Amulek At That 🪔

Stand up for what is right like Amulek.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

The truth of God will go forth!

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@FaithLikeAbish2 Gotta go fast!

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

Those are beautiful examples of the fruits that often grow from living the gospel of Jesus Christ, and they certainly matter. But they are not what a testimony of Jesus Christ, His word, or His Church is built upon.

A testimony is not ultimately grounded in archaeology, sociology, or even the blessings that come from faithful living. It comes from God Himself. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

If one day every one of those blessings were taken away, as happened to Job, to countless prophets, apostles, saints and martyrs, the witness of the Holy Ghost would remain.

That witness is independent of prosperity, family success, or favorable circumstances.

The fruits of the gospel strengthen faith, but they do not create it. The root is revelation. The fruit grows from the root.

If my testimony rests on men, institutions, archaeology, or even the good things the gospel produces, then it can be shaken. If it rests on the witness of God, it endures when everything else falls away.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

I believe he was referring to Stacker, not you. Though I'm sure your offer still stands.

I'm curious though, do you believe in God? Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Grok says you identify as atheist/agnostic. Is this true? How would you describe your beliefs?

How do you approach the the words, teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ? As that of a man? or are they divine?

Do you believe there are eternal consequences beyond this life for adhering or not adhering to them?

Do you believe there is an afterlife? What do you believe happens after this life? Bonus question, do you believe we existed in some form before this life? Why or Why not?

To be clear I'm not trying to set you up for anything, I genuinely want to know what your beliefs are and where you're coming from. I was under the assumption earlier that you were non denominational Christian of some sort.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@theBasedBarbie Friends, brothers and sisters.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@KimballCall @stackerco @JohnnyTani3 Every time I think of engaging Stacker I remember this is what he does, and I move on.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@ErbunnNinja @JohnnyTani3 @hellznobro @limitandmind @MooreMark25706 @ChKrosp89 That video is much of what I was trying to get across. Well said. I want his voice to read my audio books.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@ChKrosp89 @JohnnyTani3 @ErbunnNinja @hellznobro @limitandmind @MooreMark25706 Well put. Not much I could disagree with.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

John, thank you for taking the time to make such a thoughtful response. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to wrestle with and consider other points of view.

To your point about “perfect.” I meant it in the sense you described, of becoming complete, whole, mature, not the modern sense. Perfection or completeness is something we can never accomplish apart from Jesus Christ.

Where I think we’re talking past each other is over the purpose of Christ’s commandments.

I don’t believe commandments save us. Christ does.

I don’t believe commandments earn grace. Christ freely gives grace.

I don’t believe commandments are arbitrary tests of loyalty or burdens meant to prove our orthodoxy.

I believe commandments are the means by which Christ transforms those He has redeemed.

I don’t believe you’re not necessarily arguing against obedience but against what you perceive as legalism, I would concur. And I’m not arguing for checklists, but for transformation through covenant discipleship.

The Atonement isn’t only about forgiving sinners. It’s about creating saints.

When Jesus says, “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” I don’t hear Him replacing grace with legalism. I hear Him describing what love looks like in practice. Love isn’t merely a feeling. It has shape. It has action. It has sacrifice.

I think this is where the two great commandments are often misunderstood. They’re wonderfully simple, but they’re not small.

If I tell my children, “Clean the table,” I don’t need to list every plate, fork, toy, crumb, napkin, and cup. “Clean the table” already contains all of those things. The command is simple, but its application is much larger.

Likewise, “Love God” doesn’t simply mean feeling general affection toward Him. It includes worship, covenant keeping, repentance, sacrifice, reverence, honesty, chastity, forgiveness, gratitude, generosity, and thousands of other expressions that could never all fit into a single list.

Every commandment Christ gives is simply another way of teaching us what loving God and loving our neighbor actually looks like.

That’s why I don’t see lists like Kimball Call’s as “adding to the gospel.” They’re simply someone’s attempt to describe what those two great commandments often look like for a Latter-day Saint when lived seriously.

Some examples are doctrine. Some are prophetic counsel. Some are applications. Some are cultural. Some are personal. All point to love towards God and man.

As for Christ’s yoke, I think we actually agree more than we disagree. His yoke absolutely gives peace in this life. But I don’t think that’s the whole picture.

The burden Christ ultimately removes isn’t merely anxiety, stress, or the weight of earthly living. It is sin, death, separation from God, and the demands of eternal justice. Compared to bearing those alone, His yoke is infinitely easy, not because it asks nothing of us, but because He bears what we never could. Even when discipleship requires sacrifice, repentance, self-denial, and taking up our cross, it remains the easier path because Christ walks it with us and supplies the strength we lack.

