Nofear

Surprised it hasn't been posted yet. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/02/12/new-apostle-elder-clark-g-gilbert-called-by-president-oaks/

Criminals are indeed very clever. That is part of the reason all transactions need two separate approvals (2 bishopric or bishopric + clerk) and you can't be the approver on anything that is to you or your family. Surmountable, certainly. A safeguard that makes systemic abuse pretty unlikely, also certainly. Things like this become more difficult: https://nebraska.tv/news/local/account-accused-of-stealing-from-church-takes-plea-deal.

Duplicate post.

One of my current callings is stake auditor. Embezzling funds would require forging receipts and conspiracy with other members of the bishopric. Possible, certainly. Doing so with significant amounts will certainly be flagged for additional review though.

This discussion would be off topic for the thread so I shan't get into much beyond this comment. But, LDS theology very much does open itself up to criticism because of the theology's physicalism. In most interpretations we don't just have physical matter, we have actual, literal, honest-to-goodness in the universe spirit matter (and I'd also argue intelligent matter). That means there are, in theory, practical and actual observables that should be available to inspection. Whereas, Hellenized Christianity sidesteps the issues with dualism, the utter audacity of Mormonism is that it does not. I acknowledge the claims, the constraints, and pressure points. I have a personal framework for LDS theology that I believe addresses these issues. For me the Gospel isn't just true, it is real in every sense that the physical world around me is real.

Not a bad read at all. About some LA wards and branches and how they've responded. "Through it all, church headquarters in Salt Lake City has remained largely hands off, according to members in the area. 'It’s all been at the ward level, where every bishop has had to choose on his own how to respond,' said Latter-day Saint Ricardo Osorio Reyes." https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/02/03/how-latter-day-saints-la-responded/

You can find several commentaries in the influencer networks. This is one. The Mormon blood one is pretty weird (but some suspect features to it too).

The principles in these two talks inform almost all I as a private citizen need to know about immigration. Are We Not All Beggars? by Elder Holland Refuge from the Storm by Elder Kearon

"The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has created guidelines to help local leaders comply with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting, or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States." I can't find a website. Maybe you can call the Office of General Counsel and see if they give you the guidelines. 1-800-453-3860 (extension unknown).

One year ago today. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-reaffirms-immigration-principles-love-law-family-unity The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has reiterated principles and communicated guidelines to local leaders in the United States regarding immigration issues. As disciples of Jesus Christ, the following principles guide the Church’s approach: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obeys the law. We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children. We seek to provide basic food and clothing, as our capacity allows, to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. We are especially concerned about keeping families together. The guidance closely follows statements made previously on these issues, which are available on the Church website. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has created guidelines to help local leaders comply with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting, or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States. OGC also carefully tracks legal developments to ensure local outreach and area-initiated humanitarian activities are appropriate. Local leaders should be in contact with the Office of General Counsel for further information.

A couple of decades ago, we had a family that were illegal immigrants from Venezuala and the bishop was concerned about his legal and ethical obligations. As I understand it, clergy are under no legal obligation whatsoever to in any way report their situation. I think the general approach for bishops is that they should not inquire or seek to know about their immigration status (legal or otherwise). A kind of don't ask, don't tell approach.

https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/canada-area-presidency-statement-on-bill-c-9-and-religious-freedom TLDR: the proposed revision would remove the "religious speech defence". Potentially this could mean that the Church could be brought before the court as promoting "hate speech" by saying certain activities are sinful. At least that's what I am understanding.

Perhaps I misread Calm's comment (or yours), but I'm not sure there is congruety between her question on your response.

His story is interesting. If I recall correctly he did an earlier 52 churches in 52 weeks in the 2010s. He just wasn't sure what was the right church/denomination for him to associate most strongly with. The Church was not in that first list. He did it again and this time the Church was (and a few Mormon variants). He was respectful and open-minded as he visited various congregations with the intent to look for the positives in each. But, the Church won out. Between missionary discussions and red cardinals he was converted. I think he's single and even tried some LDS YSA/YA activities. Anyway, I've only watched snippets of a very few of his videos. He seems very much like a rather decent fellow.

