Elder Gilbert, new Q12 member

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

I know all that google is my friend. Point is he looks white. From an outside observer just passing by, he and uchdorf could pass as fellow countrymen. Soares looks as Hispanic or Latino as I do and I’m white. 

Again. You're working in an American mentality that heavily assumes race/phenotype = ethnicity. That is by no means a universal construct and falls apart in latin American countries. Soares is Latino from Brazil. He has mixed ancestry. His life experiences will be shaped by a very different cultural experience from yours as a white man from what sounds like the mountainwest in the US. Dismissing that because he "looks white" is offensive. Particularly to mixed people who often end up having to defend their identity because they don't "look" the way other people expect.  

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

blacks far outnumber Asians in the church. No black apostles. 

I'm not doing a country breakdown. You can Google too. "Far out number" is a major stretch. 

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

my experience of over 40 yrs later is much more drastic. I remember being taught in sun school blacks less valiant, blackface in roadshows and lamanites being portrayed in sun school manuals as lazy. My family even participated in the indian placement program. You know where good white lds families essentially colonize the lifestyle of a Navajo adolescent and teach them to act like white Mormons. Yep we did all that. The guys in charge now??! Some of them were apostles during that time. All of them grew up with that attitude in the church and later probably still believe much of it. The church has a long ways to go. 

Yes, and when I was born my white rural idaho/oregon family still called my Nigerian father a negro. I was the first person of African ancestry said family met. My great-grandmother told me stories with a sambo doll in "black voice." My mother was the first one I knew IRL who confirmed a belief about the mark of Ham being Black skin....because she still believed it. I have witnessed and heard countless other stories around race and ethnicity in the church much of my life. Racial issues in the church has been just as, if not more, personal for me. Maybe because of it, I don't enjoy narrating "the church" with a singular and broad brush. Anymore than I would right my relatives in such tones. Nor am I going to hold people to what they may have believed 50 years ago. It sets up as much of a false narrative as it would to insist the church has never had issues around race and/or has arrived in terms of racial relations. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[BlueDreams]

On Gilbert's calling:

I can understand and think there's probably some credence for concerns mentioned. Realistically I don't think he'll be my cup of herbal tea come GC. He's not the first in our current line up of apostles that I struggle to connect with in terms of their talks. I've had a number of experiences that have helped prepare me for that disonnance between believing their calling is of God....while also struggling to connect with their most accessible expressions of said calling and disagreeing at times with certain conclusions or assertions they've made at times. It's taught me in its own ways as to how I see their callings in comparison to my own or others in theirs. 

I also don't think he was the only one who could have filled the job. There's others who likely were as well prepared or capable who weren't selected for varying reasons i'll never be privvy to. I do assume some of those reasons are practical (ranging from access to visas and movement in and out of the US to language capacities to things the current leaders clicked with).

I'm not expecting to be pleasantly surprised and really love the guy. I'm also not assuming the worst case scenarios I've seen people jump to. Both of those aren't realistic conclusions IMHO. 

One specific is having someone like McConkie or having disproportionate influence in the leadership/culture of the church. That seems unlikely considering there are others already there with greater seniority who have very different outlooks and methods from him. No offense to him, but if his SLTrib interview is any indication, he also doesn't have as much charisma and dynamism as say McConkie to gather that much influence. Most apostles serve their terms well...but fade from memory and view over the years as they continue to shuffle in and out. We've had a little over 100 apostles in our Faith's history....I can only name or recognize a handful that didn't live within my time frame. I assume most are about as well versed as I am on history of the apostles. Having prolonged, distinct influence is rare and likely more and more difficult due to the shifts in how the quorum functions. Likewise, the likelihood of him being a prophet at some point is also slim. He's the youngest, sure....but not by much and there are several close to age to him with higher seniority. And either way that's a problem for a few decades from now.

Plus the context of influence in the church as an apostle has shrunk due by sheer size of the faith. Back in 1979, when McConkie was an apostle the church was roughly 1/4 of the size today, far more homogenous, and more concentrated in a few areas of then world. That allowed and supported more uniformity in views and it was easier to reinforce that assumption in that era. That is not our time now. 

Lastly what it means to be "Orthodox" has also shifted over the years. And how that's discussed and presented likewise has shifted in ways that's extremely unlikely to revert back to. One man isn't likely to move that flow. Silly example: this man obviously believed in having a big family. His is big, even for Mormon Gen x standards. I'd be surprised if he doesn't mention the importance of family and children in a few talks to come. But that likely won't shift most people's family planning....and it definitely won't return us to families of 5+ kids. 

 

So I'm not excited, but I'm not willing to jump to conclusions about him either.

 

With luv, 

BD 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

he also doesn't have as much charisma and dynamism as say McConkie to gather that much influence.

And let’s not forget who his father-in-law was and that he was also part of the 12 and the president of the Church.  It was the two of them and their combined tenures imo as well as both had the personality to be in open disagreement to not only other apostles, but to the First Presidency.  Elder McConkie wasn’t an apostle for that long compared to others (Marvin J. Ashton was called the previous year and lasted ten more, Pres Hinckley called ten years before and lasted more than 20 years more).  The First Presidency was putting Elder Talmage in the Tabernacle and publishing his pro-science views in church magazines while Elder JFS was speaking to Daughters of Utah Pioneers, iirc (could have been Utah Genealogical Society…iow, not a church sponsored event) about his own less evidence based creation views.  Brother McConkie was told the title Mormon Doctrine was inappropriate for his book by the First Presidency iirc, he still kept it.  And the two of them outlasted others and stamped the Church with their own imprint.  JFS became an apostle in 1910 and acting president of the quorum in 1950, BRM died in 1985 at a pretty young age of 69.  That’s a 75 year stretch.  If JFS hadn’t laid the foundation and started the structure that Elder McConkie strengthened and built on, I don’t think his 13 years as an apostle would have had near as much impact.  But because of his relationship with Elder Smith and his books, he had significant impact even as a Seventy.  I don’t remember anyone recently like that.

I am out of the loop, but do books even have that kind of influence anymore?  I wonder when we will get our first apostle who is a big social media influencer (among Church members at least).

Edited February 15 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

And let’s not forget who his father-in-law was and that he was also part of the 12 and the president of the Church.  It was the two of them and their combined tenures imo as well as both had the personality to be in open disagreement to not only other apostles, but to the First Presidency.  Elder McConkie wasn’t an apostle for that long compared to others (Marvin J. Ashton was called the previous year and lasted ten more, Pres Hinckley called ten years before and lasted more than 20 years more).  The First Presidency was putting Elder Talmage in the Tabernacle and publishing his pro-science views in church magazines while Elder JFS was speaking to Daughters of Utah Pioneers, iirc (could have been Utah Genealogical Society…iow, not a church sponsored event) about his own less evidence based creation views.  Brother McConkie was told the title Mormon Doctrine was inappropriate for his book by the First Presidency iirc, he still kept it.  And the two of them outlasted others and stamped the Church with their own imprint.  JFS became an apostle in 1910 and acting president of the quorum in 1950, BRM died in 1985 at a pretty young age of 69.  That’s a 75 year stretch.  If JFS hadn’t laid the foundation and started the structure that Elder McConkie strengthened and built on, I don’t think his 13 years as an apostle would have had near as much impact.  But because of his relationship with Elder Smith and his books, he had significant impact even as a Seventy.  I don’t remember anyone recently like that.

