u/Buttons840

I sense increasing pressure for the church to change--at least do something significant.

It's hard to tell if this is a projection of my personal feelings or if this is a real societal pressure.

I'll try to list some of the possible reasons I see, but I don't think this list fully captures what I am sensing:

1. There's a new prophet. If President Oaks is going to change anything, the time is near. He's not getting any younger. We see the pattern with many church presidents, the become old and don't do much in the latter years.
2. I think it is just starting to sink in that the church is done building lots and lots of temples. Oaks has only announced 3 temples. The temple rush was the thing that showed church growth and progress. I've seen so many LDS who were deeply moved by the increasing rate of temple building, but now that's done. They'll have to find a replacement.
3. Actual membership numbers in the US are shrinking.
4. Missionaries visited us recently, and told us we were part of the highest baptizing mission in the USA. We've never had a convert baptism in our ward.
5. The rise of semi-faithful channels that are critical of the church. I enjoy watching people like Benjamin Park and was surprised to see his channel is less than 2 years old.
6. The rise of polygamy denier channels. These give believers a unique path to criticize the current church. They're everywhere online. You can find a video that criticizes Joseph Smith or polygamy that doesn't have a bunch of polygamy deniers in the comments.

I think the idea that "oh, maybe Joseph was actually a good person, and maybe it's okay for me to trust my gut about polygamy, and maybe the Book of Mormon might actually be written by a decent person, and maybe the church seems uninspired because it has entered somewhat of an apostasy"--to me at least, this view is very appealing and seems to address all my biggest criticisms while also allowing me space to maintain my most important beliefs--that's how the believing part of my mind feels anyway.

This angle of "believer but critical" seems new to me. I'm not aware that there has even been a united movement with this view before.

7. Women specifically have started to leave the church at an accelerated rate. This wasn't something you would hear about a year or two ago.

----

That's some of my thoughts about way. I feel it's more than that though, and I can't quite put my finger on it.

My logical mind recognizes this might just be me projecting my own personal journey and feelings onto the broader society.

What do y'all think?

Just wondering.

I'd enjoy watching a flerf take the challenge of landing on 3 other planets in KSP, and also doing at least one docking in space.

They might not agree it's realistic, but they at least acknowledge the game exists (I would hope). I think they'd have a lot harder time feigning ignorance if they spent a little time in it.

> No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; > > By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— > > Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

I have heard and read this a hundred times.

I always thought it meant, in a soft feel-good kind of way, that persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned--all those are good things.

Sure, it does mean that, but recently I read the first line, again, for the 101th time, and my jaw dropped.

> No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood

Do you see it?

It's a bit unorthodox, so it's hard to see.

The virtue of the priesthood should not be used to maintain power or influence. The priesthood alone cannot maintain power and influence--it's not possible.

Maybe I'm just a bit slow to see the obvious, but if so I might be excused because we do not follow this teaching.

Members ignore it when they appeal to authority, or when they pull out their favorite quote to settle debates; their quotes don't have as much power and influence as they think.

Or, I'm sure more than once a general authority has made a quick drive-by visit to a stake, and maybe given a rebuke, and then they drive off into the sunset.... He's a general authority after all, the virtue of his priesthood and position enables him to do this. No? He too may find that he doesn't have the power and influence he imagined.

Even during a general authority visit that is 100% positive, a lot of reverence will be given to them simply because of the virtue of their priesthood and position.

Is there any teaching in our scriptures that is more ignored?

How can we better follow these teachings?

>1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

>2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

>3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

>4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

I want to squash the idea that "the new and everlasting covenant" is marriage. That makes no sense. It's polygamy.

Let's consider both possibilities:

Theory 1: The new and everlasting covenant is marriage

Joseph is already married at this time.

Why is the Lord speaking (in verse 3) as though some new and difficult thing is about to be given to Joseph.

If the Lord is going to reveal marriage, to somebody who is already married, then why is the Lord talking like it's some new and difficult thing?

It makes no sense.

Theory 2: The new and everlasting covenant is polygamy

This fits with the overall theme of the revelation.

This fits with how those closest to the revelation obeyed it, and taught about it.

This explains why the Lord calls it "new", because polygamy was not commonly practiced in the society he was giving this revelation to.

This explains why the Lord told Joseph he would need to prepare his heart and take difficult action to obey what's about to be revealed.

This theory makes sense. This theory fits the text.

https://youtu.be/Xh86S6l25NY?t=1200 (link to following quote)

A lot of this reminded me of LDS messages over the decades, but a quote around 20 minutes hit especially hard:

> Defenders of the nuclear family flipped out. They saw these fractured households as raising defective and dangerous children. After all, the Columbine shooter came from a single father situation after his mother died when he was young. Clearly, that was the problem. The nuclear family was being lauded as the only thing that could actually save society from spiraling into violence and chaos.

