to call it proof

Au contraire. Sword of Laban has deep symbolism to me. It was for a long time sitting comfortably in the treasury of Laban, with a pretty chill life. Then God had a prophet take it to a new and uncomfortable place, outside of what it had known. It was wielded in defense of family and liberty and freedom by Nephite prophets Nephi and King Benjamin (and probably others) against forces that would otherwise destroy all that they hold dear. If you think, sir, that everything needs to be roses and unicorns then you need to think again. Sometimes it's roses and unicorns, but sometimes Jesus sends a sword. Matthew 10:34.

@Sword_of_Laban Death Cult 💀🩸🗡️ If multiple Jesus's You speak of Jesus BarabbaS "A Murderer"

🤣 There is but one Jesus. But thank you for your concern for my eternal soul... ❤️

1 Enoch was included in Ethiopian Bible. 2 Enoch is a different book by different people from a different time period with no overlap. It's unfortunate it has a similar name since it leads to confusion, but it has no relation. In fact, 1 Enoch is also called Ethiopian Enoch. 2 Enoch is also called Slavonic Enoch.

Watch the 30 min full video. You tell me.

There are many things in extra biblical literature that are true, but once must be careful and use one's brain and common sense and the Spirit. This i have tried to do. The Lord himself said: D&C 91: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha-There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; 2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. 4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom"

Yes, definitely "wut". Like WUT da heck?!

My pleasure!

@@jakethewhale I encourage everyone reading this comment to go read Jake the Whale's scripture verses. My statement is correct. Nowhere else describes a three tiered heaven. Each one of those verses simply says heaven. None of them say first or second or third. None of them indicate one being a higher or lower heaven to another. I can make up ordinal numbers too. Here you go: all those verses are the first heaven since they all say heaven and God is not there. And God then lives in the second heaven, under my numbering system. See how arbitrary this is? Paul didn't have your numbering system because you made it up. In fact, Paul SHOULD have said just the word heaven, like 100 percent of all other references to heavens in the bible. But he didn't. And therein lies the interesting part. He and his readers understand heaven differently to every other writer in the bible, apparently. Or, maybe I can say the clouds that issue rain from your first two references is the first heaven. And the atmosphere more generally like Matt 16:1-2 is the second heaven, because there are no clouds there. And the stars are third heaven. But the planets referenced in Hebrew zodiac aren't with the stars because they wander above or below them, so they're obviously in the fourth heaven. And God is obviously above all that so he's in the fifth heaven. Or, we could just use Enoch's numbering system. Which matches modern day revelation. So yeah I'd rather use modern day revelation than make up my own non-biblical divisions between what's one heaven and what's the next.

@@Sword_of_Laban Before you appeal to a non-canonical book, there is, at the very least, Biblical support for 3 different regions that are all called heaven. The problem is that you made such an emphatic statement claiming there's no evidence and that this view is made up. I also encourage you to read up on ancient near-eastern cosmological views, which also supports this interpretation. Take care.

​@@jakethewhaleThere is no three tiered system, which is what I said in the quote above. I have looked and as far as I can tell, this interpretation of three tiered system of sky being first heaven, stars being 2nd heaven, and God is actually in the third heaven is a modern invention post dating Paul's third heaven reference, to explain his third heaven reference. It would be easy to prove me wrong by producing some source older than Paul that talks about a three tiered system, but you have not done that. You've just given me a bunch of references to heaven.

I simply don't have the time or inclination to do research on your behalf. I only felt compelled to point out your incorrect statement, and you and your listeners can read more on your own. For starters, you can look at the Wikipedia article on Biblical Cosmology. Relevant excerpt: The reference to the "third heaven" may refer to one of two cosmological systems present in antiquity: one where the cosmos was divided into seven heavens, and the other where the cosmos was divided into three.

The short answer is, look in the video description for the first 22 chapters of 2 Enoch. I copy-pasted into a google doc. Longer answer is, make sure you know that 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch are all completely unrelated texts from different time periods and different people. The similarity in naming is unfortunate. And then google for 2 Enoch full text. There is also an app called scripture notes (scripturenotes.com) that has all LDS scriptures AND many apocrypha and pseudopigrapha, for free although you can pay for some extra app features.

