u/thoughtfuldoubt

Believe it or not, the clause featured in this clip, taken from Alexander B. Morrison's October 1987 General Conference address titled “The Dawning of a New Day in Africa,” was the ONLY instance of it being uttered in General Conference since 1971, which is the earliest year of Conference addresses people could access directly through the Gospel Library today.

As shown in the Scripture Citation Index, out of the 60 times 2 Nephi 26:33 was quoted or cited in General Conference across the past 55 years since 1971, three-fifths of them (36 times) occurred since October 2016, which means the verse sees its Conference use ramped up by roughly sevenfold within the past decade, with 29 of those instances (almost half of the total count since 1971) occurring in the 2020s.

And yet, the clause “he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men” from 2 Nephi 26:33 has only ever been uttered once in passing in General Conference, and has never been expounded upon there (or in any Church publications for that matter). Even in David B. Haight's talk titled "Ethics and Honesty" where he quoted 2 Nephi 26:32–33 in that very same Conference in October 1987, he ironically took this clause out from his quotation using ellipses. And while Morrison himself would go on to quote 2 Nephi 26:33 in two of his three subsequent Conference addresses, he never quoted this particular clause again.

If all this does not sound meaningful enough to you, consider how often the following verses are used by the Church in its discourses: Amos 3:7, 1 Nephi 3:7, and 2 Nephi 26:24 (yes, from the very same chapter as 2 Nephi 26:33). While 2 Nephi 26:24 might be less familiar to most, it falls into the same category of “the Lord does or does not [do something] except…” formulation as Amos 3:7 and 1 Nephi 3:7, and still sees much more use by the Church than the clause found in 2 Nephi 26:33. Needless to say, Amos 3:7 and 1 Nephi 3:7 are undeniably crucial to the Church's rhetoric, as many have been compelled to have them memorized in their youth, which makes the lack of use with the clause in question from 2 Nephi 26:33 even more stark.

Should anyone still think that this clause is being taken out of context or having its relevance blown way out of proportion, consider what come before this verse. Read from verse 20 of 2 Nephi 26 till verse 33. Take notes on how the Church frames those verses (for instance, see here, here and here) without ever connecting them to this clause in verse 33. See how, while this clause is buried in the Index to the Triple Combination (see here and here), it is not referenced even once in the Topical Guide or Guide to the Scriptures, both of which are used for cross-references in the footnotes for the Standard Works, while the Index is not.

The Church has gotten away with prooftexting 2 Nephi 26:33 for its PR purposes for far too long. It's time to make it face its own music by recovering the relevance of this seemingly innocent clause.

Related post: “A Come, Follow Me excerpt from a timeline where the Church somehow really did ‘nothing save it be plain unto the children of men’”

Source: Scripture Helps: Old Testament (2026), “Job 1–3; 12–14; 19; 21–24; 38–40; 42”

As an aside, in principle (or lack thereof,) unlike canonization, the Church alone gets the say on what gets decanonized without having to abide by the “law of common consent.” (see here.) Given that the Church has also basically admitted that common consent largely functions as nothing short of a rubber stamp today, the Church claiming that it sticks to “what the scriptures teach” is just a religious analog to a bureaucrat or a lawmaker claiming that they stick to “what the law says.”

Source: Scripture Helps: Old Testament, “Genesis 12–17; Abraham 1–2,” footnote 9.

Sometime between 2022 and 2023, the Church published a Church Communication Guide that was said to “have been developed under inspired direction, following extensive global research,” for “leader[s], employee[s], called volunteer[s] [and] vendor[s] for the Church” to “reflect the unified voice and purpose” of the Church “with a recognizable and welcoming tone.” The Guide replaced the Global Visual Style Guide that was last adjusted in 2020 before being deprecated. (The Church has since published a second edition of the Guide.) Along with the PDF version, a web version of the Guide is also publicly accessible, and a Quick Start Leader Guide derived from the Guide has also been released specifically for local leaders of the Church.

While one might find the Guide boring to read without any pointer, with a closer look, one will find that the Guide actually has a trove of juicy and fascinating details. Especially when compared with what is already out there in the Church's various official communication channels for the past few years (or even decades,) one can clearly see a certain pattern of controlled speech and tone that is also prevalent in many secular institutions, but with a religious twist.

Section 3.1 of the Guide (titled “Creating a Recognizable Voice”) easily qualifies as an example of such efforts. In section 3.1.1, the reader is confronted with various “Communication Attributes” with sample texts that exemplify each attribute in a way that the Church approves. Then, section 3.1.2 briefly describes five additional “Characteristics of the Church's Voice.”

To most readers, aside from section 3.1.1, section 3.1.3 (the PDF version of which is shown in the screenshots above) is probably the most easily recognizable as what the Church has clearly stuck to in its public communications in recent years, which speaks to the effectiveness of the Guide's implementation. Terms like “investigator,” “convert” and “nonmember” are nowhere to be found in the Church's official communications now thanks to them being advised against in this section.

This tracks with how the Church has been trying (since the beginning of the Correlation movement) to eliminate the religious language barrier that had long been held up by insider jargon. However, since the Guide has seldom been referenced (if ever) in official materials presented to the general membership of the Church, most members either remain unaware of the changes in controlled speech and tone that are regulated by the Guide, or, if they notice such changes on their own, are left with a feeling of being kept from some internal and confidential policy change.

