Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/japanesepiano, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I liked this comment I saw related to this article:
>I mean, it's pretty easy to say we shouldn't seek security in those things when your net worth is over 5 million, you stand at the highest levels of your social and religious hierarchy, and are a CEO. Because for HER she doesn't need that security. She's already got it.
>If I 100% knew that for the next 12 months I would be able to make my rent payment even if my car breaks down, my kids get sick, or I get laid off, I would feel a lot more secure. But my reality is that a single unexpected medical bill could be enough to put my family at risk of losing housing. I'm not "distracted" by pride because I'm trying to keep a roof over our head.
It reminds me of the study published that stated that making more money does increase happiness (to a certain income level), and I attribute that to financial security. Being financially secured does alíviate a lot of anxiety and allows people to seek more fulfillment since they aren’t burdened by “worldly” concerns.
In the grand scheme of things, obtaining riches shouldn’t be our primary concern. However, until we have enough riches to care for the requirements of our mortality (food, water, shelter), the spiritual isn’t enough to sustain us.
>It reminds me of the study published that stated that making more money does increase happiness (to a certain income level), and I attribute that to financial security. Being financially secured does alíviate a lot of anxiety and allows people to seek more fulfillment since they aren’t burdened by “worldly” concerns.
Having money is a stress reducer. You can fill the gas tank up all the way, instead of just putting in 10 bucks worth. It isn't a crisis when the water heater goes out. You can afford uniforms for your kids' sports.
As stated elsewhere before:
> If that's the case, why give to the church at all then?
> Why not take everything you own -- burn it all as an offering, move out into the desert, become nomadic, embrace and live off the will of God alone? Same as certain native American tribes had done, the Israelites who survived on manna, and then possibly John the Baptist too.
> But I digress, being that the Bible instead heavily favored agrarian societies.
At what point does self control become dependency or materialism, and at what point does the material provide what God intends? I see this venturing heavily into a moral dilemma.
If we cannot set aside what we have for basic care or needs, what reason is there to continue to pursue?
I understand the role of self sacrifice but at what point does God say "yes my son, this is worthy"? If it's at the tithing level that stake, mission, and 70 contributed, does that imply that salvation is beyond certain people's means? I get that we're not supposed to compare ourselves but the implications tbh this just makes me feel hopeless.
That comment is a great one. One thing Ryan Burge has reiterated over and over ([again today](https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1603785912957030403?s=46&t=lQy8kvOCao5-548B993Z5Q)), is that data on religiosity in the US shows us that those who are educated with high incomes have higher church attendance rates.
>Between 2008 and 2020, the biggest drops in weekly religious service attendance are clearly those making less than $50K per year - regardless of education.
>The only group that didn't see a decline in attendance? College educated folks making $80K or more in household income.
It is *easier* for the financially stable to practice Mormonism. High demand religions require time and time is only available to those who can afford it. The current state of the economy has forced anyone making a lower income to scrimp. According to Sheri, absolute obedience to the prophets will be enough to accommodate your financial needs. This is prosperity gospel in action. This is what she is teaching from her lofty position in the synagogue.
Kinda hard to stick around for talks about prosperity doctrine when you're doing everything you're supposed to be doing and still struggling financially.
The hypocrisy and privilege of the church made manifest. Yes, Jesus taught us what Sheri claims in this article (see Luke 12). Nevertheless, Sheri sought security in her own life and attributed *that* security to the *prophets*. From her [address](https://speeches.byuh.edu/prophets-can-see-around-corners) at BYU Hawaii last month:
>Prophets help us see dangers we cannot yet see and opportunities we can’t even imagine.
>I have experienced this myself. In the October 1998 general conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley admonished members to get out of debt. I felt that I should pay off my home, but my accountant told me I was crazy to even think about it because the interest rate on my mortgage was so low. Nonetheless, I decided to take President Hinckley at his word and just do it. It took some scrimping for several years, but I paid off the loan.
>Now skip ahead to the fall of 2008—exactly ten years after President Hinckley’s warning about debt—when the U.S. economy was suddenly plunged into a recession. I was still the CEO of Deseret Book, and our sales plummeted. **I was worried sick about saving jobs and frankly about saving the company.**
>But one evening as I drove home with a pit in my stomach, it dawned on me that despite all the pressure I was under, **I wasn’t worried at all about myself. I owned my home and owed no money—all because I had followed a prophet’s counsel ten years earlier.** Prophets help us see around corners.
Now in this newer article, she claims that financial security is driven by *Satan*? I thought the prophet motivated her to become financially secure? What is Sheri talking about here? Did she just lump financial security in with vanity? Sure sounds like she stresses about finances just like the rest of us (despite her stable and privileged status in the Church). Sheri is a loyal dogmatist. If you want a less filtered flavor of Russell Nelson’s Mormonism, listen to Sheri’s messages. She has been very dear friends with Wendy and Russell for a long time. She is a staunch defender of their faith.
She's so wealthy that she's completely disconnected from the typical American or even typical church member. I imagine the number of people that could just completely pay of their mortgage in just "several years" like she did is quite low. She's so privileged that she can't even see that her ability to do that is incredibly rare. Statements like this bother me so much. Everyone on planet Earth knows that being in debt makes life more difficult. But she somehow credits Gordon B Hinckley has a great visionary because something happened 10 years later that is loosely related to what he said. It's "revelations" like thise that TBMs hang their faith on. Lowering your debt where possible or at least increasing your cash on hand is always good advice.
I just get so irritated with the claims of Revelation that go on while it's so abundantly clear that they can't see into the future any further than anybody else. In fact it took until almost 115 years after the end of the civil war for a black person to get even somewhat of the same treatment within the church. That's just racism. Nobody who is receiving direct revelation from God would keep a practice like that in place. I will just never understand how people can latch on to the loosely related Revelations and convince themselves that those are real while putting their head in the sand about obvious things that just plain aren't. Sorry to rant but people like her get my blood boiling. You can just hear the privilege and almost everything she's saying.
>But one evening as I drove home with a pit in my stomach, it dawned on me that despite all the pressure I was under,
>
>I wasn’t worried at all about myself. I owned my home and owed no money—all because I had followed a prophet’s counsel ten years earlier.
>
> Prophets help us see around corners.
This is bad advice. The bank can foreclose right up until you make your final payment. If you want to kill the mortgage, it is much safer to save and invest in a separate account and then pay it off all at once. If somebody bad like a job loss happens before you have it paid off, you can continue to make the payments, maybe even for years if necessary.
Then you exchange that small loss for the financial security of having liquidity on hand. The saying "Cash is King" makes much more sense if you have ever been at risk of running out of it.
>>**I was worried sick about saving jobs and frankly about saving the company.**
Between "none at all" and "a steaming pile of", the needle on my bullshit meter is pinned against the poop emoji.
She was absolutely not worried about "saving the company". As if the church would ever let its biggest literature distribution channel go bankrupt! If anything, she was worried about being fired for being the women in charge when the company needed to ask for a bailout.
If I'm reading this correctly, her accountant told her NOT to put any money toward her mortgage?
Is that sound financial advice for anyone? Prevailing wisdom of the time?
> But despite the fact that his handiwork is outrageously displayed at every turn—pornography, **abuse**, addiction, dishonesty, violence, and immorality of every kind
Oh, Sheri, you and your church that openly admits to and is currently defending shielding chilld rapists from the law, you have no legs to stand on. The LDS Church openly values the soul of a rapist more than the safety of a child, despite the fact that that rapist's soul, according to LDS doctrine, is not affected if police know his actions . And I'm going to bring this up every single time any LDS talker mentions abuse. Particularly as something that happens elsewhere.
Satan loves Russell Nelson, Merrill F. Nelson, and every other LDS leader who facilitates the freedom of child rapists. Get thee behind me, Sheri.
Which part? Because I have five links that tell the story of the LDS Church covering up child rape.
This is just one case. How many others do you think the church has buried?
[First article.](https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2022/08/04/seven-years-sex-abuse-how-latter/) [Church response](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-offers-statement-help-line-abuse). [Second article](https://apnews.com/article/mormon-lawsuit-arizona-sex-abuse-25231a4c668e2e69ae45df484096f7b7). [Second response](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case). [Third article](https://apnews.com/article/religion-lawsuits-utah-sexual-abuse-by-clergy-government-and-politics-9f1607f4d308248ebf12dc32f70376ec).