@@TheMoonlitSaint ❤️😊

@@Sword_of_Laban When I was a child I was upset about how unclear the Plan of Salvation was. Intuitively I knew there should be more, and it should be easier to understand. As I got older I realized the world was even more confused than I was. They didn't even have the basics of the Plan of Salvation. But still it vexed me because this seemed like such an important thing, and we have to piece it together like it's a puzzle strewn through all the scriptures. Your video is literally an answer to my prayer. Specifically, I've been praying these last two weeks for help understanding the Plan of Salvation better. Enoch saw it all, and Joseph gave us the scriptures to piece it together. Simply amazing.

​​​@@TheMoonlitSaintWow, thanks for sharing that! ❤️❤️❤️🔥 Honestly when I was young the plan of salvation diagram seemed needlessly complicated and just like a "really??". For example we reject the idea of eternal heaven vs eternal hell (two destinations) partially because "what about the good guy who's just below the cutoff and gets sent to hell / what about the bad guy who's just above the cutoff and gets to go to heaven?" And we replace these two destinations with... Four destinations!! But still, what about the guy who's just below the cutoff for the celestial kingdom?? But now I see the whole plan is precisely as simple as it can be. It's this way of necessity, because we need to come here to get bodies and experience, and that can't happen without the veil. And therefore we will sin. And therefore we need a savior. And therefore... And you can keep making therefore statements and end up right where you started, with the entire plan of salvation. And as for us taking the reprehensible idea of two final destinations and replacing it with four destinations and saying that somehow solves the problem -- well, nobody ever said there weren't gradations or a continuum within a final destination. And there are four destinations, precisely because each destination has the presence of one being: outer darkness means you're with Satan but you have rejected HG. Tel means you have the presence of HG but have rejected JC. Terr means you have accepted JC and have access to his presence but haven't done what is needed to accept the Father's presence. Cel is in the Father's presence. Thus, it's as silly to ask why there are four destinations as it is to ask why there are three members of the Godhead (+1 for Satan, equals four). Because it's the presence of those people that define the kingdom. They are the same question in a way. Therefore, four makes way more sense than two destinations... Anyway, I'm rambling... But yes I see where you're coming from and I have gone through similar thoughts!

@@shadow6681 Reference for terrestrial kingdom? I'm asking honestly. I am collecting references such as this. Or did you mean Celestial kingdom?

@ no worries brother. No, it wasn’t a typo. There are either seven or ten heavens, each belonging to exactly one of the three kingdoms of glory, except for the first heaven, which I will outline below (there is some ambiguity in the available texts as to whether heavens 8-10 are just higher levels of the 7th, or if they are each their own unique level). The identity of the third heaven belonging to the Terrestrial Kingdom isn’t something stated outright anywhere at present, but is something gleaned from careful study of the available material. The Gospel of Nicodemus chapters 13-20 do much of the work explaining the first three heavens. For heavens four through ten you’ll want to carefully study The Ascension of Isaiah alongside 2 Enoch as the perspectives in each complement the other. Let me first state that we are told that the Earth will be terrestrialized at the Second Coming, at that time will “receive its paradisiacal glory” (see 10th Article of Faith). In this description the Terrestrial Kingdom is equated with Paradise. We are also told that this renewal will return the Earth to its previous state when it hosted the Garden of Eden, which is also frequently referred to as paradise. As soon as you recognize that these two terms, Terrestrial and Paradise, are used interchangeably, much of this will begin to fall into place. As I mentioned earlier, the Gospel of Nicodemus teaches us of the first three heavens, as it gives us the account of the Harrowing of Hell, which the name for Christ’s ministry in the spirit world during the time between His crucifixion and resurrection. The Savior arrives in the first heaven where the spirits of the faithful are waiting for Him to declare their redemption from the bands of death, as also described in D&C 138. It is here we learn that the first heaven is no heaven at all. It referred to alternately as Prison and Outer Darkness. It is Prison for those who will eventually be paroled into a kingdom of glory, and it is Outer Darkness for those who may never leave. Upon His arrival, the Savior breaks down the gates and frees the spirits of the faithful. They then take each other by the hand somehow, and ascend together to the second heaven, which is the Telestial Kingdom. They only stay there long enough to thank the Savior for liberating them, before they take each other by the hand again somehow, and ascend to the third heaven. Here in the third heaven we learn that they are now in Paradise, and the veil is apparently taken from their minds at this point, as Adam resumes his identity as Michael, and immediately begins organizing the work. We also learn that this is where the translated beings have been living, waiting for the earth to be terrestrialized at the Second Coming. This is as far as Nicodemus goes, but as stated earlier 2 Enoch and The Ascension of Isaiah go further. They leave the kingdom of the fourth and fifth heavens somewhat ambiguous, as it may belong to either the Terrestrial or Celestial, but I lean towards the Terrestrial, and they make it clear that heavens six through ten belong to the Celestial, with the sixth heaven being the abode of the archangels, and the seventh heaven containing the throne of God, or at least the throne of the Son. That’s the heavens in a nutshell. They are called heavens in the texts, but it is probably more appropriate to call them spiritual planes, as not all of them are actually heavens.

