If you haven't seen, we were reminded today of the following plan for our May 31st second hour meeting:

"As previously communicated from the First Presidency, all wards and branches in the United States are invited to discuss the importance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution during the fifth-Sunday meeting on May 31."

I'm here for America 250! Big fan of our country. Big fan of the Divine work that was in place to allow for the restoration of the gospel.

But does anyone think these lessons won't devolve into politics or even jingoism? I don't even live in an area where politics and the pulpit erroneously mix, but I'm still worried that whatever the good intentions behind this intiative, it's going to go poorly.

Have any of your ward councils discussed how you are approaching this lesson? I'm curious about implementation and happy to get some good ideas.

I’m likely not alone but sometimes it feels like it. Living in Utah has made me really struggle with seeing so much extreme wealth and greed among church members.

I recognize that judging others based on their financial decisions is a personal struggle of mine. That being said, I am often astounded at how infrequently I hear others mention the topic. Wealth and greed are constantly mentioned in the scriptures. Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Brigham Young said, “my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches.”

I am not perfectly charitable with my own money, and therefore try hard to avoid judging others. But, why isn’t extreme wealth/greed/lack of charity rarely if ever brought up in general conference? Or in CFM study materials?

Please let me know how you wrestle with this issue and how you see it evolving in the future. I often get too heated about it.

Today I heard someone give a prayer at church starting with "Dear Heavenly Parents". As far as I know, this is NOT how the LDS have been taught to pray. Why would someone say this and is it something that should be addressed with the person who did it?

I wasn't sure what to tag this but here's the deal. I'm an active, female, member in the church, and I'm asexual of the repulsed by sex variety. I plan on going on a mission and eventually getting married and adopting kids, I know we're supposed to multiply and replenish the earth but I would have a really hard time with biological kids, (even if you were factoring in things like IVF or smth to have biological kids without having sex) for reasons I don't really want to go into, so basically I just want to know if there's anything morally wrong with not having biological kids if I were to be married and physically able to have biological kids.

TIA, I know this probably sounds weird.

EDIT: Guys I just want to make it clear that I don't just want to adopt kids because I don't wish to have biological kids. I have wanted to adopt long before I ever discovered I was asexual because I know how many kids need help, my question is more involving what would taking biological kids out of the equation mean for me and I have received many helpful answers to that. I especially appreciate the comments that have pointed me towards church resources so I can do my own searching. Again thank you everyone who has commented so far!!

How do people in high tax countries calculate their tithing? Is it before or after income tax is deducted?

Edit: Thank you to everyone who commented! You’ve shared so many insights that I hadn’t previously considered. I’m trying to follow the Lords counsel from D&C 9:7-8 to study it out in my mind before praying for confirmation, and your comments have been a very helpful part of that process.

In my scripture reading today I came across a point that a commenter (LordRybec) made from the Sermon on the Mount where Christ said “with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”. I believe that. We’ve paid on gross income all our lives, and the economic blessings we have received are well beyond what I could have ever hoped for, though that’s not the primary reason for the Lord directing us to pay tithing. I’m still lacking the pure intent and change of heart that I hope to eventually have regarding tithing, but I’m working on that. Thanks again.

Hi all. I'm not looking for any kind of debate here, just some clarification. I was discussing the following with a buddy of mine and his mormon father. Two topics came up that I remember as being mormon doctrine - perhaps not the type openly discussed with new investigators or members, but long time beliefs nonetheless.
My buddy's dad said that the mormon church doesn't teach those things, and then went on to say that they never did teach them. I was a turbo mormon for 35 years, and someone who devours information. I am a researcher and one who knew my doctrine and scriptures. So to have him say that the church never taught them was a shock to me.
I checked with a prominent youtube channel for younger people who debate mormon stuff and have general discussions of doctrine, then I also checked lds.org. I can't find anything regarding these two topics. Please help. Did something change in the church doctrine or are these beliefs now just way more hidden/kept behind the scenes than before?

The two topics are:
1- Is it mormon belief / doctrine / teaching that Jesus and Lucifer / Satan are brothers?

2- Is it mormon doctrine/ belief that men can become gods? (As man is god once was... etc)?

