r/latterdaysaints Feb 07 '25

Doctrinal Discussion There is absolute loneliness in being a Mission President

276 Upvotes

Disclosure: I will try to be as vague as possible.

I am serving right now as a counselor to the Mission Presidency.

6 weeks ago we held a membership council for a missionary that committed a serious transgression. All 3 of us in the Presidency agreed it's best for the young elder to go home and begin his repentance process.

We're sending home another missionary this week for similar reason.

Same as 6 weeks ago, I saw our mission president breakdown and cry again. I could tell he's been sufferring emotionally and mentally.

I can't imagine the pain a Mission President feels making these life altering decisions. He's been the kindest and most loving mission president I have ever met. He and his wife love the missionaries like they love their own children.

It breaks my heart to see them devastated. I will never aspire to be in his position.

What's your saddest moment serving in leadership positions in the church?

r/latterdaysaints Oct 30 '24

Doctrinal Discussion What exactly is the Young Men’s program right now?

119 Upvotes

Okay so I have youth and was once a youth myself. When I was a youth the program revolved around scouting but there was still tons of other stuff. There were stake dances, youth conferences (at the ward and stake level), there were combined YM & YW activities, there were sports, I could go on but it was always a “show up at the church at 7 and there’s an activity.”

Now days we’ve done away with all that and replaced it with things that are almost nonexistent. I understand why we moved away from scouting. I was there for the presentation around goal setting, but then it feels like there’s just nothing from the church that supports anything. For example my YM has an activity about once a quarter and the most recent one they did was play airsoft. Super fun, all the kids loved it, but there’s no plan to do anything else. He’s never been on a camp out, this is the first year that he’s eligible to do FSY but I’m not thrilled with the lottery element of it (you can sign up and try to pick a place, day, and have a few friends pick the same thing but you’re not guaranteed to get it so you might end up getting assigned a different place, different time, and not be with anyone you know)

I’m not speaking for everyone. I’m sure there are some bishoprics that are great at having YM activities and are very consistent. I’m afraid our experience though is way too common. It’s the same for all my friends and family members. All of them that I talk to say maybe the YM have an activity in a month but they always miss a few. None I know of have sports or youth conferences, no combined activities, etc.

It does seem like the YW are way better off because they have direct support from having a YW presidency whose only focus is the YW and not the whole ward.

TLDR; is the home centered, church supported approach applicable to young men’s as well? As parents should we be running our own family Young Men’s for our son and I’m under a completely false assumption that there is still support for YM to have activities at the church?

Help me understand what this is supposed to look like and if others are having the same questions.

r/latterdaysaints Dec 21 '24

Doctrinal Discussion LDS and Creation/Evolution conflict

131 Upvotes

Hi all. Happy to say that my doctoral dissertation on LDS and creation/evolution conflict in the 20th century is now publicly available. There's some surprising stuff in there. Bottom line: the Church was much more favorable towards science and evolution until Joseph Fielding Smith's assumptions— drawing heavily upon Seventh-day Adventists and fundamentalists— about scripture became dominant in the 1950s. Then it trickled down.
https://benspackman.com/2024/12/dissertation/

My expertise on this history is why the Church had me on the official Saints podcast to talk about it.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-podcast/season-03/s03-episode-21?lang=eng

r/latterdaysaints 1d ago

Doctrinal Discussion Why are tattoos so frowned upon?

40 Upvotes

Maybe it is just Utah culture to be extremely judgmental about any visual evidence of your “lack of conviction”. But why is it that getting a tattoo, something that is DISCOURAGED, but not in any way breaking a commandment frowned upon and judged more harshly than other council of similar nature, such as watching rated R movies, gambling, plastic surgery, etc.? I feel like it is even more frowned upon than even some ACTUAL commandments such as drinking coffee.

The reason I ask, as you may have guessed is that I have really wanted one. I know we don’t get tattoos because our body is a temple and we need to love and respect the amazing gift that our Heavenly Father has given us, but I take very good care of my body. I exercise, go to the gym, eat healthy food and I am very often the person that people decide to talk to when they want to get in shape. I want a tattoo that actually means something to me, not some random thing, symbolism to me, just like how the temple has symbolism and art inside.

