Top 10 Latter-day Saint teachings that could CHANGE

[Stargazer]

Some of things discussed in this video have been discussed in various threads in the past, and I thought that this video gathers many of them together for one grand discussion and could be addressed by thoughtful members of this forum! I find this guy's ideas entirely possible, and I've even thought that some of are perfectly doctrinally reasonable. But what are your thoughts?

 

[JVW]

I think the WoW will change. The WoW already has implicitly changed with the legalization of pot. I also think that president Nelson will not die until everything that can change in the church does. I personally think he'll outlive the next 4 in line and that Elder Bednar will be the next president.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, JVW said:

also think that president Nelson will not die until everything that can change in the church does. I personally think he'll outlive the next 4 in line and that Elder Bednar will be the next president.

You do realize he is 100 years old, right?

Elder Utchdorf is 84 and appears to be very healthy.

Edited April 1, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

38 minutes ago, JVW said:

I think the WoW will change. The WoW already has implicitly changed with the legalization of pot. I also think that president Nelson will not die until everything that can change in the church does. I personally think he'll outlive the next 4 in line and that Elder Bednar will be the next president.

I don't see him outliving Elder Uchtdorf- but according to the Doctrine and Covenants the President of the Church can appoint his successor. Maybe a revelation appointing Elder Bednar? I would be totally OK with that!

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't see him outliving Elder Uchtdorf- but according to the Doctrine and Covenants the President of the Church can appoint his successor. Maybe a revelation appointing Elder Bednar? I would be totally OK with that!

Is there an issue with Elder Utchdorf I am missing?

I think he would be an excellent president of the Church and help with showing others it isn’t an American church, but a global one.

I also think if there were things that need changing, I don’t see him holding back because he’s too used to traditional thought and policy.

Edited April 1, 2025 by Calm

[Ragerunner]

I would love to have Elder Utchdorf as a prophet. 

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is there an issue with Elder Utchdorf I am missing?

I think he would be an excellent president of the Church and help with showing others it isn’t an American church, but a global one.

I also think if there were things that need changing, I don’t see him holding back because he’s too used to traditional thought and policy.

If Elder Uchtdorf is purposely skipped, I think I would need a break. 

[bearhoof]

How about a list so that I don't have to watch the video?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I would love to have Elder Utchdorf as a prophet. 

Elder Uchtdorf is already a prophet, seer, and revelator.  As are his brother apostles.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

.............. some of are perfectly doctrinally reasonable. But what are your thoughts?......

What is the point of General Conference?  Exciting changes?  A list of new temples?

The point is the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the sustaining of our leaders.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is the point of General Conference?  Exciting changes?  A list of new temples?

The point is the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the sustaining of our leaders.

That's an interesting question!

What is the point of it? Why is it done? I've been a member for (gets out calculator to be sure) 59 years come the end of July, and I've never ever asked the question.  I truly had never thought of it before! It was just something that was done twice a year. There was a time in my life in the church when it was more a "church vacation," meaning I could take the Sunday off and just laze around. GC talks would come out in the Ensign in a month or so and I could read them at my leisure. Things changed over time, and GC became something to look forward to for the spiritual boost. Although now that we can watch it on the Internet (in our PJs if we want), it's still a bit of a "church vacation." Especially so at the moment, since it's one Sacrament meeting I don't have to help plan and find speakers for! 

The preaching of the Gospel? It's done every Sunday, and with recordings of talks one could hear this every day. There's quite a stockpile of past conferences to draw sermons from -- and I do this anyway, since there are some gems in past talks! Sustaining of leaders? We get that in stake and ward conference. Somewhat abbreviated at the local level, but that could be changed to include them all. 

Exciting changes? New temples? Could be done in print and over the pulpit as announcements any given Sunday.

Well, it's all of the above. I love General Conference, for all of what happens and what we learn. Over the course of my church life it's gone from Boring to Seminal. I'm looking forward to the coming weekend!

 

[Nofear]

13 hours ago, bearhoof said:

How about a list so that I don't have to watch the video?

The video has segments and one can skip ahead from place to place and get everything in about 30 seconds. Not as quick as reading a list... but then somebody has to take the time to type it too. Which I could have perhaps done in the time to write this whiny response.

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's an interesting question!

What is the point of it? Why is it done? I've been a member for (gets out calculator to be sure) 59 years come the end of July, and I've never ever asked the question.  I truly had never thought of it before! It was just something that was done twice a year. There was a time in my life in the church when it was more a "church vacation," meaning I could take the Sunday off and just laze around. GC talks would come out in the Ensign in a month or so and I could read them at my leisure. Things changed over time, and GC became something to look forward to for the spiritual boost. Although now that we can watch it on the Internet (in our PJs if we want), it's still a bit of a "church vacation." Especially so at the moment, since it's one Sacrament meeting I don't have to help plan and find speakers for! 

