Is it sinful to operate any other way than to assume that everything the 12th says is from God

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I bet "blacks and the priesthood" is where it comes from.  I reminds me of when someone says "Jews" rather than Jewish people.  I can't exactly explain why but it just sounds off and cringey.

Same!  

[Rain]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I bet "blacks and the priesthood" is where it comes from.  I reminds me of when someone says "Jews" rather than Jewish people.  I can't exactly explain why but it just sounds off and cringey.

 

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Same!  

Does Christians, Muslims or Buddists sound off and cringey to you?

[MustardSeed]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Does Christians, Muslims or Buddists sound off and cringey to you?

No

[Calm]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

No

We use Christians for our own religious community all the time, so it makes sense we are comfortable with other religious versions.

But Blacks/blacks and Jews refer to ethnic groups (Jews also refers to a religious community, but outside of a religious conversation, it seems most common to be being used secularly.

Plus “blacks” and “Jews” are quite common in hate speech.  I wonder how often “Black people” and “Jewish people get used that way in comparison?  Maybe that contributes to a cringe factor for some, having heard those terms used with disdain or hatred or so-called humorously?

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

We use Christians for our own religious community all the time, so it makes sense we are comfortable with other religious versions.

But Blacks/blacks and Jews refer to ethnic groups (Jews also refers to a religious community, but outside of a religious conversation, it seems most common to be being used secularly.

Plus “blacks” and “Jews” are quite common in hate speech.  I wonder how often “Black people” and “Jewish people get used that way in comparison?  Maybe that contributes to a cringe factor for some, having heard those terms used with disdain or hatred or so-called humorously?

Could be. 

I've just heard many Jews called themselves Jews so that surprised me. For example I've worked adjacent to "Jews for Justice" in refugee communities.  I just searched through posts on thr Jewish sub at Reddit and found quite a few people calling themselves "Jews". And then I found websites like the American Jewish Council where they also refered to themselves as Jews. Even the holocaust museum in Jerusalem says Jews. So maybe it used to be a thing and is changing? Or maybe it depends on the area you live in?

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

Could be. 

I've just heard many Jews called themselves Jews so that surprised me. For example I've worked adjacent to "Jews for Justice" in refugee communities.  I just searched through posts on thr Jewish sub at Reddit and found quite a few people calling themselves "Jews". And then I found websites like the American Jewish Council where they also refered to themselves as Jews. Even the holocaust museum in Jerusalem says Jews. So maybe it used to be a thing and is changing? Or maybe it depends on the area you live in?

Not sure why it should be so wrong to use the word "Jew". It is used over 260 times in the Bible.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Rain said:

maybe it used to be a thing and is changing? Or maybe it depends on the area you live in?

Possibly both, language is always changing.  My guess is if there is an emphasis on using “Black people” instead of Blacks, there may be a broader reaction/more attention on the usage of “Jews” and that might change more overall, become generally less common.  But if many in the community still use it, seems like it would vary from place to place depending on who is and isn’t using it.

[Tony uk]

I think that there have been terms used by people of certain races or religions to identify themselves. The same terms are picked upon by certain individuals, and used in a condescending way when referring to the group of people.

 Just as an example. Here in the UK, the citizens of Britain may refer to themselves as 'Brits'. However, people from elsewhere, may use the same phrase, but using a different tone of speech, in a condescending way. Although that is an example of what I am trying to say, and something that I have never experienced myself.

 There are adjectives which are wrong to use. However some, I find are dependent on the manner that they are used.

[MustardSeed]

I don’t hear members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints say “Blacks” in the context of anything but discussions of the priesthood. 
 

I don’t hear anyone say “we had some Blacks move in last weekend.”  I think most of us recognize that would be awful. 
 

But when we talk about the priesthood, we seem to consistently refer to (The) Blacks.  I think it’s time to become aware of this tradition and dump it. 
 

(Along with other really dumb traditions we are sleeping on)

Edited February 26 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

On 2/24/2026 at 11:57 PM, Rain said:

 

Does Christians, Muslims or Buddists sound off and cringey to you?