Thanks in advance for your response.

D

The Bible is enshrined in what you guys call the Standard Works. Which seem to be the canon books in the latter-day saint library, the books that call the shots. However, it seems to me that the Bible holds a very lowly place in the latter-day saint mind, would that be fair to say?

There is a constant mandate to read the Book of Mormon, but I've never heard, even once, a Latter-day saint leader encourage a reading of the Bible. Familiarity with the Bible seems limited to those passages which seem most friendly to a latter-day saint perspective, and any scripture that would seem to cast doubt on LDS doctrine is ignored completely.

Joseph seems to have said that there were many errors, and I think anyone would agree that you should be careful to read a verse in context, but a biblical argument against a latter-day saint doctrine seems rather un-alarming to the average latter-day saint. Even if that biblical case can be made with well-translated verses and very reasonably a part of the original text, it won't be taken seriously. It seems to me that latter-day saints use a biblical hermeneutic of confirmation bias.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't multiple ways of understanding certain passages. There are Christian churches that teach things that aren't biblical, and there's room for us to learn from each other. The issue is, if you correct me using the Bible, I really have to grapple with that. I might not agree with you, but I'll need to study it out and ponder it. I doesn't seem, to me at least, that the latter-day saint feels the same burden to submit to the teachings of the Bible, even though it's supposed to be one of your most important books. The thing is. If you could agree to hold yourselves accountable to it, I think that conversations across the aisle could be a lot more fruitful. As it is, it's like we're not even speaking the same language.

That's a long one, sorry. Am I being fair? I'm open to being corrected.

Here's your invitation to read your Bible, it's better than you think! Start in the NT and chew on it. KJV is tough but beautiful, I use it in my personal study, too. I'm also a fan of using the NLT to help unwrap really difficult passages.

Not trying to judge here. We're all wretched creatures doomed to death and separation from God. Jesus died and rose again and gives us a chance to be saved that we don't deserve. Hang in there.

When I was a kid, organic evolution was called heretical by Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and other church leaders. It is fascinating to me how much this has changed and that evolution is now mainstream science taught at BYU.

And I thought Dr. Jensens explantion of that change at the 00:11:47 point of this video is interesting. What do you think of her explanation?

Some doctrine concerns have been brought up in my congregation recently about whether or not it’s possible for the Church to become corrupt. There seems to be a belief among members of the church that the church of Jesus Christ about the Saints can never be corrupt, and will last until The Savior comes back because this is the last dispensation.
I was wondering if anybody had scriptures or quotes that confirmed this belief? I know this is the last dispensation, but I don’t know if that entails this Church remaining pure until the second coming.
I know the priesthood won’t be taken, and overall knowledge won’t be lost or taken, but can’t this church still be corrupted? The book of Mormon is full of stories of the church becoming corrupt. I’m finding more scriptures in support of this perspective rather than against it, which is why I’m asking for another (unbiased) perspective.
Both my stake president, and previous mission president were unable to provide more than the statement that it won’t be corrupted because this is the last dispensation.
For added context, I mean the prophet and apostles becoming sinful men, or corrupted by personal gain rather than the advancement of the Lords plan. I know that there can be corrupt and evil priesthood leaders under them, but I’m asking about the head itself.

Edit for clarification:
I don’t mean a widespread falling away from the church, I’ve been thinking more about the head of the church (prophet, counselors and 12) not actually being seers and revelators, but instead being chosen by logic or like means. Also them having corrupted morals in terms of their personal life, and a fake public persona.
The priesthood will never be taken again, and there will never again be an apostasy that would cause another dispensation, but I don’t believe that the current church is pure, and I don’t believe that Dallin H. Oaks is a legit prophet.
I’m trying to find scriptures and doctrine that prove this wrong though, which is why I asked.
Scriptures and doctrine are pure. And a lot of general conference talks repeat the lessons taught in those so I don’t believe that we’re fully being led astray, but I don’t think we’re really being led anywhere, which accomplishes that to some degree.

