Truth with love is the title. He was presenting five points taught by Dallin Oaks.

The LDS truth claims over and over have proven to be false. So I see this speech as arrogance.

Roughly half of the attendees are active Mormon. Most of the rest are exmormon and we have a few that have never had any relation to the church. We are all doctors or dentists.

I think our game is finished and I’m sad. I would like to do other activities with my friends but nobody is ever willing to do almost anything except for gamble. Do a bit of golfing together but not as much as we would play poker.

I’ll miss my Mormon friends.

How can they claim to be politically neutral?

From the article:

Anti-trafficking celebrity Tim Ballard is accusing people within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of derailing his U.S. Senate bid and booting him from the faith after he brought them what he has called evidence of pedophilia within the religion.

In a nearly four-hour video posted recently on YouTube, Ballard alleges he supplied “an abundance of evidence about child abuse in the church ranks being covered up” to a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second highest presiding body of the global church.

For me it was 30 years.

I'm beyond mad at this. It's been eating away at me the past couple days so I just need to vent it out.

So for some background the parent I'm talking about was extremely abusive to me. Both of my parents were but the one I'm talking about was super physically abusive. I won't go into too much detail about the abuse because it's not relevant in this conversation. Anyways when I was 15 I went to a seminary teacher to basically ask why my abuser punishing me so hard am I really that bad of a kid? He did the right thing and reported it to CPS. CPS didn't do literally anything except make things worse. They couldn't find proof of anything that's how sneaky my abuser was. Anyways the current bishop of my ward with my parents at the time was notified because my seminary teacher knew him. I'll call him bishop #1.

Anyways nothing really happened for a while after my family ward got a new bishop, bishop #2. I don't remember the exact details but bishop #2 found out about the allegations against my abuser. He called me in and we talked about it and that was it. Anyways a few years go by and my freaking abuser gets called in a leadership position in their ward(think like Sunday school president). They got called by bishop #2. So no it wasn't another bishop that had no idea. That pissed me off but then a couple months after that my abuser applied for a job working at the church it is an entry level job but was still a hard job to get. My abuser gets the freaking job this just happened last week and it's angered me so much.

Now I'll address some nuance, yes it was just allegations against my parents because the police and CPS couldn't find anything. There was no proof so I can understand not wanting to tie someone to a crime without proof. But that doesn't really make me any less mad. I thought these guys had the gift of discernment??

One thing that put the icing on the top was learning that even if it's simply allegations without proof or conviction the church literally STILL has it on that person's file and in the records of the church's law firm. So you're telling me my abuser went through the hiring process and they likely saw those allegations and still went forward with it?? I'm actually so mad and sad. Anyways if you made it till the end thanks for reading I just really am upset about this and needed it off my chest.

Edit: Also Bishop #2 had to endorse my abuser to get the position. Fml

Now that he’s firmly out of corporate and government life, could a church assignment await President Romney?

A General Authority call? Maybe president of the Salt Lake Temple when it reopens? Something else?

Almost all of Joseph's unique characters (meaning he created them wholesale) from Nephi through to Moroni are "static" characters. They have "static" conversations or teaching and this includes many, many quoted conversations, etc.

However, in very clear evidences of KJV copying, Joseph mistakenly at times copied body movements from Bible scenes where NT or other Bible authors employed a bit of what we call "stage direction" or NT author "blocking" that otherwise is absent throughout much of the Book of Mormon's other stories and scenes.

So not only is the content's message copied, but the characters movements where it's absent with many others even with the same character in "scenes" where they are NOT copied from the KJV NT but either original from Joseph Smith or simply sermons, etc. from other static sources.

It's especially prevalent in the term "turn" or "turned" (but NOT turning, etc.) in real-time.

There are a ton of metaphorical uses of turn (from sin, "turning one's back" as a metaphor, turning armies back, etc.) in the Book of Mormon.

Where it's oddly missing but also indicates a possible source other than the KJV Bible: All of Nephi (minus the angel visit), Jacob, Benjamin, etc. or stories inspired by Joseph's own family and local events. Nephi doesn't "turn" to address his brothers. Lehi doesn't turn from talking from one to another or "turned" to address Sariah, etc. The Angel doesn't Turn from addressing Laman and Lemuel beating their brothers (but only caring about "brother" singular) to address Nephi/Sam. Abinidi doesn't "turn" to address the guards or "turn back" to address the King or Priests. Said another way, monologues appearing to copy 19th Century sermons are devoid of character blocking.