It doesn't and I don't know why.  I thought maybe it was because being Jewish is an ethnic group and being Christian isn't, but being Native American is also an ethnic group and it doesn't sound bad to me either.  I think it probably has to do with the history associated with terms, especially the term "jew" and how it was used to completely remove the humanity of the person so that they could be killed without remorse.  

Those within the group can certainly refer to themselves however they want, but being outside of the group, I wouldn't be comfortable saying something like 'There are a lot of Jews here....'

Edited February 26 by bluebell

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

Not sure why it should be so wrong to use the word "Jew". It is used over 260 times in the Bible.

I don't think it's wrong.

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's wrong.

I was agreeing with you.

[telnetd]

On 2/19/2026 at 8:17 PM, bluebell said:

I'd say no, it's not sinful.  They are called as special witnesses of Christ and as watchmen on the tower.  Believing every word they utter about God or the gospel is dictated to them by the Spirit would be looking beyond the mark, in my opinion, and would also mean a belief that they were infallible.  And they clearly aren't.

@MustardSeed

Dissension can lead to personal apostasy.

"There are some of our members who practice selective obedience. A prophet is not 
one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose. 
However, some members become critical and suggest the prophet should change the 
menu. A prophet doesn't take a poll to see which way the wind of public opinion is 
blowing. He reveals the will of the Lord to us" (Follow The Prophet, Ensign, May 1989).

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any 
plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church 
is cultivating the spirit of apostasy".

"It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting 
souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are 
to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it 
on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the 
Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes 
in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy 
in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our 
members are deceived by this trickery".

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is 
God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give 
direction, it should mark the end of controversy" (Improvement Era, June 1945).

[Durangout]

On 2/19/2026 at 8:04 PM, Pyreaux said:

Hmmm. A belief that God works through a specific, authorized order, even if the individuals in that order are imperfect. A common teaching of Dallin H. Oaks is that God will bless a member for their faithfulness to the principle of order, even if the specific direction given by a local leader is suboptimal. God values the humility and discipline more than correctness. My deep thoughts about Priesthood Ban are I wouldn't be the surprised God let it happen just to humble the Saints.

Though in the military, you follow the orders first and complain later. In LDS doctrine, there is a concept of dual testimony. The leader receives the revelation for the group. The individual is expected to seek a confirming witness from the Holy Spirit that the leader's direction is correct. If a member feels the leader is "wrong," the cultural suggestion is often the member should check again or check at least their own humility rather than publicly correcting the leader. Like "insubordination" in the military.

Not sure where I heard this but it seems to apply…”Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible but don’t believe it.  Mormons are taught that The 15 ARE fallible and don’t believe that either.”  
 

A couple years ago my SP said that 100% of everything that comes from The Church is true.  What garbage. That is the false believe or sentiment that gets rewarded w/in The Church—He was just promoted to MP.

[bluebell]

On 3/13/2026 at 10:31 AM, telnetd said:

@MustardSeed

Dissension can lead to personal apostasy.

"There are some of our members who practice selective obedience. A prophet is not 
one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose. 
However, some members become critical and suggest the prophet should change the 
menu. A prophet doesn't take a poll to see which way the wind of public opinion is 
blowing. He reveals the will of the Lord to us" (Follow The Prophet, Ensign, May 1989).

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any 
plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church 
is cultivating the spirit of apostasy".

"It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting 
souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are 
to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it 
on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the 
Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes 
in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy 
in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our 
members are deceived by this trickery".

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is 
God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give 
direction, it should mark the end of controversy" (Improvement Era, June 1945).

Doing some extra research and not just copying and pasting stuff from questionable sources would go a long way toward answering a lot of your questions.

First, this is an article from a church magazine which was printed in 1945.  That right there should have given you pause in using it for any reason. 

