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

[Calm]

7 hours ago, gopher said:

63% of the country supports human sacrifice of children so maybe that it isn't a good example.  ha ha, just trolling.

You mean the SNAP cuts?   Didn’t think it was that high.

Edited December 24, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think that depends on the person.  I do hold that position.  My belief and trust in prophets has only grown with my knowledge that includes quite a few major mistakes.   

I can have strong disagreements with someone and still think they are wise, good people.  Might see them as having blind spots, iow human.  I find there is a lot less anxiety having this position about my leaders than not because I don’t have to defend or try to find valid reasons for things I believe are wrong and then being concerned if I can’t find them.

The Church is run on earth by humans like me even though God is overseeing it all.  If God can work with them and still turn the Church into his great work to help mankind towards salvation even with their missteps, he won’t likely be casting me out as unworthy for the mistakes I have made.  That is a very good reason in my view to stay committed and keep trying.

This is a good reminder to me to spend more time trying to discover my own blind spots. 

[Kenngo1969]

@Calm's comment made me think of this, but it isn't necessarily in response to it:  Appropos of nothing ... , I was reminded of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's address, "Lord, I Believe," from the April 2013 General Conference:

Quote

"Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work."

For whatever it's worth ... or not!  Carry on!  

[webbles]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

From the references you gave it sounds like "calling and election made sure" doesn't require authority or being sealed. All of the references tell -the person- to make their calling and election sure. As if the one seeking it is in control over obtaining it. The bits about sealing just sound like the behind-the-scenes operations that God does in order to ratify the individuals choice.

Yes, getting your "calling and election made sure" generally doesn't involve some living person sealing you.  The person who does the sealing is the Holy Spirit of Promise.  The verses in D&C 132 about calling and election (18-19) are about this type of sealing.  Getting sealed in the temple by a temple sealer is not the same.  I think the Second Anointing is supposed to be the living version of having this sealing done.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

My view here is different. I think that McConkie was getting into the weeds too much. If someone receives any priesthood ordinance it is valid as long as it's performed in authority, period. Sealing has nothing to do with it. If one is baptized then they are baptized. That gate has been opened and they can walk through it by enduring to the end and keeping their promises, or not. McConkie feels like he's saying as much but he's using all of this weird confusing language. There is no indication anywhere in the standard works outside of 132 that mentions that a baptized person needs to be sealed in order to go to heaven, and in 132 that is only inferred as sealing is talked about being the sort of mechanical framework behind how the priesthood operates.

I'm not sure but off the top of my head I don't think Jesus mentioned sealing a single time in the NT or BoM.

If someone has the priesthood they can perform priesthood ordinances but they cannot seal unless they are authorized with those keys. Yet all of these non-sealers can perform every priesthood ordinance except for sealing. That clearly indicates to me that baptism, priesthood ordination, endowment, etc. are not sealings.

Someone who is given the sealing power has the power to change the will of the heavens. That is what sealing means to me. It means that someone on Earth can act in place of God and God will support their decision even if it's a different choice than He would personally make. That is according to what I read in the Bible and Book of Mormon. What I see from todays church is that someone given the sealing power can perform an LDS marriage ceremony and that's it. I feel like our current understanding and application of sealing is woefully inadequate and way below what sealing could actually accomplish. Which supports my point that we don't really know anything about sealing as a church.

Ok, so you are focusing just on the sealing authority given to the prophet/apostles and which is partially delegated to temple sealers.  That's fine.  Unfortunately, a bunch of the talks and manuals about sealings usually expand it to include the other ways sealing is used.  The sealing authority that prophets/apostles have does have the ability to perform Second Anointings which makes your calling and election sure.  The power that temple sealers has is a limited subset of that.  That is what most of us interact with so, yes, that is our main focus of sealings.  It would be really cool of the Prophet loosed the heavens and brought forth rain or snow.