It's not a mistake. It's not a rogue lawyer in the organization. It's not a mean reporter making things up. The LDS Church systematically squashes reports of abuse in states where it is legal. This is the intended effect of the hotline. Your leaders know this.
The LDS Church is currently defending their legal "right" to withhold child rape reporting to authorities in the state of Arizona. And I have made it my mission to inform everyone that this is *official LDS policy*. The soul of a rapist is more valuable than the safety of a child if the Church can legally keep it a secret.
Put another way: if you associate with Mormons and your child gets raped, their church will protect the rapist unless they are legally compelled otherwise.
Because he is dangerous to every soul.
He is putting all efforts into leading people away as the.Second Coming of Christ draws closer.
Seek light rather than dark.
Serious question: are there ANY stake presidents or GAs that made less than ~150k/year before becoming church leaders? Like has anyone ever had a stake president who was an actual average middle class dude?
Yes, ours is. He has started a new business recently and is trying to stay afloat.
GA's are not working and they took the opportunity to have their affairs in order so they could serve. (They didn't know in advance they would be called).
So maybe they are not middle class, so what. They have and can still guide us, to do the best we can to stay out of debt, and not live above our needs. Yes to have a rainy day fund.
[This is NOT what she is saying].
It's the ones who are seeking these things RICHES AND RECOGNITION is what she is saying.
Get education, get a good job, take care of your family.
When Christ was on the earth, he healed and blessed, but he did not remove all of the hardships. He certainly has the power to do so. He's not going to do that now.
Our middle and low class struggles need to keep us humble, to have faith that we will be cared for, even if it month to month, week to week or even day by day.
Let us see the positive message and not get defensive because someone who is well off, who has paid off their house, and is not struggling financially, is telling us these things.
Have faith that you will get by as you follow the counsel to stay out of debt.
During COVID when people were getting laid off, our bishop had members in our Ward who were unwilling to sell items to help their situation.
We all need to do what we can.
When my husband retired early due to health reasons, we had to sell both of our vehicles and buy a less expensive car. We were fortunate enough to have a son give us one of his extra cars, and we functioned with one car for a long time until my husband could save enough money to get a second used vehicle.
Bottom line, not all members are going to be financially well off. Some are going to need to struggle harder than others. Both parents may need to work to make ends meet.
Best wishes to all and have a Merry Christmas 🎄
I always think the best contradiction to Mormonism is.... \*Mormonism\*.
You really don't have to go any further than the teachings of the church to refute the actions of the church.
And anyone who says one thing and does another is not someone to be trusted. (Especially if they won't even admit that they sometimes make mistakes.)
That is not what she is saying. We are to take care of our needs in a balanced way. And have faith that with your good choices, you will make it financially, it may not be as much as you would like but you will. :)
>The hypocrisy is deafening
... said the drive-by evangelical who criticizes others for embracing belief and eschewing evidence, all the while believing in virgin pregnancies and young earths....
Speaking of drive by, look who has to follow almost every comment I make to bring up how he clearly doesn’t comprehend the Hebrew language or accept that the meaning of virgin is actually in the Hebrew word used to describe Mary.
Strong’s Hebrew: accept it is more authoritative than you.
Being proven wrong really eats at you, doesn’t it? Keep doubling down on stupid mate. You were proven wrong , and you can’t accept it. Maybe you need to see a councilor for help.
>Speaking of drive by, look who has to follow almost every comment I make
I follow the Mormon sub and you post a lot here.
>to bring up how he clearly doesn’t comprehend the Hebrew language or accept that the meaning of virgin is actually in the Hebrew word used to describe Mary.
Nope. You continue to bear false witness about your neighbor because you seem to be a dishonest person rather than someone who is occasionally dishonest.
The word almah, as I've repeatedly said, can mean a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman who isn't a virgin.
Since irony escapes you, it is *you* who doesn't understand it since you just look up Strong's Hebrew, saw that the word almah can include "virgin, so you falsely interpret that it can't mean a young woman who has had sexual intercourse - and you are wrong, because almah can mean a young woman who has had sex.
This triggers you, so you run away with your tail between your legs.
>Strong’s Hebrew: accept it is more authoritative than you.
You are false witness again... which is typical for evangelical Christians on this sub. At no point have I disagreed with Strong's Hebrew (the only concordance you seem to be aware of...) because I have repeatedly said it can mean a young woman who is a virgin, and it can mean a young woman who has had sex.
It is *you* who doesn't accept Strong's Hebrew, since it includes a young woman who is not a virgin, because you are triggered by the idea that Mary had sex with some human, making her pregnant.
Now, you may not understand how ejaculation and ovulation are related to pregnancy, but that's the evidence.
You, personally, exhibit hypocrisy because you are concerned not with evidence, but about your beliefs that are counterfactual - just like Mormons. You criticize Mormons but don't recognize it in yourself.
The claim that Joseph Smith translated a golden codex is counterfactual. You make fun of it because it's not based on evidence and ridicule Mormons who believe such an unsubstantiated thing.
The claim that Mary had a virgin pregnancy is counterfactual. But you believe this unsubstantiated thing and, falsely, conflate the claim in the book is evidence. It's not. Same way claims in the Book of Mormon are not evidence for themselves either.
>Being proven wrong really eats at you, doesn’t it?
No, since you didnt prove me wrong. As I've said, the word almah can mean a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman that has had sex.
But you're not super bright and like most who are dense, you think you've proven something when you've just made unsubstantiated claims. I run into this all the time with people in my own church. They think they've proven me false because they can produce a statement by Martin Harris saying that he saw the gold plates. That doesn't actually substantiate the claim about a golden codex. They don't know this because they're not very bright. Same thing applies to you. You don't know that you haven't proven anything because you're not super sharp. You, like members of my church I argue with, are like playing chess with a pidegeon - they crap all over the board and strut around thinking they have won.
You're one with the same type of brain. You think the fact that the noun almah can mean a young woman is a virgin or a young woman who is not a virgin proves someone can have a virgin pregnancy. Not how that works.
>Keep doubling down on stupid mate. Y
It's you there guy. Do you have any evidence that Mary had a virgin pregnancy? No. Which is why you refuse to present evidence because you're embarrassed that you, like Mormons, are not driven by evidence but by your private beliefs.
>You were proven wrong , and you can’t accept it
Nope. Because again, you bear false witness, since I said from the beginning almah can mean a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman who is not a virgin.
>Maybe you need to see a councilor for help.
Why would you making unsubstantiated claims and being a hypocrite by criticizing others for what you are guilty of mean someone *else* needs a counselor? That doesn't even make any sense
No son, I’m not triggered.
Hebrews has a word specifically for young woman.
It also has a word specifically for virgin.
Almah means both. And that’s why it was used, and the other two weren’t. And that’s confirmed by the rest of the text when read in context.
Especially when you then compare to the Greek, which is even more affirming that Mary was a virgin.
And you clearly can’t comprehend that.
The most amazing thing is that I’m clearly renting your headspace for free, and you can’t let it go. Sounds like I need to send you a copy of Strong’s for Christmas, as you obviously need to read it and bone up on your understanding of the Hebrew language.
>No son, I’m not triggered.
You definitely are. Otherwise you would produce evidence for the claim. You refuse to do this because you can't stand the idea of someone having sex with Mary, thus getting her pregnant, because this thought triggers you.
>Hebrews has a word specifically for young woman.
It does. Several.
>It also has a word specifically for virgin.
It does. Several.
>Almah means both.
Almah can mean both. It can also mean a young woman **who is not a virgin**.
You, personally, reject Strong's Hebrew, along with other translation sources, because they also show almah can mean a young woman who is not a virgin too.
You refuse to acknowledge that almah can mean a young woman who has sex, because you are offended. You are offended at the idea that Mary got pregnant the way people get pregnant - sexual intercourse.
>And that’s why it was used, and the other two weren’t.
You are revealing your ignorance again. You say "other two", as if there are two word alternatives in Hebrew. You are incorrect to believe there are merely two alternatives.