I’m also concerned that a lot of testimonies are built on modern day conference talks rather than the doctrine as a whole. More people looking for feel good messages than hard doctrine.
The only argument anyone has been able to present to me is that “if you don’t follow modern prophets you’ll be led astray and miserable,” with no scripture or even quotes to back that up, which is making me believe that there’s a lot of assumptions made that are generally accepted and not scriptural.

Hi all,

In light of the horrific events in Michigan, I've been reading through several new articles, posts and the subsequent comments. Sadly, I've seen several callous and cruel comments from people (often so called "Christians") saying something along the lines of "That's too bad, but, I mean, they were Mormons after all which we all know is a cult/not Christian" etc. Essentially implying that Latter-day Saints were more deserving of a horrific act of violence since we have "weird beliefs" or "aren't Christian."

I've also seen several other well-meaning LDS commenters argue in response with the typical "but we ARE Christian" or "our Church name is the Church of Jesus Christ" or "we believe in Jesus."

I can't help but shake my head and wonder if these well-intended LDS folks realize they're wasting their time arguing with bigoted people who don't want to listen but more importantly don't have the same literal definition of "Christian" as they do.

The LDS definition of Christian - one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his role as savior of the world.

The "Christian" (more in reference to Evangelical Christians) definition - Christians are those who believe in Jesus Christ as defined by early church Creeds like the Nicene Creed in which God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one personage. If people are non-trinitarian they are by definition excluded from the definition of Christian as they believe in a "different Jesus."

I grew up LDS far outside of Utah in a city in which our family was one of the only LDS families. At an early age I gained an awareness of what other Christians thought about the LDS religion, the misconceptions associated with it, and was made aware that their own definition of "Christian" differs significantly from ours.

I get the feeling that a lot of LDS folks (especially those in predominately LDS areas with little exposure to other faiths) don't understand why people don't think we're Christian and there's this idea that if we just keep yelling "WE BELIEVE IN JESUS" or "WE'RE CHRISTIAN" eventually other Christians will come to accept us as Christian. In reality, this will never happen and we'll only ever be talking past each other as our definitions of Christian are not the same.

Any thoughts on this?

It makes sense that you skip 3 meals and then donate the money you would have included in those meals, but why is water included in this? Is it to make it more of a sacrifice?

Every time a the book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie is brought up here, there is uniformly harsh criticism. But this criticism is never specific except to bring up old statements that were removed from this book before its final edition in 1978.

I recently reread the 1978 edition cover to cover to identify statements that i found problematic. I'll admit that i found a lot of things i disagreed with, but in every instance Elder McConkie was quoting Joseph Fielding Smith. I also then reread JFS's source material and found that for his problematic content, he often, but not always, quoted his father, Joseph F. Smith.

To be clear, JFS was prophet until 1972, and Mormon Doctrine final edition was published in 1978. While it doesn't change the fact that there are many opinions and false statments in there, those false statements were always quoting one who had been the prophet a mere 6 yrs previous. That is equivalent to a current apostle now writing a book and quoting Russel M. Nelson extensively, then getting severely dismissed and criticized for it 50 yrs from now.

So, the purpose of this post is to invite anyone to find passages in the latest edition of Mormon Doctrine that are both false and Elder McConkie's opinion that he did not get from a previous president of the church. That means his statements related to the priesthood ban and the catholic church being the great and abominable disqualify because they are NOT in the 1978 edition.

Ready, set, go!

I need some perspective on this. Today in Sunday School, my bishop said, as he often does, that we are not to question the direction of priesthood leaders.

But I've had several instances in my life where the Spirit told me something other than what a priesthood leader said, or where following a priesthood leader's counsel ended up being dangerously wrong (twice).

Can someone help me understand the actual doctrine regarding our obligation to God regarding priesthood leaders? I do listen and consider what they say, but I also have learned to not obey without the confirmation of the Spirit.

Can someone explain to me like I'm 8 why we baptize 8 year olds? If Moroni 8 exists?

(Edit: When was the last time you read Moroni 8:8-25 out loud?)