Thanks for the added context! I've read a couple history related books that touch on this a little, but I definitely don't have the fluency with this era to write what you did. I should add I do get why there's concern about a return to this time. It's had an extremely long influence in the church that gave us a culture and image of greater uniformity and deference than there once had been. And the more conservative (fundamentalist? Orthodox? You choose the word) take has taken a long time to balance out again as just a specific outlook in the gospel rather than THE gospel. Though of course, those most aligned or impacted with views of this era likely still see it as THE gospel. 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I am out of the loop, but do books even have that kind of influence anymore?  I wonder when we will get our first apostle who is a big social media influencer (among Church members at least).

I don't think there is. All the books that I could think of that I've seen quoted or referenced on LDS podcasts were not from apostles. They're usually more scholarly or academic (ex. rough stone rolling, religion of another color, the givens' books, etc). I also don't know how much those have filtered outside the US and outside of English speaking areas in particular. It could be that the algorithm knows me and knows what I like and sticks with that. 

 

But overall I think we underestimate how much "the church" is an increasingly decentralized and local experience. How we interpret and engage with "the" church is dependent on what we were exposed to and view as valid/important viewpoints. Someone may have a very rigid, gate keeping, cautionary community/family/mentality and that becomes "the" church. Another may have a looser more exploratory relationship with religious doctrines and experiences in their local faith community/home and that becomes "the" church. Another may have a more pragmatic service orientation to it and that becomes "the" church. Etc.  These varying expressions of our faith have varying streams of principles/voices that support and validate said views. But we often struggle to recognize that our way is only one way of engaging with our faith not THE way. 

 

Again there was a (long) period of time where a more uniform assumption about varying beliefs was common. That is not today. Nowadays a more simplified core doctrine is promoted (ex Christ as savior) and there's more diversity/flexibility in how that is expressed and what people find added value in. Where one finds that can be wide. From family, to a war/stake/branch, to a favorite podcast, to personal study and revelation, to a book, etc. 

 

Which again, is probably why I don't mind his calling. He's one voice in a sea. He's not the sea itself. 

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited February 15 by BlueDreams

[Notatbm]

16 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Judging it based on that is heavily a US cultural heritage of racism and strict racial lines. And it's also deeply ignorant.

 

You are both right and wrong. Here is how I personally am informed:

I was raised in an uber / hardliner Mormon home in a connected Mormon family. Connected enough that my father personally knew more than a few apostles (during 70s-very early 90s). Some of those guys are still there. I met pretty much all of them during that time period to include Peterson who now that I know what I know I should have knocked him out.

Anyway we all know about all the statements, policies, doctrines etc re Blacks, Native Americans et al. When I was growing up that was taught to us in primary, Sunday school and priesthood. It wasn’t just some thing in a book somewhere- it was open discussion and advocation for the ideas. Dating members outside your own race is where my problem with the church’s stance and attitude started as I was at that point old enough to make some judgements which were informed. I call it attitude because of how the following situations (s) were handled.

When I was 16, I invited a Mexican girl from school to a church dance. We were not dating, but were friends. She accepted and she was dropped off at the dance by her brother because her parents would never approve of her going anywhere with a white kid. Anyway, we went in, she sat down with some bishop real quick to get a temp dance card our stake was using at the time and we had a good time at the dance….lots of looks though. She was the only non-white there, but it wasn’t a very big deal as she knew many of the kids and got along fine. Fast FWD to Sunday, by the time sacrament meeting had been over for five minutes I got yanked into a classroom by my mother asking what the deal was with me dating a Mexican girl. I told her the truth and asked how she knew and she named two women who were working the dance the previous evening who came up to her to tell her. It wasn’t to tell her we looked cute or anything, it was to warn/inform her that her son was dating not only a non-member but one who wasn’t white like him. I got sidelined by a bishop counselor and told I had a meeting with the Bishop directly after church so of course I went. The bishop read right out of some manual how we were not to marry outside our own race and that dating is what leads to that. He told me I needed to end the relationship. I got the same treatment at home later on. Parents were pissed. It was even more difficult for them because as Stake Pres, they knew it would get around our stake his kid was dating a non-member and a Mexican. There wasn’t animosity so-to-speak about Mexicans, it was just that you date your own kind is how it was put. Did the commentary surprise me??? Not a bit as I was taught all that growing up. The surprise came when I realized…yea these people believe all this BS and they are gonna force it on me and now I’m the bad guy. These are the "good mormons" who occupy leadership in the church and cut from same cloth as the senior leadership.

The girl and I never went out again- wasn’t because of this we just didn’t hit it off. I continued to date mostly non-whites in High School. I didn’t get along /associate with the LDS girls because frankly most didn’t want to date stake pres kid and I hung around a different crowd anyway. I'm sure they had other reasons too- who cares. My parents hated it and always had something to say and it was always about the fact they were not white. They didn’t dis on their race, just that I shouldn’t associate with them. The same kind of talk was all over church publications and we were taught that stuff in firesides etc.

It was apparent to me that not only did our prophets have a lot of messed up stuff to say, but even the local leaders practiced it as they had to be obedient you know. After high school I ditched the mission idea and went straight into the military. Parents and bishop went haywire over that too. I was sure to marry some black or Puerto Rican stripper from a club near FT Bragg given my attraction to non whites…yes my mother said that to me.

I finished my four years away and came home single. Later married and yea not married to who I was supposed to marry, but it was in the temple and we are still together- happy contrary to what we were told we couldn’t be.. No one said anything, but I know what they thought to themselves and what they believed because they had already demonstrated that my entire life.

So, the notion of not choosing a black apostle isn’t just a pet peeve, I know those guys are not comfortable with them because that is the way they all were taught growing up long before me. There is a long list of talks, commentary, books etc with racist commentary. Here is just one example from Thomas S Monson’s book:

1985 book titled On the Lord’s Errand: Memoirs of Thomas S. Monson

“In about 1956 we recognized that our neighborhood was dete­riorating. We observed this one Halloween by the nature of the people who came in the guise of ‘Trick or Treat.’ The minority elements were moving into the area where we lived, and many of the old-time families had long since moved away. Seeking coun­sel, I visited with Mark E. Peterson, ... As I mentioned to Mark my dilemma, wondering if it would be unfair for me to move, he said simply, ‘Your obligation to that area is concluded. Why don’t you build a house in my ward?’”

Wow- that advice is real cute and what a surprise re who it came from lol. These guys kill me. That comes from Monson and he published it in a book written pretty much exactly when I took that Mexican girl to the dance. That is what the church leadership was and still is. It is the prophet setting the standard. 

They have avoided picking a black apostle because they don’t want one…period. Id venture to say they have even avoided picking a Hispanic one who is actually brown for the same reason.

Call me what you want. When it comes to the church leadership and their past, we can know them by their fruits, the publications they signed off on and their silence over the decades.
 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

They have avoided picking a black apostle because they don’t want one…period. Id venture to say they have even avoided picking a Hispanic one who is actually brown for the same reason.

Call me what you want. When it comes to the church leadership and their past, we can know them by their fruits, the publications they signed off on and their silence over the decades.