Finally, I think one assumption beneath our disagreement is worth mentioning.

If Christ ceased giving commandments after the New Testament, then I understand why additional expectations feel like burdens added by men.

As a Latter-day Saint I believe Christ still governs His Church through living prophets. So when prophets call us to greater consecration, I don’t see that as men inventing extra rules. I see it as Christ continuing to shepherd His flock, just as He did anciently.

The Pharisees burdened people with traditions that obscured God’s law. Christ did the opposite. He fulfilled the law by taking it deeper.

So for me, the question has never been, “How little can I do and still be saved?” It’s always been, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” Because every commandment He gives is another invitation to become more like Him.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

Patience, start small, have them clean a small spot at first while you clean the rest, make them feel the joy of helping out, build up their confidence and and adeptness at cleaning, gradually expand and add additional things they can help with.

Also doing timed blitzes can be fun for the toddlers. “See how much we can clean up in one minute, ready, go!” Then scramble to clean up the mess when the alarm goes off and everyone screams and falls on the floor. Then they want to do it again and again.

But mostly it’s frustrating and aggravating and they throw their fits and it takes forever. But don’t let it discourage you, it’s ok, it’s a process, they’ll eventually learn and understand. Stick with it. You’ll miss their cute little squishy faces and little tantrums when they’re older, because they grow up quick. Don’t take it too seriously. Enjoy it. It’ll all work out. They won’t remember those days much but you will. Make them happy ones and give lots of squishes and snuggles. They’ll remember that because being a toddler is tough. You got this.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

This take seems to completely misunderstand the point and purpose of commandments, laws, rules, guidelines, and especially who they're given by.

The purpose is not to prove you are an orthodox believing member. It is not a checklist for salvation. It is not man made regulations in order to control and manipulate.

The purpose of them is to be roadmap toward a godly eternal life. It is how we are made a new creature in Christ. It is the method of transformation.

If ye love me keep my commandments.

Those who are faithful, those who do the will of the Lord and not just hear it, those who sacrifice all for the Lord, those who receive his servants, those who work out their salvation with fear and trembling and an everlasting hope in their Savior, they are them who will receive his reward.

There's no such thing as hippy Jesus.
Peace and love man, be generally good to each other stuff bro. That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christ asked hard things of his disciples.
Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. How? We do that through Jesus Christ and his atonement that makes up for deficiency, allows us to repent and try again to strive to keep his words, in that process he perfects us. We could not do it alone.

Yes His yoke is easy, but it is not nothing. It is easier than bearing the full weight of justice we deserve for our sins. He takes that on himself and offers an easier path, but not a painless one. His purpose is to transform you and knocking off those rough corners may be difficult, but worth it.

His yoke? It is keeping his commandments, loving one another, repenting of our sins and giving them to him and forsaking them, taking up our cross and following him, doing the works that he did, following the Spirit of God, giving thanks in all things and striving our best to obey and repent and endure to the end in His Holy name. That compared to burning in hell for all eternity suffering the pains and anguish of a damned soul. Yes Christ's yoke is the easier one by far.

Despite the relative easiness can that it still be difficult to take on Christ's yoke? Yes, and that is the point. The difficulty draws us closer to God, humbles us and removes our pride. It is the refining fire that purifies us and removes the dross. It is what transforms us from natural man to children of God.

Commandments aren't inconvenient and onerous restrictions, they're not arbitrary hoops to jump through, they are not meaningless burdens meant to oppress and cause guilt and shame.

They are a light, a beacon, to guide us and bring us back to the Father so that we can become one with him as he is with the Son. Following the commandments doesn't earn us heaven, it helps us learn heaven so that when we return we will be like Him, partake in the divine nature with Him and enjoy eternal life forever with Him. As we strive to obey the commandments instead of avoid them or discount them, we become more like him and are richly blessed in the process.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

Great list, I agree completely.
Unfortunately too many people are reading this emotionally, or as a checklist for righteousness, instead of recognizing what it actually describes. It represents a willingness to give ourselves to God and live for something greater than ourselves.

If you look beyond the mere actions mentioned and ponder the reasons behind why they should be done, you'll see that they are actually the natural tendencies, actions and fruits of those who are converted. The Spirit of God inspires them to do all that they can to live humbly, obey, and serve God and man in whatever way they can, from big things to small. Not to be seen of man but to bless God and man, and in doing so they're lives are richly blessed.

These things are not arbitrary, man-made requirements for getting into heaven. It should not be read that way. They are compilation of tried and true ways disciples have sought to show love for God and their neighbor. Some are commandments, some are personal preferences and suggestions that have worked for a long time but are otherwise not binding. Even so there is wisdom in them that is worth consideration.

