How the world was ACTUALLY created 😳 

That's amazing :) We would love to hear your story if you want to message us on either Facebook or Instagram!

@@Truthatallcosts777 why is that sad? 🤔

@@Truthatallcosts777 Triune. Nice. Fancy word. Shares a kinship with trinity. Only Trinity is never found in the Bible. The Godhead, conversely, is found three times in the New Testament. One must fast forward 300 years to the council of Nicaea to learn the complicated idea of the trinity. If you trust the vote of the Niceness council, more than the original writers of the New Testament, that is your prerogative. For me, however, I will believe in the Godhead. Three individuals with one purpose. It’s so liberating, not having to believe that Christ was his own father. Not my will be done, but my father in heaven. That sounds an awful lot like two people to me. But If you want to exclude me from heaven because I interpret something different, that only makes one of us. I do not condemn you for believing differently than I but rather believe that God is just and merciful and will teach truths line by line and precept and precept in this life, and the next, in order to save as many of his children as will come.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 ummm I'm not? My opinion didn't change when I went through the temple. Apparently, I have a very special talent: I can understand how two things can be true at the same time.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 They do not contradict, they are two different versions of the same moral story about accountability.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 There is nothing incompatible between them. One explans how the other why.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 Well, as Joseph F Smith wrote in the 1920s, it does not matter how God arranged tabernacles of flesh for the spirits of Adam and Eve, only that he did so. The two accounts are compatible. The Bible uses the metaphors of dust and clay. BH Roberts and Henry Eyring suggest that Heavenly Father used pre-existing biological materials. Scripture does not contain many details on the process, just that it happened.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 Evolution does not express an opinion on most of that order, and where it does it is in complete agreement. Evolution does claim plants came first, then insects, then other animals with primates, including humans coming much later. It even matches with astrogeology, which claims when the Earth was young it had a cloud cover like Venus that completely blocked out the son. So organic life came after day and night were visible from the surface of the earth.

Time wasnot used in creating what Genesis is talking about. Youbare correct in that it was a long time. Time forvus started at the fall of Adam and Eve

He was a person who experienced limitations based on his background.

Joseph Smith didn't write it. Joseph Smith received revelation to bring the sacred text forth. Google ''Paul Gregersen Book of Abraham pt 8 truth discovery you tube''. The video clearly demonstrates a connection between Joseph Smith and the divine. Also the video DEBUNKS THE EGYPTOLOGISTS.

@@richardholmes7199 so then the question becomes, why didn't God make it clear. Why make it purposely confusing and obtuse?

@@MalcolmLeitch1 This explanation from Joseph Smith is not confusing and obtuse.

@@richardholmes7199 it is unless you believe the Earth was actually created in 7 days, in the order listed without evolution being the driving force and with no explanation of why there are two different creation accounts.

Hey Joe! What is the timestamp of that quote?

@@SaintsUnscripted thanks for the reply. This has been bugging me! 😂 It's introduced at 13:45 and is given at 14:22. Thanks

Okay this quote from John Taylor was published in Millennial Star vol. 9, no. 21 (1 Nov 1847), 323-324. We can totally send you the image of the document too if you'd like to send us a direct message on either Facebook or Instagram.

@@SaintsUnscripted amazing thank you so much!

Hey! You could try contacting him here, or he might be active in this comment section. www.patheos.com/about-patheos

LDS members are so lost.

Evolution, strictly speaking, is not a theory of ultimate origins; it's about the relatedness of living things.

Thank you! Ben Spackman is such a great teacher, isn't he?

@@SaintsUnscripted I don't need to go through all the scholars or to study ancient languages just to learn the truth about God.... We already know that God puts humans (his offspring) up at his level to live for the saints to reign beside him because in Revelations Chapter 5 it shows all the kings worshipping God on their thrones with their crowns. And did not Paul say to the saints to run the race with paitence that ye may obtain the crown of glory? Did not Paul say that 'I fought a good fight, and I kept the faith, and did he not also say, I know that there is a crown of glory waiting for me? As for Genesis 1 and 2 the Lord tells us in the Doctrine and Covenants that all things were made spiritually first before they were created temporally. So Genesis 1 is the Premortal or Spiritual Creation, and Genesis 2 is the Mortal Physical Creation..... . Paul also taught on the resurrection of the dead that God shares his light and glory with others otherwise there would be no different degrees of light and glory for the dead to inherit from God and no laying on of hands to receive the holy ghost to be shared with anyone and no ordinances, no baptism, no savior to be given to us to atone for our sins to raise us up in the resurrection, Or why would Paul also talk about the saints obtaining an incorruptible immortal body just like Christ's in the Resurrection? 'Fashioned like unto his glorious body' Isaiah was a book written for the latter-day saints because it was all about Zion and the latter-day Saints in the last days and about the gathering of the House of Israel to Zion. So how can you say Isaiah and all other old testament prophets just wrote for their own people and timeline only, that's wasn't always the case for some prophets saw into our timeline and prophesied what would happen in the last days as well as what was happening in their day. But Prophets of God can jump from one time period into another to tell us things that will happen in the last days....They don't just stay in their own time period...They talked about the Second Coming of Christ,, they talked about the gathering of all the nations to fight against Jersualem and the Savior standing on the mount of Olives and splitting it in two and about the 2 witnesses and so on..... God showed them these things in visions.

@@germanslice you should check Ben's blog and be open to the possibility that maybe you don't know as much as you think you do.

​@@EstevanLPLeal The members of the Church have been given the Holy Ghost by God to understand the scriptures....So i dont' see the need to become dependent on any bible scholar in order to try to understand the scriptures. .