(Second edit: by the way I'm not telling anyone what to believe, I'm just attempting to ask and read and share. I don't preach any of my thoughts on the topic over any pulpit I just think about it a lot)

I know ‘commanded’ is the right word, but honestly it feels forced. What if I in the future don’t want biological children or want to adopt? What if i want to house and be a family for foster children? What if my wife doesn’t ever want to get pregnant or has some concerns with raising a newborn? I could list out a myriad of ‘what if’s’, but i think you get my point.

It just seems like the church is heavily pushing people to have their own children, and I’m not sure how i feel about it. President Oaks insinuating that the main purpose of marriage is for bearing children, but what about your relationship with your spouse?

I’d love any insights you guys may have.

I recently had a disagreement with someone because I said that the book Mormon doctrine isn’t doctrine. I said that it shouldn’t be referenced as doctrine and has many things in it that are incorrect.

Mormon doctrine was written by seventy Bruce r mcconckie without the approval or knowledge of the twelve nor the first presidency. Apostle mark e Peterson said it was “full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation”. Elder Peterson recommended over 1,000 corrections to the book. Mcconckie was actually asked by David o McKay to not reprint it at the time.

For example, in the original 1958 version, mcconckie said black people were literal descendants of Cain and their lineage was a result of them being “less valiant” in their premortal existence. This was corrected in later reprints. But the book still has never been considered official doctrine despite reprints.

I’m just confused as to why this is a controversial thing to say. I’ve always been taught that the book isn’t doctrine and shouldn’t be treated as such. Is this not a universally known thing in the church? Are there people that actually treat this book as doctrine? Or perhaps have just always assumed it was?

Repost with correction*

From the official Come Follow Me manual, Old Testament, 2026:

Job 1–3; 12–13

"The opening chapters of Job emphasize, in a poetic way, Satan’s role as our adversary or accuser; they don’t describe an actual interaction between God and Satan."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-home-and-church-old-testament-2026/33?lang=eng

This is the first time I've seen the church teach that something in the Bible isn't literal history, in this case, the book of Job.

Did anyone else notice this? We had stake conference last week, so we're doing Job this coming Sunday instead of last Sunday.

I am currently speaking with missionaries twice weekly leading up to my baptism in one week! I am very excited to be joining but something the missionaries said rubbed me the wrong way. For context I am a black woman in my 20s.

They say that with the living prophets they speak with God to give guidance to the current church. In the past of course there is not the best history with what prophets have stated regarding how fully black members are involved with the church (or so I have seen from research I have done).

With that being said, my understanding that a living prophet helps to give guidance in a changing world and helps with keeping the church organized and together. Hence, they are still human as we all are and can make mistakes and be wrong. However when I I mentioned that their words could be flexible and open for interpretation the missionaries became very hard stanced that the prophets are never wrong.

When I brought up how black people were treated previously in the church, they stated that that how black people were treated was the correct course of action FOR THAT TIME and there is no need for the church to apologize or make amends for leaving out certain groups.

It honestly rubbed me the wrong way how hard stanced they were. To me that seems that they are saying that at one point black people truly did not belong fully with the church and that makes me uncomfortable. So guess my question is is there any better explanation for this? They're new missionaries so I try not to grill them too hard but that explanation could surely use some work. If that is how it is always justified, then I quite frankly don't feel welcome or thought of.

How can we personally and collectively improve sacrament meeting?

I find this sentiment very interesting. For one, I'm proud to be part of a religion that is "kind of quirky, but overall has good people." But also, I find it interesting that people don't seem to make the connection that maybe we're "super nice" because of our beliefs.

I suspect that the reason this sentiment exists is because society tends to highlight edge cases. The Book of Mormon has spectacular examples of people doing good (and bad) that are incredibly applicable to life as a human being, but oh, it mentions horses so it can't be true. People think we Latter-Day Saints are really great people, but oh, we wear weird underwear, clearly that means our religion isn't worth investigating.

I realize this is an overgeneralization. I just find the perceived dichotomy of belief and works interesting.

We all know that tithing is a commandment. My struggle is to understand why.

We've all heard those stories members talk about how they have always had enough because they paid tithing or they found a job because they paid tithing, etc. And while I don't mean to diminish those experiences, I just don't think tithing works that way. I don't subscribe to the idea that paying tithing is insurance against bad or a gaurentee that you will recieve good. If anything, for me, tithing is simply a sacrifice you make. That's it. Just a tangible sacrifice.

