Faithful LDS woman ex'd for publicly announcing she doesn't believe JS lived polygamy.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I was expressing myself poorly because I believe, probably differently than many or most others, that if one knows a medication will kill someone and gives it to them anyway no matter why, that is having the intent to kill the person even if it’s a side effect so to speak.  I believe it is ‘intent to kill’ even if not the primary intent because one can choose to not kill the person by withholding the treatment.

Thanks for clarifying your earlier posts.

I see it as the link you shared expressed it, especially where it says "At times, the medications and doses needed for symptom control may shorten the time to death because of their impact on sedation level and respiratory drive; such risk may be acceptable given the goal of comfort and symptom management. However, prescribing medications with the intent to hasten death is unethical and illegal."

Two very separate things, one being ethical and one not.

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by bluebell

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

would say a few from the pro-aborts but mostly the antis

Would you trust antimormons on their say so claiming extreme things about LDS?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

am inclined to think they never were legal

Then why waste everyone’s time and money with the federal Act banning them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Edited December 28, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Millions of babies butchered needlessly.

Late term abortions, of which there are not millions just in case you were intending to imply that, are typically when there are congenital problems with the fetus.  Not as many want to adopt a special needs baby that is likely to die quite young or need constant care for as long as they live.

Edited December 28, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

I would say a few from the pro-aborts but mostly the antis

Uh-huh.

3 hours ago, longview said:

I don't believe your hogwash. There is great likelihood of the procedure being done over the years in secret.

The procedure is not defined. So it doesn’t mean anything. You can’t do non-existent things in secret.

Also you are again appealing to insanity. We can’t show it was done so it must have been done in secret. Like the witches holding their dark meetings with all the demon sex. And the satanic child abuse of the 80s. It all likely happened in secret.

The lack of evidence IS EVIDENCE!!!!!

3 hours ago, longview said:

I am inclined to think they never were legal. But likely done over decades regardless of the law.

Okay.

3 hours ago, longview said:

I like to listen to conservative radio such as Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher and a few others. I frequently hear advertisements for donations to provide free sonograms, in-clinic care, counseling, adoption services, etc. They are all over the country. There is a HUGE waiting list for adoption. Which is a crying shame. Millions of babies butchered needlessly.

You have terrible taste in media.

There is a big waiting list for adoptions assuming it is a white newborn baby with no obvious health problems or defects. If you are non-white or older than a toddler you are probably stuck in the system until you age out. Late term abortions are mostly done because the fetus isn’t viable or is severely defective or is likely to damage or kill the mother.

Also those adverts are for Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). They are well-known for not having licensed medical practitioners and for disseminating false medical information. They tend to use outdated and discredited studies, portray falsehoods as a medical consensus, and generally provide sonograms because they believe that experiencing a sonogram discourages women from choosing abortion (it does not).

They also use deceptive advertising. Some even advertise themselves as providing abortions.

They are scum misrepresenting themselves to trick scared pregnant women. If there is a hell the people running these fraudulent enterprises are going there.

3 hours ago, longview said:

 Not when the LEFT run cover for them.

Whining about how abortion clinics (who are regulated) are going off the rails after talking about all the great CPC centers are is peak irony. Seriously, CPCs are almost completely unregulated and can lie with impunity. The Religious Right needs to stop being a cesspool of lies and scams if they ever want to have credibility again.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

I accept the definition of a prophet shown here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/prophet

From your link:

A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God.

Yet there is a HUGE lack of even claimed revelations since the very early prophets who seem to claim them regularly and even then some of those claims were diaavowed in modern times,  Yet that is the very first line of the definition of a prophet.  One has to assume either God has lost interest in guiding mankind, or these men are prophets in name only.  The church just uses that title for the leader of the church.  

Quote

 

Yes, I feel modern prophets have been trustworthy.

What would it take to convince you that they are trustworthy?

When I was a missionary, the Church printed a brochure that had a photograph of David O McKay on its cover.  I would knock on doors and ask people if they knew who this man was.  Then I would tell them a wonderful story about how he was a prophet of God and received revelations from God just like prophets in the Bible.  I truly believed that.  I actually thought the prophet leading the Church had regular revelations from God himself.  But that is not really true is it.  In fact, in all those years since then, there has only been one revelation even claimed by the Church that I know of, the revelation on the priesthood, which frankly didn't really need a revelation from anyone to know that was blatantly wrong and against the teachings of the Savior.  