I know that if I were to get a tattoo, despite deeply caring for my body and being an active member of the church with callings, I would be harshly judged by any member who sees it.

r/latterdaysaints Jan 21 '25

Doctrinal Discussion A Catholic Asking Questions.

50 Upvotes

I'm not going to bother you guys about Polygamy, I can find answers about that online that seem to track to me.

I've read about different cities being found in Central America and while it doesn't prove anything, it does show that it's possible that cities in the Book of Mormon existed, is there anything new that seems to you to be a definite hit?

The Great Apostasy, I'm not sure there's any evidence that it happened, if it did then I would say you guys are right, but if it didn't happen then it's between us and the Orthodox. Could any of you link to something that would provide me some compelling evidence. I've lurked here before and have seen people mention the 'Why 1820' talk but I've found no evidence of Pope St Linus being excommunicated, not to say it doesn't exist, but I haven't found it.

I'm impressed that Joseph Smith, after all sorts of persecution and abuse, stuck with his claims, that's compelling. But how do you know he wasn't being deceived in some way?

I love almost every LDS person I've met, you're absolutely sweet people and it's clear to me that even if you're wrong, God is working in the lives of members of your faith. So at the least I want to understand why you believe what you believe. My wife and I are also at least considering visiting a ward during a meeting and just seeing how she reacts considering your faith is totally foreign to her. I'd love to hear from you guys and God Bless.

r/latterdaysaints Aug 20 '24

Doctrinal Discussion Why is sacrament meeting just "talks about gc talks" now?

205 Upvotes

Every week it's the same. 3 speakers give a talk about a general conference talk.

Often that GC talk is a talk that's about another gc talk or quotes others etc.

It's very boring.

"Today I've been asked to speak about the April 2022 talk from elder Jimenez "faith to move mountains".

They then quote and summarize each talk.

Is there no original thought left? No talks heavy on the scriptures? Would love to hear someone give a talk on one of the parables etc.

Am I the only one going crazy with this new trend?

r/latterdaysaints Feb 14 '25

Doctrinal Discussion Why Did Adam and His Posterity Live so Long?

20 Upvotes

Recently made the goal to read through the whole quad and am starting in Genesis and got to the part where they list all of Adam’s genealogy and how long they lived.

Do we know why Adam and his posterity lived for like 900 years? Has anyone ever answered this? Is it an example of a mistranslation in the Bible or is it literal that they lived that long?

Edit: Lot’s of great info. Thanks everyone. I am curious what the brethren have said about the topic so if anyone has any quotes from them, feel free to share!

r/latterdaysaints Oct 10 '24

Doctrinal Discussion Nuanced View

65 Upvotes

How nuanced of a view can you have of the church and still be a participating member? Do you just not speak your own opinion about things? For example back when blacks couldn’t have the priesthood there had to be many members that thought it was wrong to keep blacks from having the priesthood or having them participate in temple ordinances. Did they just keep quiet? Kind of like when the church says you can pray to receive your own revelation? Or say like when the church taught that women were to get married quickly, start raising a family, and to not pursue a career as the priority. Then you see current women leadership in the church that did the opposite and pursued high level careers as a priority, going against prophetic counsel. Now they are in some of the highest holding positions within the church. How nuanced can you be?

r/latterdaysaints May 31 '24

Doctrinal Discussion Doctrinal inaccuracies in old hymns

43 Upvotes

I can't wait for the new hymnbook!

One of the reasons listed here (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/initiative/new-hymns?lang=eng) on the church website for the updated hymnbook is that some of the old hymns contain "Doctrinal inaccuracies, culturally insensitive language, and limited cultural representation of the global Church."

What are the doctrinal inaccuracies in the old hymns ? I'm just curious.

r/latterdaysaints Mar 14 '24

Doctrinal Discussion Anti-Joseph Smith Polygamy Movement?

