Youtube comments of (@DannyAGray).
-
294
-
285
-
27
-
24
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
 @maggieavilla1336 I'm sorry for the situation your family is in. As a pro-life advocate, I fully believe in doing all you can to save the baby and the mother, but I have no objection to anyone wanting to get sterilized or being told they need to be and having it done. For anyone who doesn't want kids, or that having kids runs the risk of killing them, by all means they should be allowed. Admittedly, I'm inclined to pursue the safety of the baby perhaps more than most people. When my wife was pregnant with our first child (she was 14/15 years old during that pregnancy) and with our subsequent kids, my wife made me promise to her that if something happened and only her or the baby could be saved, I would make the doctors save the baby. It was my wife's belief that she had already had a life, and the babies deserved their chance. Since then, I've come to believe that any good mother would sacrifice that much for her children.
Our last pregnancy was a surprise. We'd decided not to have anymore kids (we have 4 sons, and now 1 grandson) and I'd gotten a vasectomy. Then my wife showed as pregnant. We were super excited and told family and friends right away. 14 weeks in, my wife and I were bawling our hearts out over the phone while she passed our dead baby and I was out of town. That was the only time we'd told people about a pregnancy so soon, and I've since blamed myself for jinxing it. So, yeah, I agree with you that talking about it too early is not a good strategy.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi there! I've been LDS most of my life (I say most because I was excommunicated at one point, but then rebaptized). I live currently in Tooele, I have 2 very large tattoos on each forearm (I plan on more tattoos), I previously had an ear pierced, I swear way more than I should, and I'm currently a primary teacher, ward missionary, and I regularly attend the temple. As a kid, I grew up in a town near Phoenix. I was the only Mormon in the school, and I was regularly beat up because of it and other kids' parents wouldn't let their kids play with me because of my faith. As a result, I learned to regularly attend church with my friends just so their parents would like me. I moved to Utah when I was 12, where I was pushed out of friend groups when they found out I was Mormon (yes, in Utah, in Salt Lake City) and made fun of. It didn't help that the only church members I found who were happy to share their faith were the "nerds" who quickly became my best friends.
I'm sorry to say that judgement goes both ways, even in Utah. I got my tattoos AFTER I was rebaptized, and to be honest, I'm utterly shocked that the only judgement I've received is from NON-MEMBERS, trying to tell me I could be punished in my faith for it. Yet neither my bishop nor stake president have said a single word in the 2 years I've had them.
Anyway, I just thought I'd shore you yet another side to it all. I'm sorry you were judged. If you ever wanna come to church with me sometime, I guarantee you that we'll fully welcome you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
 @TheLordSorin I'm sorry that you feel so strongly negative in this way. The gospel of Jesus Christ is beautiful, and I am not a blind follower to the faith. Lord knows I've asked a lot of really hard questions to people who had really done their homework. I've rebelled against the faith more time than I can count. To me, it is not the church calling me back to it; it is my Savior and friend. The Lord chose the name of His church because He takes responsibility and accountability for it; it is His and no one else's. If it was Joseph Smith's church, it would be called so in his name. But it is Christ's church alone.
I can't answer to your claims against Joseph Smith. Don Bradley, the single most leading historian of Joseph Smith, state that there is no evidence that Joseph and Helen Marr Kimball had any sexual relating. In fact, to the contrary, evidence suggests that they were never alone at any point; the same with Fanny Alger. That said, since neither you nor I were actually there, it seems irrelevant to accuse Joseph Smith of something you don't actually have proof of. My suggestion to you is to not bear false witness i.e. hold a belief and accusation you can't prove. You can dislike him all you want, but perhaps it's best to do so on things you can actually know he said or did without twisting the facts. Hating him in ignorance only serves to make you out as a fool.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Angie Maxwell you say Adam used free choice to disobey God. This is not true, and if you bear with me I'm happy to explain: God gave Adam and Eve TWO commandments: multiply and replenish the earth was the first, the second being to not not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." but it wasn't death, as in being no more, it meant no longer being immortal. It meant a spiritual death, and being made vulnerable to the effects of life.
so here's the kicker: ONLY in the state of mortality could Adam and Eve been able to have children - to multiply and replenish. so, in other words, they could not obey the first commandment without going against the second, and they couldn't obey the second without disregarding the first. God obviously knew this when he gave them both commandments, and that's not to say he set them up for failure, since he gave them their agency. But Adam and Eve knew God had a plan, and they knew they had to choose to accomplish His plan. In reality, they did not disobey, and so it was not a sin; it was a calculated, intellectual transgression to forsake one command for a greater one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You and I could go in circles forever like this. The dictionary has nothing about prejudice when it comes to the word Phobia. Phobia is defined as "an extreme or irrational fear or aversion to something." Hatred may, I suppose, be synonymous, but it is not the definition of phobia.