There is not justification for the head of the Church in being called a prophet. There are just the last standing man standing to make it through the bureaucracy of Church leadership.  Yet, we live at a time where so many issues in the Church and world today desperately need a revelation from God.  So many issues that are put into Church teachings that like the priesthood ban are put there because of past prejudices.  Issues like women's second class status, how to treat those that are LGBT, Word of Wisdom practices, clarification of how a man can be sealed to multiple women, but women can not.  So many of these issues are completely man made with no input from God at all.  The very basic claims of the Church which I once believed made the Church unique in the world are actually not really there.  Just men trying to do their best to run a church like any other church on earth.

What would it take to convince me that they are trustworthy?   Something more than just a claim of Christ running the Church through its leaders.  How about even claims of revelations from God more than help in finding lost keys?  

Would I even believe in any claims of new revelations from God?  I will admit, that there have been way too many lies that I once believed in that now have strong proof that they were just made up stories used to control people's ives and enrich the wealth of the Church.  Isn't that the result of just about every church ever established?  Mormonism has nothing special.  It follows the same pattern religion has always followed from the dawn of time.  

I am not saying that everything the Church does is bad or evil.  I am only saying that there is nothing special about Mormonism.  If the church works for you, I wish nothing but happiness for you, just like I would anyone else who finds happiness in religious worship. and just like I wish for those that have found happiness outside of religion.  I had a life in religion.  I personally have found a much more happy life outside of religion.  I find myself not carrying any longer about claims of the divine.  What I was put through and what others are put through simply because they are not straight like the majority of people in the name of religion does not come from a God.  

[MrShorty]

19 hours ago, gopher said:

My opinion is that the more we focus on the infallibility of prophets, the more likely we are going to later hesitate or refuse the follow the counsel of prophets in the future.  How will we respond when the prophet asks us to do something really difficult as has been done in the past?

Agreed, though I would divide the "difficult" things into two categories. There are difficult but morally neutral things (like pushing boulders up hills) and there are things that are difficult because they violate our sense of ethics and morality (like genocide or slavery). I think there is real value in preparing ourselves to perform difficult tasks that are inconvenient or tedious or that may seem like busy work. I think there is a real difference when we are talking about preparing ourselves to be obedient to directives that run contrary to our sense of right and wrong. This is when I think the question of prophetic fallibility must be addressed. If a prophet is going to tell me that God expects me to practice polygamy even though my wife is adamantly opposed to it, that prophet needs to be prepared to explain why he thinks this command came from God, including all of the ways that he might be mistaken and the measures he has taken to avoid mistakes like the 19th century saints made in practicing polygamy. Even after all of that, God (the gatekeeper of testimony) will need to confirm such commands to me. I've reached a point in my deconstruction/reconstruction where I no longer believe that obedience to prophets (or maybe even God Himself) is the highest virtue. If fallible prophets make immoral demands, then they must expect that I will not comply. Until they really wrestle with their own fallibility, fallibility is the first "excuse" for my non-compliance.

 

19 hours ago, gopher said:

So even though we say we believe prophets are not infallible, will we ever agree on actual examples of errors by prophets?  Especially when a prophet never admitted he was mistaken? 

This, I think, is where we ought to begin. You are correct, we and they are extremely reluctant to identify specific mistakes. In many ways, I'm beginning to see this as expression of the "preface paradox." We acknowledge in a vague way that prophets can make mistakes, but we are unable or unwilling to identify specific mistakes (except, perhaps, for personal errors like wearing ugly ties). The preface paradox is supposedly an expression of epistemic humility. Even though we currently can't recognize our mistakes, we are implying a willingness to recognize those mistakes later when new information comes to light and correct them. The problem that I see is that, in spite of new information, we and our leaders are reticent to acknowledge mistakes that have been made. For many in faith crisis, this leads to a "trust crisis" where they decide that they cannot trust the prophet to acknowledge mistakes, so they can no longer trust the moral directives the prophets make.

 

19 hours ago, gopher said:

That's why I'm content with having the opinion that I don't understand the reasons for everything prophets have done instead of declaring they were mistaken.  I can also withhold judgment on the weird stuff especially in the Old Testament until we get the whole story someday.  But I also trust the God won't allow His prophets to lead us astray today. 

Which is fine for you and the majority of LDS who would agree with you. For those of us in faith or trust crisis, does the church want to help rebuild some of that trust that has been lost in their eyes? As I look at the church's efforts to help people like me, it seems like all it knows how to do is gloss over the moral ambiguities of the past, often invoking God's ineffability. It's true that God and His purposes can be difficult to impossible for mere mortals to comprehend, but it sometimes begins to feel like we are invoking God's ineffability in order to avoid making hard conclusions about the truth or error of scripture and prophetic declarations. That, I find, doesn't help inspire trust in following current prophets into morally ambiguous paths.