> I do want to stop and note that all of the articles I read around this era that had a deep concern over the loss of the nuclear family, none presented a case on how to fix said problem beyond aggressively discouraging anything else.

Sound familiar?

This is something I expect we'll continue hearing more about during President Oaks' time. We need to have more kids, we need to get married more often and sooner--

But none of them will encourage support for policies that make that easier.

I was recently reading Priesthood and Eternal Life, a sermon of Brigham Young.

It seemed fairly normal relative to some of Brigham's teachings, but there was some weird wording related to death and eternal life, and it kept recurring.

I soon realized, "oh, is Brigham saying that the spirits of the wicked cease to exist?"

I had heard that Brigham Young taught some weird things about other topics, but I had never heard of him teaching this, so I investigated it further and found he taught it several times--see below.

I checked other sermons of Brigham's and found similar teachings. Here is a sample:

(Source links appear below the quote they link to.)

>Eternal existence depends solely upon adopting and carrying out in our lives the principles couched in the term "holy Priesthood," which alone tend to life and eternal duration and exaltation.

https://journalofdiscourses.com/7/32

Newspaper source: https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/udn_files/7e/c5/7ec5cebf2b02a7a1807b0d04d865d9859c1bf3fb.pdf

>They are searching and researching with an inherent principle that never can be satisfied without true knowledge; and that true knowledge flows through the Priesthood, to enable us to know how to order our lives, to overcome every principle that tends to the death, and to embrace every principle that tends to the life, that we may preserve our identity to all eternity, which is the greatest blessing bestowed upon man, and which we now have the privilege to place ourselves in the way to secure.

https://journalofdiscourses.com/7/32

>The laws given by the Almighty to the children of men, by which we can preserve our spirits and our bodies to all eternity, are what the world call "Mormonism."

https://journalofdiscourses.com/7/32

>It is written that the greatest gift God can bestow upon man is the gift of eternal life. The greatest attainment that we can reach is to preserve our identity to an eternal duration in the midst of the heavenly hosts.

https://journalofdiscourses.com/8/2

>The moment a person decides to leave this people, he is cut off from every object that is durable for time and eternity, and I have told you the reason why. Everything that is opposed to God and His Son Jesus Christ, to the celestial kingdom and to celestial laws, those celestial laws and beings will hold warfare with, until every particle of the opposite is turned back to its native element, though it should take millions and millions of ages to accomplish it. Christ will never cease the warfare, until he destroys death and him that hath the power of it. Every possession and object of affection will be taken from those who forsake the truth, and their identity and existence will eventually cease. "That is strange doctrine." No matter, they have not an object which they can place their hands or affections upon, but what will vanish and pass away. That is the course and will be the tendency of every man and woman, when they decide to leave this kingdom.

https://journalofdiscourses.com/4/5

>He had not the power of endless life in him, and he will be decomposed, and the particles which compose his body and spirit will return to their native element. I told you some time ago what would become of such men. But I will quote the Scriptures on this point, and, you can make what you please of it. Jesus says, he will destroy death and him that hath the power of it. What can you make of this but decomposition, the returning of the organized particles to their native element, after suffering the wrath of God until the time appointed. That appears a mystery, but the principle has been in existence from all eternity, only it is something you have not known or thought of. When the elements in an organized form do not fill the end of their creation, they are thrown back again, like brother Kimball's old pottery ware, to be ground up, and made over again. All I have to say about it is what Jesus says—I will destroy Death, and him that hath the power of it, which is the devil. And if he ever makes "a full end of the wicked," what else can he do than entirely disorganize them, and reduce them to their native element? Here are some of the mysteries of the kingdom.

https://journalofdiscourses.com/1/39

I'll also include some more quotes in a comment.

Anyway...

So after studying more I realized that, yeah, Brigham Young was teaching annihilation in the sermon I read (linked at the beginning of the post).

And so I wonder:

What did Brigham Young believe about the resurrection? Did Brigham Young know about the resurrection? Because he doesn't seem to understand it. Brigham seems to think that only some will be resurrected, or possibly that everyone will be resurrected but then some will be annihilated after being resurrected.

Did Brigham Young understand the resurrection?

Or what about the vision of the 3 kingdoms of glory? Did Brigham Young understand that? What did Brigham think happens to the wicked who go to the telestial kingdom? Did he think they were resurrected with glorious telestial bodies (the telestial is a kingdom of glory after all) and then later entirely annihilated?

At first glance these might seem like some fringe ideas from Brigham, but they seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding about some fundamentals of God's plan. Does an investigator who has heard 2 or 3 lessons for the missionaries know the plan of salvation better than Brigham Young did?

Are these teaching of Brigham what they seem?

What did Brigham believe about the resurrection?

What did Brigham believe about the 3 degrees of glory, especially the wicked who go to the telestial kingdom?

A church essay says:

>As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations” seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings.

This is so frustrating and unsatisfying to me.