But Christ does talk about sealing when he says to Peter "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19).  He doesn't use the word sealing but the similar worded phrase in Helaman 10:7 uses "seal" in place of "bind".  And Paul mentions sealing a few times.  Ephesians 1:13 is an example with Holy Spirit of Promise mentioned in it - "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise"

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Your definition of marriage sealing doesn't make sense to me. Because someone can be a baptized, unsealed member of the church and can come forth in the morning of the first resurrection and take their place in the Celestial Kingdom as well. So what makes "marriage sealing" special? Unless I'm wrong about what ordinances are required to gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom.

I guess I should have said "highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom".

6 hours ago, JVW said:

I think you are asking a very intriguing question. If sealing is a vehicle for salvation then I assume that Adam had all of his children sealed to him so once we roll up to them we are good whether we are sealed or not? See these quotes https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/09/hope-for-parents-of-wayward-children?lang=eng

Quote

[Allegedly] Joseph Smith "the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity."

Brigham Young "I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity"

etc.

Joseph's teachings are from a talk in Aug 13 1843.  We have several people who recorded it and some of the mentioned something about sealings of parents having some impact on the children.  Probably the most complete is from Martha Corey:

Quote

A measure of this sealing is to confirm upon their head in common with Elijah the doctrine of Election or the covenant with Abraham— which which when a Father & Mother of a family have entered into their children who have not transgressed are secured by the seal wherewith the Parents have been sealed— And this is the Oath of God unto our Father Abraham and this doctrine shall stand forever

The transcript is at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-13-august-1843-a-as-reported-by-martha-jane-knowlton-coray/5.  You can also see other variations.  Here's what William Clayton recorded:

Quote

When a seal is put upon the father and mother it secures their posterity so that they cannot be lost but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father.

 

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Ok, so "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." I shouldn't interpret as Q: What was abominable before God? A: Having many wives and concubines. Instead I should interpret it as "David had a few wives that were unauthorized, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord, but the rest were my treat. And all [or most] of Solomon's wives and concubines were abominable before me."? Even though 132:38 says "[Solomon] received many wives and concubines...; and in nothing did [he] sin save in those things which [he] received not of me."

Here is how I interpret that verse in 2 Samuel you shared which, by the way, you make a very compelling argument with. God's servant approaches the king who is currently wicked and tells him that all of the stuff that he has was given to him by God because that king was anointed in his youth and chosen by God to become king. Don't forget where you got your status, wealth, power, and prestige. Humble yourself you arrogant brat David! And the things that Nathan specifically points out are the things that David treasures the most to give his message the most bang for the buck.

I do things that are abominable before God from time to time, and I can say that they were given to me from God. I would not say that they were authorized by God or that God is pleased in what I've done with the power He's given me.

Yes, I don't have any problem with that interpretation.  But since there are at least two ways to interpret it, I don't see DC 132 directly contradicting Jacob.  It is also interesting to me that Jacob doesn't complain about Abraham and Jacob having other wives, so it feels like David and Solomon did something more to be condemned by Jacob.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

ETA: I made this comment before reading that talk you recommended from Elder Christofferson. According to the talk Joseph Smith's own baptism was not valid until Elijah bestowed the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple years later. Do you agree or disagree with this idea?

That was from Calm, not me.  But reading the talk, I agree with the talk.  it is kind of similar to how the keys to gather Israel weren't given to Joseph until 1836, so what was the church doing before then?  The church did things a little out of order because things were still being restored.  I wouldn't say his "baptism was not valid", but just that he didn't have the authority to seal it in the heavens.  Instead, the Holy Spirit of Promise sealed it before 1836.  God always has the sealing power, so He can always seal when ever or what ever He wants.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@Calm's comment made me think of this, but it isn't necessarily in response to it:  Appropos of nothing ... , I was reminded of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's address, "Lord, I Believe," from the April 2013 General Conference:

For whatever it's worth ... or not!  Carry on!  

Yet God created those imperfect beings so it is kind of on Him too.

[longview]

On 12/24/2025 at 1:16 PM, Calm said:

On 12/24/2025 at 5:55 AM, gopher said:

63% of the country supports human sacrifice of children so maybe that it isn't a good example.  ha ha, just trolling.

You mean the SNAP cuts?   Didn’t think it was that high.

Way off base.