Edited December 28, 2025 by MrShorty

[Rain]

" I can also withhold judgment on the weird stuff especially in the Old Testament until we get the whole story someday.  But I also trust the God won't allow His prophets to lead us astray today. "

@gopher Just saw your quote in MrShorty's post.  I missed it somewhere.

You asked where the church could do better.  Here is one place.

I was at a place where I felt the same when I was teaching Gospel Doctrine. The problem comes with things like this - during that time when we came to the OT lesson in Come about God commanding to kill all the men, women and children.  Out of all churches this would have been a great place in Come Follow Me to talk about the bible being translated correctly or precious things being taken away etc. allowing people to "withhold judgment on the weird stuff."

Or a great place about how to deal with what seems to many to be contradictory to God's will.

But the church didn't do that. It put this in the manual:

"While we don’t know all the reasons Saul was commanded to kill all of the Amalekites and their animals, there are lessons to learn from his response to that commandment. To help class members identify these lessons, you could write on the board To obey is better than … and invite class members to ponder this phrase as you review together events from 1 Samuel 15. What are some good things we do in our lives that we sometimes choose instead of obeying God? Why is obedience to God better than those other good things?" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-sunday-school-old-testament-2022/25?lang=eng

Just an assumption that killing of innocent adults and children was the right thing to do plus the idea that it is better to obey God directly with it. No witholding judgement of the weird things.  Just an assumption that this was right and good. 

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

" I can also withhold judgment on the weird stuff especially in the Old Testament until we get the whole story someday.  But I also trust the God won't allow His prophets to lead us astray today. "

@gopher Just saw your quote in MrShorty's post.  I missed it somewhere.

You asked where the church could do better.  Here is one place.

I was at a place where I felt the same when I was teaching Gospel Doctrine. The problem comes with things like this - during that time when we came to the OT lesson in Come about God commanding to kill all the men, women and children.  Out of all churches this would have been a great place in Come Follow Me to talk about the bible being translated correctly or precious things being taken away etc. allowing people to "withhold judgment on the weird stuff."

Or a great place about how to deal with what seems to many to be contradictory to God's will.

But the church didn't do that. It put this in the manual:

"While we don’t know all the reasons Saul was commanded to kill all of the Amalekites and their animals, there are lessons to learn from his response to that commandment. To help class members identify these lessons, you could write on the board To obey is better than … and invite class members to ponder this phrase as you review together events from 1 Samuel 15. What are some good things we do in our lives that we sometimes choose instead of obeying God? Why is obedience to God better than those other good things?" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-sunday-school-old-testament-2022/25?lang=eng

Just an assumption that killing of innocent adults and children was the right thing to do plus the idea that it is better to obey God directly with it. No witholding judgement of the weird things.  Just an assumption that this was right and good. 

 

 

The church's correlation committee does make some dumb decisions sometimes.  Lots of missed opportunities.  I wonder if the new lesson manual will handle it differently?

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church's correlation committee does make some dumb decisions sometimes.  Lots of missed opportunities.  I wonder if the new lesson manual will handle it differently?

Good question.  If I remember right it did handle it differently in the home version (the one I quoted was the Sunday School version) though also, if I remember right, it just skipped over discussion of it in the home version.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

Good question.  If I remember right it did handle it differently in the home version (the one I quoted was the Sunday School version) though also, if I remember right, it just skipped over discussion of it in the home version.

Looks like the lessons on the chapters themselves are silent on those passages (from what I can tell, but I didn't look thoroughly).  That always annoys me.  

But the manual does have this in a section explaining "things to keep in mind":

When reading the Old Testament, as with any history, you’re likely to read about people doing or saying things that, to modern eyes, seem strange or even troubling. We should expect this—Old Testament writers saw the world from a perspective that was, in some ways, quite different from ours. Violence, ethnic relations, and the roles of women are just some of the issues that ancient writers might have seen differently than we do today.

So what should we do when we come across passages in the scriptures that seem troubling? First, it might help to consider each passage in a broader context. How does it fit in God’s plan of salvation? How does it fit with what you know about the nature of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? How does it fit with revealed truths in other scriptures or with the teachings of living prophets? And how does it fit with the whisperings of the Spirit to your own heart and mind?