Source (left): David B. Haight, “Ethics and Honesty,” October 1987 General Conference

Source (right): “Commentary and Background Information,” “Unit 2: Day 3, 1 Nephi 3–4,” Book of Mormon Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students; see also here

See also: Jeffrey R. Holland, “How can I explain Nephi’s killing Laban to my nonmember friends?”, Ensign, September 1976

Related post: “Hmm… Something doesn't quite add up here” (see this thread)

Many of us here are well aware of the “Thus Shall My Church Be Called” saga that spanned three and a half decades from April 1990 to Septmber 2025. However, while the initial April 1990 and subsequent October 2018 General Conference talks on the subject are well-known, there seems to be little attention paid to this snippet that I just ran into while researching on something unrelated (on which I will make another post later.)

In the April 1995 General Conference where Gordon B. Hinckley was sustained as the 15th Church President, Russell M. Nelson delivered his seminal talk titled “Children of the Covenant” during the Saturday aftermoon session. While the talk itself is centered on the Abrahamic covenant and the new and everlasting covenant, and was famous for footnote 38 which claims that “the probabilities of a successful marriage are known to be much greater if both the husband and wife are united in their religion, language, culture, and ethnic background,” seemingly no one has pointed out how the commentary that was put in footnote 37 was a direct callback to his April 1990 talk, which has little to nothing to do with the paragraph the footnote was attached to. The intentionality is clearly shown in the way he led his commentary with the phrase “Speaking of correct names,” when the paragraph only spoke of “delet[ing] from our personal vocabularies names that segregate and hyphens that separate” with regard to names.

Interestingly enough, earlier during the talk, Nelson briefly related to how “demeaning nicknames are [often] added to—or even substituted for—given names. Unfortunately, terms of derision obscure the true identity of children of the covenant.” But he chose not to insert any footnote there, nor did he choose to bring up the subject directly in his talk. He even had the thought to quote Hinckley for saying how “this great unity [as declared in D&C 38:27] is the hallmark of the true church of Christ,” right before moving on to talking about “demeaning nicknames.”

Dear All:

In response to the April 2026 announcement by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints titled “Young Women Age-Group Names” I am elated to propose the following group names for Mormons who have faith-transitioned, beginning the moment they turn against the aforementioned institution:

• Kickers of Pricks—a Kicker of Pricks helps put the Church in its place through their courage, wits, and inquisitiveness, which inspire and enlighten others, even when it is hard (see Acts 9:5; 26:14; D&C 121:38).

• Piercers of Souls—a Piercer of Souls carries daggers to the soul, telling wickedness and abominations as they are, speaking with boldness and plainness, and cutting through the pretense of peace and love, even if doing so might burden and grieve their own soul as well as others’ (see Jacob 2:2–11, 35).

• Preventers of Sins—a Preventer of Sins promotes true, fervent charity toward their fellow human beings by stepping in responsibly when others face imminent danger or harm, by being anxiously engaged in scrutinizing existing safeguards, and by keeping the Church accountable for negligence that exposes vulnerable people to physical, emotional, or spiritual harm (see JST 1 Peter 4:8).

The group names proposed above are not presented in any particular order, and the groups may overlap freely. No matter how one feels about these group names, no one needs to feel compelled to be referred to by them. Everyone is also at liberty to come up with further group names as they deem appropriate. When possible, keep the names scripture-based, but feel free to put your own spin on what they mean if you personally disagree with the “authorized” interpretation.

Sincerely,

Thoughtful Doubt

Since the last Come, Follow Me curricular rotation that started in 2022, the Church has included in the Come, Follow Me: Old Testament manual a "Thoughts to Keep in Mind" article titled "The Historical Books in the Old Testament" between Deuteronomy and Joshua, in which the Church talks about how the books of Joshua through Esther are traditionally known as the "historical books" of the Old Testament because their writers' main objective was "to show God's hand in the history of the people of Israel," and that the purpose of the historical books was to "tell stories."

The article then goes on to say, "Naturally, these stories are told from a certain point of view. … it's inevitable that a historical account will reflect the perspective of the person or group of people writing it. This perspective includes the writers' national or ethical ties and their cultural norms and beliefs. … the writers and compilers of the historical books focused on certain details while leaving out others."

At the end of this line comes footnote 1, as shown in the screenshot. Notably, while this article focuses on the historical books of the Old Testament, this footnote subtly shifts to talking about the "historical narratives of the Bible," which means it is referring to both the Old and New Testaments' historical narratives, including those that could be found in the Pentateuch.

The admission then continues in the article as followed: "[The writers and compilers of the historical books] made assumptions that others would not have made. And they came to conclusions based on these details and assumptions. We can even see different perspectives across the books of the Bible (and sometimes within the same book)." Again, the article makes this observation across the books of the Bible rather than just the Old Testament historical books alone.

An example is provided in footnote 2, where it says that "although 1–2 Chronicles covers roughtly the same period as 1 Samuel 31 through the end of 2 Kings, the account in 1–2 Chronicles emphasizes different details and presents a different perspective, focusing almost solely on the Southern Kingdom of Judah and often omitting negative stories about David and Solomon." It then explains that "the record that became 1–2 Chronicles, … was compiled after the Jews returned to Jerusalem from their exile."

As an explanation, the article then echos its own opening by pointing out that "one perspective common to all the Old Testament historical books is the perspective of the children of Isreal, God's covenant people. Their faith in the Lord helped them see His hand in their lives and in the affairs of their nation."

It follows this with another admission that "secular history books don't tend to see things this way," but it stops short of discussing how said books actually tend to see things in comparison to the "spiritual perspective" of the Old Testament historical books.

Note: Other than a 2023 BYU RSC article titled "How Do I Teach the Fall? Distinction and Harmonization" quoting this footnote in its Notes section, I have yet to see this footnote being brought up anywhere else online.