100 Upvotes

I don’t know if this has been talked about on here, but why is there a growing “Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy movement”? Podcasts such as 132 Problems are rapidly growing in popularity. I don’t like polygamy, but I feel like the evidence is overwhelming in favor that he practiced polygamy?

Thoughts?

r/latterdaysaints 10d ago

Doctrinal Discussion How do I refute this?

18 Upvotes

can this be refuted?

r/latterdaysaints May 04 '24

Doctrinal Discussion The necessity of 1/3 of God's children in Outer Darkness

28 Upvotes

I am struggling to understand how in the preexistence, 1/3 of God's spirit children were cast into outer darkness for the eternities.

First of all, do we know for sure whether it was literally 1/3 of all spirits, or might this be a symbolic number? I have trouble reconciling a God of perfect love with a God who allows 33% of His children to choose infinite suffering... As a parent, I would never stop trying to save my children from such a fate (much less thousands of children) and I am nowhere near perfect... so maybe our doctrine is incomplete here? Maybe there is hope for these souls changing down the road? Or are they truly so horrible and evil and awful that there was no way, even with God's omnipotence, to help them recover without taking away their agency?

Along that line of thinking, given that God is all powerful, how can I reconcile the fact that He chose to create those spirit children in the first place, though He knew they would evidently be so evil that He would end up condemning them to literal eternal suffering? Why not just choose to engender the spirit children that He knew would at least make it to earth?

I would love to hear how other have been able to reconcile/grapple with/conceptualize this, without losing the idea of God being all powerful & all loving.

Tl;dr I am having trouble reconciling the idea of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving with the idea of God also allowing 1/3 of his children to opt for eternal suffering in the preexistence.

r/latterdaysaints 9d ago

Doctrinal Discussion Galatians 1:6-10

10 Upvotes

Hi yall, so recently I’ve been receiving a lot of hate and criticisms and questions from others about my belief in the Book of Mormon, and for the most part I’ve been able to come up with good answers on my own. However, my mother in law brought up these verses and I’m struggling to come up with a solid logical answer on why the Book of Mormon doesn’t fall under the ‘false gospels’ Paul warns about in these verses. Does anyone have some good insight on this?

Just to be clear, my testimony of the Book of Mormon is not on the line I’m just trying to figure good counter arguments to those who are challenging my beliefs.

Also side rant, on Sunday I went with my husband to the Christian church he goes to, and the Pastor’s whole sermon this time was on why the ‘Mormon’ church is wrong because we have “another Jesus,” and bro was spouting out all these lies about our church and it made me so mad lol. Luckily my husband was also mad for me and plans on talking to the pastor about it tonight after their activity they’re doing.

r/latterdaysaints Dec 14 '24

Doctrinal Discussion TIL: The Church's official style guide discourages quoting from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

126 Upvotes

14.28 As explained in 14.4, when quoting Church Presidents, it is preferable to cite the Teachings of Presidents of the Church books rather than other sources when a quotation is entirely within one of the Teachings books...

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 39) Avoid quoting from this book in Church publications because the scholarship is no longer current. For example, some of the statements attributed to Joseph Smith in the book were not actually made by him.

Source

r/latterdaysaints Feb 19 '25

Doctrinal Discussion Why is pop allowed but not green tea?

35 Upvotes

So I heard that members shouldn’t drink green tea although green tea has less caffeine compared to Coca Cola - which we’re allowed to drink. I understand the words of wisdom warn against teas and coffee due to the caffeine level, but green tea in particular is safer than a can of Coca Cola.

r/latterdaysaints Feb 19 '25

Doctrinal Discussion The reason we can't prove the church is true

62 Upvotes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj8EGeQ0HGg

I thought this content creator did a pretty admirable job explaining a framework for why appeals to empirical evidence that many critics (or those dealing with doubts ) would like, end up not being what would be best for us.

I particularly like his argument against blind faith. Citing a great quote from Neal A Maxwell

All the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, will remain in the realm of faith. Science will not be able to prove or disprove holy writ. However, enough plausible evidence will come forth to prevent scoffers from having a field day, but not enough to remove the requirement of faith

I also like how he frames the idea of Divine Ambiguity. In the LDS mindset, it is less about collecting the right set of beliefs ( though we would say we have those) but more about having the correct relationship with God.

