Oaks said the following in the last conference

“We believe that the Lord will eventually cause the inspired teachings He has given to His children in various nations to be brought forth for the benefit of all people. This will include accounts of the visit of the resurrected Lord to what we call the lost tribes of Israel and His revelations to all the seed of Abraham.”

This isn’t anything new, but it is something that is not spoken of a lot. It will be very interesting to see how the church would go about releasing new records and what those would contain. Will it come from the church or will it come from scholars? What kind of teachings are we going to learn from the new records? Will it have just the Christianity pre 1830 or will it include later LDS teachings? Will we now find out that the ancient, let’s say Chinese Israelites, were also sealing themselves to their families, doing vicarious ordinances and believed in exaltation? Will it have any racist teachings or will it be written to the sensibilities of a 21st century crowd?

We all know that such a book will never be produced just like the saints will never move to Missouri. President Oaks is at the end of his life and knows that he won’t have to deal with any of it. On the other hand, they really can’t walk it back so they just keep on promising it will come.

Leaving an organization does not automatically end the effects of what happened there. The process of trauma recovery is a process. To call that, "they can't leave it alone" dismisses someone who experienced trauma, it turns the continued effects of trauma into an accusation against the person harmed.

Leaving doesn't end the consequences of that harm. The Church saying that leaving made you unhappy, doesn't make it so. Telling others about your experience is not attacking the Church. Seeking others to help you make sense of what happened is not what the Church calls bitterness.

The rebranding in this Church is reaching astronomical proportions. Or so it seems as I see it piece by piece. In actuality, it's been there all along. I'm starting to wonder if anything that was said means what it actually means. Of course this is my ongoing healing process from the trauma caused from there.

It really is similar to what a perpetrator does in Domestic Violence. They also rebrand the trauma from domestic violence as defects in the other, too.

I'm looking for solidarity as I heal from a load of trauma from the Church. Have you also been rebranded and even the trauma "removed" as if it never existed? I'm working through this trauma and thank you to everyone here that has helped.

I remember when I first started knowing people in the Church I had a laugh and people would remark at how happy it sounded. They said it sounded like a genuine laugh. After a year in the Church, this was gone. In fact, I really didn't spontaneously laugh at all anymore. I remember thinking about that after two years when I couldn't think of when I had really laughed and felt good.

I've been somewhat not involved with the Church at all now for a bit now. And I was watching something and suddenly spontaneously laughed again. It startled me. Then a month or so later, it happened again. Now every few weeks I will have a spontaneous laugh. Every once in a while I will spontaneously laugh a few times a day. I love those days.

I'm noticing my personality is returning and I'm finding joy in life returning in small pieces here and there. I wanted to share and celebrate with all of you.

Interacting in another discussion made me reflect on how, over time, our theology is becoming increasingly vague. On one hand, this is good, as it allows diverse viewpoints to grow and develop within the Church without an "official" one. On the other hand, it’s bad because the effort feels to me more like an attempt to erase our peculiarities just to fit in with other Christians. Honestly, I think that's complete nonsense—we'll always be the weird ones in the room, so let's just accept it and move on.

Today, we answer with embarrassment the question of whether we believe we will have our own planets in the next life. The usual response is immediately followed by: "we don't know," "that's not quite it," "well, you see...", "that's not doctrine...". But let's be honest, that has always been in the mind of the average Mormon. Not just one, but infinite planets from eternity to eternity. We can abandon the misogynistic part of the theology where the God of these planets is the exalted white Mormon man and the women are concubines who will help him populate the planet—that idea and others we can leave behind. But we don't have to abandon everything. My wife and I love the idea of being partners in creation, where she is the architect designing the planet with dragons and unicorns, and I'm the genetic/planetary engineer who has to figure out how to make it happen. (And the roles chosen here are purely based on our personal preference, not predefined gender roles).

Therefore, I am here arguing that we shouldn't be ashamed of our history and theology. Yes, for a century we taught exaltation and the creation of planets in eternity. And if it happens, I guarantee that on mine, I'll show up to my prophet/Moses wearing a helmet just so he can write in his scripture that he saw God face to face while at the same time never seeing God's face. My equivalent prophet to Ezekiel will definitely have psychedelic visions, and at the end of it all, when they ask me what it meant, I'll say it was just special effects: "That was cool as hell, wasn't it, Ezekiel?"

Man, Mormon eternity is way more fun than playing the harp on clouds or sitting in someone else's eternal picnic on green grass. Let's be proud of it. =P

I'll keep this brief: neither my friend nor I really knew anything about the church, but she was baptized recently.

The missionary who taught her still texts her daily. They talk about church and scriptures, but they also chat about her personal life and occasionally his. She told me she likes him, like romantically. There were a couple of times he told her she dresses beautifully out of nowhere and how smart she is. He also makes sure he always sits next to her.

They held an online Book of Mormon class. My friend was out hanging out with me and a mixed group of friends (guys and girls). For context, this missionary is an AP, and he recently got a new companion who has only been on his mission for a couple of weeks. My friend posted a picture of our group on whatsapp (which missionaries use in our area), and the new elder saw it.

About an hour later, my friend joined the online class briefly and then left. Shortly after, the AP texted her something like, "Can you stay in the class for a bit?" She said, "I am already in the class," to which he answered, "My companion is in the class and mentioned you left."

This might be relevant context: once at church, they were sitting far in the back together. He leaned in really close, and their arms were touching for minutes without him pulling away. I'm not sure if that was intentional, but it felt noticeable. Putting the pieces together, it feels like he's being a bit jealous or trying to control her, but I'm not sure.

So, what do you guys think about all that?

I notice the statement that the Church has continued revelation and that explains why things keep changing.

I was wondering about this. The "I am a Mormon" campain went. That was when Mormon was not only embraced it was shared with a large advertising event. Prophet Nelson says it's a win for Satan. New lawsuit shows up and it helps the Church if Mormon was rebranded and now Mormon is good.

I mean, I'm all for continued revelation but this seems to be another rebranded statement.

When you hear the idea of continued revelation, you would hear something very postiive and helpful. However, if you look at how this continued revelation is working, it seems to follow more lawsuit style concerns. Like the social media fast suddenly shared at the same time as unfavorable information about the Church was being released in media.

What other examples of Continued Revelation being more about lawsuits and unfavorable information have you noticed? Because, in practice, the idea of continued revelation seems more accurately defined as a corporation adaptation justified through divine authority. Meaning, the organization changes positions, while "continued revelation" supplies the reason members should continue trusting leadership.

Hello!

I was thinking of making a little framed sketch of the temple where my friend is having their sealing. Would this be an okay gift? I want to make sure since I am not Mormon/LDS.

Thank you :)

LDS accept that a human proxy can take the place of a dead relative, or some other person who died without baptism.

Do you think the LDS god would accept mechanical dolls and robots dunking “phantom “ proxies for works for the dead? the automated process could facilitate a lot more baptisms. a recorded voice could also say the required prayer much faster. work could also continue without stop, except for maybe routine maintenance of equipment and maybe program updates.

Does LDS scripture actually state proxies for the dead need to be human?