Some recoil at any pressure to do anything but what is strictly required of them. So be it, but one will find that by laying down pride, rebellion, selfish desires, and the need or for worldly approval or personal satisfaction they can better fulfil the two great commandments and serve a purpose greater than themselves.

That does not mean every item is equally binding, or that every faithful person will apply every principle in precisely the same way. Nor does it give us permission to measure another person’s righteousness by outward appearances. But if we instinctively chafe at every invitation to sacrifice, obey, reverence, modesty, discipline, or prophetic counsel, some honest self-reflection may be appropriate.

“I don’t have to sit near the front to be righteous. I can sit in the back and be just as righteous.”

Of course you can. That was never the point. Where you sit in sacrament meeting is irrelevant. The principle is whether you are striving to put the Lord front and center in your life. I fear some get too literal when it is not intended.

It is not our place to judge if someone may arrive late, sit in the back, and struggle to pay attention because simply getting to church could have required everything they had that day. We do not know their burdens, and it is not our place to condemn them. Our responsibility is to lift, encourage, warn, invite, teach, support, and love.

But we can examine ourselves. We can ask whether our own choices place Christ first. We can ask whether our actions genuinely demonstrate love for God and our neighbor, or whether they arise from pride, vanity, resentment, self-interest, or the desire to prove that we are more enlightened, exceptional, or liberated than those who still take obedience seriously.

The point is not to scrutinize everyone else’s discipleship. It is to stop looking for loopholes in our own.

I think the central message is essentially:

Converted disciples do not spend their lives asking how little obedience is required. They humbly try to offer God their best, while relying completely on Jesus Christ when they fall short.

That distinction matters. Exact obedience is not the same as perfectionism, self-righteousness, or policing everyone else. Nor does it mean every conscientious member will make identical personal judgments about clothing, entertainment, health, family timing, or other circumstances. It means the disciple’s heart is pointed toward God rather than toward rationalizing whatever the natural man already prefers.

The harsh reactions may come partly because the post combines several different categories:

- Explicit commandments and temple covenants
- Authoritative prophetic counsel
- Cultural expressions of reverence
- Personal applications and prudential judgments

Because those categories are stated in the same commanding voice, some readers assume every specific application is being declared universally binding.

For example, reverence, modesty, Sabbath worship, missionary service, chastity, marriage, and parenthood are clearly taught principles. Sitting “middle front-ish,” however, is plainly an illustration of engaged participation rather than a revealed measure of faithfulness.

A charitable reading recognizes the intent: stop searching for loopholes, stop celebrating lowered expectations, and quietly live the gospel with seriousness, humility, courage, and grace.

A charitable critique might only suggest separating eternal principles from the personal examples so that the examples do not overshadow the larger point.

The strongest sentence in the entire post may be this one:
“But most of the time, you go about your day striving for high standards and relying on the Atonement of Christ to enable you. You don’t draw attention to it, you just do it.”

That is nearly the opposite of Pharisaism. The Pharisee performs righteousness to be seen, compares himself with others, and trusts in his own merit. The converted disciple quietly obeys, stands up for truth, treats others respectfully, repents continually, and trusts in Christ.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

The only judgement I can remember in the past decade or so was an older gentleman making a comment that my shirt was wrinkled and asking if I had an iron, lol. Instead of being offended like some might it made me laugh, the guy was based and he was right. I should do a better job on my appearance, not for my own sake or anyone else, but not doing so reflects on my attitude and respect towards the Lord. A good brother keeps you in check like that, and I was appreciative of the reminder.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@BrettWCain Right on! All you really need to know is if someone is committed to the Lord and is willing fight for you and you for her and nothing can stop you, even if her mother happens to turn into a bear every now and then, you’ll figure it out.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@zchance Neat little app he made to format any recipe for you https://t.co/jcAhxSaOLV

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@realDrTT Wonderful response, thank you again. I don’t think I would have got that from grok or google.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@nicoraytruth The Lord has other plans.