In some cases, the passage may not seem to fit well with any of these. Sometimes the passage may be like a puzzle piece that doesn’t look like it has a place among the pieces you’ve already assembled. Trying to force the piece to fit isn’t the best approach. But neither is giving up on the entire puzzle. Instead, you may need to set the piece aside for a time. As you learn more and put together more of the puzzle, you may be able to better see how the pieces fit together.

It can also help to remember that in addition to being limited to a particular perspective, scriptural histories are subject to human error. For example, over the centuries, “many plain and precious things [were] taken away from the [Bible],” including important truths about doctrine, ordinances, and covenants (1 Nephi 13:28; see also verses 26, 29, 40). At the same time, we should be willing to admit that our own perspectives are also limited: there will always be things we don’t fully understand and questions we can’t yet answer.

I guess that's better than nothing.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Looks like the lessons on the chapters themselves are silent on those passages (from what I can tell, but I didn't look thoroughly).  That always annoys me.  

But the manual does have this in a section explaining "things to keep in mind":

When reading the Old Testament, as with any history, you’re likely to read about people doing or saying things that, to modern eyes, seem strange or even troubling. We should expect this—Old Testament writers saw the world from a perspective that was, in some ways, quite different from ours. Violence, ethnic relations, and the roles of women are just some of the issues that ancient writers might have seen differently than we do today.

So what should we do when we come across passages in the scriptures that seem troubling? First, it might help to consider each passage in a broader context. How does it fit in God’s plan of salvation? How does it fit with what you know about the nature of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? How does it fit with revealed truths in other scriptures or with the teachings of living prophets? And how does it fit with the whisperings of the Spirit to your own heart and mind?

In some cases, the passage may not seem to fit well with any of these. Sometimes the passage may be like a puzzle piece that doesn’t look like it has a place among the pieces you’ve already assembled. Trying to force the piece to fit isn’t the best approach. But neither is giving up on the entire puzzle. Instead, you may need to set the piece aside for a time. As you learn more and put together more of the puzzle, you may be able to better see how the pieces fit together.

It can also help to remember that in addition to being limited to a particular perspective, scriptural histories are subject to human error. For example, over the centuries, “many plain and precious things [were] taken away from the [Bible],” including important truths about doctrine, ordinances, and covenants (1 Nephi 13:28; see also verses 26, 29, 40). At the same time, we should be willing to admit that our own perspectives are also limited: there will always be things we don’t fully understand and questions we can’t yet answer.

I guess that's better than nothing.

Is this at the beginning before the different lessons?

[longview]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Would you trust antimormons on their say so claiming extreme things about LDS?

When the pros and the antis confirm each other, then the gauge goes upward.

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Then why waste everyone’s time and money with the federal Act banning them?

In the old days, they were illegal which is why back alley abortions were the most common option. In recent time with abortions increasingly permitted in liberal enclaves, people started voicing concerns.

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Late term abortions, of which there are not millions just in case you were intending to imply that, are typically when there are congenital problems with the fetus.  Not as many want to adopt a special needs baby that is likely to die quite young or need constant care for as long as they live.

I don't know how many are done at each stage of the pregnancy but abortions is rarely if ever justified. The pros demand the convenience at EVERY stage.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The procedure is not defined. So it doesn’t mean anything. You can’t do non-existent things in secret.

The pros DEMAND it. They explicitly refer to and label partial-birth abortions as THEIR right to control their bodies as they see fit. They call the lump of cells (the fetus) as an alien invader to be disposed of at their discretion.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You have terrible taste in media.

Because the devil shudders violently at hearing truth.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is a big waiting list for adoptions assuming it is a white newborn baby with no obvious health problems or defects. If you are non-white or older than a toddler you are probably stuck in the system until you age out.

You are NOT telling the whole story. There are many instances of white parents adopting minority children. I have read newspaper articles of government entities denying adoptions because they said it would be "cultural misappropriation of ethnicity".

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also those adverts are for Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). They are well-known for not having licensed medical practitioners and for disseminating false medical information. They tend to use outdated and discredited studies, portray falsehoods as a medical consensus, and generally provide sonograms because they believe that experiencing a sonogram discourages women from choosing abortion (it does not).

You are NOT telling the whole story. I asked chatGPT:

Quote

how many pregnancy assistence centers exist for helping expectant mothers in crisis or needing extra help? please name them.