If the next apostle does happen to be brown or black, how would you explain that based on your belief of how they act?  Would this be a token apostle?  Or have they changed their minds?  Or what?  Just curious because you seem to be fairly adamant that the current leadership doesn't like the idea of black or brown apostles.  Also, how do you deal with the idea of 70s who are black and brown?  Or that there is a Presidency of the Seventy who is black?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And the more conservative (fundamentalist? Orthodox? You choose the word)

If it was in the Evangelical context, I think we would call it fundamentalist, so why not apply that label here? (Definitely not the FLDS version of fundamentalism of course, that is a very different approach imo, focusing on very different aspects).

I think it’s different from conservative positions due to the rigidity and literal view of scripture, treatment of scripture as inerrant even if theoretically accepting of errors, the one voice view of scripture, etc.  Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R McConkie didn’t preserve traditional LDS interpretations of doctrine and scripture imo, but altered it to the above.  JFS even went outside of LDS thought to find views that more aligned with his own, imo. (I knew of the Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price, but there was also James Orr, the author of The Fundamentals, and others.)

Not to imply here or anywhere that people with this mindset are less righteous, charitable or anything like that. I have known fundamentalists who I put in the category of “best people in the world” outside of discussing the topic they hold fundamentalist views on….and the only real problem I had there was the lack of willingness to consider not only others’ ideas as potentially valid, but their own in new ways.  Very hard to discuss anything once they have explained their thoughts.

Edited February 15 by Calm

[longview]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If it was in the Evangelical context, I think we would call it fundamentalist, so why not apply that label here? (Definitely not the FLDS version of fundamentalism of course, that is a very different approach imo, focusing on very different aspects).

How about the traditional heritage rooted in 1950's (and earlier) culture?

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, longview said:

How about the traditional heritage rooted in 1950's (and earlier) culture?

The thing is the 50s are not that similar to the 30s or the 20s or the 10s. There is a tendency by many to pick some golden age and project it backwards as (mostly) contiguous.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If it was in the Evangelical context, I think we would call it fundamentalist, so why not apply that label here? (Definitely not the FLDS version of fundamentalism of course, that is a very different approach imo, focusing on very different aspects).

It is worth noting that religious fundamentalism was created primarily by rationalism and darwinism. No longer needing a higher power to explain reality ironically led to an attempt at a hyper-literalist take on scripture. A failed attempt. It is not a coincidence that fundamentalist Islam showed up at the same time fighting the same thing (plus understandably throwing in a lot of anti-colonialism). The LDS versions tend to come from a similar place. Reactionary and extreme.

[Notatbm]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

If the next apostle does happen to be brown or black, how would you explain that based on your belief of how they act?  Would this be a token apostle?  Or have they changed their minds?  Or what?

Just curious because you seem to be fairly adamant that the current leadership doesn't like the idea of black or brown apostles.  Also, how do you deal with the idea of 70s who are black and brown?  Or that there is a Presidency of the Seventy who is black?

Token? No which thing. They just pick their friends. Well if they have not changed their minds and pick one just because we need a black one then that may be what it is. They would have to tell us that though. The whole notion the lord is picking pretty much with white dudes from the morridor is a bit ridiculous. 
 

why would I “deal “ with or care about a 70? They really are not anyone or are the face of the church. 
 

 

this is the face of the church and it isn’t very representative of its demographics except all the white ones. We can do better, but sadly probably won’t. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

 

 

this is the face of the church and it isn’t very representative of its demographics except all the white ones. We can do better, but sadly probably won’t. 

True, I have never met any member of the church that is that pixellated in real life.

I for one would like to welcome our new blocky overlords…..

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Token? No which thing. They just pick their friends. Well if they have not changed their minds and pick one just because we need a black one then that may be what it is. They would have to tell us that though. The whole notion the lord is picking pretty much with white dudes from the morridor is a bit ridiculous. 
 

why would I “deal “ with or care about a 70? They really are not anyone or are the face of the church. 
 

 

this is the face of the church and it isn’t very representative of its demographics except all the white ones. We can do better, but sadly probably won’t. 

So you just don't think they will ever pick a black or brown?  I guess I'm trying to understand what you would think if an apostle was black or brown.  Say the next apostle picked is Elder Edward Dube (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/edward-dube?lang=eng).  How would that affect your view of the leaders?

[BlueDreams]

On 2/15/2026 at 11:26 AM, Notatbm said:

 

You are both right and wrong. Here is how I personally am informed:

I was raised in an uber / hardliner Mormon home in a connected Mormon family. Connected enough that my father personally knew more than a few apostles (during 70s-very early 90s). Some of those guys are still there. I met pretty much all of them during that time period to include Peterson who now that I know what I know I should have knocked him out.

Anyway we all know about all the statements, policies, doctrines etc re Blacks, Native Americans et al. When I was growing up that was taught to us in primary, Sunday school and priesthood. It wasn’t just some thing in a book somewhere- it was open discussion and advocation for the ideas. Dating members outside your own race is where my problem with the church’s stance and attitude started as I was at that point old enough to make some judgements which were informed. I call it attitude because of how the following situations (s) were handled.

When I was 16, I invited a Mexican girl from school to a church dance. We were not dating, but were friends. She accepted and she was dropped off at the dance by her brother because her parents would never approve of her going anywhere with a white kid. Anyway, we went in, she sat down with some bishop real quick to get a temp dance card our stake was using at the time and we had a good time at the dance….lots of looks though. She was the only non-white there, but it wasn’t a very big deal as she knew many of the kids and got along fine. Fast FWD to Sunday, by the time sacrament meeting had been over for five minutes I got yanked into a classroom by my mother asking what the deal was with me dating a Mexican girl. I told her the truth and asked how she knew and she named two women who were working the dance the previous evening who came up to her to tell her. It wasn’t to tell her we looked cute or anything, it was to warn/inform her that her son was dating not only a non-member but one who wasn’t white like him. I got sidelined by a bishop counselor and told I had a meeting with the Bishop directly after church so of course I went. The bishop read right out of some manual how we were not to marry outside our own race and that dating is what leads to that. He told me I needed to end the relationship. I got the same treatment at home later on. Parents were pissed. It was even more difficult for them because as Stake Pres, they knew it would get around our stake his kid was dating a non-member and a Mexican. There wasn’t animosity so-to-speak about Mexicans, it was just that you date your own kind is how it was put. Did the commentary surprise me??? Not a bit as I was taught all that growing up. The surprise came when I realized…yea these people believe all this BS and they are gonna force it on me and now I’m the bad guy. These are the "good mormons" who occupy leadership in the church and cut from same cloth as the senior leadership.

The girl and I never went out again- wasn’t because of this we just didn’t hit it off. I continued to date mostly non-whites in High School. I didn’t get along /associate with the LDS girls because frankly most didn’t want to date stake pres kid and I hung around a different crowd anyway. I'm sure they had other reasons too- who cares. My parents hated it and always had something to say and it was always about the fact they were not white. They didn’t dis on their race, just that I shouldn’t associate with them. The same kind of talk was all over church publications and we were taught that stuff in firesides etc.

It was apparent to me that not only did our prophets have a lot of messed up stuff to say, but even the local leaders practiced it as they had to be obedient you know. After high school I ditched the mission idea and went straight into the military. Parents and bishop went haywire over that too. I was sure to marry some black or Puerto Rican stripper from a club near FT Bragg given my attraction to non whites…yes my mother said that to me.

I finished my four years away and came home single. Later married and yea not married to who I was supposed to marry, but it was in the temple and we are still together- happy contrary to what we were told we couldn’t be.. No one said anything, but I know what they thought to themselves and what they believed because they had already demonstrated that my entire life.