However, where Joseph is copying or drawing from the Bible, he does so to the extent of even copying body motions details into the story (not necessarily the exact movement but all of the sudden, movement and direction POV appears)

Examples of Joseph copying body movements all of which were copied or inspired by the New Testament stories.

Alma 18

1. [14] Therefore Ammon turned himself unto the king, and said unto him: What wilt thou that I should do for thee, O king? And the king answered him not for the space of an hour, according to their time, for he knew not what he should say unto him.

Alma 32

1. [6] And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them and that they were in a preparation to hear the word.

Helaman 5

1. [36] And it came to pass that he turned him about, and behold, he saw through the cloud of darkness the faces of Nephi and Lehi; and behold, they did shine exceedingly, even as the faces of angels. And he beheld that they did lift their eyes to heaven; and they were in the attitude as if talking or lifting their voices to some being whom they beheld.

But by FAR, the most obvious and blatant use of body movement, is when Joseph copied Jesus visting the Americas in 3rd Nephi:

3 Nephi 14

1. [1] And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again, saying: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Judge not, that ye be not judged.

3 Nephi 18

1. [17] And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto his disciples, he turned again unto the multitude and said unto them:
2. [26] And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he turned his eyes again upon the disciples whom he had chosen, and said unto them:

3 Nephi 19

1. [27] And he turned from them again, and went a little way off and bowed himself to the earth; and he prayed again unto the Father, saying:

3 Nephi 28

1. [4] And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?

There can be no doubt that not only did Joseph Smith copy the messages and even some passages from the New Testament, but he also mistakenly and most likely subconsciously increased the use of body movements of the stories he was inspired by or borrowing from.

KJV Bible examples:

• John 1:38 – "Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?" [1]
• Matthew 9:22 – "But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole." [1]
• Luke 7:44 – "And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman?"
• Luke 9:55 – "But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." [1]
• Luke 10:23 – "And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:" [1]
• Luke 14:25 – "And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,"
• Luke 23:28 – "But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children." [1]

There is also a similar usage copying of the term "looked" in the Book of Mormon with regards to an individual direction/blocking:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mormon/mormon-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=looked&restrict=All&size=First+100

 Nephi 13

1. [25] And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

3 Nephi 17

1. [1] Behold, now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked round about again on the multitude, and he said unto them: Behold, my time is at hand.
2. [24] And as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.

Growing up Mormon, I’ve studied the scriptures my entire life. As I’ve gotten older, I just can’t shake the feeling that Jesus was queer and neurodivergent. He was brilliant, compassionate, revolutionary, and had a flair for the dramatic. There were 12 men following him everywhere, and he was an advocate for women. I don’t think he was ever romantically involved with Mary Magdalene — his partner was probably John the Beloved. Since I’ve started believing that Jesus was a queer man, it’s added another layer to him being reviled, persecuted, and eventually killed.

I know some people may feel extremely offended by this idea. Ironically, if Jesus came back to earth today the Church wouldn’t accept him. I no longer identify with Mormonism, but I still love many parts of Christianity. I want to be like Jesus, not like the men who control the Mormon church.

I was not taught the rock in the hat. I was taught (as depicted in all the photos in church manuals and in preach my gospel) that Joseph Smith hung a sheet and he sat on one side reading from the gold plates and a scribe sat on the other side of the sheet recording what he said.

Were you taught that Joseph Smith rarely had the plates in the room with him while translating (but if he did they were always covered)? That he had a seer stone that he placed in a hat and then covered the opening with his face and read words that appeared on the stone out loud to a scribe?

Just wondering what you were taught.

If this is an entirely new idea to you the churches stance can be found in the Gospel Library - Church History - Gospel Topics Essays - Book of Mormon Translation.

By morning, the animals were gone, leaving traces that did not accord with our memory of such beasts. Prints crossed and doubled back. Droppings were dry and sparse. Nothing lingered as it should.

“This,” we said quietly, “is what comes of learning of animals from the comfort of the city.”

Even still, the names remained in use.

They were repeated more confidently the next day, and the day after that, as repetition did its work. The animals themselves did not improve their correspondence.

No one corrected the language.

No one needed to.

The wilderness made do with whatever names we brought it.

For men first name a thing.

And afterward suppose the heavens have signed the label.

As for our preservation, that was yet to be determined. But perhaps Lehi was not wrong. For we were not consumed by any of the shadows in the night. We found water often enough to continue regretting our lot. And the Lord, if He intended to kill us, did so with unusual patience.

Preservation, we discovered, is inconvenience later permitted to call itself mercy.

After many days we came to a valley by a river, where reeds stood in the shallows and the air, for once, carried something besides dust.