 

Here’s a clear overview of how many pregnancy assistance centers (often called crisis pregnancy centers, pregnancy resource centers, or pregnancy help centers) exist in the U.S., and some of the major national organizations that operate or support them:

---

📊 How Many Exist in the United States

• There are approximately 2,500 to 4,000 crisis/pregnancy help centers operating in the United States. These locations include standalone centers and sometimes mobile units that provide support to pregnant people facing unexpected pregnancies. Wikipedia+1

• Heartbeat International, one of the largest networks, reports supporting thousands of affiliated pregnancy help locations worldwide (including many in the U.S.). Heartbeat International

• The Worldwide Directory of Pregnancy Help (maintained by Heartbeat International) lists a large number of service providers able to assist pregnant people and their families. Heartbeat International

Note: Many such centers are faith-based nonprofits. Some provide material support (baby clothes, diapers), referrals for prenatal care, counseling and parenting support; others also offer ultrasounds and other services — although practices and quality vary widely. Heartbeat International

---

🏢 Major National Networks & Organizations

Here are some of the key national organizations that operate or support pregnancy assistance centers (many focused on assisting expectant mothers, especially those considering alternatives to abortion):

1. Heartbeat International

• One of the largest and oldest networks of pregnancy help organizations.

• Supports and affiliates with thousands of pregnancy help centers globally.

• Provides 24/7 support via Option Line and offers referrals and resources for pregnant people. Heartbeat International+1

2. Care Net

• A major national network of pregnancy centers with over 1,000 affiliated locations.

• Offers counseling, material support, pregnancy decision coaching, and referrals. Care Net

• Also operates a Pregnancy Decision Line for immediate help.

3. Birthright International

• An international pregnancy help organization with free, confidential support services.

• Offers referrals for medical care, legal aid, employment resources, and more. Birthright

4. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA)

• Provides legal support, training, and resources to hundreds of pregnancy help centers.

• Works with many centers to offer ultrasounds and medical services (with training and support). Wikipedia

5. American Pregnancy Association

• A nonprofit that provides information and support resources related to pregnancy.

• Offers educational materials and guidance, though it functions differently from brick-and-mortar help centers. Wikipedia

---

📍 Examples of Local Pregnancy Assistance Centers

These are actual center names drawn from directories and listings of pregnancy help locations (many affiliated with national networks):

• Osceola Pregnancy Center – Offers free pregnancy tests and referrals (FL). Osceola Pregnancy Center

• Heartbeat of Miami Pregnancy Help Medical Clinic (FL). Heartbeat International

• Essential Pregnancy Center (Palm Bay, FL). Heartbeat International

• Community Pregnancy Clinics Inc. (Naples, FL). Heartbeat International

• Cecil County Pregnancy Center (Elkton, MD). Heartbeat International

• Lighthouse Pregnancy Center (Hackensack, NJ). Heartbeat International

• Willow Network / Care Net Pregnancy Centers (New Hartford, NY). Heartbeat International

• Life Line Pregnancy Help Center (Elkin, NC). Heartbeat International

---

🧠 Terminology & Context

These centers are commonly known by various names, including:
Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC), Pregnancy Help Center (PHC), Pregnancy Care Center (PCC), Pregnancy Support Center, or simply Pregnancy Center. Heartbeat International

They are distinct from licensed medical facilities and often operate as nonprofits. The scope of services ranges from basic material support and counseling to limited medical services (e.g., ultrasounds) depending on the center.

 

[manol]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

the manual does have this in a section explaining "things to keep in mind":

... So what should we do when we come across passages in the scriptures that seem troubling? First, it might help to consider each passage in a broader context. How does it fit in God’s plan of salvation? How does it fit with what you know about the nature of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? How does it fit with revealed truths in other scriptures or with the teachings of living prophets? And how does it fit with the whisperings of the Spirit to your own heart and mind?

I like this. 

I think whoever wrote it is saying that it's okay to hold what the text says up to our current standards:  Is what the text says consistent with what we know about the nature of God and Christ?  Is it consistent with what we get from other credible sources?  And last but not least, what does God the Holy Spirit say to your heart and to your mind about it?

The next two paragraphs, which I didn't quote, are basically saying "don't lose your testimony over scriptures that fail this test."  Okay, fair enough.

Imo there are parts of Section 132 which should be put to this test. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Is this at the beginning before the different lessons?

If I counted right it looks like there are 8 "things to keep in mind" throughout the lesson manual. 

They seem to be placed in order to give context to the upcoming sections.  One of them is on things to keep in mind when reading old testament poetry for example.  This one is things to keep in mind about the historical books in the OT, and is placed in the middle of may when the lessons enter the books known as the historical books by scholars I guess.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, manol said:

I like this. 