@shadow6681 This is a really interesting alternate view and I'll study it, and the gospel of Nicodemus. Thanks for sharing!! One thing I can't get my brain around immediately is the idea that there are more than three divisions in the celestial kingdom however (heavens 6-10, or whatever). Any thoughts? I'm genuinely curious at your findings here

@ this is actually taught in the church, that the Celestial Kingdom itself has multiple divisions, though we are not at this time taught exactly what those divisions are, only that they exist. I find it’s easier to understand when we recognize that there are different levels of covenants. Keeping the baptismal covenant qualifies someone for the Celestial Kingdom, but receiving and keeping the covenants associated with the endowment will allow them to go further, and receiving and keeping the covenant associated with the sealing ordinance will allow someone to go even further than the endowment. The angels in the Celestial Kingdom are of a lesser status than the Father. There is a clear hierarchical structure there. It is not so great a leap then to also believe that there are multiple planes associated with the Celestial Kingdom which also have a hierarchical structure to them.

Thanks breakingthelaws! You have a curious username... 🤣 Is there a story there?

@ our last name is Law:)

Its evidence if you believe in a specific type of universal revelation from the divine as a restoration of older ideas, then a correlation between an older oral tradition would be evidence, but not proof. In the scientific sense there cant definitionally be proof for spirituality.

@@bradleyhowell4155 So you agree then, he has not provided any proof. Just his beliefs.

​@@sweetydMate. Ok so you don't like the word proof. Well then it's evidence. Which word do you prefer? Neither probably, if you aren't into the idea of JS being a prophet. Evidence is the same word Bradley Howell used in the comment you just replied to, which then you proceeded to misunderstand and/or misrepresent his point. Anyway I stand by my proofs/evidence.

@@Sword_of_Laban Proof and evidence are very different. Proof is a conclusive statement that something is true, while evidence is information that supports the idea that something is true. As a scientist, I will agree you have evidence for your idea. So, the next step would be for formulate a hypothesis to see if your evidence is good evidence or bad evidence. An intellectually honest person would try to find evidence to disprove a hypothesis. That's how we discover theories, which is the highest standard we hold that something is confirmed in reality. Until that standard is met, you're really still at the idea stage. 🙂

​​@@sweetydok so I have evidence. And a hypothesis. And I tested my hypothesis against the evidence, that's why there is a half hour detailed video. It all checks out and I have no other explanation for the quantity and quality of connections other than that JS was a prophet of God. You are free to ignore it, but I already met your standard. I may have mis spoken with the word proof, depending on how much evidence you think you need to prove something (I think JS is beyond proven to be a prophet already, speaking generally of how he is vindicated again and again as time goes on; sounds like you may disagree). But, I met your standard in your last comment.

