JVW

Yes. I believe that by studying the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon that people can learn what to do in order to be happy and at peace in their heart, which is the result of following God's objective (unchanging and not relative) moral laws. To believe one knows what is best for humanity is to act as if they were God. A German who believes in subjective (relative) morality could be repulsed by Nazis, just not likely while in the thick of living in a Nazi society. The power of culture, society, propaganda, and state law enforcement is strong and it is commonly viewed that it is morally or ethically right to "go along to get along". Punk rockers are not held up in high esteem in any society because anarchist or anti-state tendencies will cause society to destabilize if they become mainstream. You know me, I'm not an intellectual, scientific, exact kind of guy. If you think I'm wrong go ahead and call me out on it. But the world is miserable. Society is sick and miserable. I would venture to say that percentage-wise and absolute-wise are both correct. But that's just my perspective, I don't have any statistics. It's kind of a paradox because the world is richer than its ever been, less people are starving than ever before, more live in safety, etc. Yet there is so much misery. Again, no stats to back this up, just something I feel like nobody with eyes would disagree with me on. I don't know enough about history to say too much one way or the other but I believe that the world is more wicked today than it was during the period of the Atlantic slave trade. If I approached history with a lens of "what is all of the bad stuff that was going on during this time period and what was the scope and impact of the bad stuff" I will never find a period that doesn't have bad stuff in it. I don't know how many people, worldwide, agreed with the Atlantic slave trade. Or how many directly participated in it. But I know that everything I wear, and every electronic device I use was created by slaves, and that applies to us all. So at least in the 19th century the rot was visible and not hidden behind international barriers, corporate speak, and myriad shell companies.

I don't know what the timeless moral laws are, but I believe that they exist. And I've been trying to learn about them since starting my faith journey as I believe that the more I know and live according to good moral law the happier I'll be. Based off of my experience so far I would say that some timeless ones include: believe in, and worship, God as you understand Him; live with integrity; exercise regularly; be grateful; be humble; the law of chastity matters (don't cheat, don't self-abuse, protect virtue and purity); don't do drugs. But those are based off of my subjective experience. God can't be morally wrong because He embodies everything that is right. So no, He wasn't a bad guy for flooding the Earth and causing the deaths of countless people. If I did what God did I would be committing atrocities, but I'm not God and I'm in no place to judge Him; I'm just a wicked, worthless little person that can barely keep my head above water. The thing with truth is that truth is evidenced by, and discovered in, patterns. If I were a historian I imagine I'd be more keen to what some objective moral laws are as I'm sure there are patterns reflected in societies who were peaceful and happy regarding how they lived their lives and what moral choices they made. You mentioned freedom as being a moral absolute, that is probably evidenced in human history. I agree. I used the wrong term as any human talking about morality will be wearing a subjective lens. I don't view God as having a subjective lens because God is the truth and the light. He alone knows reality exactly as it is and is therefore objective. I am trying to discuss moral relativism, and I think that subjective morality and moral relativism are synonyms. If moral law is subjective than any person's view of morality could be the right view or the wrong view and therefore there is no right view and no way to determine which view is right. Only which moral view is the most popular and therefore adapted by society. Agreed. Sounding awfully American here. Are you sure that security isn't equally as important or more important than freedom cause the world is trending towards that direction. Yes, personal beliefs are a subjective decision. I have chosen to believe that there are moral laws that God instituted that, whether we are consciously aware of them or not, if we break them we face consequences to our personal peace, prosperity, and happiness. And that we can learn about those laws in the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon, and through an examination of human history. And that current society is sick precisely because individuals and nations are breaking moral law. I believe that most, if not all, of the world's problems today are because people are wicked (with wicked meaning not living according to God's moral laws). I mostly agree with you here. I view this more like there is the whole pie and God gives different people different slices of the pie because our tummies can only handle so much pie at a time. Where I'm at in my life, in my world, there are a million moral laws I may be breaking, but my little brain can only focus on a couple at a time and I just have to trust that God will grow me and I'll become more capable of keeping His commandments as I become more mature.