I think whoever wrote it is saying that it's okay to hold what the text says up to our current standards:  Is what the text says consistent with what we know about the nature of God and Christ?  Is it consistent with what we get from other credible sources?  And last but not least, what does God the Holy Spirit say to your heart and to your mind about it?

The next two paragraphs, which I didn't quote, are basically saying "don't lose your testimony over scriptures that fail this test."  Okay, fair enough.

Imo there are parts of Section 132 which should be put to this test. 

I like it too, very much, but I do wish they wouldn't use this kind of stuff to skip over problematic books or verses in the actual lessons.  Not everyone gets to take institute classes.

[ZealouslyStriving]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like it too, very much, but I do wish they wouldn't use this kind of stuff to skip over problematic books or verses in the actual lessons.  Not everyone gets to take institute classes.

There is a plethora of information available to those truly interested in studying deeply.

Remember Sunday School is a 45 min. class led most often by regular folks, not educators. It is for meant for the "life lesson" applications, not the nitty gritty details and controversies.

If people want more, they need to take charge of their own studies.

[The Nehor]

On 12/28/2025 at 1:00 PM, Rain said:

"While we don’t know all the reasons Saul was commanded to kill all of the Amalekites and their animals, there are lessons to learn from his response to that commandment.“

I hate this kind of disingenuous garbage. Why was Saul commanded to kill all of the Amalekites? If only there was a prophet there to explain….oh wait, there was? If only that prophet communicated the reason God wanted them all dead….oh wait, he did?

Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord. 

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

 

So clear as crystal. They were being genocided because their ancestors a couple of hundred years ago attacked the people of Israel. Wait, what? Why? Ummmmm…..

But according to the manual the more important question is what moral lesson can we learn from the incorrect methodology of this attempted genocide. To obey the divine command for maximum genocide is better than to save some of the wealth for sacrifice.

I am going to disagree with the manual and am more interested in asking why God is ordering vengeance genocide for crimes committed centuries earlier when none of the original perpetrators (assuming it actually happened) were still alive. Focusing on the sacrifice bit is like straining at a gnat while swallowing a caravan of camels.

Also why would we take the lesson of Samuel seriously after this? This guy is literally the one who is passing on the divine genocide command from God. Should we really be trying to pick up moral lessons from this guy’s words instead of figuring out what went wrong here? Is he a pretender prophet? Is God ordering the killing for some unknown reason but is lying about the reasons for it? Is God perfectly okay with the killing and the reason He is giving to justify it? Is this one of those fallible prophet things that God just isn’t that bothered about?

Edited December 29, 2025 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, Rain said:

" I can also withhold judgment on the weird stuff especially in the Old Testament until we get the whole story someday.  But I also trust the God won't allow His prophets to lead us astray today. "

@gopher Just saw your quote in MrShorty's post.  I missed it somewhere.

You asked where the church could do better.  Here is one place.

I was at a place where I felt the same when I was teaching Gospel Doctrine. The problem comes with things like this - during that time when we came to the OT lesson in Come about God commanding to kill all the men, women and children.  Out of all churches this would have been a great place in Come Follow Me to talk about the bible being translated correctly or precious things being taken away etc. allowing people to "withhold judgment on the weird stuff."

Or a great place about how to deal with what seems to many to be contradictory to God's will.

But the church didn't do that. It put this in the manual:

"While we don’t know all the reasons Saul was commanded to kill all of the Amalekites and their animals, there are lessons to learn from his response to that commandment. To help class members identify these lessons, you could write on the board To obey is better than … and invite class members to ponder this phrase as you review together events from 1 Samuel 15. What are some good things we do in our lives that we sometimes choose instead of obeying God? Why is obedience to God better than those other good things?" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-sunday-school-old-testament-2022/25?lang=eng

Just an assumption that killing of innocent adults and children was the right thing to do plus the idea that it is better to obey God directly with it. No witholding judgement of the weird things.  Just an assumption that this was right and good. 

 

 

I could never get past God testing someone like taking their own son's life and the references about killing innocent adults and children in the Bible, that's not my God. 

Edited December 29, 2025 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Late term abortions, of which there are not millions just in case you were intending to imply that, are typically when there are congenital problems with the fetus.  Not as many want to adopt a special needs baby that is likely to die quite young or need constant care for as long as they live.

Just saw this! 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1A6N2J8L54/

My son and daughter-in-law announced they're having a baby in June, which was wonderful news except they live in Boise Idaho and I'm fearful what the laws are if something were to happen. It's devastating how women are put in these dangerous situations. 