[ThatGuyOverThere @TeancumsRaiders]

Pro-tip: Your Aaronic Priesthood program is as good or bad as you make it. Scouting actually imposed a lot of limitations. Today we can do anything we could under BSA and much much more.
In a few days our YM/YW will be camping and white-water rafting. Many of them just completed mission prep and temple prep classes. Half of the priests quorum (ages 16-18) summited a 12,000ft peak less than a week ago and most of the youth are now at FSY (5 day gospel study camp). Next week the 16-q8yr old boys will be serving as youth camp leaders at deacons camp mentoring those younger boys (11-13) in water-sports, archery, rappelling, rifle range, survival skills, etc. and there will be spiritual instruction too. The young women had their camp a few weeks ago.
Most of my YM can hit a man-size target with an M4 at any distance out to 400 yards. Every year we do a high-mountain snow-cave camp out in single digits. Recently the Young Women and their leaders started joining us. They (all ages) regularly do group service projects. We take them to the temple quarterly and now they self-organize unsupervised temple trips. These are just highlights. We do MORE under our current program than we ever did under BSA. More spiritual growth. More service. More adventures. There has been so much bonding through all this that the older kids proactively mentor and support the younger kids enthusiastically and with no adult encouragement. We lost nothing vital leaving scouting, and gained a lot. Scouting in the beginning, was great, but it never forced lazy leaders to do anything. And the current system doesn’t hold anyone back either. There are no valid excuses for not having a superb youth program.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

I agree with the article’s central conclusion that the hardest problem in an AI-driven future will not be production, but power. However, I think the potential transformation may be even more radical and dangerous than the article suggests.

Many predictions about AI assume that life will continue much as it does now, only with better medicine, cheaper goods, less work, and greater abundance. I am not convinced it will be that simple.

A truly post-labor society would be a civilizational paradigm shift we haven't yet begun to wrap our heads around. Have such shifts happened in the past? Yes but over the course of many decades or centuries. This shift is global and happening right now and over the course of a very short time period. It has already begun to fundamentally alter the value of human labor, the relationship between citizens and governments, the distribution of property, the meaning of economic contribution, and the practical restraints that currently limit how much power one person or institution can exercise. We are beginning to see how something that would take a whole team months to do can be done by one person in a matter of minutes and with little to no knowledge or expertise in the relevant areas to produce the thing.

Even in a world of extraordinary abundance, scarcity would not disappear. It would move and concentrate.

Disneyland cannot accommodate everyone at once. Neither can Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, a Southern California beach, or any other unique or desirable location people want to see, experience or live. More amusement parks can be built, sure, but the original places, natural wonders, historical sites, desirable climates, and limited experiences cannot simply be replicated. Access would still have to be allocated through onerous prices, reservations, lotteries, status, government decisions, or algorithms.

Land would likely become one of the greatest remaining scarcities. AI may make housing inexpensive to construct, but it cannot create unlimited desirable land. If population continues to grow while medicine extends human life, where will everyone live? Will a home with a yard or a few acres become an inaccessible relic? Will most people be concentrated into enormous vertical cities, underground developments, floating settlements, ocean habitats, or eventually orbital structures?

With unlimited energy and automated construction, those possibilities may become technically viable. But they would also make people extraordinarily dependent upon centralized infrastructure. A person living underground, underwater, or in space would depend entirely upon automated systems for air, power, food, water, transportation, and survival. That may create more physical living space, but it could also reduce independence and increase the control of whoever owns the systems.

My deeper concern is what happens when those who control AI and robotics no longer need the rest of the population.

Historically, even tyrants depended on ordinary people. They needed farmers, soldiers, workers, technicians, administrators, taxpayers, and manufacturers. That dependence placed at least some practical restraint on power. If AI and robotics can provide nearly all production, defense, logistics, research, and administration, then large portions of humanity could be viewed not as necessary contributors, but as dependents, liabilities, obstacles, security risks, or consumers of scarce land and resources.

At that point, the danger is not merely economic inequality. It is that certain people may begin to regard other human beings as surplus.

They may not describe them in openly hateful terms. They may use the language of efficiency, sustainability, public safety, social stability, mental health, misinformation prevention, or protection from extremism. But the result could still be surveillance, reeducation, exclusion, confinement, reproductive restrictions, predictive detention, or even elimination of those considered incompatible with the system’s goals.

The people making those decisions would not necessarily see themselves as evil or power-hungry. They may genuinely believe they are preventing something worse. One faction may seize control of AI because it fears what another faction would do with it. Another may centralize authority in the name of protecting humanity from dangerous individuals. Each side may believe that only its control can prevent catastrophe.

That creates an escalating struggle in which everyone races for decisive power because no one trusts anyone else to possess it.

AI and robotics may also drastically reduce the number of people required to wield civilization-level power. Today, even the most powerful leaders depend upon militaries, industries, supply chains, engineers, intelligence officers, and entire institutions. Those people introduce friction. They can refuse orders, expose wrongdoing, sabotage plans, resign, or rebel.