So, the notion of not choosing a black apostle isn’t just a pet peeve, I know those guys are not comfortable with them because that is the way they all were taught growing up long before me. There is a long list of talks, commentary, books etc with racist commentary. Here is just one example from Thomas S Monson’s book:

1985 book titled On the Lord’s Errand: Memoirs of Thomas S. Monson

“In about 1956 we recognized that our neighborhood was dete­riorating. We observed this one Halloween by the nature of the people who came in the guise of ‘Trick or Treat.’ The minority elements were moving into the area where we lived, and many of the old-time families had long since moved away. Seeking coun­sel, I visited with Mark E. Peterson, ... As I mentioned to Mark my dilemma, wondering if it would be unfair for me to move, he said simply, ‘Your obligation to that area is concluded. Why don’t you build a house in my ward?’”

Wow- that advice is real cute and what a surprise re who it came from lol. These guys kill me. That comes from Monson and he published it in a book written pretty much exactly when I took that Mexican girl to the dance. That is what the church leadership was and still is. It is the prophet setting the standard. 

They have avoided picking a black apostle because they don’t want one…period. Id venture to say they have even avoided picking a Hispanic one who is actually brown for the same reason.

Call me what you want. When it comes to the church leadership and their past, we can know them by their fruits, the publications they signed off on and their silence over the decades.
 

Dude, you're whitesplaining racism to a biracial chic like this is a novel concept to me or something. I get it. You did dating "wrong" in the sight of your lily white community. I  often was the wrong for others (first out-of-wedlock child born of a black man In a mixed and complicated family is not exactly a winning LDS pedigree over here). But I'm not really interested in playing racism olympics. 

What I see from you is that your experience is frozen in time and place. You're quoting something 40+ years ago from a book most now likely haven't read as if it equally applies today. And you're assuming what people thought and did half a lifetime ago has not shifted, softened, or changed in any meaningful way. Monson and Peterson aren't even alive anymore. They've been replaced by people from diverse backgrounds. And monson showed signs of shifting from his previous views well before he passed. This is also ignoring any evidence that maybe, just maybe, things have changed in 40-50 years. Dismissing the GA's and 70 in particular doesn't make any sense. They're often doing much the grunt work in guiding areas in the gospel, their voices are the majority of the messages given in GC, and it's often from this pool that leaders may pick a new apostle. On my mission, I never had an apostle come to talk to our mission. I definitely had 70's come though. They put a lot of trust in the running of the church in the 70's and they've purposely moved to try and increase regional representation. They've also expunged references to some form of condemnation of interracial/cultural dating, replacing them with several quotes disavowing seeing interracial marriage as a sin and labeling any form of racial prejudice as a sin that one must work out via repentance. 

But again, none of that counts because you've pigeon holed leaders into the quotes and views that hurt/disgusted you as a teen 40 years ago. That's not fair to them or you. It just fosters bitterness and it ignores the good that has replaced several of our bad fruits. 

Are we perfect? No. Many of the things you mentioned echoed experiences I had dating 10-ish years ago (married "late" by mountain west mormon standards). But it has improved. It continues to improve. I'm sorry you can't see that. Being stuck in the past is a painful way to live. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 17 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If it was in the Evangelical context, I think we would call it fundamentalist, so why not apply that label here? (Definitely not the FLDS version of fundamentalism of course, that is a very different approach imo, focusing on very different aspects).

I think it’s different from conservative positions due to the rigidity and literal view of scripture, treatment of scripture as inerrant even if theoretically accepting of errors, the one voice view of scripture, etc.  Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R McConkie didn’t preserve traditional LDS interpretations of doctrine and scripture imo, but altered it to the above.  JFS even went outside of LDS thought to find views that more aligned with his own, imo. (I knew of the Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price, but there was also James Orr, the author of The Fundamentals, and others.)

Not to imply here or anywhere that people with this mindset are less righteous, charitable or anything like that. I have known fundamentalists who I put in the category of “best people in the world” outside of discussing the topic they hold fundamentalist views on….and the only real problem I had there was the lack of willingness to consider not only others’ ideas as potentially valid, but their own in new ways.  Very hard to discuss anything once they have explained their thoughts.

That makes sense to me. I think my only hesitation with fundamentalist is that it's used in the common context of the flds faith (which is obviously very very different). But it does better match the fundamentalist protestant movements at the time better. 

 

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

On 2/14/2026 at 10:17 AM, MrShorty said:

Something Elder Gilbert said in his interview with the SL Tribune highlights to me what is the main controversy around his calling to the apostleship. When Stack asked him about people's varying views on the Family Proclamation, Elder Gilbert said, "This is a big tent church." I've been around different "heterodox" LDS spaces for many years, and this has been a controversy for years (Elder Gilbert is only the current, temporary face of the controversy). Is the church trying to be "big tent" or "small tent?" I would say that much of the controversy around Elder Gilbert specifically is that, in recent callings, the policies and actions he has supported seem to suggest more of a "small tent" approach to the church.

It's a difficult controversy to discuss, because "big tent" and "small tent" are rather vague concepts that don't lend themselves to easy definition. I guess we'll see what happens. Personally, I don't see Elder Gilbert as one who is really going to settle the big/small tent question by himself. As the junior apostle, he will have limited influence in the short term over long standing church policies and beliefs and practices. It's difficult to settle this kind of controversy in a brief interview, so I would suggest that, if he wants to settle controversies, he could take this assertion that the church is a "big tent church" and explain what that means to him and how he wants members to implement his vision of a big tent church.

I think it would be helpful to create some parameters for the "big tent" / "small tent" concept.

I asked Grok: "Help me understand what Latter-day Saint leaders likely mean when they describe the Church as a 'big tent' organization."

The response:

Quote

Latter-day Saint leaders use (or inspire) the “big tent” description to emphasize that the Church is a large, welcoming, global spiritual home that can shelter a wide variety of people under the same covenantal roof.

The metaphor comes from the image of a big circus or event tent: it covers a lot of ground and can accommodate many different kinds of people, yet it still has fixed poles and boundaries that hold it up.

Core Meaning from Leaders

Here is what top leaders have actually said or strongly implied:

1. Diversity of race, culture, and background In October 2020 General Conference (amid worldwide discussions of racism and protests), Elder Quentin L. Cook explicitly called the Church to become a “big tent for people of all racial and cultural backgrounds.” He added: “With our all-inclusive doctrine, we can be an oasis of unity and celebrate diversity.” President Nelson, in the same conference, urged members to “abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice” and make the Church a place of unity for everyone.

2. Room for people at every stage of faith The phrase “Big Tent Mormonism” was largely launched by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf’s October 2013 talk “Come, Join with Us.” Key line (spoken directly to those who had left or felt they didn’t fit):

   “Regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. … Come, join with us!”

   He was addressing people with doubts, imperfect lives, past mistakes, or weak testimonies — and said the Church still has a place for them.

3. Scriptural “enlarge the tent” imagery Leaders repeatedly quote Isaiah 54:2 (“Enlarge the place of thy tent… lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes”). This is the origin of the word “stake” in the Church. The idea is that the “tent of Zion” is supposed to keep expanding to gather more and more of God’s children from every nation and background.