Let's break it down:

>As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations” seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions.

Nice spin.

The Lord commanded to preach to all nations, they weren't doing that in 1870.

The Lord commanded to preach to all nations, they weren't doing that in 1970.

Can somebody explain to me how this is an "increasing" incompatibility with the command? They were disobeying God's command at the beginning, and they were being equally wrong and disobedient at the end.

>Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings.

Notice, no footnotes, no quotes.

They know that if they link or actually quote Brigham Young about--well, about pretty much anything--it will just make the problem worse, because Brigham undoubtedly said something morally disgusting.

Let me check...

Yep, here it is:

>[Cain] killed his brother. The Lord put a mark on him; and there are some of his children in this room. When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity.

Source: https://journalofdiscourses.com/2/26

Yeah, that just make the whole situation worse. No wonder they didn't link to or quote Brigham Young.

For starters, Brigham's prophecy was wrong. Brigham prophesied that all white people would receive the priesthood before any black people. Brigham's prophecy was already false the day he gave it, because a few black people had already received the priesthood when Joseph was prophet.

Also, Brigham taught the same thing at other times as well:

>That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof.

Source: https://utlm.org/brigham-young-sermon-blacks-and-the-priesthood/

It just keeps getting worse doesn't it?

The essay is intentionally dishonest.

---

Here's another thing that's bothering me:

President Oaks said:

>I studied the reasons then being given [for the priesthood ban] and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray—as promised from the beginning of these restrictions—that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple.

What are you talking about Dallin?

The man who instituted the ban explained the reason! Brigham Young gave the reason!

Many prophets and apostles after Brigham Young also explained the reason. They were wrong. And also, there were 2 incompatible reasons being taught, so it's not even logically possible that the reasons given could all be correct.

But, forget the reasons, here's a more interesting question:

Was the church organizing the priesthood and administering saving ordinance correctly for those 130 years?

The current church answer seems to be "we don't know"--how inspiring.

"Does the church do the things God wants it to do?" "We don't know."

"Is the church God's church?" "We don't know."

Can you see why "we don't know" isn't the slam dunk you think it is?

Commit to something! Either say the priesthood ban was correct and that Jesus is a racist who denies saving ordinances based upon race. Or say that it was wrong and apologize. Do something!

What sections in the D&C have the largest theological implications?

Or, alternatively: If someone is going to read only 10 sections of D&C and wants to focus on learning doctrine, what 10 should they read?

I'd love some top 10 lists, or if you just want to mention a section or two you consider important, that is appreciated too.

When they priesthood ban was lifted they just did it on a random Tuesday (or whatever, I don't actually know if it was Tuesday), because President Kimball and others were afraid it would leak anyway, and so they announced it ASAP.

Do you think the same thing would happen with big changes today?

Like, if they ever plan on official changing how LGBT people are treated, or word of wisdom enforcement, or tithing requirements, etc, etc. Do you think they could hold off until General Conference?

Will we ever actually see interesting changes announced in a General Conference?

When we covenant to obey God and/or keep His commandments, are we covenanting to NOT sin?

If so, how can we possibly make such a covenant?

What attitude should we have as we enter into covenants knowing that we will not be able to do the thing we are covenanting to do?

What does it mean to "keep" a covenant? Is it the same as "keeping" a promise, or "keeping" a secret?

And if someone believes you can sin without breaking a commandment, can you give an example of that?--an action that would be a sin but would NOT break any commandments?

The more I learn about Brigham Young the more I wonder: did that man teach ANYTHING that wouldn't be offensive to today's church members?

LDS of today know at least some of the teachings of Joseph Smith, no doubt. I don't think this is true of Brigham Young though.

Could someone name 3 talks from Brigham Young they believe would appeal to current members?

In D&C 89:8 the Lord says:

>8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.

There's 2 propositions I have questions about:

1. Tobacco is an herb for bruises.
2. Tobacco is an herb for all sick cattle.

What is the Lord talking about here?

I hate crafting systems in games.

I was thinking about why, and I think it's because I want to get fun things and use those fun things in the game world.

Crafting makes getting things hard, and is only fun if the process of getting things is more fun than actually using those things.

Usually using the things is more fun than getting them, and so why would you expand and emphasize the less fun part of the game by making getting things more difficult?

If managing inventory, arranging items, and "crafting" is more fun than interacting with your game world, then either your inventory and crafting system is really really good--or your game sucks.

If your game world is the fun part, why would you distract from it by having a crafting system?

End rant. Hopefully it had a useful thought somewhere in it.

I hear rumors the church is going to put the sacrament table in the center of the chapel.

Does anyone know the details of this?

I've learned that the game has some funny (using the Dwarf Fortress definition of fun) surprises that you'll probably only die from once.

I don't know any details about the game though.

If I play while referring to the wiki often, what percentage of the game content / experience will I miss out on?