This is most likely referring to the crime of abortion. Especially those done for convenience. Some are even advocating for post-natal killing of children (up to age of eight). 😢

[Calm]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Way off base.

This is most likely referring to the crime of abortion. Especially those done for convenience. Some are even advocating for post-natal killing of children (up to age of eight). 😢

Yeah, I knew what it was referring to.  I was being snide.

Lumping in pro abortion with post natal killings is ridiculous though, by (I suspect extremely few if there are actually any) advocates of the idea or anti abortionists who are often trying to make pro choice advocates look like monsters.*** It’s a very different dynamic since the child can be removed without harm from the custody of its mother.  Talk about ultimate parental rights.

Post natal killing can occur through malnutrition and lack of access to healthcare, firearm access, lack of sufficient safety measures in car seats, etc by the way. (There are a number of avoidable reasons the US is choosing not to avoid for why infant and child mortality rates in the US are higher than most, if not all for some causes of comparable countries.)

***https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/virginia/trump-debate-fact-check-virginia-governor-after-birth-abortion-ralph-northam/291-9bf4d577-863f-4f31-9e63-11c55cdada53?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Edited December 26, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Way off base.

This is most likely referring to the crime of abortion. Especially those done for convenience. Some are even advocating for post-natal killing of children (up to age of eight). 😢

Capital punishment is a post-birth abortion now?

[gopher]

On 12/24/2025 at 2:46 PM, MrShorty said:

The underlying assumption that I see is it is more important to believe and trust (and maintain loyalty and obedience to??) prophets than to follow your own moral compass.

Based on my experience and what I hear talked about in various faith crisis circles, I think your observation is largely correct. Something about the tension between prophetic moral authority, prophetic ecclisiastical authority, and personal authority to discern right and wrong is a significant part of many faith crises. I am less convinced that it is a universal negative that some decide that they can no longer submit to the moral authority of our leaders (and sometimes even refuse to accept their ecclisiastical authority).

In my own current state, I have no trouble granting the church ecclisiastical authority -- the authority to decide who receives sacraments/ordinances/rituals and who serves in what callings and so on. However, I can no longer grant the church and its leaders unquestioned moral authority because of the doubts and questions and concerns about several current and historical issues. At present, I think one of the biggest "blocks" to this is the church's refusal to really wrestle with what it means to be led by a fallible prophet.

IMO, if it is such a horrible thing to have people conclude that the church is not everything that it claims and then leave the church, I think it would serve the church well to explore why people leave and seriously consider what, if anything, the church can do to help people stay. IME, the church as a whole does not really want to do the hard work necessary to help people resolve their doubts, questions, and concerns.

Those are all valid points even though I don't see everything the same way.  It's never been easy for some to accept that a man is a prophet of God.  But we also have to acknowledge that many have and continue to do so.  Maybe we can learn from them.

I'm not sure what more the church can do to help people resolve doubts, questions, and concerns.  It wouldn't be true to claim they have done nothing.  But there are many examples in church history as well as today of people who were able to figure it out. It seems more difficult for those who see no need for a prophet or believe they have a moral compass that is more in line with the will and purposes of God.  From my observations, the only way those things can be resolved is through the Holy Ghost.  I think those who never receive any divine direction in spite of all their efforts and desires have a legit case to bring up at the judgment seat.

I don't know why it seems easier for many to believe and trust and maintain loyalty and obedience to prophets than others.  That's why I think it's interesting to come here and hear the experiences of others.

What more do you think the church could do to help those struggling with these issues?  Could it do more harm than good if the church published all the ways they were certain prophets were wrong?

[gopher]

On 12/24/2025 at 12:46 PM, MustardSeed said:

I’m still here. 

Sure, that's great.  There are still lots of great reasons to stay even if you don't trust and believe in modern day prophets.  In my opinion, it would be much more meaningful and enjoyable having that belief and trust though.  For a bad analogy, it would be like the difference of having a spouse that you trust will always be faithful versus having a spouse that you feel may stray at any moment.  Sorry, I'm not clever enough to come up with anything better.

[gopher]

On 12/24/2025 at 12:34 PM, The Nehor said:

And God considers an accidental abortion *checks notes* a property crime so not sure how that constitutes human sacrifice..