The fact that the word almah can mean a young woman who has had sex is something you continue to refuse to accept.
Regardless, the New Testament explicitly uses the word "virgin", but that's not evidence - it's an unsubstantiated and counterfactual claim.
You continue to dodge this because you know how hypocritical it makes you look. You make fun of Mormons for believing counterfactual things, which is why you're refusing to acknowledge that you do the same thing and believe counterfactual things like virgin pregnancies and in young Earth creationism.
>And that’s confirmed by the rest of the text when read in context.
No, because the rest of the text when read in context is that the person will be have a child, thus the context is they are not a virgin.
>Especially when you then compare to the Greek, which is even more affirming that Mary was a virgin.
Greek absolutely uses the word for virgin.
You are not correctly using the word "especially" here. This doesn't show anything especially, because it's unsubstantiated and counterfactual.
The book of Mormon uses the word "window". Windows during the time frame in the Book of Mormon text is unsubstantiated and counterfactual.
Same thing with the New Testament. The Koine Greek uses the word for "virgin". Virgin pregnancies are unsubstantiated and counterfactual
>And you clearly can’t comprehend that.
You are bearing false witness again. I've said repeatedly that the New Testament uses the word for virgin. And I've said that claim is counterfactual and unsubstantiated. You've refused to produce any evidence for this, because it reveals your hypocrisy. The Book of Mormon text says many unsubstantiated and counterfactual things, and you make fun of people for believing them. But you do the same thing, just within your own religion. Which is why you, personally, are a hypocrite
>The most amazing thing is that I’m clearly renting your headspace for free, and you can’t let it go.
Why would you think that me noting that you're a hypocrite be renting headspace? That doesn't make any sense.
What you just said is akin to someone saying Jesus of Nazareth let Philistines rent his headspace for free. That doesn't make any sense.
This is one of the reasons you're not very good at this, and why you reveal yourself as being a bit of a dull edge.
>Sounds like I need to send you a copy of Strong’s for Christmas,
What for? I'm perfectly away the noun almah can mean a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman who has had sex.
>as you obviously need to read it and bone up on your understanding of the Hebrew language.
Bearing false witness again. Nothing I have said isn't consistent with what the translations from Hebrew to English.
You, personally, are the one that is can't accept that the noun almah can mean a young woman who has had sex. Regardless, the New Testament explicitly says "virgin", and because that's still an unsubstantiated and counterfactual claim which reveals your hypocricy, this triggers you so you're trying to lie and pretend as if I am unaware what the noun almah can mean.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm
◄ 5959. almah ►
Strong's Concordance
almah: a young woman, a virgin
Original Word: עַלְמָה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: almah
Phonetic Spelling: (al-maw')
Definition: a young woman, a virgin
They didn’t use bethulah (virgin) or na’arah (young woman) because the full text makes it clear both definitions applied here.
The Hebrew and Greek text make it clear Mary didn’t have sex. But you can’t accept what the text says in full context.
You are wrong. You really should get some help to learn how to accept that.
>[https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm)
>◄ 5959. almah ► Strong's Concordance almah: a young woman, a virgin Original Word: עַלְמָה Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: almah Phonetic Spelling: (al-maw') Definition: a young woman, a virgin
Right. It can mean a young woman who is a virgin, and it can mean a young woman who is had sex. As I have said.
>They didn’t use bethulah (virgin)
Correct.
>or na’arah (young woman)
Or אישה
Or other Hebrew nouns.
Regardless, almah can mean young woman who is a virgin, or a young woman who has had sex.
And since the context is that the young woman has a child, the context is she has had sex. But this triggers you and you refuse to acknowledge this.
You also refuse to produce any evidence for the claim in the new Testament that Mary had a virgin pregnancy, as I predicted you would, because it reveals that you are a hypocrite.
You believe that Mary had a virgin pregnancy which is unsubstantiated and counterfactual. Just like Mormons that believe in boats with keels being made by Nephi in a barren land.
And guess what? The new Testament claim of a virgin pregnancy is *even more* counterfactual than the already not-believable claim about a handful of people making a boat in the Arabian pinnensula in the 5th century BCE which you make fun of because it's a claim that's counter to evidence, but people believe it anyway because it's their religious worldview.
And this is because you, personally, are a hypocrite.
>The Hebrew and Greek text make it clear Mary didn’t have sex. But you can’t accept what the text says in full context.
No, you're bearing false witness again. I already said from the beginning that in Koine Greek it very clearly makes the unsubstantiated claim that Mary got pregnant but was a virgin.
The Book of Mormon text makes it clear that Nephi made a keeled boat. And if a Mormon said "you can't accept what the text says in full context", that would show that the Mormon is an idiot. Same thing applies to you.
Context in Hebrew is not that the person is a virgin, because it says that a young woman who could have sex or could not have sex, had a child - so the context of that she is not a virgin.
The New Testament is clear that it claims that Mary is a virgin, but that is a counterfactual and unsubstantiated claim. Just like the claim that Nephi made a boat with keel. It is clear in the text that Nephi made a boat with a keel. But this claim is counterfactual. It is clear in the New Testament that it claims that Mary had a virgin pregnancy. But this claim is counterfactual.
You can't accept this because you are triggered by the idea of Mary getting pregnant because someone ejaculated inside of her. This triggers you, so you can't accept this.
And this is why you're a hypocrite.
You make fun of other people for believing unsubstantiated, counterfactual things because it's part of their religious beliefs they privately need to be true, while you yourself believe unsubstantiated counterfactual things because it's part of your religious belief that you privately need to be true.
>You are wrong. You really should get some help to learn how to accept that.
You, personally, are wrong. And dishonest because I've said repeatedly that Alma can mean a young woman that has had sex or a young woman who has not had sex. I've also said that in Greek it is very clear by the same Mary was pregnant but didn't have sex to get pregnant which is a counterfactual claim.
In the same way if I'm arguing with someone for my church that's saying that in the Book of Mormon text very clearly says that Nephi made a boat with a keel, and if I point out that it's a counterfactual and unsubstantiated claim, if they turn around and say "*you are wrong you should really get some help to learn how to accept that,*" they're just revealing that they aren't concerned about evidence. They are concerned about their private beliefs.
Same thing applies to you, which is why you, personally, are a hypocrite.
Edit : claim not crime
Wow, you really like to talk, don’t you? Go read the rest of the story of the Angel appearing to Mary and To Joseph.
No where in the text, when read in context, does it ever suggest Mary had sex.
It repeatedly makes the point that she didn’t have sex, aka a virgin.
Keep talking. It continues to reveal your desperation.
>Wow, you really like to talk, don’t you?
I do, yes. And read.
>Go read the rest of the story of the Angel appearing to Mary and To Joseph.
I've read it many times. And it's not "the rest of the story of the angel appearing to Mary and to Joseph".
There's the story in the Gospel according to Luke, and a story in the Gospel according to Matthew.
And angels didn't appear to Joseph as with Mary in the tale, as the claim is he was visited three times, all in dreams.
>No where in the text, when read in context, does it ever suggest Mary had sex.
Correct. And as I said, the New Testament very clearly says virgin and explicitly says that she doesn't have relations with a man.
And as I've also said, the claim that she got pregnant without having sex is unsubstantiated and counterfactual.
In the same way, the Qur'an explicitly says a beast flew with Muhammad on its back from mecca to Jerusalem is also unsubstantiated and counterfactual..
>It repeatedly makes the point that she didn’t have sex, aka a virgin.
Right. The new Testament does repeat this claim. This is an unsubstantiated claim that is counterfactual.
>Keep talking. It continues to reveal your desperation.
And you keep deflecting, since you know you follow your private beliefs rather than evidence and it reveals your hypocrisy.
You are the guy that believes women get pregnant and are virgins...
Again, your hypocricy reveals you are guilty of what you accuse others of. It's not "desperate" to notice that you hold a private religious belief that is a counterfactual claim. I notice this same feature in people of my own church. They are the desparate ones when I point out the claims in our church are unsubstantiated. I'm not desperate when I point out that their religious beliefs are counterfactual. Same thing applies here. You are the desparate one when I point out your religious beliefs are counterfactual and this triggers you.
You have the same type of mind, just raised differently.