4. Public messaging During the 2010 “I’m a Mormon” advertising campaign, a Church spokeswoman told reporters the membership is a “big tent” — meaning members look different, come from different cultures, have different jobs and personalities, and are not all the stereotypical image many outsiders have.

What It Does NOT Mean

• It is not a call for doctrinal pluralism (“believe whatever you want and still be fully in good standing”).
• The tent has firm “poles”: faith in Jesus Christ, the restored gospel, living prophets, temple covenants, the law of chastity, Word of Wisdom, tithing, etc.
• Leaders have consistently disciplined members who publicly advocate changes to core doctrines (same-sex marriage, women’s ordination, etc.), showing that “big tent” has limits.

Summary in Plain Terms

When a Latter-day Saint leader says the Church is a “big tent” organization, they almost always mean:

“This Church is for everyone who wants to come unto Christ — no matter your race, culture, nationality, personal history, or how strong or shaky your faith feels right now. We are a worldwide family that celebrates that diversity while staying united under the same covenants and standards.”

It is an invitational, hopeful description: the Church is large enough and loving enough to include far more people than many assume. At the same time, it is anchored in unchanging gospel truths.

That is the consistent message from the leaders who have used or inspired the phrase.

Two parts of this stick out to me:

• The quoted statements from Elder Cook ("big tent for people of all racial and cultural backgrounds"), Pres. Uchtdorf ("Regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church") and Pres. Nelson (urging members to “abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice” and make the Church a place of unity for everyone) seem to capture the essence of what the Church is referencing by "big tent."
• The "big tent" concept "is not a call for doctrinal pluralism ('believe {EDIT TO ADD} and do} whatever you want and still be fully in good standing')."

Next query to Grok: "Now tell me what is likely meant when people, whether in or out of the Church, characterize it as a 'small tent' organization."

The response:

Quote

When people (whether current/former members, observers, critics, or ex-members) describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "small tent" organization, they are using the tent metaphor in direct contrast to the "big tent" idea promoted by some leaders (like Elder Uchtdorf's invitations or Elder Cook's calls for racial/cultural inclusivity).

The phrase almost always carries a critical or skeptical tone. It implies the Church is narrow, exclusive, rigid, or intolerant of diversity in belief, behavior, lifestyle, or personal history — the opposite of a spacious, welcoming shelter that can cover many different kinds of people.

Core Meaning from Usage

Here is what the characterization typically conveys:

1. Strict doctrinal and behavioral boundaries The "tent" has very tight poles and short cords — little room for variation. Core requirements (e.g., full acceptance of prophetic authority, temple-worthiness standards, adherence to the law of chastity/Word of Wisdom as currently interpreted, tithing, sustained belief in certain historical claims) are non-negotiable for full fellowship. Public dissent on key issues (e.g., same-sex marriage, women's ordination, historical narratives, or even nuanced views on scripture) often leads to discipline, marginalization, or self-exit.
2. Limited tolerance for doubt, nuance, or heterodoxy People who experience faith crises, hold progressive political/theological views, or question correlated teachings may feel unwelcome or pressured to conform/silence themselves. The tent doesn't comfortably shelter "edges" — doubters, nuanced believers, LGBTQ+ members (or allies), feminists, or those with non-traditional interpretations. Instead, it prioritizes orthodoxy and boundary maintenance.
3. Cultural and social conformity Beyond doctrine, the "small tent" label often points to expectations around appearance, politics (e.g., conservative leanings in many areas), family structure, gender roles, or even how openly one expresses struggles. The Church is seen as favoring a narrow cultural ideal (often rooted in mid-20th-century American conservatism) rather than embracing broad diversity in lived experience.
4. Contrast with "big tent" aspirations Critics argue the Church talks a "big tent" game (inviting everyone, celebrating diversity, room for the imperfect) but practices a "small tent" reality — especially post-2010s events like policy changes, discipline cases (e.g., Kate Kelly, Sam Young), emphasis on exact obedience, or retrenchment under recent leadership. Some observers say the institutional Church has chosen clarity and purity over breadth, accepting shrinkage if it means retaining the committed core.

Where the Phrase Appears Most

• Online forums like Reddit (r/mormon, r/exmormon), blogs (Wheat & Tares, By Common Consent, Mormon Stories discussions), and podcasts — often from progressive, nuanced, or former members lamenting exclusion.
• Media/analysis pieces (e.g., Religion News Service columns, Washington Post discussions of "liberal Latter-day Saints") contrasting idealized inclusivity with perceived reality.
• Internal critiques where people feel the Church is shrinking its tent rather than enlarging it (Isaiah 54:2 style).

Summary in Plain Terms

Calling the Church a "small tent" organization means:

“Despite invitations to 'come join us' and claims of global inclusivity, the actual Church is narrow and demanding. It has strict lines that many people (doubters, progressives, LGBTQ+ individuals, those with historical concerns, or anyone who doesn't fully conform) can't or won't cross without significant cost. The tent is cozy for the orthodox and obedient but cramped or inhospitable for everyone else — more exclusive than expansive.”

It's the flip side of the hopeful "big tent" messaging: leaders may aspire to (or claim) a large shelter, but critics say the reality is a smaller, more tightly staked one that prioritizes uniformity over accommodation. The phrase highlights perceived tension between invitation and enforcement.

Third query to Grok:

Quote

It seems like both characterizations ("big tent" and "small tent") rely heavily on unspoken presuppositions about what the Church is intended to be, what it is trying to be.

If the Church is what it claims to be, then its focus on faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance, and obedience, and service, and so on, is congruent with a "big tent" characterization. The tent is plenty "big" enough for those who view the Church in this way, and who are willing to join with and help advance the Church in this way.

Somewhat alternatively, the "small tent" characterization seemingly presupposes that the Church

A) is not sufficiently attuned to and focused on its role as a "spiritual hospital" (caring for and helping people who "spiritual" maladies and issues), such that it excludes people who ought to be "in the tent"; or

B) is, or should be, an institution attuned to affect sociopolitical change of a particular bent (the "bent" corresponding with the individual's sociopolitical views), resulting in the alienation of people with these expectations; or

C) is a bit of both.

The response:

Quote

Your observation cuts to the heart of the matter: the "big tent" vs. "small tent" debate isn't primarily about empirical facts (e.g., membership numbers, global diversity, or discipline cases) but about fundamental presuppositions regarding the Church's purpose, identity, and mission.

If we accept the Church's own claims—that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, led by living prophets, with covenants, ordinances, and standards that are divinely revealed and necessary for exaltation—then the emphasis on faith, repentance, obedience, service, covenant-keeping, and exactness aligns far more naturally with a "big tent" framing in the aspirational sense leaders often use.

"Aspirational sense" of "big tent."  That seems about right.  We may not yet be as "big tent"-ish as we aspire to be.  I hope we are moving in that direction.

Quote

• The tent is "big" because the invitation is universal: anyone can enter who is willing to come unto Christ on His terms (faith, repentance, baptism, enduring to the end). The gospel message is for "every nation, kindred, tongue, and people," and the Church's global growth, humanitarian work, and missionary efforts reflect an expansive outreach.

"{A}nyone can enter who is willing to come unto Christ on His terms."  Yep.

For a lot of people these days, the Church's teachings on marriage, gender and Law of Chastity seem to create tension with personal worldviews pertaining to these aspects of the human condition.