Then again God doesn’t care that much about small children post-birth either.

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks!" -Psalm 137:9

Dude, you weren't supposed to respond with a serious comment.  Where is the Nehor from 10 years ago?

[gopher]

On 12/24/2025 at 3:14 PM, Calm said:

I think that depends on the person.  I do hold that position.  My belief and trust in prophets has only grown with my knowledge that includes quite a few major mistakes imo.   

I can have strong disagreements with someone and still think they are wise, good people.  My husband is one of them.  Our political views are at times very different, yet I have never seen any reason to consider divorce because of it and I even still take his advice in many things and accept that in some areas it’s best he make the decision just as in other areas he has me make the decision as the better informed.  

Might see the leaders I believe as having made mistakes as having blind spots, iow human.  I find there is a lot less anxiety having this position about my leaders than not because I don’t have to defend or try to find valid reasons for things I believe are wrong and then being concerned if I can’t find them.

The Church is run on earth by humans like me even though God is overseeing it all.  If God can work with them and still turn the Church into his great work to help mankind towards salvation even with their missteps, he won’t likely be casting me out as unworthy for the mistakes I have made.  That is a very good reason in my view to stay committed and keep trying.

I agree with all you've posted.  I don't think we have to defend everything prophets have done in the past.  But I don't see much value in the debate of fallible vs infallible when talking about prophets since we don't have all the info we need to make that judgment.  Why did Nephi have to kill Laban?  I can think of better ways to accomplish the same purpose of getting the plates.  So I can disagree, but recognize that more information may make it clear why it was done that way.  I recognize it's a tough task that God has given us to follow His prophets.  I'm not confident enough in my own wisdom and knowledge of God and His purposes to believe I know better than what He has directed His prophets to say and do.  But at least we are only responsible for following the living prophet so if President Oaks says we don't have to practice polygamy, we don't have to practice polygamy even though earlier members did.

[MustardSeed]

48 minutes ago, gopher said:

Sure, that's great.  There are still lots of great reasons to stay even if you don't trust and believe in modern day prophets.  In my opinion, it would be much more meaningful and enjoyable having that belief and trust though.  For a bad analogy, it would be like the difference of having a spouse that you trust will always be faithful versus having a spouse that you feel may stray at any moment.  Sorry, I'm not clever enough to come up with anything better.

Obviously, it would feel better to have no issues of trust.  
I would much rather be married to somebody who always followed through with what they promised than somebody who was wrong or who changed their mind or who made mistakes.

It would be an easier ride that’s for sure. Where might I find a spouse like that? 

[JVW]

On 12/24/2025 at 7:16 PM, webbles said:

Yes, getting your "calling and election made sure" generally doesn't involve some living person sealing you.  The person who does the sealing is the Holy Spirit of Promise.  The verses in D&C 132 about calling and election (18-19) are about this type of sealing.  Getting sealed in the temple by a temple sealer is not the same.  I think the Second Anointing is supposed to be the living version of having this sealing done.

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight.

- God seals through the Holy Spirit of Promise which ratifies a priesthood ordinance and ensures it's validity after death. There is no way to personally verify whether one has been sealed by God, but it can be inferred based on how righteous they are. Except in cases where one receives a Second Anointing, which presumably is a ceremony that needs to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise but that sealing cannot be verified with a Third Anointing, so we are back to square one where it's impossible to personally verify.

I don't understand why members I talk to speak about the "calling and election made sure" (cems) so often. From what I've gathered chatting with you the cems is not a priesthood ordinance, and the one who has the power to do it does not lie with God, but with the individual. Why is it called cems if it doesn't make anything sure and there is no way to verify that it is unbreakable? Why do so many church members I talk to believe that if you get your cems, which is commonly viewed as a temple ordinance, that no matter what you do you are going Celestial even though that ordinance still needs to be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise? What leads you to believe that cems is tied to the Second Anointing? As far as I'm aware the Second Anointing simply fulfills the promise of becoming a king and priest to God a little earlier than it otherwise would be.