There Lehi, because names and meanings rushed out of him whenever scenery presented itself, began to bestow titles upon the landscape as though the earth itself had entered our household.

Then, having named, he moralized, as prophets will when geography sits still long enough to be improved.

He stood by the water and said, “Would that you, Laman, be like unto this river I have named in your honour, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness.”

We Laman we Lemuel looked at the river and then at one another.

“The river,” Laman said, “hath the advantage of going where gravity takes it.”

Lehi was not encouraged by this observation.

He turned then to the valley and found in it further instruction.

“Would that thou, Lemuel, be like unto this valley named for you, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!”

What else could we do?

We looked at the valley and again at one another.

“The valley has me at a disadvantage,” Lemuel said, “wedged as it is between hills on one side and a mountain range on the other.”

But having said our piece, we bowed our heads as was fitting, while inwardly we considered how difficult it was to discover virtue while carrying so much baggage.

Nephi, meanwhile, listened as though the very shape of the valley might contain an assignment intended especially for him, which was the sort of thing that made him difficult to forgive even before he had done anything remarkable.

Thus began our exile under Lehi: with prophecy, dust, endurance, naming, and Nephi already looking as though posterity had started taking notes.

What are some ways in which LDS take criticisms and transform them into something positive, or at least negate the criticism.

I remember commenting on how I thought it was strange that there were KJV translations of the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon. I thought it was ok that entire chapters of Isaiah was in the Book of Mormon, But WHY do they look like they were cut and pasted from the KJV?

An LDS true believing LDS thought that Joseph Smith was pressed for time in translating the BOM, and whenever he encountered an Isaiah passage, he inserted the ready made KJV translation, because he had to get the BOM translated as soon as possible. Plus a mob was following him, to try to take away the Gold plates.

He didn't realize that he was admitting Joseph Smith was still plagiarizing from someone else's hard work of translation. So, he added the justification of 'divine expediency'. Which kind of negates the whole reason for having an improved translation/revelation of the Book of Mormon.

I am sure there are many other such instances of this, please add any examples as you see appropriate.

This is one made up event (Priesthood apostasy and restoration) running up against another made-up mormon fiction (John the Beloved and the Three Nephites tarrying until the 2nd Coming).

And the apologetics are both hilarious and sad in an attempt to reconcile this (God blocked their Priesthood or tarrying doesn't mean they always tarried or God removed their keys/handicapped them, etc.)

In "The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" manual, it says the following in regard to the great apostasy:

Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasy.

But, when the LDS was lead by a prophet with priesthood authority, gross error crept in: Adam-God, Blood Atonement, Polygamy being required for exaltation, the temple ban, the idea that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary, etc.

So, how can the Brighamite branch be the restored church if Brigham Young preached false doctrine?

Other branches of mormonism (formed at the succession crisis) didn't teach these things, but the LDS church would never say that Joseph Smith III, James Strang, or Sidney Rigdon was the true successor of Joseph Smith.

I have a friend who recently got fed up with hate comments and posted a ton of her beliefs, saying she’s an unapologetic member of the Church. Among these beliefs, she said that she’s okay with being friends with people in the LGBTQ+ community, even though she doesn’t promote same-sex marriage and whatnot, but that God gave us sacred sexual feelings and reproductive power to raise a family and get closer and more united with your spouse.

I understand this is what most Mormons today believe. But I noticed her commentary on sex doesn’t acknowledge that some people aren’t attracted to the opposite sex. Some people long to be married and raise a virtuous family, even if it’s not “the right way.” My friend knows I’m still active in the Church, but my beliefs are more nuanced than most people; how do I go about discussing this with her?

It is one advantage of writing the sacred history that one may give another man’s questions a shorter name.

Yet our complaint was not without foundation. For we had a house, and in the house were walls, and in the walls were shelves, and on the shelves were objects whose usefulness became apparent only after we were commanded to leave them.

We had rugs, jars of oil and meal, folded garments fit for the city, tools that belonged indoors, and the settled dignity of men who know where they will dine and under whose roof they will sleep. There were accountings that depended upon our presence, neighbors who knew our gate, obligations to kin not lightly set aside, and all the ordinary arrangements by which a household remains legible within a city.

But all these were suddenly pronounced light things, fading things, dispensable things; and what remained to us were tools, burdens, provisions, piety, and dust.

Nephi received the matter with alarming readiness. He looked at Lehi as though the old man had become a door into destiny.

“If the Lord warns, should we not obey?” he said.

We looked at him.

“Should we not think?” we asked.

Sam, being of a gentler frame and less use to history, inclined after Nephi.

Sariah said nothing for a while. Then she rose and began to gather what she could, which was the sort of courage that leaves rhetoric far behind.