Quote

• The "tent poles" (core doctrines, prophetic authority, temple covenants, moral standards) are fixed because they are seen as God's unchanging requirements, not human preferences. The tent shelters all who accept those poles—the imperfect, the struggling, the newly converted, people from every background—while the structure itself remains firm. In this view, the Church functions as a "spiritual hospital" (a phrase echoed in member discourse and sometimes tied to leaders like Uchtdorf or Oaks) where sinners receive healing through Christ, but healing requires following the prescribed treatment (repentance and obedience).
• Exclusion only occurs when individuals choose to reject or actively oppose those core elements, not because the tent is inherently small. The focus on obedience isn't exclusionary gatekeeping; it's the path to the healing and growth the hospital exists to provide.

"The tent shelters all who accept those poles."

"{S}inners receive healing through Christ, but healing requires following the prescribed treatment (repentance and obedience)." 

Yep.

Quote

From this perspective, the "small tent" critique often rests on one or more of the presuppositions you outlined:

• A) Viewing the Church primarily (or additionally) as a therapeutic or supportive community that should prioritize unconditional inclusion, emotional safety, doubt accommodation, or pastoral care over doctrinal clarity and covenant enforcement. If the "hospital" metaphor is taken to mean minimal requirements and maximal accommodation for spiritual maladies (without strong calls to change), then yes, the Church's boundaries can feel restrictive.
• B) Expecting the Church to serve as a vehicle for sociopolitical progress aligned with secular liberal/progressive values (e.g., full affirmation of LGBTQ+ identities and relationships, gender egalitarianism in priesthood/leadership, reinterpretation of historical claims, or reduced emphasis on traditional family structures). When the Church prioritizes its theological commitments over those shifts, it alienates those who see sociopolitical inclusivity as central to its mission.
• C) A combination: many who use "small tent" language blend these, feeling the Church falls short as both a compassionate healer and a force for broader social justice/change.

Online discussions (e.g., on blogs like By Common Consent or Wheat & Tares, Reddit communities) frequently show this divide: some defend the Church's structure as essential to its salvific purpose (big tent under divine terms), while others argue it has become overly narrow or paternalistic, failing to live up to its own inclusive rhetoric.

Ultimately, which characterization feels more "reasonable and accurate" depends on which presupposition one starts with:

• If the Church is what it claims (the authorized steward of Christ's restored gospel, with binding covenants and prophetic direction), then "big tent" (with firm, revealed boundaries) is the more coherent and faithful description.
• If one sees the Church primarily as a human institution that should evolve toward greater pluralism, therapeutic inclusivity, or alignment with contemporary social ethics, then "small tent" accurately captures the perceived rigidity.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 16 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it would be helpful to create some parameters for the "big tent" / "small tent" concept.

I asked Grok: "Help me understand what Latter-day Saint leaders likely mean when they describe the Church as a 'big tent' organization."

The response:

Three parts of this stick out to me:

• The quoted statements from Elder Cook ("big tent for people of all racial and cultural backgrounds"), Pres. Uchtdorf ("Regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church") and Pres. Nelson (urging members to “abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice” and make the Church a place of unity for everyone) seem to capture the essence of what the Church is referencing by "big tent."
• The "big tent" concept "is not a call for doctrinal pluralism ('believe {EDIT TO ADD} and do} whatever you want and still be fully in good standing')."

Next query to Grok: "Now tell me what is likely meant when people, whether in or out of the Church, characterize it as a 'small tent' organization."

The response:

Third query to Grok:

The response:

"Aspirational sense" of "big tent."  That seems about right.  We may not yet be as "big tent"-ish as we aspire to be.  I hope we are moving in that direction.

"{A}nyone can enter who is willing to come unto Christ on His terms."  Yep.

For a lot of people these days, the Church's teachings on marriage, gender and Law of Chastity seem to create tension with personal worldviews pertaining to these aspects of the human condition.

"The tent shelters all who accept those poles."

"{S}inners receive healing through Christ, but healing requires following the prescribed treatment (repentance and obedience)." 

Yep.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

Now try it again while asking Grok questions while implying you think the big tent/little tent dichotomy is useful. I’d bet money Grok won’t call it subjective but will be agreeable and flatter what you seem to like. AI chatbots are designed to be agreeable.

One reason they are pretty useless. Two people can hold a discussion and outsource all their thinking to Grok or any AI and it will generally tell each what they want to hear outside of a few limits put in to keep it from going openly fascist or full anti-Semite or whatever.

I went ahead and asked Grok if the LDS Church is a big tent or a small tent.

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church, commonly called the Mormon Church) is generally considered a small tent organization when it comes to doctrinal and theological matters, though it has some room for diversity in personal views, cultural practices, and (to a greater extent) politics.

So it is not an empirical fact but Grok has an opinion on where it falls.

Why are we holding discussions via AI?

Edited February 16 by The Nehor

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Now try it again while asking Grok questions while implying you think the big tent/little tent dichotomy is useful. I’d bet money Grok won’t call it subjective but will be agreeable and flatter what you seem to like. AI chatbots are designed to be agreeable.

I concur.  Grok commentary on its own should be taken with a grain of salt.  Hence my open acknowledgment of both the queries and the responses.  Much of the responses, though, seem to be pretty clinical.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

One reason they are pretty useless. Two people can hold a discussion and outsource all their thinking to Grok or any AI and it will generally tell each what they want to hear outside of a few limits put in to keep it from going openly fascist or full anti-Semite or whatever.

Nothing I wrote can be remotely characterized as "openly fascist or full anti-Semite or whatever."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I went ahead and asked Grok if the LDS Church is a big tent or a small tent.

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church, commonly called the Mormon Church) is generally considered a small tent organization when it comes to doctrinal and theological matters, though it has some room for diversity in personal views, cultural practices, and (to a greater extent) politics.

So it is not an empirical fact but Grok has an opinion on where it falls.

Hence my query about presuppositions.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Why are we holding discussions via AI?

I think Grok did a pretty good job of summing up the "big tent" and "small tent" positions, and in acknowledging the role and import of presuppositions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I concur.  Grok commentary on its own should be taken with a grain of salt.  Hence my open acknowledgment of both the queries and the responses.  Much of the responses, though, seem to be pretty clinical.

Nothing I wrote can be remotely characterized as "openly fascist or full anti-Semite or whatever."

Hence my query about presuppositions.

I think Grok did a pretty good job of summing up the "big tent" and "small tent" positions, and in acknowledging the role and import of presuppositions.

Thanks,

-Smac

But do you think Grok was correct when it said the LDS Church is generally characterized as a “small tent”?

Grok did that because the predictive text shows that is the most popular characterization.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now try it again while asking Grok questions while implying you think the big tent/little tent dichotomy is useful. I’d bet money Grok won’t call it subjective but will be agreeable and flatter what you seem to like. AI chatbots are designed to be agreeable.

One reason they are pretty useless. Two people can hold a discussion and outsource all their thinking to Grok or any AI and it will generally tell each what they want to hear outside of a few limits put in to keep it from going openly fascist or full anti-Semite or whatever.

I went ahead and asked Grok if the LDS Church is a big tent or a small tent.

So it is not an empirical fact but Grok has an opinion on where it falls.

Why are we holding discussions via AI?