- Man seals through the sealing power given to them by God as seen in Helaman and the verses you quoted from the New Testament where one is given the "as above, so below" power. According to comments you've made there are two types of sealing power given to man, the "Nephi in Helaman" kind and the "temple sealer" kind. If I understand you correctly, the "Nephi in Helaman" sealing power is not involved in any ordinances. And in the case of the "temple sealer" no sealing occurs unless God seals it and God seals it according to personal righteousness not the authority or power of the priesthood ordinance or sealing keys.

Since there is a separation between the three types of sealing power then what is the point of the two types of sealing power given to men? For example, it is likely that the Catholic church still has God's authority. According to these beliefs every ordinance performed with authority is valid and has power. The only difference being that God is allegedly not ratifying those ordinances with the Holy Spirit of Promise so they won't be in effect after this life. However, we don't know whether or not God ratifies the authorized ordinances of the Catholic church, and he very well could because we make our own cems through our personal righteousness. In theory a person could be married by the authority of a Catholic priest, who can trace their lineage to Peter, and God could ratify that marriage via the Holy Spirit of Promise due to the personal righteousness of those participating in that marriage and they could be married for eternity.

On 12/24/2025 at 7:16 PM, webbles said:

When a seal is put upon the father and mother it secures their posterity so that they cannot be lost but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father.

Got it. Its as I said if these words are doctrine. A child who has sealed parents is golden and will end up Celestial no matter what they desire.

On 12/24/2025 at 7:16 PM, webbles said:

Yes, I don't have any problem with that interpretation.  But since there are at least two ways to interpret it, I don't see DC 132 directly contradicting Jacob.  It is also interesting to me that Jacob doesn't complain about Abraham and Jacob having other wives, so it feels like David and Solomon did something more to be condemned by Jacob.

In this point I really can't wrap my mind around your interpretation. In no way can I see the sentence "This is an abomination" to mean "This is not an abomination". I just can't see it, sorry. We'll have to agree to disagree. What is interesting about your attempt to reconcile is that you tried to tackle the verse directly. In every other conversation I have had that verse is set aside and the focus is shifted to the "if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people" because that is the official church apologetics and it is easier to argue. The only problem with that is that that verse does not address the contradictory verse. Context does not change that that verse says that David and Solomon's polygamy was a grave sin and that DC 132 says that David and Solomon didn't sin.

Jacob says in the chapter that they are using David and Solomon as the excuse to practice polygamy "for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son." so that's why he addresses those two specifically. Interestingly enough, it seems like David and Solomon were the primary excuse to justify polygamy in the 19th century as well. The other names were brought up as an afterthought to try and establish a pattern, but Abraham and Jacob are poor examples (because they were pressured by their doubting wife, or deceived by their uncle into practicing it and then pressured by their jealous wives, not commanded by God), and Isaac didn't practice even though God "authorized" the practice during his time and 132 claims Isaac did practice it. "I, the Lord, justified my servant ... Isaac ... as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines."

On 12/24/2025 at 7:16 PM, webbles said:

That was from Calm, not me.  But reading the talk, I agree with the talk.  it is kind of similar to how the keys to gather Israel weren't given to Joseph until 1836, so what was the church doing before then?  The church did things a little out of order because things were still being restored.  I wouldn't say his "baptism was not valid", but just that he didn't have the authority to seal it in the heavens.  Instead, the Holy Spirit of Promise sealed it before 1836.  God always has the sealing power, so He can always seal when ever or what ever He wants.

Ok, that's a fair point.

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your position.

To be clear my position is:

- There is one sealing power given to man and if a man uses that sealing power than whatever they seal is bound "as above, so below".
- Polygamy is an abomination before God and in every case the practice of it has caused problems and trends towards destruction.
- Polygamy hasn't ever been commanded and it arose because of confusion about a radically new doctrine that Joseph was unable to properly expound upon before his death.
- God ratifies every authorized priesthood ordinance via the "Holy Spirit of Promise" regardless of the personal righteousness of any individual involved as long as the priesthood keys are present (which is why the Catholic church lost the authority).
- An individual's personal righteousness doesn't determine whether God ratifies an ordinance, instead it is evidence of whether or not a person has chosen to accept the outcome of the ordinance.