Edited December 29, 2025 by Tacenda

[gopher]

On 12/27/2025 at 7:04 PM, Calm said:

Oh, my husband is going to be pissed.  He decided to go shopping rather than putting it off till afterwards.

PS:  Gopher, I think I might end up posting endless posts to your potentially endless responses on infallibility if one of us doesn’t consciously break the cycle because you have a way of making me want to continue the conversation (which is a very good thing in my view).  I think I have made all the points I want to make and it would just be likely repeated variations on this sub theme of what I think makes for a more resilient faith in the Gospel and Christ.  Iow, I don’t feel like I am saying anything new and thinking it must be annoying to read, so unless there’s a point you want to explore more, I think I will step back for now at least.

No problem.  It's an interesting topic for me and I've using your responses to help me organize my own thoughts.  You've been gracious in responding to my comments.

[gopher]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

From your link:

A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God.

Yet there is a HUGE lack of even claimed revelations since the very early prophets who seem to claim them regularly and even then some of those claims were diaavowed in modern times,  Yet that is the very first line of the definition of a prophet.  One has to assume either God has lost interest in guiding mankind, or these men are prophets in name only.  The church just uses that title for the leader of the church.  

When I was a missionary, the Church printed a brochure that had a photograph of David O McKay on its cover.  I would knock on doors and ask people if they knew who this man was.  Then I would tell them a wonderful story about how he was a prophet of God and received revelations from God just like prophets in the Bible.  I truly believed that.  I actually thought the prophet leading the Church had regular revelations from God himself.  But that is not really true is it.  In fact, in all those years since then, there has only been one revelation even claimed by the Church that I know of, the revelation on the priesthood, which frankly didn't really need a revelation from anyone to know that was blatantly wrong and against the teachings of the Savior.  

There is not justification for the head of the Church in being called a prophet. There are just the last standing man standing to make it through the bureaucracy of Church leadership.  Yet, we live at a time where so many issues in the Church and world today desperately need a revelation from God.  So many issues that are put into Church teachings that like the priesthood ban are put there because of past prejudices.  Issues like women's second class status, how to treat those that are LGBT, Word of Wisdom practices, clarification of how a man can be sealed to multiple women, but women can not.  So many of these issues are completely man made with no input from God at all.  The very basic claims of the Church which I once believed made the Church unique in the world are actually not really there.  Just men trying to do their best to run a church like any other church on earth.

What would it take to convince me that they are trustworthy?   Something more than just a claim of Christ running the Church through its leaders.  How about even claims of revelations from God more than help in finding lost keys?  

Would I even believe in any claims of new revelations from God?  I will admit, that there have been way too many lies that I once believed in that now have strong proof that they were just made up stories used to control people's ives and enrich the wealth of the Church.  Isn't that the result of just about every church ever established?  Mormonism has nothing special.  It follows the same pattern religion has always followed from the dawn of time.  

I am not saying that everything the Church does is bad or evil.  I am only saying that there is nothing special about Mormonism.  If the church works for you, I wish nothing but happiness for you, just like I would anyone else who finds happiness in religious worship. and just like I wish for those that have found happiness outside of religion.  I had a life in religion.  I personally have found a much more happy life outside of religion.  I find myself not carrying any longer about claims of the divine.  What I was put through and what others are put through simply because they are not straight like the majority of people in the name of religion does not come from a God.  

Lots to disagree with in your post, but thanks for your response.  You've done a good job of showing how difficult it is to believe in modern day prophets, especially without personal testimony from God.  At least we've been promised that someday everything will be explained to us.  But in the meantime, we are commanded to trust God and follow His prophets.  It's clearly easier for some than others, but that's always been the case throughout history.

 

[gopher]

18 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Agreed, though I would divide the "difficult" things into two categories. There are difficult but morally neutral things (like pushing boulders up hills) and there are things that are difficult because they violate our sense of ethics and morality (like genocide or slavery). I think there is real value in preparing ourselves to perform difficult tasks that are inconvenient or tedious or that may seem like busy work. I think there is a real difference when we are talking about preparing ourselves to be obedient to directives that run contrary to our sense of right and wrong. This is when I think the question of prophetic fallibility must be addressed. If a prophet is going to tell me that God expects me to practice polygamy even though my wife is adamantly opposed to it, that prophet needs to be prepared to explain why he thinks this command came from God, including all of the ways that he might be mistaken and the measures he has taken to avoid mistakes like the 19th century saints made in practicing polygamy. Even after all of that, God (the gatekeeper of testimony) will need to confirm such commands to me. I've reached a point in my deconstruction/reconstruction where I no longer believe that obedience to prophets (or maybe even God Himself) is the highest virtue. If fallible prophets make immoral demands, then they must expect that I will not comply. Until they really wrestle with their own fallibility, fallibility is the first "excuse" for my non-compliance.