I like AI for searching, including finding quotes, which seems to me Smac’s main purpose here, but even there best for detailed queries as its choices for authoritative sources aren’t always great.  But using it for judgment, waste of time and effort, imo.  I would not use its commentary unless it’s a trivial topic I am not interested in doing the work or not up to it at the moment….and I will put that disclaimer up when I use it (hopefully every time, but probably forget on occasion).  I skip any such AI commentaries in threads like these as not interested….unless that is all someone else is doing and then it’s more teasing, lol.

 

Edited February 16 by Calm

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

• The quoted statements from Elder Cook ("big tent for people of all racial and cultural backgrounds"), Pres. Uchtdorf ("Regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church") and Pres. Nelson (urging members to “abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice” and make the Church a place of unity for everyone) seem to capture the essence of what the Church is referencing by "big tent."
• The "big tent" concept "is not a call for doctrinal pluralism ('believe {EDIT TO ADD} and do} whatever you want and still be fully in good standing')."

I think this is largely the heart of the question. What "diversity" will the church allow and what won't it allow. I think your idea of big and small tent largely centers on what you put in the allowed diversity and the "disallowed" (I'm having a hard time choosing the right word here) diversity buckets. I think that it would be largely universally agreed that race and culture are not things that belong in the disallowed bucket, which leaves us with what you are calling doctrinal pluralism. IMO, the question of doctrinal pluralism is where the question of big/small tent almost exclusively gets debated, and the debate largely centers on what doctrines/practices are not essential and which ones are.

Perhaps an example (mostly historical, since the church is largely settled that this is an allowed example of doctrinal pluralism). Scott Woodward and Cassie Griffiths on their Church History Matters podcast have started 2026 with a multi part series talking about science and religion and related controversies (including, of course, evolution and creationism). They have emphasized multiple times that (in 2026) the church has plenty of room for people who believe all kinds of different things (doctrinal pluralism) about the origins of the Earth and life and humans. The church mostly only insists that one agree that God is the creator and that humans are "children" of God in some way and created in His image. Of course, over the years there have been a lot of efforts (almost exclusively by creationist believers like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie) to try to assert that evolutionists do not have a place in the church. During those years when evolution was softly considered a heresy ("deadly" according to Elder McConkie), the controversy would have centered on whether or not this view was "true" (another poorly defined word that we use a lot).

IMO, the question of big and small tent is really going to center on what doctrinal pluralism one believes should be allowed in the church. In this respect it is probably more of a relative identifier rather than some kind of absolute truth. If one's experience in the church is to feel ostracized for sincerely held beliefs, they will view the church as "small tent." If one's experience is to feel that the "boundary markers" imposed by the church are unfair ore exclusive, then one will likely view the church as "small tent". If one's experience in the church is to feel openly embraced by the church and they find themselves largely in agreement with the "boundary markers," then one will experience the church as "big tent."

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But do you think Grok was correct when it said the LDS Church is generally characterized as a “small tent”?

Again, that depends upon one's presuppositions.

I think many (most?) faithful, observant Latter-day Saints see the Restored Gospel and membership in the Church as intended for the entire world.  Indeed, that is how it is presented to us in scripture:

• 1 Nephi 14:42 - "And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations, both unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles."
• 1 Nephi 19:17 - "Yea, and all the earth shall see the salvation of the Lord, saith the prophet; every nation, kindred, tongue and people shall be blessed."
• 1 Nephi 22:28 - "But, behold, all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people shall dwell safely in the Holy One of Israel if it so be that they will repent."
• 2 Nephi 26:33 - "He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."
• 2 Nephi 30:8 - "And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth."
• Mosiah 15:28 - "And now I say unto you that the time shall come that the salvation of the Lord shall be declared to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people."
• Mosiah 27:25 - "And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters."
• Alma 5:33 - "Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you."
• Alma 5:49 - "And now I say unto you that this is the order after which I am called, yea, to preach unto my beloved brethren, yea, and every one that dwelleth in the land; yea, to preach unto all, both old and young, both bond and free; yea, I say unto you the aged, and also the middle aged, and the rising generation; yea, to cry unto them that they must repent and be born again."
• Alma 13:22 - "Yea, and the voice of the Lord, by the mouth of angels, doth declare it unto all nations; yea, doth declare it, that they may have glad tidings of great joy; yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people, yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth; wherefore they have come unto us."
• Alma 29:8 - "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have."
• Alma 37:4 - "Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they {the Brass Plates} should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon."
• 3 Nephi 18:22 - "And behold, ye shall meet together oft; and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you and forbid them not."
• 3 Nephi 21:28 - "Yea, and then shall the work commence, with the Father among all nations in preparing the way whereby his people may be gathered home to the land of their inheritance."
• 3 Nephi 28:29 - "And it shall come to pass, when the Lord seeth fit in his wisdom that they shall minister unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, and shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls."
• D&C 38:33 - "And from thence, whosoever I will shall go forth among all nations, and it shall be told them what they shall do; for I have a great work laid up in store, for Israel shall be saved, and I will lead them whithersoever I will, and no power shall stay my hand."
• D&C 39:15 - "I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations."
• D&C 42:58 - "And I give unto you a commandment that then ye shall teach them unto all men; for they shall be taught unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people."
• D&C 43:20 - "Lift up your voices and spare not. Call upon the nations to repent, both old and young, both bond and free, saying: Prepare yourselves for the great day of the Lord."
• D&C 45:71 - "And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy."
• D&C 58:9 - "Yea, a supper of the house of the Lord, well prepared, unto which all nations shall be invited."
• D&C 88:103 - "And another trump shall sound, which is the fifth trump, which is the fifth angel who committeth the everlasting gospel—flying through the midst of heaven, unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
• D&C 101:78: "That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment."
• D&C 133:8 - "Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and then upon the Jews."
• Moses 7:52 - "And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand."
• Isaiah 66:18 - "For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory."
• Matthew 24:14 - "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
• Matthew 25:32 - "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."
• Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
• Mark 13:10 - "And the gospel must first be published among all nations."
• Luke 24:47 - "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
• Acts 10:34-35 - "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
• Acts 17:26 - "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."
• Galatians 3:28 - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
• Romans 16:26 - "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."

Of course, agency is involved.  Nobody will be compelled in these things. 

Faith, repentance and obedience are also involved.  Entering into and staying in the "tent" is difficult, perhaps impossible, without these things.

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Grok did that because the predictive text shows that is the most popular characterization.

Whether it is the most accurate characterization is another question.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think this is largely the heart of the question. What "diversity" will the church allow and what won't it allow.

A fair point.  I think "diversity" amply exists in terms of race and nationality.  We still do not have much of a presence in some parts of the world, but not for lack of trying.

"Diversity" as to "orthodoxy" is, in my view, broader than I would have thought, but still has some real parameters.  Amasa Lyman is a good example. 

Actively speaking/working against the Church, while a member of the Church, appears to be unworkable.

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think your idea of big and small tent largely centers on what you put in the allowed diversity and the "disallowed" (I'm having a hard time choosing the right word here) diversity buckets.

I think there is a lot of conflict about "diversity" touching on a relatively few current topics: marriage, Law of Chastity, same-sex behavior, women and the priesthood, abortion, use of church funds, origins of The Book of Mormon, and so on.

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think that it would be largely universally agreed that race and culture are not things that belong in the disallowed bucket, which leaves us with what you are calling doctrinal pluralism. IMO, the question of doctrinal pluralism is where the question of big/small tent almost exclusively gets debated, and the debate largely centers on what doctrines/practices are not essential and which ones are.