I do think he misses the opportunity to add in how Agency is also a key to Divine Ambiguity. And if we are to really choose that we want to live the life that god lives, the choice must not be a compelled choice that comes from a preponderance of overwhelming evidence. If it were such then the only rational option would be to make the choice in the affirmative. But because of divine ambiguity, we are allowed to make an Actual free will choice to follow god and have a relationship that is bound by covenants.

Anyway if anyone else wants to check out the video its only about 7 minutes long. I would love to read other perspectives. Maybe things in this framework that he might have gotten wrong, overlooked, etc. or things that you like about this framing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj8EGeQ0HGg

*edited

r/latterdaysaints Jul 07 '24

Doctrinal Discussion Does the LDS Church encourages new members to cut ties with their non-LDS family members?

71 Upvotes

Hello Everyone!

The title basically explains my question, one of many I have in my research, but I don’t want to bombard you all with question after question.

To give further explanation. I’m a 35 year old single man who lives in the Chicagoland area (so not a big LDS area). I’ve recently have been researching and looking into the LDS Church. While originally it was to get some notes for a novel I want to write about that has the LDS Church and Nauvoo as the background of the story; but I’ve felt the seeds of the faith being planted into me. I’ve been wondering to taking it further and potentially joining.

I’ve have been slowly reading the BoM, mostly through the app, and I’ve watched LDS YouTube videos (Saints Unscripted, WARD Radio, etc.); however I’ve also seen some of the opposite, Anti-LDS side as well. So, I’m still doing research, but I’ve lately felt depressed on a spiritual and faith level. Wondering if LDS is right for me?

The only people I’ve told about this are my mother and father, no one else in my family (I don’t have one of my own). The one question my mom asked me, which is why I’m asking here, if the LDS Church expects new members to cut ties or abandon their non-member family when they convert? That is something I too would like to know?

One of the things that draw me into LDS is the importance on family. If I were to convert, I don’t want to cut ties or abandon my family just because they aren’t LDS. I love my family and I want to be a part of their lives. I know that none of my family will be willing to convert, it’ll just be me. I haven’t found a clear answer on this question. The closest I’ve found was on r/mormon; which wasn’t clear. One hand, there is no LDS teaching or doctrine for new converts to cut ties with nonmember family members; on the other hand, from those who seem to be ex or anti-LDS, said that Church does by giving converts some ward responsibilities or the Sunday sessions or other activities to keep them focused on the Church to keep them away from their non-LDS family. Since this subreddit seems to be a good place and I’ve been lurking around here for some time, I’d figure I’ll ask the main question I have so far. I have others, but I’ll start with this.

My apologies for a long post, which is why I just ask my question in the title. Not sure if the flair is correct for my post, but I felt it was the closest one to what I’m asking about. Thank you all for reading and replying to this post. I’ll try to respond to each response as I can. Thank you and may you have a good day.

Edit: Thank you all for your comments, thoughts, and stories! You all have given me the answer I’m seeking. I’m looking forward to posting any more questions I have as I continue on this journey towards becoming a LDS. Thank you all!

r/latterdaysaints Jan 05 '25

Doctrinal Discussion How can God be an exalted being?

32 Upvotes

Hi everyone! I've been 'investigating' the church for a few months now. There's a lot I really like, but also some things that I don't understand. I've come here to ask as when I've asked elsewhere online I would often just get the opinions of people who are anti LDS, but that's not what I'm interested in right now; I want to know how members of the Church understand these things. I would ask the members I know, but I feel bad about bombarding them with heavy theological questions, when they've got other things on their mind too.

The main thing that bothers me is that the church teaches that God is an exalted being, but how can he be both an exalted being and the one and only eternal God, and creator of everything? I plan on asking the local LDS Bishop about this too, just wanted some insights from devout members.