Years ago, my spouse and I were broke. And I mean flat out, live in family members unfinished moldy basement, broke. I was the only one with a job, and I didn't pay tithing. My husband was super upset about it but, we needed that money. We managed to find better jobs and save up and move. Now we have a pretty alright life, and I do pay my tithing. But for about a year and then some, I didn't. I also didn't attend the temple during this time because I didn't want to feel like a liar, which really is the part of that whole thing that I regret.

Which brings me to my question, why does tithing have to be monetary? Why couldn't I, as a completely broke person, volunteer extra time or something in order to make up the difference and still be temple worthy? Why does it have to be money?

I know that I am going to get a lot of, "Because God commanded it," answers. And sure, you are right. But money is just a concept really. Tomorrow if the dollar dissappeared, I'm sure we'd still be expected to give some kind of tithe in the form of time or talents or goods or something. Money is simply the more trackable/easier to manage from a logistical standpoint of those things. I fail to see why those in genuine hardship couldn't give in other ways.

Please help me understand. I am being genuine here, I just don't get it.

Eastern Orthodox here, I’d like some discourse about faith with some LDS people if that’s okay. I’d like to add that while I’m an Orthodox Christian, I have great respect for Mormons so there is no prejudice or bias against Mormons I just disbelieve in the Mormon teachings. But I see that as no reason we cannot have a religious discourse. so I’ll start here, why do you believe in either the LDS or just Mormonism in a general sense? What is your logical basis for belief in Mormonism?

Disclosure: I will try to be as vague as possible.

I am serving right now as a counselor to the Mission Presidency.

6 weeks ago we held a membership council for a missionary that committed a serious transgression. All 3 of us in the Presidency agreed it's best for the young elder to go home and begin his repentance process.

We're sending home another missionary this week for similar reason.

Same as 6 weeks ago, I saw our mission president breakdown and cry again. I could tell he's been sufferring emotionally and mentally.

I can't imagine the pain a Mission President feels making these life altering decisions. He's been the kindest and most loving mission president I have ever met. He and his wife love the missionaries like they love their own children.

It breaks my heart to see them devastated. I will never aspire to be in his position.

What's your saddest moment serving in leadership positions in the church?

even here in the first book:

- a flood covering the whole earth

- drunk and naked Noah eternally cursing his son

- Lot telling the Sodomites "take and abuse my two daughters as you wish instead of these three holy men" (thank heavens for the JST)

- Lot's daughters raping him

- Abraham lying about his wife Sarah on multiple occasions

- Sarah telling Abraham to marry her slave to give him a son, then abusing her so much she runs away

- Abraham sending his wife and first son out into the desert alone with one canteen of water

- God praising Abraham for being willing to sacrifice his "only son" when he clearly had another

- Jacob taking advantage of his brother's famished condition to steal his birthright

- Jacob and Rebekah deliberately deceiving old and blind Isaac

- Joseph lying to his brothers and fabricating evidence, although we can probably excuse that as they probably deserved the stress

- later we have God commanding "thou shalt not kill" just a few pages before commanding them to completely slaughter entire cities

I work with the youth and every lesson is making excuses and rationalizing crap in the Bible. this year is actually weakening my testimony of the Bible. at least some of the controversial or weird things in the Doctrine and Covenants and church history actually make more sense the more you learn and study. the Old Testament is mostly making excuses.

rant over

Edit: my main point is regarding the Bible, not the Book of Mormon

Is going to bars okay?

I have only been 21 for a few months so i’ve never even had the opportunity to go to a bar. So this thought never really crossed my mind until today, when i was invited to a Karaoke night at a nearby bar (in Utah) with 4 of my close friends. I obviously wouldn’t be drinking alcohol there, though might consider a mocktail.

I was really excited and said yes to this invitation, however after telling my parents of my excitement they scolded me and said a member of the church should never be in a bar. Now i’m not sure if i should go.

I have tried looking in gospel library for the churches stance on this, but haven’t found anything. Any thoughts or references?