It may just be the same as Aravat, Hebrew for Father of Creation (search Aravat on Wikipedia for that definition). Because those who become parents of Creation go there. Basically, what distinguishes exaltation from the other nine heavens is the ability to create, like God himself can create. It's the heaven of creators. I'm not Hebrew scholar but I believe Aravat and aravoth are the same words in ancient Hebrew before these modern Jews had the crazy idea to start inserting vowels... "T" also being the same as "Th". But someone else jump in and correct me if I'm wrong!

My man. Your ignorance is showing. There is so much evidence. "Thou hast had signs enough..." (Alma 30:44) comes to mind. This evidence usually only manifests to those that exercise enough faith and humility to look into it though. That's not a sneaky excuse -- that is simply the way it is. Please open your mind and heart to the possibility there is evidence and then go listen to faithful channels laying out any of hundreds or thousands of evidences and think again.

@@davekohler5957 💯🎯 Highest heavens implies multiple heavens, or at the very least, gradations within one heaven, but I don't think that's the mainstream Christian interpretation.

@@rocxyification "We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but much of it is false and historically inaccurate." I couldn't have said it better myself. The Lord himself said this in D&C91: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha-There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; 2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. 4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom" I agree with nearly everything you say, and so does the Lord himself. I don't however agree with your very first sentence. Yes this is from a weird place (2 Enoch) but how is this "out of context"? It's most likely Paul's context, based on scholarly consensus. Furthermore, how are we supposed to study and link truths together if we don't reach out here and there, look at stuff, and see if it links back to something we know? Do we then simply read scripture and apocrypha from start to finish and cease trying to make connections within and between texts? Your definition of "out of context" is my definition of "probably in context". Your references to first and second heavens are simply references to heavens. There is no indication of an ordinal numbering system, and hey I can make up my own ordinal numbering system as you appear to have and call the place where God dwells the fourth heaven, or whatever number I want to. Like maybe I want to call the Psalms reference the second heavens and the Isaiah reference the third heaven. Or call ALL your references the first heaven and then God should be in the second heaven. All I'm saying is your numbering system is made up. But, Paul isn't making up numbers, he means something specific when he says third heaven. He's referring to something generally agreed upon. However, I don't find any numbering generally agreed upon in the scriptures you listed.

"God breathed" doesnt mean he gave utterance or revealed word for word the exact text. It means he breathed the breath of life. Meaning the biblical text is life giving. Which can be true of apocrypha if the ideas are what give life rather than a specific set of words.

Plus in d&c the three heavens describe states of the soul. Which depend or correlate with the levels of commitment to God. Which that general idea of a correlation of commitment defining the glorh of the afterlife is biblical and was believed by early christians. Joseph smiths way of describing it is just one way that can be done, but there are other ways that could also be valid.

​@@bradleyhowell4155I have never heard the idea before that the three heavens in D&C talk about the state of the soul. It's not my reading of it but I could see how you might arrive at a metaphorical conclusion. However there are three (tel, Terr, cel) not because that's a nice number but because the tel only has the presence of the HG, the terr also enjoys the presence of JC, the cel also enjoys the presence of the Father (it says this in D&C), which sounds literal to me (you're either in one being's presence or you are shut out from being in their presence) rather than metaphorical. Still, thanks for your comment and unique thoughts here, I enjoy new perspectives.

With all do respect, you didnt address what i wrote with scripture backing it up. It seems your church leaders are re-writing whats been the truth with the 3 heavens of that scripture mentioned. You are going off a belief I cant get on board with (D and C) because you need to prove its credibility, the credibility of the prophets and leaders who wrote it which also are false prophets because they have prophesied falsely and many contradictions from what original writings wrote. Im baffled by this. It has host of issues with biblical context for one. But anywho, just trying to explain what that passage is really saying and not whats newly interpreted to fit a new belief system. Also, with God breathed, yes he is the breath of life and gives life. But also, He is the God and the Word is the God. The HS does not only teach us but also speaks. How else do prophets speak but prophetically by God. Its not an impression they get or feel but words. Look at eh prophets speaking on behalf of God and saying what he intended. Look what happened to those who spoke not on behalf of God. His anger burned and they died. The also dont get to be with the Father. good video info on enoch. ruclips.net/video/-1WUWW7ZCEc/видео.html

@@bigman7293 I don't understand your question's relation to the video so I'm not sure I'll give a meaningful answer. Can you clarify?