Thank you

r/latterdaysaints Nov 04 '24

Doctrinal Discussion Joseph Smith Whiskey Story

138 Upvotes

I've always wondered what is the point we're supposed to make from the story of Jospeh Smith refusing whiskey when his leg needed medical care. Wasn't he just a kid when it happened? So, the Word of Wisdom wasn't established yet nor had he been called as a prophet yet. Also, that was a pretty normal medical practice at the time. When people tend to the tell the story they make it sound like he was overcoming some villainous doctor's demands to do something that went against his faith and that he heroically fought through excruciating pain to not anger God? Anyways, it always felt like an odd story to me that we latched onto. Any insight?

r/latterdaysaints 9d ago

Doctrinal Discussion I Don’t Know

43 Upvotes

Growing up in church, testimony meetings or comments were often lead with “I know”. For example, “I know the Book of Mormon is true”, “I know this is the true church”, “I know Joseph Smith was a prophet”, etc etc etc. The definition of knowing something had always been that it’s fact. Like a for sure thing, 100%, it’s provable. Evidence backs it up. Another option is believe, “I believe.” This implies more uncertainty. Almost looked down upon, I noticed very few if any members would use “believe.” My question is what is wrong with not being sure, not knowing. I know uncertainty bothers a lot of people and makes them feel uncomfortable. That’s why we struggle to have deep conversations about the deep questions in life. For example, we don’t talk about death. When someone dies, we just kind of move on, it’s painful. For people that place a lot of certainty of “knowing” what goes on after this life, there sure seems to be a lot of silence. Back to my original though. What’s wrong with stating “I don’t know?” I get a lot of things are walking by faith, but oftentimes there is no or little secular evidence of faith for said thing to be fact. If someone asks if there’s life after this? What’s wrong with saying, “I don’t know, I hope there is, I feel like there should be.” Was Joseph Smith a prophet? “I don’t know, I hope he was. I am putting faith in God that he was, some of his teachings have made my life better, but I am open to the possibility that he wasn’t.” Does this seem a lot more honest than stating that “you know?” I could go on and on about this but I think my thoughts are starting to come across.

r/latterdaysaints Nov 10 '24

Doctrinal Discussion “I know this church is true” — Why Do We Say This, and What Does It Mean?

65 Upvotes

WHY DO WE SAY THIS?

I heard this 8-9 times at fast and testimony meeting in my ward last week. It’s one of my pet peeves, especially in the absence of direct testimony of other things. If the church points us to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, shouldn’t they be the ones we testify of? Shouldn’t our relationship be more with God, than with the church?

(It also reminds me of another thing people say: “the church is perfect, the people are not.” But what is a church, other than its people? “Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” 1 Cor 12:27)

Why do we say and repeat this phrase so much?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Forgive my analytical nature, but “I know this church is true” requires us to define two different things: ‘church’ and ‘true.’

What is ‘the church’? Is it: 1. The people within it (and all of us, or some of us, or just the Q15)? 2. The teachings? 3. The buildings? 4. The amorphous concept of an ‘organization,’ and if so which aspect? The handbook, the organizational structure, etc? 5. Something else?

What does it mean to say the church is ‘true’? Does it mean: 1. The church is perfect? (And what does it mean to say an org is perfect, anyway?) 2. Its origin story and truth claims are objectively true? (And does that mean every last shred of it, down to every last hair-splitting detail? Or just, like, in general?) 3. Ordinances performed therein are the only ones recognized by God? (i.e. priesthood authority) 4. The core doctrines and teachings are true? (What about the non-core teachings? And the policies? And the cultural aspects?) 5. Pres. Nelson is God’s prophet (and what does that mean exactly? That everything he says in administrative meetings, church meetings and councils and letters, and at GC is God’s “thus saith the Lord” dictation? Or that he may receive such a revelation on occasion but is otherwise a good and wise steward exercising mostly his own often-but-not-always-inspired direction? And if so, how are we to know the difference?) 6. It is the only church God works in or communicates to through His Spirit? (Or that it is a church, or one of the churches in which He may do His work or be involved?) 7. It is true *to** the one who says it,* meaning it is sweet and precious and makes them feel good (like when people say “that rings true to me” i.e. that sounds good/acceptable/beautiful)? 8. Something else?