By this I mean that morality is relative to the time period, culture, and society in which one finds themselves. So an Aztec performing human sacrifices and committing genocide against other tribes was not breaking a moral law, but Hitler killing Jews was because of the context in which the society functioned. Or, a more modern example, abortion was breaking a moral law in the 1940's, but wasn't in the 1980's because the society, culture, laws, and regulations were different. I do not believe this. I believe there are timeless moral laws that exist, regardless of time, place, culture, society, government, etc. And if they are broken there is a negative consequence, and if they are kept there is a positive consequence. I see your point, and I see the danger in that. Claiming to do something on behalf of God is a slippery slope and very dangerous. Sounds like you have an issue with the human experience. Aren't we all hypocrites in our own way? Yeah, it sucks. I think how attractive the idea of subjective morality is depends on how trusting and believing in the goodness of one's own society and culture is. If one believes that society is generally good and supports good things, then it will act as a sort of "second line of defense" against those who act against it yet claim they are acting for God. But if one believes that society is generally bad and supports bad things then subjective morality is very dangerous to follow. Those who believe in subjective morality would have easily been part of the Nazi movement as a German in the 30's because of believing that their society is good and following the rules of society is good. So in either case, believing in an objective moral law vs a subjective moral law, careful thought and discernment is needed. Interestingly enough, many who believe in subjective morality in America today view the society, culture, laws, government, "the system" as evil and in need of reform yet use that same society as a yardstick to measure whether or not they are behaving in a moral manner. (As much as "ethics" can be regarded as "morals" as, in America, the term "morality" has kind of disappeared.) From your post I get the impression that you care about morality more as it relates to society and the world at large. I personally care more about morality as it relates to the individual. The reason that I believe in objective moral law is because of 2 Nephi 2. The first time that I read it, I had just learned that God existed. Due to the way I was raised and the way I lived my life I was a very miserable person and was a nihilist atheist. I believed that morality was subjective and that the best way to live was "do whatever you want as long as your not hurting anyone else" and "do whatever makes you feel good". I believed that people who were happy were delusional and foolish, but when I read in 2 Nephi 2 "And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery." I knew that I was miserable, therefore happiness must be a real thing that is obtainable. So my goal became to learn what way I needed to live in order to be happy. That is basically my definition of objective moral law. If one follows all of the timeless moral rules then they will live a happy life. Looking at society at large, people are on lots of drugs (legal and illegal), suicides are high, murders and theft are high, birth rates are low. Conflict, contention, and division are everywhere. Hypocrisy, mask wearing, cold-heartedness, pride and arrogance, materialism, war, etc. These are all basically at record high levels. Yet, relatively speaking, people who are living are following the rules of their respective societies. They are following the subjective moral laws. So if subjective morality is the reality then reality sucks because everyone is miserable and using drugs and porn to mask the pain.

You're crazy

So you believe in subjective morality? I'm undecided on whether or not I believe in the devil. But I do believe in objective moral law given by God. I don't believe that the devil is a necessary element of God's plan or required to have existed in order for the Fall to happen or for anyone to be tempted to sin. Well I can tell you at least one virtue that the devil has. He is an incredibly dedicated, passionate, hardworking, industrious, exceptional manager. If anyone baptized into the church was even 1% as dedicated to their cause as the devil is to his, our church would be miles ahead of where it currently is. I haven't brought up specific examples of how the devil has moved in the world to do good because anything I say could be regarded as controversial, but let me try an example that may be somewhat generally agreed upon? Carnegie was one who definitely worshipped Mammon and did many evil things to gain his fortune. Yet he is the one to thank for many conveniences in our lives, and he funded the public library system. If Carnegie is too controversial then I could point to Rockefeller which I don't think anyone disagrees with as being an evil person, but he was instrumental in starting the modern pharmaceutical industry, which I think is generally viewed as a good thing now days? If the pharmaceutical industry is still viewed as bad consider Merck who cured an entire indigenous tribe of blindness in South America. Or consider the company Nestle, which makes food affordable globally and gives free formula to mothers in Africa until their milk dries up, then charges them for it after they don't have an alternative. Or maybe Thomas Edison is viewed as a bad guy, yet we have the lightbulb from him regardless of how that whole process played out. The problem with these examples is that I don't think anyone, in general, really believes that anyone actually worships the devil or follows the devil. Yet at the same time there are people who believe that there are atheists or Bhuddists who follow the God of Israel without knowing that they are. I believe that people can follow and worship the devil without being aware of it. But I also believe there are many who worship the devil on purpose. One might point to Elon Musk wearing his 2022 halloween costume entitled "Devil's Champion" as a tongue-in-cheek joke, but viewing that as an intentional decision as part of his worship is also a valid view. You can't get much more direct in satanic imagery than that. There is lots of good that come from evil people who, if the devil exists, are clearly influenced by the devil and implicitly worship him through their worship of money (you can't worship God and Mammon). They are all much more tenacious, sociable, friendly, presentable, generous, charitable (even if it's for a tax write off they donate more money in a day than I do in an entire lifetime), active, and hardworking than I will probably ever be. Even if it's a mask they wear because they are dead inside with an ice cold heart and anger seething beneath the skin, it doesn't change how much good they do.