In regards to religion, I could give you absolute proof and example, but if you refuse to acknowledge it I can't force you to accept it. Most religions have some element of lie to them, but that doesn't mean their doctrine or gospel is flawed completely. Darwin Claimed human evolution was science. But he had no answer for the starting point of religion and even conceded to a godly force. Science claims global warming, which is really just a religion paid for and bought off by George Soros and Al Gore, and is clearly proven to be false. Science of all kind now supports the existence of God - or at least a divinely controlling factor - in areas like physics, chemistry, astonomy, etc.But, again, if you refuse to acknowledge it, you will only see error in my statements
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stokenasty the interpretations is accurate. I've been teaching primary and Sunday school for the teens for YEARS and I've taught them all the same things. The baptismal covenant conditions can be found in the sacrament prayers as well as Mosiah chapter 15. It's quite simple.
Regarding missionary service, etc., you're missing about 10 years of primary and Sunday school classes of further teachings and preparation for those things. Yes, I do teach my current class (5-6 year olds) that sharing the gospel with their friends is a wonderful thing - and I teach that because I agree with it, not by force but by experience - and that serving a mission one day could be an excellent choice. When I teach the teenagers, I talk to them about the many classmates they have with different beliefs, how to connect with them as people, and how they might invite them to church. With the older teens, we talk about how serving a mission is a great way to not only serve and teach, but how to get along with a companion, pay bills, keep a work-type schedule, meet appointments, etc., which can help prepare them for college and even marriage. Further, I teach them that knowing everything in order to serve a mission is not necessary. They aren't serving to go teach everything; they are going out to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, live it by example, and teach the basics of the restoration. As someone who did NOT serve a mission, I see a lot of value in the idea of it.
1
-
1
-
@lukev483Â when I teach 8 year olds preparing for baptism, this is what I teach them they are committing to (because this is all they are committing to:
And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life— Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @stokenasty What is indoctrination? Why do we teach students in school anything at all, lest it be indoctrination? Young members are taught the fundamentals (hence the organization name being PRIMARY) and then they build up their knowledge. And it's really dumb to claim that it's indoctrination when the reality is that SO MANY teens pull away from the church during their adolescent years; I see this all the time, and it's a generalization to say that parents force them to go to church.
The reality is that most of the people like Todd, here, are bitter because they didn't take the time to ask questions in their youth, they didn't confront their parents, and they were duped by bad faith actors like Jeremy Runnells. It's possible that they didn't have good leaders - yes, I'm aware that members were more closed off even 15 years ago - but the church has come a long way to really open up. The sad part is that Todd will always prefer to keep his heart closed off and not bother to doubt his doubts.
It's also true that members in the Mormon belt (Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming) live in their own bubble. I've been amazed at how many exmos come from these states and claim they weren't taught certain things. I laugh at this because I WAS taught many of the things they complain about, and it's even more hilarious because I grew up in an inactive home. It sounds to me that Todd went to church his whole youth without ACTUALLY being present in church; he must have missed a lot while sitting there in Sunday School.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @Lerian_V if you're asking what the tree represents, the fruit is the light of Christ, the power and ability to discern right from wrong and face objection and struggle. Before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve had no struggle - no hardship or evil - and so they could never progress. After the fruit, they were able to be aware of the world and themselves, seeing that they were naked and considering it a shame (because Satan told them it was shameful and they had to hide). God even says as much, remarking that they were now "like us, knowing good and evil." (I love this line because it demonstrates that God was not alone but was with other gods, namely Christ himself) God then blocks the way to the tree of life so that Adam and Eve wouldn't become exalted like God in their state of feeling shame (their "fallen" state) and live in that shame forever.
I got a little off track there, but in a nutshell, the tree is the ability to discern good from evil and to become living beings.
1
-
 @Lerian_V again, the bishop is asserting that Adam and Eve are choosing themselves over God, and that's simply not the case. Even in the clip that you provided (and I did back it up some so I could get the full context) he's claiming that Adam and Eve were thinking about themselves. But God gave them a commandment, and the only way to meet that commandment was, in fact, to TRANSgress (to not move backwards in sin, but to go on the parallel path forward) and eat the fruit. Additionally, how can their clothes be a manifestation of their self consciousness - as the bishop says - if God was the one that provides them with the skins to be clothed in? God straight up wanted them clothed. I mean, God went out of his way to tell them they'd have to work for their food, and struggle with parenting (which was not a curse on Eve, by the way - God was just telling her what life will be like as a mother); He could have just as easily told them to stay naked. But He specifically clothed them. To say being clothed was a recognition of their shame is inconsistent with God's actions toward them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dascudder are you trolling me right now? You actually believed him when he said this? First of all, Memo himself (this guy in the video) is very well known online to be against the church even though he claims to be a member still. Second, the president of the church, Russell M. Nelson, does not own our control the money of the church at all. The money of the church is held in several places, and control of it (if you can say that) is NEVER decided by Nelson alone. While he is the president, he makes those decisions with at least the first presidency (2 other men) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (consisting of another 12 men), if not several other entities.