The preaching of the Gospel? It's done every Sunday, and with recordings of talks one could hear this every day. There's quite a stockpile of past conferences to draw sermons from -- and I do this anyway, since there are some gems in past talks! Sustaining of leaders? We get that in stake and ward conference. Somewhat abbreviated at the local level, but that could be changed to include them all. 

Exciting changes? New temples? Could be done in print and over the pulpit as announcements any given Sunday.

Well, it's all of the above. I love General Conference, for all of what happens and what we learn. Over the course of my church life it's gone from Boring to Seminal. I'm looking forward to the coming weekend!

 

I think General Conference is for administrative purposes. Anything administrative at the ward or stake level is different than gathering as a whole church. It could probably be done annually, but I think twice a year is a good cadence. I'm not sure how often other denominations have their conventions and conferences for the whole church. Probably at least annually. That's just good business practice. Although it is worth noting that General Conference started because the Methodists did it and Joseph Smith liked the idea so he copied it from them.

[JVW]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

You do realize he is 100 years old, right?

Elder Utchdorf is 84 and appears to be very healthy.

Everyone appears healthy until they suddenly don't. I just think that president Nelson has another 20 years in him, he might even set the world record for oldest man one day. He's got more vitality than my children do.

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, JVW said:

I think the WoW will change. The WoW already has implicitly changed with the legalization of pot. I also think that president Nelson will not die until everything that can change in the church does. I personally think he'll outlive the next 4 in line and that Elder Bednar will be the next president.

I've heard, only heard, that many active believing LDS youth drink coffee. So that might be something the church will back off of.

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't see him outliving Elder Uchtdorf- but according to the Doctrine and Covenants the President of the Church can appoint his successor. Maybe a revelation appointing Elder Bednar? I would be totally OK with that!

Oh I wouldn't be okay with Elder Bednar. But give me an Elder Uchtdorf any time!

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Oh I wouldn't be okay with Elder Bednar. But give me an Elder Uchtdorf any time!

I am well aware that many participants here have a problem with Elder Bednar.

[halconero]

On 4/1/2025 at 6:07 PM, bearhoof said:

How about a list so that I don't have to watch the video?

1. The Word of Wisdom.
2. Facial hair for Church leaders.
3. Changes to temple ordinances.
4. Women giving blessings of healing.
5. Gender-neutral Sunday School presidencies (i.e., allow for all-male or all-female presidencies).
6. Gender-neutral Primary presidencies (ditto).
7. Allowing non-white clothes in the temple.
8. Shift in tithing emphasis to either stricter (towards something like the United Order) or looser.
9. Change to mission criteria, length, attire, etc.
10. Changes to the administration of the sacrament (e.g., letting women or unordained young men pass).

For what it's worth, I went in expecting it to advocate for various changes. Instead, I found it to be more of a historical overview of the history and practice of Church ordinances, standards, and practices. Put succinctly, it highlights area of the Church that have the most institutional flexibility (according to the views of the content creator).

Edited April 3, 2025 by halconero

[CV75]

Can you put this video on the Overthrowing the Church of God thread? Just kidding!  

[Peacefully]

Anyone heard a rumor about one hour church? Not saying I’m for it, but it seems to be making the rounds. 

[ttribe]

10 hours ago, JVW said:

Everyone appears healthy until they suddenly don't. I just think that president Nelson has another 20 years in him, he might even set the world record for oldest man one day. He's got more vitality than my children do.

Are you...serious?

[JAHS]

He asked if passing the sacrament was more of an assignment rather than a priesthood responsibility.

According to D&C 20 here are the duties of Teachers and Deacons

Teachers
The teacher’s duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;  
And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

Deacon
Watch over the Church. 
Warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ.
Assist the bishop with temporal things.
Fellowship quorum members and other young men.

When this revelation was given these offices were held by adult men and seem to be things that men would do.
Hard to imagine 12-15 year old boys doing some of these things. It did not say anything about preparing or passing the sacrament.
Young boys were not ordained to any priesthood office until 1877 and there were no Aaronic priesthood quorums till 1908.
So it does seem that passing and preparing the Sacrament was a matter of assignment that evolved rather than an actual Deacon or Teacher responsibility.

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Young boys were not ordained to any priesthood office until 1877 and there were no Aaronic priesthood quorums till 1908.

While the second half of this is true, the first is not.

It is better to say that many young boys were not ordained to any priesthood office until 1877. A large minority were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. There are some extreme examples. One of the most interesting cases was John Willard Young, who was ordained an apostle at the age of 11 (1855 iirc). This was not the youngest ordination. George Hunt was ordained a priest at the age of 9 in  1861, and Solomon Harris was ordained a deacon at age 8 (1862). Wilford Woodruff, Jr., was ordained an Elder at the age of 9 in 1849 (he was ordained an elder and endowed at 16). Of Brigham Young's sons, the ten who survived childhood and were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood (and were endowed) at an average age of 16.9 years.