I'm not scholar but I wanted to add a few quick things to the conversation. One reason the church may still use the KJV is that it's copyright free outside of England. (And I'm curious how much the church pays for copyright for its app, church edition of KJV, etc. in England.) I learned about Bible copyright from the "Selling Jesus" YouTube channel which is an awesome channel about the problems with Christianity profiting off of Jesus; I especially liked their episode about Christian Music. My favorite version of the Bible is the Tree of Life version.

If people ever start being nice to us I'm going to leave the church and join the Jehovah's Witnesses. The church can't be true if the world likes it and I don't want to be part of an apostate church.

They should at least add Candy Cane Lane by Sia to the radio rotation.

I don't agree with the full quote either, but I like the sentiment. I do believe that the devil has done more Earthly good than I will ever be capable of doing. He hasn't directly saved any souls, but he's started and built many things that have had a huge impact for good on the world. As far as I'm concerned the only reasons I can view myself as better than the devil is because 1) I have a body and 2) I have at least one Godly desire in my cold heart somewhere while the devil has none. But other than that, which isn't much, the devil is by all accounts a better person than I am. I wouldn't have offered the fruit to Eve in the garden with the knowledge I currently possess, as an example.

I've never kept a gratitude journal but that advice to write three gratitude things daily was mentioned in my favorite TED talk of all time, so I may have to give it a try. I'm a happy person, but I'm also very cynical and hopeless so I could probably use a little bit more of it in my life. This is the TED talk

You say that but I've encountered a surprisingly large amount of members who believe that the prophet is infallible. They say in one breath that the prophet is a man and fallible and in the next that they will never disobey anything the prophet says and every time he speaks he is speaking for God and will never make mistakes or lead the church astray. What's that old adage? "LDS doctrine is that the prophet is fallible but the members don't believe it. Catholic doctrine is that the pope is infallible but the members don't believe it."

Recently I found a quote on humility that I like a lot, I shared it in another thread but I'll share it again here for context I recently reread my favorite talk of all time about Gratitude (by President Monson) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/10/the-divine-gift-of-gratitude?lang=eng and in it I read this quote: I used to think that humility was the "parent" of all other virtues, and I believe that this sentiment is somewhat common. The inverse of this being that pride is the "parent" of all sins. But, in light of the above quote, it may be that gratitude is the "parent" of all virtue, and entitlement the "parent" of all sin. (As entitlement is the opposite of gratitude, focusing on what one lacks instead of what one has.) For many years, whenever I've reflected on Alma 32 and the concept of "humbling myself" I was always left confused. How can I, as a proud and arrogant person, possible change my heart into a humble one? I used to believe that it was only possible to become humble only through God humbling me. But now I am wondering, "What if I can humble myself by focusing more on gratitude because it is the parent of all other virtues?" I've also started to wonder if gratitude is more key to having a good relationship with God, and to the process of repentance, than I thought. I've actually never taught or thought about repentance being related to gratitude, but when I consider these quotes it gets me pondering: And Doctrine and Covenants 59:7,21 I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic. Happy Thanksgiving everyone! And thank you for being a wonderful community.

Thanks, I stand corrected. Ok Good news! And that makes sense. I think it would be a great idea for the church to give every endowed member 10 sets of garments per year, according to the member's request (so as not to send them to people who don't want them). The gospel is supposed to be free according to the scriptures but it's impossible to do anything temple related without spending money on garments, which I view as a cost for the gospel. No, it wouldn't make sense. I stand corrected by the post above yours. I didn't know their intention was worldwide from the start. Of course, now my brain thinks that their motivation is to tackle the problem of women not wearing garments, but that's just the cynic in me. They probably did it primarily for women's health with the added bonus of (hopefully) more women wearing them regularly. Also, thanks for sharing that personal story. Depends on how pretty it makes them look. I could see these new garments as a response to the explosive growth of membership in Africa, but I don't understand why the Philippines wouldn't have already caused them to reconsider garment fabric/structure. Agreed.

Agreed. If the expected blessings are prosperity gospel type where they expect God to give them sunshine and flowers all the time because they're so awesome then that's a problem and they're have a long way to fall from the tower they're climbing.

I'm not in the sunset phase of life yet with my wife, so there is a lot I don't understand about women's biology. But I still think my point is valid. Here is the quote back in 2024 as to why they were going to make changes to the garments They didn't make the changes to the garment because women can get hot flashes, they made them for women who live near the equator or in "hot and humid areas". And this is evidenced by where they were released first. I don't believe that the original intention was to have them released to all members worldwide. If Africa and the Philippines were a pilot that was a tremendously large pilot program. I think they are worldwide because other members found out and word spread and the church had to respond. Even if it was just to aid in temperature control, I do not personally believe that the current fabric they use is the optimal blend of fabric for temperature control, but I'm not a fabric expert so I could be wrong here. I think they went with "the most bang for the buck" route to make them as cheaply as possible while having them do a better job than they used to.