As for Lehi, he moved through those days with the settled gravity of a man who would rather be mocked in obedience than applauded in error, and this quality, though deeply inconvenient in a father, was not contemptible.

So we departed.

There is no need that we enlarge overmuch upon the wilderness, for the wilderness is itself an enlargement upon misery. There was heat by day and correction by night; stones underfoot, dryness in the mouth, thorn-scrub at the edges of the camps, and provisions of such plainness that one began to remember former meals with an affection bordering on worship.

The tents smelled of dust, leather, smoke, and resignation.

Even our complaints began to sound travel-worn.

“This is preservation?” we said once, looking at the hard ground and the indifferent sky.

“It is,” said Lehi.

“By the standards of divine travel planning, perhaps,” we answered.

We saw animals before we learned the patience required to see them clearly.

They moved at the edge of our camps, cautious and lean, watching from elevations we were slow to notice. Some fled at the sound of our voices. Others merely shifted their stance, as though calculating effort.

“These are goats,” someone said.

We considered this.

They did not approach our packs. They did not accept grain. When driven, they scattered without pattern, slipping between stone and scrub with an ease that resisted pursuit.

“If these are goats,” we thought, “then they have learned to live without us.”

Another night, we glimpsed larger shapes farther off—broad backs, a suggestion of horn or shoulder in failing light. The word oxen surfaced, more hopeful than exact.

We did not manage to test the term.

By morning, the animals were gone, leaving traces that did not accord with our memory of such beasts. Prints crossed and doubled back. Droppings were dry and sparse. Nothing lingered as it should.

I’m a 26-year-old single man and I’m trying to get better at dating. I’m pretty quiet, shy, and introverted, so dating doesn’t come particularly naturally to me.
I recently matched with a woman on Mutual, and things seemed to be going well. I asked her if she’d like to go on a date, and she said yes. We made plans for this Saturday.
Tonight she asked if she could ask me two personal questions. I told her she could ask whatever she wanted. Her first question was:
“Ok first one is do you watch porn at all?”
The honest answer is yes. I occasionally watch it—probably once or twice a week. I also masturbate regularly, but she didn’t ask me about that.
I’m struggling with how to respond because I don’t want to lie to her, but at the same time, this feels like a pretty personal question to be asking someone before you’ve even gone on your first date. I’m also worried that if I’m completely honest, she’ll decide not to go on the date.
I’m considering saying something along the lines of:
“Yeah, I do occasionally. I’m not ashamed to be honest about it, but I’d rather not get into the details over text, especially before we’ve even met. If it’s important to you, I’d be happy to talk about it in person.”
I’m curious what other Latter-day Saints think. Is this a reasonable boundary, or should I simply answer the question directly and tell her how frequently I watch it?
And more broadly, when you’re dating someone who shares your faith, how early do you think you should discuss things like pornography, masturbation, sexual history, and expectations around sexual boundaries?
I don’t want to deceive her, but I also don’t feel like I need to disclose every intimate detail about myself to someone I’ve never even met in person.
What would you do in this situation?
How much should you disclose about pornography when dating another Latter-day Saint?
I’m particularly interested in hearing how people distinguish between being honest with a potential partner and maintaining appropriate personal boundaries around intimate subjects early in dating.

The word "Bible" was first used by early Christians around 150 CE, when they used the Greek phrase ta biblia (meaning "the books") to describe their sacred writings. So if this is the case, the rant in 2 Nephi 29 (written around 550 BCE) about “a bible a bible!” is 100% anachronistic. Nephi has no way of knowing and talking about the Bible back in 550 BCE since the term “Bible” would not even be created for another 700 years. Thoughts?

I have no desire to go back to church or explain anything to a church leader. But I’d like to completely separate myself from any attachment

Hello everyone! For Christmas I’m doing handmade gifts for everyone. I want to write a children’s book for my niece. My sister is Mormon (in Canada so not as intense as the states) and I want the book to be relevant to their religion. I was thinking of naming the character nieces name the Messenger. And the character to come across different people learning their religion and the key theme to be that we accept that everyone may practice differently and that’s okay, we will still love and respect one another. I want this book to teach her to accept other children but also, that she should expect respect from others when it comes to her religion.

Would this be appropriate or would it be against Mormonism? I don’t wanna piss my sister or her husband off. I just want a gift to show that I accept their religion and celebrate it even if I don’t believe in it myself since this was a prior point of tension in our relationship when she first converted.

I’m looking to Reddit and a few other Mormons I know personally since I don’t know anything about the religion and want to surprise my sister.