To understand the issues leading to the changes, there are a couple of historical things of interest. At first, men were generally only ordained to one priesthood office (there were exceptions - especially in the formal leadership). The Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood roles were segregated. Aaronic Priesthood offices were selected by local Bishops. Elders Quorums functioned at the Stake level, and were generally autonomous. Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums aggressively recruited from among the Ordained Aaronic Priesthood offices - and they didn't have to consult with local Bishops - and since the Melchizedek Priesthood was necessary to be endowed and since men would rather have the higher rather than the lesser priesthood, there were never enough ordained Deacons, Teachers and Priests. To give some sense, the Kaysville Elders Quorum, in 1865, had 36 members who were ordained as Elders as teenagers. And in the 1870s, while the average age of endowment for men was 22, there were endowments being consistently performed for teenagers as young as 14.

There was another challenge going on - and that was the nature of Priesthood roles in the Ward. The Aaronic Priesthood members (Teachers and Priests) were the ones assigned to administer the sacrament and to perform home visits. In the early 1850s there was pushback from the top leadership of the Church to ordaining young men to the Aaronic Priesthood offices. There was less reservation for ordaining them to the Melchizedek Priesthood - the difference being that the Aaronic Priesthood offices were much more oriented towards an active ministry in the local units - as Brigham Young noted in the 1856 October General Conference:

Quote

Says he [the Bishop], "I dare not even call a man to be a Deacon, to assist me in my calling, unless he has a family." It is not the business of an ignorant young man, of no experience in family matters, to inquire into the circumstances of families, and know the wants of every person. Some may want medicine and nourishment, and be looked after, and it is not the business of boys to do this, but select a man who has got a family to be a Deacon.

Another major factor in the changes that occurred in 1877 and then in 1908 was the age distribution of the membership. According to the 1880 census, in that year, 44% of the population of Utah was under the age of 15. That number is staggering. The need to find for this tidal wave of young people a role in the Church was a concern - since the formal Church education programs were also just being started (Sunday School - 1860, Mutual for Young Women - 1869, Mutual for Young Men - 1875, Primary - 1878). When we talk about young boys being ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood between 1877 and the formation of the Aaronic Priesthood Quorums in 1908, we are talking about entirely remaking and redefining the role of lay priesthood in the Church.

By 1847, the administration of the sacrament (which refers primarily to the blessing of the sacrament) was considered the role of Teachers and Priests. To deal with the lack of Aaronic Priesthood holders in the Wards, Bishops began calling Melchizedek Priesthood holders and ordaining them as "acting" teachers and priests. This started in the 1850s. By the mid-1860s, these acting teachers and priests were functioning as quorums within the Ward. They had teaching and sacrament administration assignments from the Bishop - and reported back during their quorum meetings. Because these assignments generally covered city blocks, they were known for a while as "block teachers" (which eventually morphed into home teachers). And it was almost universally 'acting teachers' who administered the sacrament. This assignment as 'acting' officers in the Aaronic Priesthood was a way of keeping the single office sort of approach functioning. It is also noteworthy that even in the Melchizedek Priesthood, the 70s (and the High Priests) were often viewed as lesser quorums from which the Bishops should call their acting Teachers and Priests - they were considered this way because of the lack of direction regarding the priesthood offices in revelations. The shift following 1908 was slow. Wards were reluctant to let young boys administer the sacrament, they did not want young boys doing home visits. They were often assisted by older men - a tradition that has been maintained. The calling of 'acting' teachers and priests continued until around 1940.

So ... it's hard to do this topic justice in a post like this.

We can see how all of these factors lead to the circumstances we have today - and how these various views came together to shape the policies that have existed over my lifetime. But, I think that it's inaccurate to say that young boys were not ordained to any priesthood office - only that they were not ordained to Aaronic Priesthood offices (except under exceptional circumstances). And I would say that traditionally, it was Teachers and Deacons who were understood to have the role of passing the sacrament from the beginning - this is one thing that hasn't really changed at all.

One last note on the passing of the sacrament. In 1928, President Grant wrote to a mission president (an absence of ordained priesthood holders in various mission areas triggered this) that there was "no rule in the Church" about who passes the sacrament. The custom, he wrote, was for boys and men, but there was nothing that would invalidate the sacrament if it was passed by those without the priesthood in the absence of ordained individuals. Preparing the sacrament did not become identified as a priesthood role until 1933. And as late as 1943, the Presiding Bishopric still identified certain parts of sacrament preparation as a role for young women. Part of their role went away when the shift from glass and metal cups to paper occurred (go figure). And while Aaronic Priesthood holders were formally assigned the role of fast offering collections in the 1950s, during WWII, young women participated in that role (as well as in passing the sacrament). So there has always been some flexibility in some of these areas.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Anyone heard a rumor about one hour church? Not saying I’m for it, but it seems to be making the rounds. 

I'm definitely not for it. Sounds completely nuts. 

[MustardSeed]

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Anyone heard a rumor about one hour church? Not saying I’m for it, but it seems to be making the rounds. 

Somebody actually posted about a pilot program on that about a year ago I think? Yes there are pilot programs I think in Arizona, New Mexico and somewhere else. I can’t imagine why. Maybe to cram more wards into buildings?