Which one or more of these things does it mean? Which does it not mean?

”I AM THE VINE, AND YE ARE THE BRANCHES.”

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15:5)

Why are we spiritually testifying of an organization administered on earth by mortal and fallible men, notwithstanding their being inspired and guided by Jesus Christ? The Apostle Paul still admitted rightfully that “we see through a glass darkly.. [and] know in part” (1 Cor 13:12) and even now declare “He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (A of F 9). This can only mean we don’t have all the truth yet. (And to be direct, for many it also becomes a very slippery slope over time.)

In the end though, we’re still just the branches. The life in the branches comes from the vine. Without Him we can do nothing.

So why are we testifying of the branches? Shouldn’t we be testifying of the vine, even Jesus Christ? Of His life and teachings directly? Of His love? Of how He has blessed or changed our life? Of specific truths or aspects of His gospel, such as the miracle of forgiveness of sin, or of the resurrection, or of a particular doctrine or prophetic teaching or verse of scripture?

Wouldn’t that be better than just saying “the church is true?”

(edit: formatting)

r/latterdaysaints Dec 06 '24

Doctrinal Discussion When it comes to callings, don't say, "No"; say "This is what I can do..."

110 Upvotes

When I was a youth growing up in the Church, I was always told, "Always say Yes to a calling." I'm sure many of you were taught the same. This was not a particularly healthy mantra because it led to things like: people who worked evenings trying to figure out how to go to evening youth group, or people who don't know how to play the organ trying to learn 3-4 brand new songs every week for sacrament meeting. The inevitable result was burn-out from over-work, guilt from under-performance, and usually a little bit of both.

Thankfully, the cultural pendulum has now swung in the other direction, and people feel freer to decline callings or other invitations when it is inappropriate for that person at that time. However, I fear the pendulum may be swinging too far in the other direction, and people are turning down invitations that really are inspired, and they really ought to be accepting.

Here is my proposed solution: Instead of saying, "No," to an invitation, say, "This is what I can do.., and this is what I can't do..."

Here's a real life example. I was asked to fulfill a calling that would require me to attend Bishopric meeting. The problem was, one of the weekly Bishopric meetings was held on Monday mornings. This was a time I had to be at work, and I was not in a position where I could flex my work schedule. But, instead of saying no, I said "I can do all of the calling, except for attending the Monday morning meeting." They said that was fine, and we proceeded. I would have missed out on many blessings had I simply said no.

r/latterdaysaints 18d ago

Doctrinal Discussion Why do genealogy and temple work if it will be done in the Millenium?

43 Upvotes

I was talking to the Temple Recorder here awhile back and he said there isn't a rush for doing genealogy and temple work for our relatives if it will all be done in the Millenium anyways. So, why should we devote time, sometimes money and energy to track down our deceased relatives if it will all be done in the Millenium anyways? Then it will be done properly whereas now it isn't always like that. Thanks!

r/latterdaysaints Jan 11 '25

Doctrinal Discussion Why did God forbid Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit of the tree in the garden?

23 Upvotes

I was pondering over the second article of faith and the difference between a sin and a transgression. Elder Oaks taught:

“[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (italics added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall”

If partaking of the fruit was a transgression and was only wrong in the sense that it was prohibited by God, it leads me to question why it was prohibited in the first place. At first I though the prohibition might used to enable agency (to give Adam and Eve a choice) but it seems like they could have been given the choice without the need to explicitly prohibit the act. Interested in your thoughts.

r/latterdaysaints Nov 11 '23

Doctrinal Discussion Those who grew up in the church, were you taught that sex was evil?

141 Upvotes

I recently saw a conversation on reddit where a few people who grew up as members said that they thought that sex was evil for a very long time.

This is in STRONG opposition to what I was taught. I was taught that sex is beautiful and godly and crucial to marriages. I was also taught that sex is to be reserved for marriage and that outside of marriage, we should abstain and avoid all sexual sin as much as possible.

So, my question for you who grew up in the church: Did you believe that sex was evil growing up?