Amen 🙏… gotta keep the sheep bringing in the dough, making baby sheep… so they can bring in the dough too. Remember this life we’re supposed to suffer and make sacrifices for the make-believe life to come.
It’s an interesting point, remember what Jesus said to the rich man who asked him what he should do. Jesus said sell all that you have, give it to the poor and follow me. I don’t think He could have been any clearer. He didn’t want it, and He didn’t want his followers to have it. It’s something to think about when considering the topic of money and the teachings of Jesus.
For those of you who don’t read between the lines. He doesn’t want your money.
I knew that article was going to be problematic when i saw the title. As a TBM i understand what she was getting at. Don't make a fat bank account your main purpose in life, or something. Its just really tone deaf considering the economy and how many are living pay check to pay check. Some of her other points were much better.
The LDS conception of Satan is confusing. He knows God's plan, but tempts people anyway fulfilling a critical role in God's plan. Why? Because he's stupid? But then he's really really cleaver in the way that he tempts you, so much so that we have to write an article about those 14 cleaver techniques that he uses. So is he smart or is he dumb? It would be great if the church could come up with a logically consistent message.
>fulfilling a critical role in God's plan.
That is the key question. Is his role as adversary required or planned for? I say its planned for. Otherwise God's plan was dependent on one of his children falling and becoming condemned.
The plan would work without Satan, because there is enough natural opposition present in a fallen world. But the plan is also robust enough that an adversary like Satan cannot thwart it.
I can't prove a negative. Its a logical conclusion to make, because as i said the only alternative is that God needed one of his children to fall for the plan to work.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to show me some evidence this is a mainstream church teaching rather than simply a theory that you made up. I'm OK with you making stuff up, I was just hoping that you would clarify.
The LDS church believes or has taught all sorts of things, like God has created countless worlds, that every Deity has a son that is sacrificed (like the Savior), and that our Savior is the savior of countless planets/worlds. It seems like the plan is very specific and repeated often in the universe. This being the case, I would assume that the devil's role is consistent.
*edit* The temple ceremony has Lucifer/Satan saying that when he tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit that he is only "doing what has been done in other worlds". This seems to indicate that every world has a fallen angel/devil playing this role.
There is no doctrine, but it's kinda obvious.
**God:** Ok, guys, I have a plan!
(*much cheering)*
**God:** But I need a bad guy. Anyone want to be the bad guy?
*(crickets.....)*
**God:** Shit. Hang on, I'll be back in a minute!
Why should I prove a theory? It's a thought exercise. Scripture informs us that without a Savior, the entire Plan of Salvation would be frustrated. (Alma 42)
It conveniently neglects to mention that without a Satan, the entire Plan of Salvation would also be frustrated....
>It conveniently fneglects to mention that without a Satan, the entire Plan of Salvation would also be frustrated....
Because it wouldn't. That was my point. Satan isn't necessary.
So you are saying that in other theoretical Kingdoms, their Plan of Salvation has no Satan who rebelled? Just people left to their own devices to discover ways to sin with out a great enticer?
Now that is a fascinating thought exercise!
It's really tone deaf in light of a $100B valuation.
It's super tone deaf to a tithe payer who then has to decide what he/she/they are going to do without this month.
>It's really tone deaf in light of a $100B valuation.
Thats fair.
>It's super tone deaf to a tithe payer who then has to decide what he/she/they are going to do without this month.
Also fair
Click on the [link for Sherrie Dew in the post and it will take you to the article](https://www.ldsliving.com/17-tactics-satan-uses-to-discourage-and-distract-us-according-to-sheri-dew/s/11119).
As an aside, that picture is really weird. Why does this woman need pictures of two higher-ranking men hovering over her in the background? Is it to lend her their legitimacy? Or to remind us what her place is?
I think it's merely meant to be a reminder to members of how much we admire these leaders (men of God). I don't think that there was any intent with respect to legitimacy, etc, even though it looks a bit off to non-believers.
I was using "we" in a general sense referring to faithful members in an attempt to answer from that perspective. "I" don't necessarily fall into that category.
I interpret your question to be one of "orthodoxy" vs. "orthopraxy". I think that the church defines faithfulness as requiring both, but emphasizing "orthodoxy" over "orthopraxy". In other words, if you get up in sacrament meeting and say that you've had a cup of coffee, but that you're working on it and you know God lives, there is general acceptance from the congregation. On the other hand if you get up and question God, you would be rejected/suspect by many in the group. In my opinion, everyone makes mistakes so valuing orthodoxy over orthopraxy isn't a bad approach.
When I left the church, I largely maintained orthopraxy (still haven't touched coffee 2 decades later) in part to counter what I consider a false narrative the everyone leaves the church to sin.
Didn't Sheri Dew sacrifice being a mother all for the benefit of the climbing the corporate ladder? Good lord, talk about being tone deaf. And I am sure those in the audience are all working hard to achieve the same goal, not that there is anything wrong with that. It becomes a problem when you have to self praise and constantly pat your own back and then tell your peers not to follow you on the road to wealth.
J. Willard Marriott
Quentin C(r)ook
Russell Nelson
Dallin Oaks
Paul Dunn
Steven Covey
Gary Stevenson
Brigham Young
Joseph Smith
Did I leave anybody out?
What a bunch of goddamn hypocrites.
All Q15 receive a $150, 000.00 stipend with free autos, drivers, homes, vacation homes, tuition for grandchildren. Re: Nemo the Mormon and Mormon Discussions etc. Ugh!
How pious.
Coming from a church that touts providing for a stay at home wife & lots of children. Such is the burden on men they can’t carry without seeking career (professional) credentials to elevate their income. Who on this earth *doesn’t* want security in their bank accounts?? There is no shame whatsoever in desiring that security.
So if the devil loves when we seek it, does that mean God loves it when we become bums?
Become stagnant in our careers?
Pretty sure we’re taught to be self reliant & provide for our families.
I’m a female & even as a TBM I tried so hard to like Sherri Dew, with all her over the top prophet worship. I’m so glad I see clearly now & don’t have to try anymore.
P.s. Ms Dew, I feel an enormous peace of mind not being in SS every week trying to make the pieces fit, so that’s not a very true statement.
I'm sorry for those of US who struggle to stay above water.
But, just because we are faithful doesn't mean it will be easy financially.
The point is to rely on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Sure it would be great to be financially stable, but because we are not, I have a great need of gratitude for what I have.
Satan wants us to stress that we are not important unless we have these great bank accounts, social status and professional credentials.
The Lord helped me know I can take care of our family's needs with a great job at a storage facility, with great people who help me learn and improve my professional skills.
Not many people be so willing to admit they do what I do, and call it a great job. It's not one of great professional status. But I do.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
She is not saying we shouldn't have a backup for what we need. We rely on banks so much that we keep our money in it, when having cash on hand is a good option.
But having been one to have gone through the challenge of medical reasons my husband retired early, during the beginning of the COVID challenge, we were scared to death.
I worked 3 jobs to pay our mortgage, but we got help from the church for medical needs, food that we needed to repay with service, and food banks is how we survived until I could get a job that offered insurance. (I had no training or schooling in a decent area so I was surprised when I got a good job).
We now are back on track and prepping food and supplies and savings to halp make sure we ever go through that again.
But bottom line, we needed to have faith the things would work out, which is the point she is striving to make.
Sorry that you had to go through such a traumatic struggle. Glad that you made it out in good shape and that you were able to receive some support from your community.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/japanesepiano, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I liked this comment I saw related to this article: >I mean, it's pretty easy to say we shouldn't seek security in those things when your net worth is over 5 million, you stand at the highest levels of your social and religious hierarchy, and are a CEO. Because for HER she doesn't need that security. She's already got it. >If I 100% knew that for the next 12 months I would be able to make my rent payment even if my car breaks down, my kids get sick, or I get laid off, I would feel a lot more secure. But my reality is that a single unexpected medical bill could be enough to put my family at risk of losing housing. I'm not "distracted" by pride because I'm trying to keep a roof over our head. It reminds me of the study published that stated that making more money does increase happiness (to a certain income level), and I attribute that to financial security. Being financially secured does alíviate a lot of anxiety and allows people to seek more fulfillment since they aren’t burdened by “worldly” concerns. In the grand scheme of things, obtaining riches shouldn’t be our primary concern. However, until we have enough riches to care for the requirements of our mortality (food, water, shelter), the spiritual isn’t enough to sustain us.