It is so awesome to think we can learn this stuff in heaven from the Creator!!

Genesis 1 took its *current form* in the Babylonian captivity, by Israelite priests, but drew on earlier Israelite stuff.

There are varying hypotheses on when and how the Torah was written, composited, and/or edited. We tend to believe it originated with Moses but became heavily edited in Babylonian captivity. The existence of Moses 1 and the following retranslation of Genesis in the Book of Moses supports the idea that Moses himself had written the Torah. There is a channel on RU-vid called "Useful Charts", by a rabbinic Jew, with series titled "Who wrote the Bible?" and offers a somewhat altered hypothesis that the Torah was composed entirely (or near to it) in the Babylonian captivity period, at least 1000 years removed from Moses. Look it up, it's interesting stuff :)

@@mikeonthecomputer apparently Joseph did not know this when he re-wrote, expanded and modified Genesis to create the Book of Moses and Abraham.

@@MalcolmLeitch1 Independent non-LDS scholars seem to frequently spin around a date of ca. 600 BC for either the origin or "modern composition" of the Torah and that alone is fascinating on the point for when Lehi and his children left Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon attests to the writings of Moses speaking of Christ whereas it's not so plain and simple in the Bible today. Joseph Smith either got pretty darn lucky or maybe he wasn't making it up after all. ;)

@@mikeonthecomputer Moses Ch 1 conforms to the J and P authorship of Genesis but Abraham does not, using "The Gods" in place of Elohim and Jehovah. I have not seen any scholarship address this inconsistency.

Because that's not how quantum physics works?

@@carlosjosejimenezbermudez9255 that we know of yet. Sure.

Well, pretty much every President of the Church accepts the serpent in the Genesis version is a metaphor for Satan. Everybody accepts that Genesis is a blend of metaphor, poetry, and history, they just disagree one where exactly to draw that line. As Spackman's research indicates for roughly the first 100 years of Church history the majority view was that the Creation account was metaphorical. It is not until the 1940s-50s that some leaders adapted views from fundamentalist evangelicals. Still, even they saw the serpent as metaphor, which is basically what the Temple teaches.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 No, I have already explained what that phrase means. It was never a claim of perfection but of how the collective efforts of the Prophets lead us toward God. There is a parable that was spread among Scout Camps a few years ago. It compared the Prophet to a Senor Patrol Leader. Just another Scout, but entrusted with the map and compass. Still a kid a capable of mistakes, but with the help of the other Patrol Leaders he could use the tools he was given to direct the Troop to the campsite. Some Scouts complaining, he wasn't doing a good enough job struck out on their own, without the map or compass. Randomly wandering in the wilderness, they could not find the campsite. The Senor Patrol Leader was not perfect, but even with some mistakes those of the Troop who followed him reached the Campsite. That is what that phrase means. The trajectory is certain, not every decision made along the way. Wilford Woodruff was not claiming that he as an individual man would never make any mistakes. He was speaking about revelation and new scripture. The sermon just before him was given by a councilor in the First Presidency who explained the process by which revelation becomes scripture, and how a President of the Church could be removed. You keep trying to apply it in ways for which it was never intended. In that very same sermon Woodruff talked about his own frailties and faults. He claimed to be nothing more than an ordinary man with an extraordinary calling. His testimony, and that of the Q12 was that the policy change was the result of direct revelation.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 Switching topics again. There are other Saints Unscripted videos more appropriate to that topic. To be honest, I was not in those councils. I can't read their minds nor to I know the intent of their hearts. I do know they never used the word punishment. The delay, not ban, was never explained has a punishment for parental sins, but as a mercy to avoid conflict in the home. I have no reason to believe it was ever intended otherwise. Sometimes God does allow us to make mistakes, to learn. Martin Harris asked three times to take the 116 pages. God said no twice, until relenting. The Children of Israel wanted a King. God told Samuel no multiple times, until again finally relenting. Some lessons are only learned by experience. I do not know what lessons the FP and Q12 learned from that experience, but I have no doubt that it was valuable.

I agree! What did you think of Ben's explanation?

@@SaintsUnscripted Still a bit simplistic, but good for a lay audience. I would argue that it is impossible to to have a literal interpretation unless one is dealing with the original language. Even then some phrases, particularly poetry, have multiple correct meanings. In such cases there is no such thing as a literal interpretation. Before determining what the literal meaning is, one must first determine if such is even knowable. Often it seems to me those claiming literal readings really mean presentism readings. They want to impute modern cultural and linguistic on ancient texts and claim it is "obvious". That is still adding a context.

Why would it mean the Book of Mormon isn't true?

Amazing men you are

Lol

No, many theories put history in a context, of which there are many. Critical Race Theory restricts itself to a purely racial context.

What? Understanding the actions and beliefs of past people within their historical contexts is a pretty basic principle that applies to all sorts of things. If Critical Race Theory does a similar thing, that doesn't make this Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory is a specific thing. That would be like saying that anything that spins is a ferris wheel.

Critical Race Theory reframes all of history into two groups. The oppressed and the oppressors. It views history as a power play. The race part comes in when the categories strictly delineate along race lines. CRT is marxism rebranded. Did this social theory stuff in grad school way back when. It is ‘new’ only in its implementation into institutions. It used to be used to describe the world but now it is imposed to run the world.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 What has that got to do with anything? The sin of Cain was envy. Saying ‘we was robbed ergo we need reparations’ . That is marxist justification to the core. Not race. Race is a pretext. ENVY is THE SIN.