Yes! And that is the point. It's easy to want to find new deep truths but to fail to live the simpler truths right in front of us. "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only..."

@@richardstephens5059 Thanks Richard!

@@FinnTheHuman-c7s Right! There's definitely something there, but it's less clear to map it onto something I'm familiar with. Still, great point and comment -- and A of I is a super interesting text. I wish those medieval monks did a little more exact copying of old docs and a little less insertion of fan fiction...

​@@Sword_of_Laban I agree it doesn't quite fit. I've been trying to unpack it, and your insight in this video about the first heaven being chaos/premortal world is something I hadn't considered. It seems to line up with the first heaven in AoI. It also says Isaiah is prophesying as he's getting sawed in half from the head down. Just a little kooky ; )

Thanks Paul

Thanks! Yeah it became a bit of a rabbit hole...

Theres some stuff in the dead sea scrolls I can send you links

​@@bradleyhowell4155Yes please! You can even come on the show to discuss it real time if you want. Swordoflaban1@gmail.com

Christianity = a Death Cult 🪦🪦 has taught the cost 💵 of living instead of the gift of 💝 living & the human race instead of the human famley

@@karenl7791 It's a good question. Similarly let's flip your question just for fun -- I have noticed a large number of anti Mormon (anti-Saints? Atheist/Dislike church? against the church? Whatever is a better name for it) comments on faithful LDS videos. And for these I'm actually really grateful (honestly) because every time one of them hits "Send" the youtube algo pushes out those faithful LDS videos to more people's feeds... I don't have an answer for you, only more questions..

@@Sword_of_LabanI agree that people from both camps watch the other's videos and it does affect the algorithms. May I ask if you personally believe that calling people, many whom are ex-LDS, "anti-Mormons is more, or less, offensive than those who use the term "cult" ? Do you think using such terms fuels animosity or helps each side discuss differences civilly? Thank you.

@karenl7791 I think it may be offensive to some, but is less offensive than cult, surely. Do you think ex-LDS is better than anti-Mormon? Problem with ex-LDS is, I know many people who are ex-LDS and are not anti-LDS. Precision in language matters, and I'm not sure what else to call a spade other than a spade, but I am open to suggestions. I kind of wish the anti-Mormons were all saying "hey stop calling us anti-Mormon and start calling us X" where X was actually an accurate term -- and then I'd be happy to start using the term X. However no matter how many times WE tell anti-Mormons to stop using the word cult and just say church or the church's name, it will never stick. There is a lack of symmetry here.

@ //I think it may be offensive to some, but is less offensive than cult, surely.// I guess it is a matter of one's perspective then? If I am Christian, then is it ok for me then to say "anti-Christian" to others that disagree with my beliefs? Should I call LDS "anti-Christians" because in all honesty, we do have differences in our beliefs? I don't think it is very productive for either of us. Why can't we just discuss our differences without the labels or attaching hateful motives onto others?

@karenl7791 Yes, I expect anti-Christian is fine. Am I wrong? Is Atheist preferred? Because Atheist is not precise (I know atheists that are not anti-Christian, and I know anti-Christians that are not atheist). I honestly think we'd be in a worse state if we stopped calling spades spades and instead used some either generic term like tool (not precise) or term that is often incorrect like Pique (some pique are spades but many spades are not pique). In other words, what you are suggesting is a worse situation, imo. HOWEVER, I do agree with the larger principle that civility is important. Was i uncivil in any of my video? (Setting aside my usage of the word anti-Mormon for a minute, and looking at the rest of the video.)

Yes. In another age not too long ago, it was called propaganda...

@@Sword_of_Laban Now it's called "informed consent"