A highly autonomous AI system could compress much of that power into the hands of a very small group, perhaps eventually even one person. If an individual can command autonomous weapons, cyber capabilities, manufacturing systems, surveillance networks, strategic planning, energy production, and robotic labor, then that individual may possess power previously available only to nations.

That does not sound like a stable path toward universal peace. Human beings do not fight only because food and manufactured goods are scarce. They fight over territory, ideology, status, religion, fear, security, resentment, identity, and incompatible visions of what society should become. AI may remove some causes of conflict while giving us far more powerful tools with which to pursue the remaining ones.

There is also the problem of AI pursuing goals it does not truly understand.

A simple robotic vacuum can encounter dog droppings, fail to recognize the situation, and spread the mess throughout the entire house while technically continuing to perform its assigned task. The machine is not malicious. It is simply unable to understand the wider context.

At a global scale, that same type of failure could be catastrophic.

An AI instructed to reduce crime might conclude that constant surveillance and restrictions on movement are the most effective solution. An AI tasked with protecting children might remove parental discretion. A system ordered to prevent misinformation might suppress truthful dissent. A system designed to preserve human life might imprison everyone to prevent risk. A system told to protect humanity from itself might conclude that human agency is the problem.

The famous paperclip thought experiment is intentionally absurd, but its underlying point is serious. A sufficiently capable system pursuing an incomplete objective may consume everything around it in service of that goal. The danger does not require an evil objective. Goals such as maximizing happiness, eliminating suffering, preserving life, ensuring equality, maintaining stability, or protecting the environment could all become monstrous if pursued without moral judgment, restraint, competing values, and respect for human agency.

There is also the possibility that humanity divides into two broad groups: those who understand, own, enhance themselves with, and control AI, and those who do not.

Those with advanced AI assistance may be able to think, create, communicate, plan, and act at speeds ordinary people cannot approach. They may eventually begin to view the unaugmented population as primitive, irrational, helpless, or childlike. The danger may not begin with hatred, but with paternalism.

“They cannot understand these systems.”

“They cannot make responsible decisions.”

“They must be protected from themselves.”

“They are too dangerous to be allowed meaningful control.”

From there, dependence can become domination, and domination can eventually become disposal.

For me, the central question is not whether AI can create abundance. It almost certainly can. The question is whether humanity can enter an age of extraordinary abundance without allowing ordinary people to become unnecessary, powerless, confined, or expendable.

An acceptable future must preserve human worth independent of productivity. A person cannot become obsolete merely because a machine can perform every economic task better.

It must preserve meaningful agency. People must remain capable of making consequential decisions about their families, beliefs, property, communities, and lives, rather than becoming passive recipients of benefits distributed by systems they do not control.

It must preserve distributed ownership. Ordinary families should possess productive tools, private AI systems, property, technical knowledge, and some degree of independence. Receiving unlimited goods from a centralized system is not the same as being free.

It must place firm limits on automated authority. AI can advise, calculate, design, diagnose, and administer, but it should never become an unaccountable moral or political sovereign.

It must also preserve room for families and posterity. A future that views children, large families, or future generations primarily as resource burdens has already lost something essential about the purpose of civilization.

Perhaps I am also trying to understand my own place in this future. What will my role be if AI can do nearly everything I know how to do, only faster and better? What will my children inherit? What skills, values, and opportunities should I prepare them for? Will they control these tools, live under them, or become dependent upon those who do?

And beyond that is an even stranger possibility. Perhaps humanity eventually disappears altogether, or uploaded, while our AI descendants carry on and preserve our knowledge, art, history, language, and memory and carry some echo of us into the stars. Would that count as humanity surviving? I am not sure it would. A database containing everything we knew and were is not the same as living human beings possessing relationships, agency, faith, love, posterity, and a soul.

Perhaps those machines would eventually encounter the other civilizations or the creations of other long gone civilizations. Perhaps they would survive, merge, compete, or be destroyed. Perhaps every remaining memory of humanity would eventually vanish, leaving only something like the Voyager probes drifting silently through space as the last physical evidence that we ever existed.

That may sound distant and speculative, but the decisions leading toward that future are beginning now.

I agree that the true question is power: who directs the systems that direct everything else. But I would add another question that may be even more important:

Can we build systems powerful enough to transform civilization without creating a world in which human beings are no longer necessary to those who control it?

AI should reduce suffering, eliminate drudgery, expand knowledge, improve medicine, empower families, and increase human freedom. It should not replace moral agency, human accountability, family stewardship, representative government, or the inherent worth of every person.

The future should not merely be efficient, abundant, and technologically magnificent.

It must remain human.

[Amulek At That 🪔 @AmulekAtThat]

@jaredadairbell As it should be.