Nelson himself is a retired heart surgeon who could have been a millionaire by now through his profession, which he hasn't done since the early 80s. He now gets an annual stipend (income) from the church of $120,000, which is less than what I make in my profession.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SavedRUÂ in the scene is Christ's baptism, Jesus is in the water, the Father speaks FROM heaven, and the spirit appears as a dove. Your explanation above is the same as saying that the father is, as it were, Jesus's mind, with Jesus as the body. So please explain this masterful ventriloquist and puppet act that Jesus performed while standing in the river. And please explain why Jesus, being God incarnate, was praying to himself in Gethsemane and to himself in the cross. This sounds like a madman, in your explanation. Finally, please explain why Jesus says, "father, into your hands I commend my spirit." If God the Father has no body (other than Jesus's soon-to-be dead body) what hands does he have? And if Jesus is just God embodied, isn't he just saying, "into your shapeless spirit I'm putting... you?" Isn't that kinda insane.
Please elaborate. Your explanation sounds like a hot mess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @workingdemofirsttime4838 by your logic, why are there mental health facilities for suicidal people? Their bodies, their choice, right? What if I want to set my house on fire - why would I go to jail for that? My house, my choice, right? Funny thing, man, that baby's body is NOT the mother's body, SO IT'S NOT HER CHOICE! if she wants to do something to her body, because she's so desperate to not care for a baby, she can deliver the child and then use a hanger on her uterus and bleed to death after for all I care; but that baby has done nothing to deserve such hatred and violence from the mother.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tgstudio85Â it seems you're on a rampage with me. Let me see if I can help:
1. Harm - in many situations, parents can intervene in harm, true, but there are many where they can't. If a child chooses harm, or is involved in harm out of sight, there is little a parent can do. Believe it or not, scolding the school principal or yelling at the other kid does nothing (except create harm and trauma for the other kid which makes you no better). As I said, you can't intervene in everything.
2. RP - what intervention would you propose, aside from maybe legal action, as the parent? You asked, "what was God thinking," but God doesn't have to think in this situation; this is an issue of a fallen world and the choices made by people. God will feel sorrow, maybe even anger, but it's not as if He concocted the idea. This is a result of agency, which God has already told us He won't take from us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrsKateTÂ this isn't that hard to fact-check, really. The church has two corporations: the Corporation of the President, and the Corporation of the President Bishop. Both corporations are chaired by the leadership of the church (consisting of 15 men in the former, and more than 30 people in the latter). While the church president does outside over both corporations, the money is NOT his, and he never unilaterally decides any distribution of it. Additionally, the top 15 leaders of the church (the first presidency, and the Quorum of the twelve apostles) are all experts in their fields (doctors, lawyers, judges, pilots, etc). In addition to their returner income from those fields (whatever they may individually be) each member gets an annual stipend from the church of....... $120,000. For reference, the president of the church was a heart surgeon. He left a job which would have annually paid him almost a million dollars a year for less than I make as a truck driver.
So when you think he's being honest, you're really just being gullible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yindsey your comment has a lot to unpack, so I'll try to be accurate and efficient:
1. There is no clear understanding of why BY instituted the ban on blacks. However, several factors should be considered. BY was pressured by missionaries returning from Southern states into believing that this was a regular tenant of Christianity (which, by the way, it was at the time; however southern baptists really leaned into it). BY also placed the ban on 1858 - a decade before Jim Crow - potentially in response to the escalating tension in the country. That said, there is no clear answer, and no one condones his ban. If the church were persuaded by society, the ban would have been lifted sooner than it was; however, it was lifted when the leaders received proper input from the Lord, not the world.
2. I'm aware that the church was, at one time, strict about caffeine. Elder Bruce R. McKonkie, in his book Mormon Doctrine (first edition), stated that drinking Coca-Cola disqualifies a member from a temple recommend. Some things to consider, here, are that Elder McKonkie was NOT authorized by the First Presidency to write this book, and he later recanted many of his own statements and beliefs. However, this was still the catalyst for the larger campaign by members against caffeine, and it still lingers with us today for some members.
3. The church does not teach that polygamy is a requirement to become a god. Yes, this was, at one time, an interpretation of a statement from BY. However, the broader context of that statement clearly demonstrates that members ought to be ready to accept whatever challenge God has for them - not necessarily that it is required. I can find the exact quote for you if it helps. In any case, while some may engage in polygamy in the next life, we really don't know how those relationships will work out. What if those who were engaged in it in this life no longer want it? I doubt they will be forced into it, and there is no church doctrine arguing that they would be.
4. As the understanding of medicine grows, so does our understanding that some forms of pot are actually needed. Therefore, instead of punishing members whose doctors prescribe them this drug, the policy was clarified.
5. The doctrine of sexuality has not changed. We still rightly don't have bishops marrying off gay couples, nor are they married in temples. And if one is living a homosexual lifestyle, it still violates the standard by which members are expected to live. However, just like LITERALLY ALL THE REST OF SOCIETY, the church is constantly working to find a balance on how to navigate our neighbors who do live this way, which we see as a violation of God's will and design. While the doctrine is the same, policies change to help find a balance in accordance with the Lord's commandment to love one another.
I can see how one such as yourself might say that these are changes brought on by the pressures of society, however I see them more as the church refining itself, its understanding of the Lord's will, and its own connection with the world around it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1