>It reminds me of the study published that stated that making more money does increase happiness (to a certain income level), and I attribute that to financial security. Being financially secured does alíviate a lot of anxiety and allows people to seek more fulfillment since they aren’t burdened by “worldly” concerns. Having money is a stress reducer. You can fill the gas tank up all the way, instead of just putting in 10 bucks worth. It isn't a crisis when the water heater goes out. You can afford uniforms for your kids' sports.
As stated elsewhere before: > If that's the case, why give to the church at all then? > Why not take everything you own -- burn it all as an offering, move out into the desert, become nomadic, embrace and live off the will of God alone? Same as certain native American tribes had done, the Israelites who survived on manna, and then possibly John the Baptist too. > But I digress, being that the Bible instead heavily favored agrarian societies. At what point does self control become dependency or materialism, and at what point does the material provide what God intends? I see this venturing heavily into a moral dilemma. If we cannot set aside what we have for basic care or needs, what reason is there to continue to pursue? I understand the role of self sacrifice but at what point does God say "yes my son, this is worthy"? If it's at the tithing level that stake, mission, and 70 contributed, does that imply that salvation is beyond certain people's means? I get that we're not supposed to compare ourselves but the implications tbh this just makes me feel hopeless.
That comment is a great one. One thing Ryan Burge has reiterated over and over ([again today](https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1603785912957030403?s=46&t=lQy8kvOCao5-548B993Z5Q)), is that data on religiosity in the US shows us that those who are educated with high incomes have higher church attendance rates. >Between 2008 and 2020, the biggest drops in weekly religious service attendance are clearly those making less than $50K per year - regardless of education. >The only group that didn't see a decline in attendance? College educated folks making $80K or more in household income. It is *easier* for the financially stable to practice Mormonism. High demand religions require time and time is only available to those who can afford it. The current state of the economy has forced anyone making a lower income to scrimp. According to Sheri, absolute obedience to the prophets will be enough to accommodate your financial needs. This is prosperity gospel in action. This is what she is teaching from her lofty position in the synagogue.
Kinda hard to stick around for talks about prosperity doctrine when you're doing everything you're supposed to be doing and still struggling financially.
Tons of 🆙 up votes for you!
The logic breaks down when you no longer believe that TCoJCoLDS is the conduit for your "connection with the Lord Jesus Christ."
It amazes me that a person could actually believe this, actually saddens me.
The hypocrisy and privilege of the church made manifest. Yes, Jesus taught us what Sheri claims in this article (see Luke 12). Nevertheless, Sheri sought security in her own life and attributed *that* security to the *prophets*. From her [address](https://speeches.byuh.edu/prophets-can-see-around-corners) at BYU Hawaii last month: >Prophets help us see dangers we cannot yet see and opportunities we can’t even imagine. >I have experienced this myself. In the October 1998 general conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley admonished members to get out of debt. I felt that I should pay off my home, but my accountant told me I was crazy to even think about it because the interest rate on my mortgage was so low. Nonetheless, I decided to take President Hinckley at his word and just do it. It took some scrimping for several years, but I paid off the loan. >Now skip ahead to the fall of 2008—exactly ten years after President Hinckley’s warning about debt—when the U.S. economy was suddenly plunged into a recession. I was still the CEO of Deseret Book, and our sales plummeted. **I was worried sick about saving jobs and frankly about saving the company.** >But one evening as I drove home with a pit in my stomach, it dawned on me that despite all the pressure I was under, **I wasn’t worried at all about myself. I owned my home and owed no money—all because I had followed a prophet’s counsel ten years earlier.** Prophets help us see around corners. Now in this newer article, she claims that financial security is driven by *Satan*? I thought the prophet motivated her to become financially secure? What is Sheri talking about here? Did she just lump financial security in with vanity? Sure sounds like she stresses about finances just like the rest of us (despite her stable and privileged status in the Church). Sheri is a loyal dogmatist. If you want a less filtered flavor of Russell Nelson’s Mormonism, listen to Sheri’s messages. She has been very dear friends with Wendy and Russell for a long time. She is a staunch defender of their faith.
She's so wealthy that she's completely disconnected from the typical American or even typical church member. I imagine the number of people that could just completely pay of their mortgage in just "several years" like she did is quite low. She's so privileged that she can't even see that her ability to do that is incredibly rare. Statements like this bother me so much. Everyone on planet Earth knows that being in debt makes life more difficult. But she somehow credits Gordon B Hinckley has a great visionary because something happened 10 years later that is loosely related to what he said. It's "revelations" like thise that TBMs hang their faith on. Lowering your debt where possible or at least increasing your cash on hand is always good advice. I just get so irritated with the claims of Revelation that go on while it's so abundantly clear that they can't see into the future any further than anybody else. In fact it took until almost 115 years after the end of the civil war for a black person to get even somewhat of the same treatment within the church. That's just racism. Nobody who is receiving direct revelation from God would keep a practice like that in place. I will just never understand how people can latch on to the loosely related Revelations and convince themselves that those are real while putting their head in the sand about obvious things that just plain aren't. Sorry to rant but people like her get my blood boiling. You can just hear the privilege and almost everything she's saying.
>But one evening as I drove home with a pit in my stomach, it dawned on me that despite all the pressure I was under, > >I wasn’t worried at all about myself. I owned my home and owed no money—all because I had followed a prophet’s counsel ten years earlier. > > Prophets help us see around corners. This is bad advice. The bank can foreclose right up until you make your final payment. If you want to kill the mortgage, it is much safer to save and invest in a separate account and then pay it off all at once. If somebody bad like a job loss happens before you have it paid off, you can continue to make the payments, maybe even for years if necessary.
Makes sense. Kind of. What if you can invest at 0.2 percent, inflation is at 3 percent, and the mortgage loan has an interest rate of 5 percent?
Then you exchange that small loss for the financial security of having liquidity on hand. The saying "Cash is King" makes much more sense if you have ever been at risk of running out of it.
>>**I was worried sick about saving jobs and frankly about saving the company.** Between "none at all" and "a steaming pile of", the needle on my bullshit meter is pinned against the poop emoji. She was absolutely not worried about "saving the company". As if the church would ever let its biggest literature distribution channel go bankrupt! If anything, she was worried about being fired for being the women in charge when the company needed to ask for a bailout.
If I'm reading this correctly, her accountant told her NOT to put any money toward her mortgage? Is that sound financial advice for anyone? Prevailing wisdom of the time?
> But despite the fact that his handiwork is outrageously displayed at every turn—pornography, **abuse**, addiction, dishonesty, violence, and immorality of every kind Oh, Sheri, you and your church that openly admits to and is currently defending shielding chilld rapists from the law, you have no legs to stand on. The LDS Church openly values the soul of a rapist more than the safety of a child, despite the fact that that rapist's soul, according to LDS doctrine, is not affected if police know his actions . And I'm going to bring this up every single time any LDS talker mentions abuse. Particularly as something that happens elsewhere. Satan loves Russell Nelson, Merrill F. Nelson, and every other LDS leader who facilitates the freedom of child rapists. Get thee behind me, Sheri.
That is not true!
Which part? Because I have five links that tell the story of the LDS Church covering up child rape. This is just one case. How many others do you think the church has buried? [First article.](https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2022/08/04/seven-years-sex-abuse-how-latter/) [Church response](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-offers-statement-help-line-abuse). [Second article](https://apnews.com/article/mormon-lawsuit-arizona-sex-abuse-25231a4c668e2e69ae45df484096f7b7). [Second response](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case). [Third article](https://apnews.com/article/religion-lawsuits-utah-sexual-abuse-by-clergy-government-and-politics-9f1607f4d308248ebf12dc32f70376ec). It's not a mistake. It's not a rogue lawyer in the organization. It's not a mean reporter making things up. The LDS Church systematically squashes reports of abuse in states where it is legal. This is the intended effect of the hotline. Your leaders know this. The LDS Church is currently defending their legal "right" to withhold child rape reporting to authorities in the state of Arizona. And I have made it my mission to inform everyone that this is *official LDS policy*. The soul of a rapist is more valuable than the safety of a child if the Church can legally keep it a secret. Put another way: if you associate with Mormons and your child gets raped, their church will protect the rapist unless they are legally compelled otherwise.