Second, this is trotted out often in anti circles because they think it's a big gotcha, but it's not.  When this was published, the backlash in the church and out of it was pretty big.  Members and nonmembers were upset because it taught something so incredibly dumb.  One nonmember even wrote a letter to then Prophet and president of the church George Albert about it.  He responded to the letter, and this is what he said--

Quote

 

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: “I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please.” This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: “If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”

 

Hope that helps you understand this concept a little better. 

Edited March 15 by bluebell

[telnetd]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Doing some extra research and not just copying and pasting stuff from questionable sources would go a long way toward answering a lot of your questions.

Are General Conference talks in the past and present by church presidents a source of truth?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Are General Conference talks in the past and present by church presidents a source of truth?

They can be sources of truth but they are not always or all sources of truth.  Not everything spoken at GC is doctrine or truth, some is well reasoned opinion or extrapolation from doctrine.  And some things that have been said during GC of the past have been replaced by newer understandings and revelations. 

To know whether or not something is doctrine you can look to see if it is consistently and currently being taught by the living prophets and apostles, if it's found in the scriptures, and if it's recently been published in official church publications.

[telnetd]

On 3/15/2026 at 2:54 PM, bluebell said:

They can be sources of truth but they are not always or all sources of truth.  Not everything spoken at GC is doctrine or truth, some is well reasoned opinion or extrapolation from doctrine.  And some things that have been said during GC of the past have been replaced by newer understandings and revelations. 

To know whether or not something is doctrine you can look to see if it is consistently and currently being taught by the living prophets and apostles, if it's found in the scriptures, and if it's recently been published in official church publications.

What newer revelations have you heard at General Conference?

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, telnetd said:

What newer revelations have you heard at General Conference?

Well, we don't preach or teach about polygamy anymore at conference, right?  

[Calm]

On 3/17/2026 at 10:25 AM, telnetd said:

What newer revelations have you heard at General Conference?

Do you considered possible inspired changes as qualifying for revelation or do you require a certain way of presenting them (“thus saith the Lord” or “God has revealed to me”)?  If the latter, please describe what would qualify something as a revelation for you so no one wastes time putting up what they view as new revelation only to have it dismissed for some reason. 

Edited March 19 by Calm

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you considered possible inspired changes as qualifying for revelation or do you require a certain way of presenting them (“thus saith the Lord” or “God has revealed to me”)?  If the latter, please describe what would qualify something as a revelation for you so no one wastes time putting up what they view as new revelation only to have it dismissed for some reason. 

If you could provide several significant things you have heard in General Conference in
the last 10 years you would consider "revelation" for the church.

[telnetd]

On 3/18/2026 at 11:49 AM, bluebell said:

Well, we don't preach or teach about polygamy anymore at conference, right?  

Do you have something after 1978?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, telnetd said:

If you could provide several significant things you have heard in General Conference in
the last 10 years you would consider "revelation" for the church.

Not until you define what counts as revelation for you as I don’t want to waste my time. 

[3DOP]

On 3/13/2026 at 3:45 PM, Durangout said:

Not sure where I heard this but it seems to apply…”Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible but don’t believe it.  Mormons are taught that The 15 ARE fallible and don’t believe that either.”  
 

A couple years ago my SP said that 100% of everything that comes from The Church is true.  What garbage. That is the false believe or sentiment that gets rewarded w/in The Church—He was just promoted to MP.

Just for the record, informed Catholics are aware that in 2,000 years there have been only two times when a pope has certainly spoken infallibly. 

And even the declaration in 1950 for the Assumption wasn't made until after consultation with the world's bishops.

It is much more often that the Catholic Church speaks infallibly through the joint unanimity of the pope and bishops in an ecumenical council.

 

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, telnetd said:

Do you have something after 1978?

I do, but I think this line of questioning is illustrating a misunderstanding of what I said earlier.  I wasn’t specifically speaking about revelations that were presented at general conference.  I was speaking about how new revelations and understandings of gospel principles and doctrines have superseded previous revelations and understandings, and that we can see evidence of that throughout the history of general conference talks.