I personally doubt it. I'll have to recheck this Sunday, but if memory serves me, mormondialogue.org is blocked by the Church's Liahona wifi at meeting houses.

I confess having clicked on some of his videos. Then I'd fast forward to the clip of the General Authority that the video was referencing. The content of the video almost invariably was much more benign than the title of the video suggests. Yes. It's the last days. Yes. There are warnings. But, I find his sensationalism to be more than a little off-putting. I second ZeolouslyStriving's position.

And some critics become staunch defenders, albeit there are few indeed that switch sides. Nonetheless, apologetics has its place. "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." --Austin Farrer

And how many decades did it take you to come to this conclusion? Your valiant efforts to the otherwise were always welcome! I think we need a new term that is the analog of ad hominem. Perhaps ad machina?

Addressed somebody who wasn't been answered and responded to Calm. Was a side discussion not relevant to the main thrust.

I would say that we have moral agency now. I'm not a determinist or a compatiblist. But I have no idesire to engage you with such a discussion. We might have similar positions or very different. We explain things differently and setting up the common core of language and concepts is sometimes tedious. I don't feel like doing that right now.

"The idea of self-aware intelligences that pre-exist spirits doesn't help either." ... well, I certainly don't make the argument that preembodied intelligences are self-aware. Anyway, your comment isn't germane to what I wrote. I don't even disagree with the body of the comment. What I did say was that the idea of self-existent, uncreate intelligences does it avoid Galen Strawsen's The Basic Argument. True as the Book of Mormon content you bring up is (and it is true) ... it still falls victim to The Basic Argument without additional content.

That's also a very powerful argument. Creatio Ex Nihilo and softer variants fail Galen Strawsen's The Basic Argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson).

Some of the early brethren have taken a position that while intelligence is uncreate, it is when we organize intelligence together in some for or another then we have identity. But, I don't take that position. My personhood or identity may not be able to express itself embodiment but having an unique component that is indivisible, indestructible, can't be reproduced solves a whole host of philosophical puzzles associated with identity (e.g. ship of Theseus, the teleportation problem, Lock's Prince and Cobbler. I conceptualize intelligences as matter and having the same ontic reality that physical and spirit matter do. Consequently, I am happy to refer to intelligent matter. But, I don't know that referring to intelligent matter as either a particle or a wave would be appropriate, but, being a unique thing I can refer to a quantum of intelligent matter (which would be associated with a single identitiy) and quanta of intelligent matter (which would be associated with intelligences). The use of the term intelligent matter naturally distinguishes between an intelligence in an unembodied state as opposed to one that is embodied or not.

I agree with Ben that we really don't know anything about what occurs before our creation of spirits. The best we have is that they are uncreate and self-existent from the D&C. Just recently had Gemini find me several quotes that assert we specifically don't know know about the nature of how intelligences are joined with spirit bodies. Turns out there are several. That being the case, I am quite certain that it has no real relationship to viviparous conception and births. Numerically it just doesn't work out. Whatever the process is it has been specifically withheld from us in mortality. Perhaps it would offend our sensibilities. My assertion that intelligences are simple is a logical deduction not a revealed position.

Nobody responded to you. The last question is, of course, yes, God created our spirit bodies. It is in that sense They are our literal Heavenly Parents. To the first question, what can intelligences do without a body, my position is not much. Since intelligences are uncreate and self-existent the only philosophically coherent position to me is that they are are simple (i.e. without constituent parts). Being simple the intelligences would lack the ability to perceive or remember information. Consequently, anything action taken by an intelligence would be indistinguishable from random. Our intelligences only truly show our capability when embodied --- linked with a machine (body) that provides us perception and memory. While the core of our identity is self-existent, in some sense we didn't "begin to be" in any non-trivial sense until our Heavenly Parents gifted us with bodies.