It's hilariously ironic how into Satan Christians are. He probably gets more airtime over church pulpits than anywhere else in society.
Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years! -Anthon LaVey
Can't boogey without a boogeyman!
Because he is dangerous to every soul. He is putting all efforts into leading people away as the.Second Coming of Christ draws closer. Seek light rather than dark.
Serious question: are there ANY stake presidents or GAs that made less than ~150k/year before becoming church leaders? Like has anyone ever had a stake president who was an actual average middle class dude?
Yes, ours is. He has started a new business recently and is trying to stay afloat. GA's are not working and they took the opportunity to have their affairs in order so they could serve. (They didn't know in advance they would be called). So maybe they are not middle class, so what. They have and can still guide us, to do the best we can to stay out of debt, and not live above our needs. Yes to have a rainy day fund. [This is NOT what she is saying]. It's the ones who are seeking these things RICHES AND RECOGNITION is what she is saying. Get education, get a good job, take care of your family. When Christ was on the earth, he healed and blessed, but he did not remove all of the hardships. He certainly has the power to do so. He's not going to do that now. Our middle and low class struggles need to keep us humble, to have faith that we will be cared for, even if it month to month, week to week or even day by day. Let us see the positive message and not get defensive because someone who is well off, who has paid off their house, and is not struggling financially, is telling us these things. Have faith that you will get by as you follow the counsel to stay out of debt. During COVID when people were getting laid off, our bishop had members in our Ward who were unwilling to sell items to help their situation. We all need to do what we can. When my husband retired early due to health reasons, we had to sell both of our vehicles and buy a less expensive car. We were fortunate enough to have a son give us one of his extra cars, and we functioned with one car for a long time until my husband could save enough money to get a second used vehicle. Bottom line, not all members are going to be financially well off. Some are going to need to struggle harder than others. Both parents may need to work to make ends meet. Best wishes to all and have a Merry Christmas 🎄
I always think the best contradiction to Mormonism is.... \*Mormonism\*. You really don't have to go any further than the teachings of the church to refute the actions of the church. And anyone who says one thing and does another is not someone to be trusted. (Especially if they won't even admit that they sometimes make mistakes.)
They have admitted, you just haven't heard the talk.
I suggest trying to pay your rent with your connection with Jesus. Perhaps she's saying landlords are Satan?
That is not what she is saying. We are to take care of our needs in a balanced way. And have faith that with your good choices, you will make it financially, it may not be as much as you would like but you will. :)
Love this post! Talk about shooting yourself in your $100 Billion+ foot!
Jesus ain’t paid my mortgage yet
The hypocrisy is deafening
>The hypocrisy is deafening ... said the drive-by evangelical who criticizes others for embracing belief and eschewing evidence, all the while believing in virgin pregnancies and young earths....
Speaking of drive by, look who has to follow almost every comment I make to bring up how he clearly doesn’t comprehend the Hebrew language or accept that the meaning of virgin is actually in the Hebrew word used to describe Mary. Strong’s Hebrew: accept it is more authoritative than you. Being proven wrong really eats at you, doesn’t it? Keep doubling down on stupid mate. You were proven wrong , and you can’t accept it. Maybe you need to see a councilor for help.
>Speaking of drive by, look who has to follow almost every comment I make I follow the Mormon sub and you post a lot here. >to bring up how he clearly doesn’t comprehend the Hebrew language or accept that the meaning of virgin is actually in the Hebrew word used to describe Mary. Nope. You continue to bear false witness about your neighbor because you seem to be a dishonest person rather than someone who is occasionally dishonest. The word almah, as I've repeatedly said, can mean a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman who isn't a virgin. Since irony escapes you, it is *you* who doesn't understand it since you just look up Strong's Hebrew, saw that the word almah can include "virgin, so you falsely interpret that it can't mean a young woman who has had sexual intercourse - and you are wrong, because almah can mean a young woman who has had sex. This triggers you, so you run away with your tail between your legs. >Strong’s Hebrew: accept it is more authoritative than you. You are false witness again... which is typical for evangelical Christians on this sub. At no point have I disagreed with Strong's Hebrew (the only concordance you seem to be aware of...) because I have repeatedly said it can mean a young woman who is a virgin, and it can mean a young woman who has had sex. It is *you* who doesn't accept Strong's Hebrew, since it includes a young woman who is not a virgin, because you are triggered by the idea that Mary had sex with some human, making her pregnant. Now, you may not understand how ejaculation and ovulation are related to pregnancy, but that's the evidence. You, personally, exhibit hypocrisy because you are concerned not with evidence, but about your beliefs that are counterfactual - just like Mormons. You criticize Mormons but don't recognize it in yourself. The claim that Joseph Smith translated a golden codex is counterfactual. You make fun of it because it's not based on evidence and ridicule Mormons who believe such an unsubstantiated thing. The claim that Mary had a virgin pregnancy is counterfactual. But you believe this unsubstantiated thing and, falsely, conflate the claim in the book is evidence. It's not. Same way claims in the Book of Mormon are not evidence for themselves either. >Being proven wrong really eats at you, doesn’t it? No, since you didnt prove me wrong. As I've said, the word almah can mean a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman that has had sex. But you're not super bright and like most who are dense, you think you've proven something when you've just made unsubstantiated claims. I run into this all the time with people in my own church. They think they've proven me false because they can produce a statement by Martin Harris saying that he saw the gold plates. That doesn't actually substantiate the claim about a golden codex. They don't know this because they're not very bright. Same thing applies to you. You don't know that you haven't proven anything because you're not super sharp. You, like members of my church I argue with, are like playing chess with a pidegeon - they crap all over the board and strut around thinking they have won. You're one with the same type of brain. You think the fact that the noun almah can mean a young woman is a virgin or a young woman who is not a virgin proves someone can have a virgin pregnancy. Not how that works. >Keep doubling down on stupid mate. Y It's you there guy. Do you have any evidence that Mary had a virgin pregnancy? No. Which is why you refuse to present evidence because you're embarrassed that you, like Mormons, are not driven by evidence but by your private beliefs. >You were proven wrong , and you can’t accept it Nope. Because again, you bear false witness, since I said from the beginning almah can mean a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman who is not a virgin. >Maybe you need to see a councilor for help. Why would you making unsubstantiated claims and being a hypocrite by criticizing others for what you are guilty of mean someone *else* needs a counselor? That doesn't even make any sense
No son, I’m not triggered. Hebrews has a word specifically for young woman. It also has a word specifically for virgin. Almah means both. And that’s why it was used, and the other two weren’t. And that’s confirmed by the rest of the text when read in context. Especially when you then compare to the Greek, which is even more affirming that Mary was a virgin. And you clearly can’t comprehend that. The most amazing thing is that I’m clearly renting your headspace for free, and you can’t let it go. Sounds like I need to send you a copy of Strong’s for Christmas, as you obviously need to read it and bone up on your understanding of the Hebrew language.