------------------

By the way, I'm still curious about @ZealouslyStriving thoughts on the topic. You've made a few quips here and there throughout this topic and I'd like to hear his full thoughts on what's been discussed by us so far. I'd be much obliged and I think I'd benefit from reading your thoughts on the topic.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Dude, you weren't supposed to respond with a serious comment.  Where is the Nehor from 10 years ago?

I aborted him.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Sure, that's great.  There are still lots of great reasons to stay even if you don't trust and believe in modern day prophets. 

I think you are saying that modern prophets are something more special than just being the head of the Church.  Would you say that a prophet receives direct revelation from God for the Church?  And can you point to anything a prophet in your life time that would point to them actually having claimed some direct revelation with God?  

Or would you say that a prophet is just someone who gives personal advice on what he thinks is good advice.

2 hours ago, gopher said:

 

In my opinion, it would be much more meaningful and enjoyable having that belief and trust though.  For a bad analogy, it would be like the difference of having a spouse that you trust will always be faithful versus having a spouse that you feel may stray at any moment.  Sorry, I'm not clever enough to come up with anything better.

Do you feel that modern prophets have always been trustworthy in what they said was a claimed revelation from God?  

[ZealouslyStriving]

51 minutes ago, JVW said:

By the way, I'm still curious about @ZealouslyStriving thoughts on the topic. You've made a few quips here and there throughout this topic and I'd like to hear his full thoughts on what's been discussed by us so far. I'd be much obliged and I think I'd benefit from reading your thoughts on the topic.

Sorry, I fell behind in this topic.

What specifically would you like to know?

[Rain]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Those are all valid points even though I don't see everything the same way.  It's never been easy for some to accept that a man is a prophet of God. 

Many people who accept they are prophets of God also accept they are not perfect in all that they say. It isn't a binary thing for them.  It's not "accept they are a prophet and trust everything they say" or "don't accept him as a prophet".  For many of them it is "accept he is a prophet, trust most things he has to, and when you're not sure, do what the church has taught and pray and study it out while being sincere and humble and doing your best to be a good receiver of inpiration."

3 hours ago, gopher said:

But we also have to acknowledge that many have and continue to do so.  Maybe we can learn from them.

I'm not sure what more the church can do to help people resolve doubts, questions, and concerns.  It wouldn't be true to claim they have done nothing.  But there are many examples in church history as well as today of people who were able to figure it out. It seems more difficult for those who see no need for a prophet or believe they have a moral compass that is more in line with the will and purposes of God. 

No one here has said that or shown that.  Some of the people who don't feel the process is always either trust the prophet or don't may feel their moral compass is the same as the prophet or may feel that that the prophet's compass is better overall, but still not perfect which is why they pray to know if the prophet's compass is in line on certain matters. 

3 hours ago, gopher said:

From my observations, the only way those things can be resolved is through the Holy Ghost. 

Right.  Which is why many people read and pray sincerely and often read and pray more when they don't line up with the prophet. And more. But sometimes in following the prayer process as the church teaches those answers are going to be different than others who will be praying.

3 hours ago, gopher said:

I think those who never receive any divine direction in spite of all their efforts and desires have a legit case to bring up at the judgment seat.

I don't know why it seems easier for many to believe and trust and maintain loyalty and obedience to prophets than others.

I think you are right, but I think you might be wrong if you think that those who think the prophet can sometimes teach a wrong thing don't trust orr are not loyal.  

3 hours ago, gopher said:

  That's why I think it's interesting to come here and hear the experiences of others.

What more do you think the church could do to help those struggling with these issues?  Could it do more harm than good if the church published all the ways they were certain prophets were wrong?

Yes! 

The church often acts as a parent.  When parents are willing to tell their children when they are wrong, the children trust them more. 

Edited December 26, 2025 by Rain

[Rain]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Sure, that's great.  There are still lots of great reasons to stay even if you don't trust and believe in modern day prophets.  In my opinion, it would be much more meaningful and enjoyable having that belief and trust though.  For a bad analogy, it would be like the difference of having a spouse that you trust will always be faithful versus having a spouse that you feel may stray at any moment.  Sorry, I'm not clever enough to come up with anything better.