Yes and no.

"Doctrinal pluralism" as to the propriety/morality of same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage?  Yes, lots of "pluralism" going on there.  This is perhaps the single biggest doctrinal stumblingblock in the Church (in the U.S. and other western nations, anyway).  The challenge is that it is effectively impossible to square these things with the Restored Gospel, such that those who want to ratify them within the Church have to stake out a precarious doctrinal position.  Same goes for abortion.

Issues having both a "doctrinal" and substantial sociopolitical dimension can be difficult where those dimensions do not mesh well.  

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps an example (mostly historical, since the church is largely settled that this is an allowed example of doctrinal pluralism). Scott Woodward and Cassie Griffiths on their Church History Matters podcast have started 2026 with a multi part series talking about science and religion and related controversies (including, of course, evolution and creationism).  They have emphasized multiple times that (in 2026) the church has plenty of room for people who believe all kinds of different things (doctrinal pluralism) about the origins of the Earth and life and humans. The church mostly only insists that one agree that God is the creator and that humans are "children" of God in some way and created in His image. Of course, over the years there have been a lot of efforts (almost exclusively by creationist believers like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie) to try to assert that evolutionists do not have a place in the church. During those years when evolution was softly considered a heresy ("deadly" according to Elder McConkie), the controversy would have centered on whether or not this view was "true" (another poorly defined word that we use a lot).

This sort of thing seems more like a theoretical than actual controversy/stumblingblock.  

Yesterday I taught my ward's Sunday School lesson about Noah and the Flood.  I included a slide about whether the flood was global or local, and it garnered the least amount of interest and comment.  I think active and observant Latter-day Saints are find with "diversity" as to doctrinally unsettled topics, provided that the unsettledness does not become disproportionate or grow into rebellion/apostasy.

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, the question of big and small tent is really going to center on what doctrinal pluralism one believes should be allowed in the church.

Once that question takes center stage, the metaphor has failed, I think.

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In this respect it is probably more of a relative identifier rather than some kind of absolute truth. If one's experience in the church is to feel ostracized for sincerely held beliefs, they will view the church as "small tent."

I wonder how much of this ostracism is more perception than reality.

I also wonder how much of this ostracism is about "doctrine" (e.g., should women be ordained to the priesthood) as opposed to sociopolitical issues that are being mostly imported into the Church (e.g., ratification of same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.).

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If one's experience is to feel that the "boundary markers" imposed by the church are unfair or exclusive, then one will likely view the church as "small tent". If one's experience in the church is to feel openly embraced by the church and they find themselves largely in agreement with the "boundary markers," then one will experience the church as "big tent."

It's all about the presuppositions.  I think it is difficult to have a preconceived, and strongly-held, position on this or that sociopolitical issue, and then reconcile it with the "big tent" concept where that position seemingly conflicts with the Church's clear guidance/doctrine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, that depends upon one's presuppositions.

I think many (most?) faithful, observant Latter-day Saints see the Restored Gospel and membership in the Church as intended for the entire world.  Indeed, that is how it is presented to us in scripture:

• 1 Nephi 14:42 - "And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations, both unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles."
• 1 Nephi 19:17 - "Yea, and all the earth shall see the salvation of the Lord, saith the prophet; every nation, kindred, tongue and people shall be blessed."
• 1 Nephi 22:28 - "But, behold, all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people shall dwell safely in the Holy One of Israel if it so be that they will repent."
• 2 Nephi 26:33 - "He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."
• 2 Nephi 30:8 - "And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth."
• Mosiah 15:28 - "And now I say unto you that the time shall come that the salvation of the Lord shall be declared to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people."
• Mosiah 27:25 - "And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters."
• Alma 5:33 - "Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you."
• Alma 5:49 - "And now I say unto you that this is the order after which I am called, yea, to preach unto my beloved brethren, yea, and every one that dwelleth in the land; yea, to preach unto all, both old and young, both bond and free; yea, I say unto you the aged, and also the middle aged, and the rising generation; yea, to cry unto them that they must repent and be born again."
• Alma 13:22 - "Yea, and the voice of the Lord, by the mouth of angels, doth declare it unto all nations; yea, doth declare it, that they may have glad tidings of great joy; yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people, yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth; wherefore they have come unto us."
• Alma 29:8 - "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have."
• Alma 37:4 - "Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they {the Brass Plates} should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon."
• 3 Nephi 18:22 - "And behold, ye shall meet together oft; and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you and forbid them not."
• 3 Nephi 21:28 - "Yea, and then shall the work commence, with the Father among all nations in preparing the way whereby his people may be gathered home to the land of their inheritance."
• 3 Nephi 28:29 - "And it shall come to pass, when the Lord seeth fit in his wisdom that they shall minister unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, and shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls."
• D&C 38:33 - "And from thence, whosoever I will shall go forth among all nations, and it shall be told them what they shall do; for I have a great work laid up in store, for Israel shall be saved, and I will lead them whithersoever I will, and no power shall stay my hand."
• D&C 39:15 - "I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations."
• D&C 42:58 - "And I give unto you a commandment that then ye shall teach them unto all men; for they shall be taught unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people."
• D&C 43:20 - "Lift up your voices and spare not. Call upon the nations to repent, both old and young, both bond and free, saying: Prepare yourselves for the great day of the Lord."
• D&C 45:71 - "And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy."
• D&C 58:9 - "Yea, a supper of the house of the Lord, well prepared, unto which all nations shall be invited."
• D&C 88:103 - "And another trump shall sound, which is the fifth trump, which is the fifth angel who committeth the everlasting gospel—flying through the midst of heaven, unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
• D&C 101:78: "That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment."
• D&C 133:8 - "Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and then upon the Jews."
• Moses 7:52 - "And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand."
• Isaiah 66:18 - "For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory."
• Matthew 24:14 - "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
• Matthew 25:32 - "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."
• Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
• Mark 13:10 - "And the gospel must first be published among all nations."
• Luke 24:47 - "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
• Acts 10:34-35 - "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
• Acts 17:26 - "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."
• Galatians 3:28 - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
• Romans 16:26 - "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."

Of course, agency is involved.  Nobody will be compelled in these things. 

Faith, repentance and obedience are also involved.  Entering into and staying in the "tent" is difficult, perhaps impossible, without these things.

And it is not working that well.

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whether it is the most accurate characterization is another question.

Which is exactly why using AI in a discussion is stupid.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And it is not working that well.

We will always have room to improve, I suppose.  But in the main I think the Church is trying very hard, with some real success, to accommodate members, invite new ones, and preserve the doctrines of the Church from pressures to alter them to conform to sociopolitical preferences/demands, and also respect individuals' right to autonomy and agency.

Will the Church always succeed at this?  No.  

I am open to hearing what you have to suggest about how the Church could improve.

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Which is exactly why using AI in a discussion is stupid.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mbh26]

On 2/13/2026 at 5:28 PM, Duncan said:

asked and answered. I gave you the example of my friend, another who said women weren't valued, with quotations, and the comment about DEI. Time will tell to see how much a mess the church has made, we're still slogging out ole' Bruce McConkie

I love Bruce R. McConkie.  I think I'll like Clark Gilbert as well.  I'm sorry this will be a test of faith for many of you.  Were we to have a prophet like Pope Francis, I could be going through the same struggle.