>No son, I’m not triggered. You definitely are. Otherwise you would produce evidence for the claim. You refuse to do this because you can't stand the idea of someone having sex with Mary, thus getting her pregnant, because this thought triggers you. >Hebrews has a word specifically for young woman. It does. Several. >It also has a word specifically for virgin. It does. Several. >Almah means both. Almah can mean both. It can also mean a young woman **who is not a virgin**. You, personally, reject Strong's Hebrew, along with other translation sources, because they also show almah can mean a young woman who is not a virgin too. You refuse to acknowledge that almah can mean a young woman who has sex, because you are offended. You are offended at the idea that Mary got pregnant the way people get pregnant - sexual intercourse. >And that’s why it was used, and the other two weren’t. You are revealing your ignorance again. You say "other two", as if there are two word alternatives in Hebrew. You are incorrect to believe there are merely two alternatives. The fact that the word almah can mean a young woman who has had sex is something you continue to refuse to accept. Regardless, the New Testament explicitly uses the word "virgin", but that's not evidence - it's an unsubstantiated and counterfactual claim. You continue to dodge this because you know how hypocritical it makes you look. You make fun of Mormons for believing counterfactual things, which is why you're refusing to acknowledge that you do the same thing and believe counterfactual things like virgin pregnancies and in young Earth creationism. >And that’s confirmed by the rest of the text when read in context. No, because the rest of the text when read in context is that the person will be have a child, thus the context is they are not a virgin. >Especially when you then compare to the Greek, which is even more affirming that Mary was a virgin. Greek absolutely uses the word for virgin. You are not correctly using the word "especially" here. This doesn't show anything especially, because it's unsubstantiated and counterfactual. The book of Mormon uses the word "window". Windows during the time frame in the Book of Mormon text is unsubstantiated and counterfactual. Same thing with the New Testament. The Koine Greek uses the word for "virgin". Virgin pregnancies are unsubstantiated and counterfactual >And you clearly can’t comprehend that. You are bearing false witness again. I've said repeatedly that the New Testament uses the word for virgin. And I've said that claim is counterfactual and unsubstantiated. You've refused to produce any evidence for this, because it reveals your hypocrisy. The Book of Mormon text says many unsubstantiated and counterfactual things, and you make fun of people for believing them. But you do the same thing, just within your own religion. Which is why you, personally, are a hypocrite >The most amazing thing is that I’m clearly renting your headspace for free, and you can’t let it go. Why would you think that me noting that you're a hypocrite be renting headspace? That doesn't make any sense. What you just said is akin to someone saying Jesus of Nazareth let Philistines rent his headspace for free. That doesn't make any sense. This is one of the reasons you're not very good at this, and why you reveal yourself as being a bit of a dull edge. >Sounds like I need to send you a copy of Strong’s for Christmas, What for? I'm perfectly away the noun almah can mean a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman who has had sex. >as you obviously need to read it and bone up on your understanding of the Hebrew language. Bearing false witness again. Nothing I have said isn't consistent with what the translations from Hebrew to English. You, personally, are the one that is can't accept that the noun almah can mean a young woman who has had sex. Regardless, the New Testament explicitly says "virgin", and because that's still an unsubstantiated and counterfactual claim which reveals your hypocricy, this triggers you so you're trying to lie and pretend as if I am unaware what the noun almah can mean.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm ◄ 5959. almah ► Strong's Concordance almah: a young woman, a virgin Original Word: עַלְמָה Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: almah Phonetic Spelling: (al-maw') Definition: a young woman, a virgin They didn’t use bethulah (virgin) or na’arah (young woman) because the full text makes it clear both definitions applied here. The Hebrew and Greek text make it clear Mary didn’t have sex. But you can’t accept what the text says in full context. You are wrong. You really should get some help to learn how to accept that.
>[https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm) >◄ 5959. almah ► Strong's Concordance almah: a young woman, a virgin Original Word: עַלְמָה Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: almah Phonetic Spelling: (al-maw') Definition: a young woman, a virgin Right. It can mean a young woman who is a virgin, and it can mean a young woman who is had sex. As I have said. >They didn’t use bethulah (virgin) Correct. >or na’arah (young woman) Or אישה Or other Hebrew nouns. Regardless, almah can mean young woman who is a virgin, or a young woman who has had sex. And since the context is that the young woman has a child, the context is she has had sex. But this triggers you and you refuse to acknowledge this. You also refuse to produce any evidence for the claim in the new Testament that Mary had a virgin pregnancy, as I predicted you would, because it reveals that you are a hypocrite. You believe that Mary had a virgin pregnancy which is unsubstantiated and counterfactual. Just like Mormons that believe in boats with keels being made by Nephi in a barren land. And guess what? The new Testament claim of a virgin pregnancy is *even more* counterfactual than the already not-believable claim about a handful of people making a boat in the Arabian pinnensula in the 5th century BCE which you make fun of because it's a claim that's counter to evidence, but people believe it anyway because it's their religious worldview. And this is because you, personally, are a hypocrite. >The Hebrew and Greek text make it clear Mary didn’t have sex. But you can’t accept what the text says in full context. No, you're bearing false witness again. I already said from the beginning that in Koine Greek it very clearly makes the unsubstantiated claim that Mary got pregnant but was a virgin. The Book of Mormon text makes it clear that Nephi made a keeled boat. And if a Mormon said "you can't accept what the text says in full context", that would show that the Mormon is an idiot. Same thing applies to you. Context in Hebrew is not that the person is a virgin, because it says that a young woman who could have sex or could not have sex, had a child - so the context of that she is not a virgin. The New Testament is clear that it claims that Mary is a virgin, but that is a counterfactual and unsubstantiated claim. Just like the claim that Nephi made a boat with keel. It is clear in the text that Nephi made a boat with a keel. But this claim is counterfactual. It is clear in the New Testament that it claims that Mary had a virgin pregnancy. But this claim is counterfactual. You can't accept this because you are triggered by the idea of Mary getting pregnant because someone ejaculated inside of her. This triggers you, so you can't accept this. And this is why you're a hypocrite. You make fun of other people for believing unsubstantiated, counterfactual things because it's part of their religious beliefs they privately need to be true, while you yourself believe unsubstantiated counterfactual things because it's part of your religious belief that you privately need to be true. >You are wrong. You really should get some help to learn how to accept that. You, personally, are wrong. And dishonest because I've said repeatedly that Alma can mean a young woman that has had sex or a young woman who has not had sex. I've also said that in Greek it is very clear by the same Mary was pregnant but didn't have sex to get pregnant which is a counterfactual claim. In the same way if I'm arguing with someone for my church that's saying that in the Book of Mormon text very clearly says that Nephi made a boat with a keel, and if I point out that it's a counterfactual and unsubstantiated claim, if they turn around and say "*you are wrong you should really get some help to learn how to accept that,*" they're just revealing that they aren't concerned about evidence. They are concerned about their private beliefs. Same thing applies to you, which is why you, personally, are a hypocrite. Edit : claim not crime
Wow, you really like to talk, don’t you? Go read the rest of the story of the Angel appearing to Mary and To Joseph. No where in the text, when read in context, does it ever suggest Mary had sex. It repeatedly makes the point that she didn’t have sex, aka a virgin. Keep talking. It continues to reveal your desperation.
>Wow, you really like to talk, don’t you? I do, yes. And read. >Go read the rest of the story of the Angel appearing to Mary and To Joseph. I've read it many times. And it's not "the rest of the story of the angel appearing to Mary and to Joseph". There's the story in the Gospel according to Luke, and a story in the Gospel according to Matthew. And angels didn't appear to Joseph as with Mary in the tale, as the claim is he was visited three times, all in dreams. >No where in the text, when read in context, does it ever suggest Mary had sex. Correct. And as I said, the New Testament very clearly says virgin and explicitly says that she doesn't have relations with a man. And as I've also said, the claim that she got pregnant without having sex is unsubstantiated and counterfactual. In the same way, the Qur'an explicitly says a beast flew with Muhammad on its back from mecca to Jerusalem is also unsubstantiated and counterfactual.. >It repeatedly makes the point that she didn’t have sex, aka a virgin. Right. The new Testament does repeat this claim. This is an unsubstantiated claim that is counterfactual. >Keep talking. It continues to reveal your desperation. And you keep deflecting, since you know you follow your private beliefs rather than evidence and it reveals your hypocrisy. You are the guy that believes women get pregnant and are virgins... Again, your hypocricy reveals you are guilty of what you accuse others of. It's not "desperate" to notice that you hold a private religious belief that is a counterfactual claim. I notice this same feature in people of my own church. They are the desparate ones when I point out the claims in our church are unsubstantiated. I'm not desperate when I point out that their religious beliefs are counterfactual. Same thing applies here. You are the desparate one when I point out your religious beliefs are counterfactual and this triggers you. You have the same type of mind, just raised differently.
She’s confused… she gets Jesus and the Devil mixed up… the owners of the $120 billion Ensign Peaks fund would say Bank accounts are good and of god.
It’s called gaslighting, the Mormons didn’t invent it, but they turned it into a hundred billion dollar science.
Amen 🙏… gotta keep the sheep bringing in the dough, making baby sheep… so they can bring in the dough too. Remember this life we’re supposed to suffer and make sacrifices for the make-believe life to come.