If everyone had spouses they could trust to be 100% true there wouldn't be rules/ideas like husbands and wives should share social media accounts, RS presidents and bishops shouldn't ride together to meetings, women shouldn't wear skimpy clothes because it might tempt a man - all things church leaders have put out because they find that humans can't be 100% trusted.  Yet, most of the people who follow those ideas don't feel a real lack of trust in their spouses.  They just recognize that no one is perfect. 

And that includes the prophet. He is human.  He can make mistakes.  You can have a ton of trust in a prophet and still understand he may make a mistake.  That doesn't mean you find the prophet untrustworthy.

[longview]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Post natal killing can occur through malnutrition and lack of access to healthcare, firearm access, lack of sufficient safety measures in car seats, etc by the way. (There are a number of avoidable reasons the US is choosing not to avoid for why infant and child mortality rates in the US are higher than most, if not all for some causes of comparable countries.)

You love to engage in circular reasoning, don't jah?

Trying to throw in murky morality does NOT absolve elective murder.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Capital punishment is a post-birth abortion now?

Not the legal option but the crime of elective murder.

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Dude, you weren't supposed to respond with a serious comment.  Where is the Nehor from 10 years ago?

I aborted him.

You just had to bring up the time travel paradox. Aborting yourself would leave a gaping void in MDDB.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

You love to engage in circular reasoning, don't jah?

Trying to throw in murky morality does NOT absolve elective murder.

Again, the best scriptural reference to anything like abortion does not call it murder.

Then there is the scriptural test of bitter waters to check a woman for adultery. If she fails she miscarries and dies due to the poison so there is God encouraging murdering an unborn child for the sins of the mother.

But the apostates of Protestantism spoke and we, as the sole living Church that receives revelation from the mouth of God, followed them completely instead of, you know, checking on this.

2 hours ago, longview said:

Not the legal option but the crime of elective murder.

Like capital punishment which is an elective murder.

2 hours ago, longview said:

You just had to bring up the time travel paradox. Aborting yourself would leave a gaping void in MDDB.

I am using the paradox to destroy myself while stepping outside of time and becoming a God. If I was never born I can be an unchanging God with no beginning or end. Then I can take over all these weirdo pretenders that worked their way up to the position like a bunch of chumps. They have a beginning…….so THEY MUST ALSO HAVE AN END!!!!!!!!

 

Edited December 26, 2025 by The Nehor

[Calm]

14 hours ago, gopher said:

infallible when talking about prophets since we don't have all the info we need to make that judgment

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.

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

There is no way to personally verify whether one has been sealed by God, but it can be inferred based on how righteous they are.

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?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

You love to engage in circular reasoning, don't jah?

You will have to point that out rather than just slapping a label on it.  It seems pretty straight line to me.

Curious if you claiming the Church accepts the necessity of elective murder at times?  That leadership views any abortion for any reason as elective murder?

[Calm]

 

4 hours ago, JVW said:

As far as I'm aware the Second Anointing simply fulfills the promise of becoming a king and priest to God a little earlier than it otherwise would be.

Just in case anyone wants to look more deeply into the Second Anointing, Mormonr has collected a lot of source material and summarized the info here:

https://mormonr.org/qnas/5y13H/second_anointing

I found this particularly interesting:

Quote

I've heard that the children of parents who have received their second anointing are guaranteed exaltation. Is that true?

No, probably not. This misunderstanding likely comes from a poor transcription of a sermon from Joseph Smith given on August 13, 1843.[36] This transcription error was repeated in a 1929 General Conference talk by Orson F. Whitney[BIO][37] as well as in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith which was published in 1938.[38

——

Not sure this second query’s link will work.  If it doesn’t, just type “calling and election” into the search bar and quite a few references will pop up that can be read to see if they give any enlightenment on the subject for you (speaking generally).

https://bhroberts.org/archive?prod_records[query]="calling and election"

Edited December 26, 2025 by Calm