I don't think there's going to be anymore information released regarding this change. What reason would they have to say anything else about it? This church is ran by Jesus Christ and by the Saints, both parties make decisions regarding church administration. It's entirely possible that this is a case of some saints making a decision based off of their best judgments and intentions without God really involving Himself in the matter. It's even entirely possible that it's the wrong decision because less GC means less messages of Christ to the world every 6 months and preaching of Christ is God's #1 prerogative. My point was that their stated reason is dumb and I'd rather have the reason of "we did it cause we felt like it" then some made up lame excuse.

I'm not bugged by someone following God for brownie points in the afterlife. The things they believe they will receive aren't tangible and aren't causing anyone harm. Right now the world is very self-centered. Let's say that tomorrow we wakeup and everyone is serving each other all the time and are really nice to each other, but it's only because it makes them "feel good" and because they believe that when they die they'll get a big house for being selfless. Is that something to get upset about? Sure, it'd be better if they did it just because that's who they are, or because they love God and their neighbor, but who cares? The results would be amazing. I'd love to live in that world.

It's just an absolutely ridiculous excuse pulled out of thin air. I'd honestly have rather read the excuse of "we changed it because God told us to" or "because we felt like it and we are Apostles of Jesus" and just claim that prophetic mantle. There was no detraction of focus from the other sessions unless people were getting burned out from too much conference or something. But AFAIK Saturday evening session was only an hour for the last couple of years. In the recent interview with the new first presidency there was a moment when President Eyring said, kind of in jest, "I'd like to venture a prophecy that blah will happen" and it was some really obvious thing he stated. He sounded a little insecure when he said it. It kind of bugged me. Anyways, another recent example of a really dumb excuse was the excuse for the garment changes being due to "hot climates" yet they are making the new garments out of plastic instead of cotton or linen. They may have honestly believed that they could just roll them out regionally without any issue, but now these "hot" garments are worldwide even in cold places.

One could argue that the entire General Conference is a tradition. From what I understand we have it because the Methodists did it and Joseph Smith liked it so he started doing it. I think the only thing that's perhaps essential is the sustaining of church officers. However, if anyone objects to them then they are directed to the Stake presidents so one could argue that we only need a Stake Conference once a year for the sustaining of the church officers. Perhaps one day there will be no more general conference. My wife's reaction to this conference change was that she thinks the church will become a one hour church in the future. I could see that happening.

I missed a lot of threads because I was out of town for a few weeks, but wanted to throw in my two cents here. I don't believe that Jesus ever had children because He is God's "only begotten son" (which I assume applies to both genders, b/c the Bible is like that) and if he had kid then they would be one of "God's sons" and then Jesus wouldn't be the only begotten anymore. As far as I'm aware according to the conspiracy community the Great Families of the world (Rothschilds, etc.) believe that they are directly related to Jesus through blood and that makes them special and worthy of seeking to rule the world.

Do you think that activism is what caused the Priesthood and Women's sessions to go away? Does activism actually work in the Church, because, if so, that would mean that eventually gay sealings are going to be a thing...

I learned in 2011 that I am a very poor judge when trying to determine what is a blessing and what is a curse in my life. I got a broken neck as the passenger in a 75 mph rollover car accident in the Nevada desert. At the time I thought it was the worst thing that had ever happened to me, but upon reflection over the years I think it was one of the best things that's ever happened to me; the fallout (good and bad) from that event still ripples through my life to this very day. One thing I've been working through as part of my 12 step recovery is to recognize my addiction as a gift and blessing and not a curse. To be grateful to God for it instead of being angry at Him for the ways I've been a victim and slave to my addictions. Weakness is a gift from God. But there are many instances in which those gifts are a curse instead of a blessing and I find it nearly impossible to tell the difference. I read recently from a randomly interviewed Jewish women that in Jewish culture they view three things as God's greatest blessings: health, wealth, and family. I would add to that "knowledge" because "to be learned is good if you hearken to the counsels of God" according to the Book of Mormon. However, in the end, any of these perceived blessings can be curses. Though if those are the greatest blessings then I suppose one could use how much of each of those they have as a barometer for how well they are following God, but I don't think that's fair or right when we all have such unique and individual circumstances. I think it's dangerous to try and attribute specific blessings to specific commandment keeping and the most obvious example of this is the Prosperity Gospel in which you receive money from God if you give money to the church. While the LDS don't preach that, many members believe in it, and that's not cool. It kind of sucks that there aren't any specifics in God's word, life would feel more simple if there were. But it feels kind of the same as when I was a missionary, I had no way to measure how good of a missionary I was because I couldn't compare my mission to anyone else's and there were no standards set other than "follow the handbook" which just means you are following the rules, not necessarily preaching with God's power and authority. Even now as a member I don't exactly know what my standing is with God. It's not like I get a letter grade, or daily feedback on how perfectly I'm connecting with Christ. It can be very frustrating and my response to it has been to loosen up and stop worrying so much about the details and just enjoy growing as a little plant and enjoy the sunshine, the occasional rain, and the periodic fertilization while watching bugs crawl around on the dirt.