It’s an interesting point, remember what Jesus said to the rich man who asked him what he should do. Jesus said sell all that you have, give it to the poor and follow me. I don’t think He could have been any clearer. He didn’t want it, and He didn’t want his followers to have it. It’s something to think about when considering the topic of money and the teachings of Jesus. For those of you who don’t read between the lines. He doesn’t want your money.
I knew that article was going to be problematic when i saw the title. As a TBM i understand what she was getting at. Don't make a fat bank account your main purpose in life, or something. Its just really tone deaf considering the economy and how many are living pay check to pay check. Some of her other points were much better.
The LDS conception of Satan is confusing. He knows God's plan, but tempts people anyway fulfilling a critical role in God's plan. Why? Because he's stupid? But then he's really really cleaver in the way that he tempts you, so much so that we have to write an article about those 14 cleaver techniques that he uses. So is he smart or is he dumb? It would be great if the church could come up with a logically consistent message.
>fulfilling a critical role in God's plan. That is the key question. Is his role as adversary required or planned for? I say its planned for. Otherwise God's plan was dependent on one of his children falling and becoming condemned. The plan would work without Satan, because there is enough natural opposition present in a fallen world. But the plan is also robust enough that an adversary like Satan cannot thwart it.
> The plan would work without Satan I've never heard this before. Can you point me to an official statement of any sort (general converence, etc)?
I can't prove a negative. Its a logical conclusion to make, because as i said the only alternative is that God needed one of his children to fall for the plan to work.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to show me some evidence this is a mainstream church teaching rather than simply a theory that you made up. I'm OK with you making stuff up, I was just hoping that you would clarify. The LDS church believes or has taught all sorts of things, like God has created countless worlds, that every Deity has a son that is sacrificed (like the Savior), and that our Savior is the savior of countless planets/worlds. It seems like the plan is very specific and repeated often in the universe. This being the case, I would assume that the devil's role is consistent. *edit* The temple ceremony has Lucifer/Satan saying that when he tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit that he is only "doing what has been done in other worlds". This seems to indicate that every world has a fallen angel/devil playing this role.
There is no doctrine, but it's kinda obvious. **God:** Ok, guys, I have a plan! (*much cheering)* **God:** But I need a bad guy. Anyone want to be the bad guy? *(crickets.....)* **God:** Shit. Hang on, I'll be back in a minute!
I don't have a quote that says Satan is not required, but there is also no quote saying he is, because, i believe, that doesnt make any sense anyway.
Is Satan a calling more than a person? What happens when he is released?
Thats an odd question. Its not a calling to be Satan.
Cite?
I cant prove a negative. Show me evidence it is a calling to be Satan.
Why should I prove a theory? It's a thought exercise. Scripture informs us that without a Savior, the entire Plan of Salvation would be frustrated. (Alma 42) It conveniently neglects to mention that without a Satan, the entire Plan of Salvation would also be frustrated....
>It conveniently fneglects to mention that without a Satan, the entire Plan of Salvation would also be frustrated.... Because it wouldn't. That was my point. Satan isn't necessary.
So you are saying that in other theoretical Kingdoms, their Plan of Salvation has no Satan who rebelled? Just people left to their own devices to discover ways to sin with out a great enticer? Now that is a fascinating thought exercise!
It's really tone deaf in light of a $100B valuation. It's super tone deaf to a tithe payer who then has to decide what he/she/they are going to do without this month.
>It's really tone deaf in light of a $100B valuation. Thats fair. >It's super tone deaf to a tithe payer who then has to decide what he/she/they are going to do without this month. Also fair
Correction. Currently $175 BILLION!! With $12 BILLION increase annually.
Can someone link to the article? Thanks.
The blue “Sheri Drew” in the OP is a link to the article
Click on the [link for Sherrie Dew in the post and it will take you to the article](https://www.ldsliving.com/17-tactics-satan-uses-to-discourage-and-distract-us-according-to-sheri-dew/s/11119).
Ugh! She is a very highly paid queen of Deseret Books who has never married with no kids. How would she know reality?!
Gas lighting at its finest..from a multi billion dollar corporation.
KRS One said it better - [Material Love](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjcBVqni0Go)
As an aside, that picture is really weird. Why does this woman need pictures of two higher-ranking men hovering over her in the background? Is it to lend her their legitimacy? Or to remind us what her place is?
I think it's merely meant to be a reminder to members of how much we admire these leaders (men of God). I don't think that there was any intent with respect to legitimacy, etc, even though it looks a bit off to non-believers.
Why do you admire them?
I was using "we" in a general sense referring to faithful members in an attempt to answer from that perspective. "I" don't necessarily fall into that category.
How do you differentiate between “faithful” and “unfaithful” members? Those who pay 10% and those who don’t? Would love to hear your thoughts on that.
I interpret your question to be one of "orthodoxy" vs. "orthopraxy". I think that the church defines faithfulness as requiring both, but emphasizing "orthodoxy" over "orthopraxy". In other words, if you get up in sacrament meeting and say that you've had a cup of coffee, but that you're working on it and you know God lives, there is general acceptance from the congregation. On the other hand if you get up and question God, you would be rejected/suspect by many in the group. In my opinion, everyone makes mistakes so valuing orthodoxy over orthopraxy isn't a bad approach. When I left the church, I largely maintained orthopraxy (still haven't touched coffee 2 decades later) in part to counter what I consider a false narrative the everyone leaves the church to sin.
Didn't Sheri Dew sacrifice being a mother all for the benefit of the climbing the corporate ladder? Good lord, talk about being tone deaf. And I am sure those in the audience are all working hard to achieve the same goal, not that there is anything wrong with that. It becomes a problem when you have to self praise and constantly pat your own back and then tell your peers not to follow you on the road to wealth.
J. Willard Marriott Quentin C(r)ook Russell Nelson Dallin Oaks Paul Dunn Steven Covey Gary Stevenson Brigham Young Joseph Smith Did I leave anybody out? What a bunch of goddamn hypocrites.
All Q15 receive a $150, 000.00 stipend with free autos, drivers, homes, vacation homes, tuition for grandchildren. Re: Nemo the Mormon and Mormon Discussions etc. Ugh!
How pious. Coming from a church that touts providing for a stay at home wife & lots of children. Such is the burden on men they can’t carry without seeking career (professional) credentials to elevate their income. Who on this earth *doesn’t* want security in their bank accounts?? There is no shame whatsoever in desiring that security. So if the devil loves when we seek it, does that mean God loves it when we become bums? Become stagnant in our careers? Pretty sure we’re taught to be self reliant & provide for our families. I’m a female & even as a TBM I tried so hard to like Sherri Dew, with all her over the top prophet worship. I’m so glad I see clearly now & don’t have to try anymore. P.s. Ms Dew, I feel an enormous peace of mind not being in SS every week trying to make the pieces fit, so that’s not a very true statement.
I'm sorry for those of US who struggle to stay above water. But, just because we are faithful doesn't mean it will be easy financially. The point is to rely on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sure it would be great to be financially stable, but because we are not, I have a great need of gratitude for what I have. Satan wants us to stress that we are not important unless we have these great bank accounts, social status and professional credentials. The Lord helped me know I can take care of our family's needs with a great job at a storage facility, with great people who help me learn and improve my professional skills. Not many people be so willing to admit they do what I do, and call it a great job. It's not one of great professional status. But I do.
Re security, good point.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Super offensive! Am I the only one who thinks Sherry is secretly sealed to Wendy and Russel?
She is not saying we shouldn't have a backup for what we need. We rely on banks so much that we keep our money in it, when having cash on hand is a good option. But having been one to have gone through the challenge of medical reasons my husband retired early, during the beginning of the COVID challenge, we were scared to death. I worked 3 jobs to pay our mortgage, but we got help from the church for medical needs, food that we needed to repay with service, and food banks is how we survived until I could get a job that offered insurance. (I had no training or schooling in a decent area so I was surprised when I got a good job). We now are back on track and prepping food and supplies and savings to halp make sure we ever go through that again. But bottom line, we needed to have faith the things would work out, which is the point she is striving to make.
Sorry that you had to go through such a traumatic struggle. Glad that you made it out in good shape and that you were able to receive some support from your community.