 

This, I think, is where we ought to begin. You are correct, we and they are extremely reluctant to identify specific mistakes. In many ways, I'm beginning to see this as expression of the "preface paradox." We acknowledge in a vague way that prophets can make mistakes, but we are unable or unwilling to identify specific mistakes (except, perhaps, for personal errors like wearing ugly ties). The preface paradox is supposedly an expression of epistemic humility. Even though we currently can't recognize our mistakes, we are implying a willingness to recognize those mistakes later when new information comes to light and correct them. The problem that I see is that, in spite of new information, we and our leaders are reticent to acknowledge mistakes that have been made. For many in faith crisis, this leads to a "trust crisis" where they decide that they cannot trust the prophet to acknowledge mistakes, so they can no longer trust the moral directives the prophets make.

 

Which is fine for you and the majority of LDS who would agree with you. For those of us in faith or trust crisis, does the church want to help rebuild some of that trust that has been lost in their eyes? As I look at the church's efforts to help people like me, it seems like all it knows how to do is gloss over the moral ambiguities of the past, often invoking God's ineffability. It's true that God and His purposes can be difficult to impossible for mere mortals to comprehend, but it sometimes begins to feel like we are invoking God's ineffability in order to avoid making hard conclusions about the truth or error of scripture and prophetic declarations. That, I find, doesn't help inspire trust in following current prophets into morally ambiguous paths.

I'm often wary of church apologists since some go on to become the harshest critics, but I think they've done a good job at providing plausible explanations (or more accurately, speculations) for some of the things prophets have said and done.  It may be frustrating, but I don't believe the church has explanations for every moral ambiguity of the past.  It's even more frustrating when we try to fill in the blanks and come up with wrong answers that sound reasonable at the time, such as with the priesthood ban.  I feel for you and everyone else in a faith crisis.  The people who I've seen come back didn't have all their questions answered, but were still able to restore their trust in God and His prophets.  How that works may be different for others.

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

I'm often wary of church apologists since some go on to become the harshest critics...

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

 

[JVW]

On 12/26/2025 at 3:59 PM, Calm said:

I think there is more than enough evidence they are not infallible (added:  it’s in scripture as well as them admitting it from time to time plus obviously wrong comments, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Fielding_Smith_acknowledge_that_he_was_wrong_when_he_said_that_Man_would_never_walk_on_the_Moon%3F ).  The question is, imo, how much God micromanages, if he does, the errors so it may only be trivial, little impact decisions that God keeps a hands off policy for or major, life altering, church culture altering errors that he allows (possibly to keep agency intact as much as possible) or somewhere in between, exactly where might even varied due to circumstances.

But man never walked on the moon. He wasn't wrong.  I realize I'm 4 pages behind but I had to make a quip here.

On a more serious note, while prophets say they are fallible I don't think many actually believe that. If they did then why would people leave the church when they learn about various aspects of church history? It wouldn't be so faith shattering if fallibility was a part of their belief system before learning about mistakes prophets have made.

ETA follow up for the next comment Calm made "Is there any way in your view to personally verify there is a God?  If so, why couldn’t one use the same process to verify other things?"

Yes, there most certainly is. Communing with God is a central aspect of worship and receiving revelation from God about His existence, or the divinity of Christ, is a central tenant of LDS and many other Christian faiths. What is not so common is anyone claiming that they receive revelation about what their post-"final judgment" state will be. In fact, as I've reflected on the uncertainty with which I face my personal impending day of judgment I've come to believe that the more certain one feels that they are going to the Celestial Kingdom the more doubt I have that they will actually end up there. In my view the Celestial Kingdom will be filled with people who were surprised they made it there and recognize what a miracle it is. Note, this is different than people feeling like being judged will be "pleasing" or who feel assured that Jesus is their friend or whatever. Having strong faith in Christ and feeling clean before God is not the same thing as feeling like you made it before you made it. Part of the reason for this difference is that God is certain. He exists. He is constant and unchanging. Where one is going after final judgment is uncertain, and may even change due to decisions people make after dying! So to claim certainty of belief on something so outside of our control seems foolish to me.

Edited December 29, 2025 by JVW