On the plus side that means we get to hear from less women and less non-Q15 brethren. Also, I thought this was an April Fool's joke when I first opened the thread. I think it's a pretty crazy change.

I think that what a believer should do is live with integrity, passion, and in accordance with what they truly believe. God is growing us all, and we all have wheat and tares growing together in our hearts. I can try to focus on the "wheat" in the way I interact with others, but if I view this verse as a strict commandment and try to be "extra" nice or gentle or sweet or whatever way I view Christlike conversation then I don't believe that I'd be an example of the believers. I would rather talk with a dumb, loud, curses-like-a-sailor, d*ickish yet brutally honest kind of guy than an intelligent, well-worded, mask wearing snake. In the culture of the world that I live in, being nice is the highest virtue, and I believe that people make too much of an effort to come across as nice and therefore lie through their teeth and lose that authenticity. My response to that is to discard what they are saying. I think no matter what we do or what we try to hide our speech is colored by what we truly believe so I view this verse as calling people to repent and work on their personal relationship with Jesus moreso than a call to talk to others like Jesus would. What comes across the most from those who are "an example of the believers" is a genuine love and care for the one they are speaking too, empathy, honesty, connection, gratitude, and humility. Those things can't be faked very well and I believe that God is the one who changes hearts for those who desire it. Hopefully I'm making some sense. ETA: I do think that biting one's tongue is an important conversation skill to learn and also not gossiping/being able to keep a secret/holding someone's confidence which I think the temple is very good at teaching people how to do.

We do worship a different Jesus though? It may be an attempt to smear the LDS but the God of traditional Christianity is different from the God of LDS. Even how we view Jesus is different. Some examples of this (LDS differences): The Fall was a good thing. Dead babies aren't going to hell. Gethsemane was really important. Jesus is only excluding perdition from receiving God's glory (i.e. everyone is going to heaven, no fear based preaching). All will have equal opportunity to accept Jesus even if they die without hearing of Him. Jesus requires us to participate in ritual ceremonies under His authority. Only one church has God's full authority, not just authority borrowed from the Holy Bible, which is a very abrasive claim to make. Jesus has expectations of us. In the parable of the 10 virgins (Matthew 25:12 Jesus says, "Verily I say unto you, I know you not." Joseph Smith reinterpreted that verse as saying, "Verily I say unto you, Ye know me not." In Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus says, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord have we not ... in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." And again Joseph Smith reinterpreted that verse as saying, "And then will I say, Ye never knew me" One thing that I've really appreciated that the Evangelical community focuses on and highlights is the "relationship" aspect of discipleship. Where they may miss the mark is in how to build that relationship, or even who they are building a relationship with. I am speaking generally, not specifically, and this problem is a human problem, not an Evangelical one. My initial takeaway when receiving my endowment in the temple was, "I feel like the temple is designed to remove the mysticism and magical feeling from God and instead try to help me understand what plain reality actually is." That's kind of been the journey of my life. As I grow older with a focus on faith in Jesus Christ and seeking truth my view of reality and things as they actually are becomes more clear. My vision of God began in a very supernatural way, and in my initial steps of discipleship I was growing the wrong way. So God cut me down, brought me back to myself (revealing a myriad of weakness) and step by step has been patiently adjusting the lenses of faith with which I view life in order to see who He is slightly more clearly. If I am on a quest to dwell with Him forever, I better know exactly what I'm getting myself into, and whether or not God is someone I would get along with for that long! But ultimately, God has never changed, He has changed me, and as I change I find myself liking God more over time. I am reminded of this (Greek Orthodox) quote that I've been reflecting on often since I heard it a couple of weeks ago. If "By their fruits ye shall know them." then this quote resonates with me about what qualities I should look for in someone who knows the One True God.