r/mormon

D. Todd Christofferson condemned gambling last weekend at general conference, denouncing it as immoral.

Fair enough.

Meanwhile, the current U.S. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, is gladly wanting to celebrate violence by publicly executing someone in a few weeks.

The Pope has spoken out against it. Politicians have as well, even from the Republican side of the aisle.

And the Church? Instead of condemning the obvious immorality of violence (publicly showing an execution by firing squad), remains deafeningly silent. No statement or news release. Just crickets.

I think Church leaders act cowardly when addressing morals, especially when it comes to any overlap between morality and politics (in the United States at least).

TLDR - The LDS church’s current position is that plural marriage is not required for exaltation, but numerous 19th century prophets—including Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and Heber C. Kimball—explicitly taught that polygamy was a divine commandment necessary for the highest level of exaltation and that rejecting it could lead to damnation. This raises a fundamental question about prophetic authority: If prophets can teach supposedly eternal truths that later prophets reject, how can members trust that today’s teachings will remain true tomorrow?

The Gospel Topics Essays state the following about plural marriage being a requirement for exaltation:

>Does the Church teach that plural marriage is required for exaltation?

>No. No scripture or revelation teaches that plural marriage is a requirement for exaltation nor has this been an established doctrine of the Church. In the 19th century, some Church leaders taught this idea. Since that time, however, the consistent, unanimous teaching of Church leaders is that only monogamous temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. They have also emphasized that such a marriage will eventually be available to all who worthily seek it.

This is a wishy-washy response to the question because it: (1) offers a firm denial that no scripture, revelation, or doctrine supports polygamy for exaltation; while (2) simultaneously admitting that "some church leaders taught this idea." As I have come to expect, the essay does not offer or cite any of the teachings it refutes, so I had to do my due diligence to find some of the teachings myself.

>Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 25, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878 (emphasis added)

>The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866 (emphasis added).

>My son John. You have asked me concerning the New & eve<r>lasting covenant how far it is binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord all commandments that I give must <be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name> unless they are revoked by my or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; for I the Lord am everlasting my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand for ever. & have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been neglient in the observance of my law & the keeping of my commandment and yet have I borne with them these many years & this because of their weakness because of the perlious times & furthermore, it is more pleasing to <me> that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless I the Lord do not change & my word & my covenants & my law do not. & as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph all those who would enter into my glory must & shall obey my law & have I not commandment men that if they were Abraham's seed & would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting & those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so amen.

1886 Revelation by John Taylor (this was quietly and recently added to the church website without official acknowledgement) (emphasis added). Transcript here.

>Patriachal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles, which must so far exceed those of monogamy as the conditions responsibilities and power of increase are greater. This is my view and testimony in relation to this matter. I believe it is a doctrine that should be taught and understood...

>Man may receive great reward, exaltation and glory by entering into the bond of the new and everlasting covenant, if he continue faithful according to his knowledge, but he cannot receive the fullness of the blessings unless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the gift of the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands by the proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism, though he may repent in sack-cloth and ashes...

>It is a glorious privilege to be permitted to go into a Temple of God to be united as man and wife in the bonds of holy wedlock for time and all eternity by the Authority of the Holy Priesthood, which is the power of God, for they who are thus joined together “no man can put asunder,” for God hath joined them. It is an additional privilege for that same man and wife to re-enter the Temple of God to receive another wife in like manner if they are worthy. But if he remain faithful with only the one wife, observing the conditions of so much of the law as pertains to the eternity of the marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the benefits, blessings and power appertaining to the second or more faithful and fuller observance of the law, he never will receive, for he cannot.

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 30, July 7, 1878, Joseph F. Smith (emphasis added)

>Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord's servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny “Mormonism,” and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by his people.

Journal of Discourses, October 12, 1856, Heber C. Kimball (emphasis added).

Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God. If any man had asked me what was my choice when Joseph revealed that doctrine, provided that it would not diminish my glory, I would have said, "Let me have but one wife;" not because it is not a great comfort to me to have children, but if I have not children I know them not...

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

But the Saints who live their religion will be exalted, for they never will deny any revelation which the Lord has given or may give, though, when there is a doctrine coming to them which they cannot comprehend fully, they may be found saying, "The Lord sendeth this unto me, and I pray that He will save and preserve me from denying anything which proceedeth from Him, and give me patience to wait until I can understand it for myself."

Journal of Discourses, July 14, 1855, Brigham Young (emphasis added)

>I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman will be damned, and they and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and glory there shall be no end.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.211, Heber C. Kimball, April 4, 1866 (emphasis added).

>Now, in relation to the position that we occupy concerning plurality, or, as it is termed, polygamy it differs from that of others. I have noticed the usage of several nations regarding marriage; but, as I have said, we are not indebted to any of them for our religion, nor for our ideas of marriage, they came from God. Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good men--it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with eternity. What are the covenants we enter into, and why is it that Joseph Smith said that unless this principle was entered into this kingdom could not proceed? We ought to know the whys and the wherefores in relation to these matters, and understand something about the principle enunciated. These are simply words; we wish to know their signification.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221, John Taylor, April. 7, 1866 (emphasis added)

Ultimately, the problem is not simply that the Church’s teachings on plural marriage have changed, but that earlier prophets presented those teachings as commandments from God, with eternal consequences for those who rejected them. Brigham Young declared that those who denied plural marriage would be damned, while John Taylor taught that the Church could not progress without it. These were not presented as tentative opinions, but as divine truths binding upon the faithful.

This raises a fundamental question: How can members distinguish genuine revelation from sincere but mistaken teachings? If we should trust the living prophet, what assurance do we have that future prophets will not repudiate today’s teachings? And if past prophets could be wrong about something so consequential, why should we assume present prophets are not (especially when their teachings cause harm)?

20ish years ago there was a vibrant community of “nuanced”/middle-way Mormons. The NOM/StayLDS/early Mormon Stories folks. These are those who didn’t believe in an orthodox manner (if at all), but who are committed to the church.

Today, we see much of this in influencers and other organizations like Faith Matters. However, these new nuanced members don’t scratch the same itch as some of the old voices. Perhaps it’s because the old generation had to dig in deep to get information and today it is more readily available. I love Faith Matters, but it often feels like they are holding back.

Do those voices/spaces still exist? Who are they and where are they? If this describes you, what’s your story?

The more I read the New Testament, with Christ stating multiple times that all nations should be taught his Gospel, the less I have faith in our church, the LDS church.

The doctrine of withholding full salvation to Black members until 1978 contradicts all the baptisms, such as the conversion of the Ethiopian that occurred in Acts, as well as flying in the face of the wide spread church community that was being developed in the Eastern Mediterranean among many diverse cultures, including non jews and Jews,bond , free no matter the creed or culture...

There is nothing in the New Testament in the words of Christ or the way his apostles set up the early churches that indicate race or national origin was a factor of whether someone got full access to whatever the apostles were teaching and testifying to. In fact, when reading the Pauline epistles, it's obvious the gospel of Christ and his message was for everyone--period, full stop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Commission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian\_eunuch

We have no idea how much the speakers will use AI to help write their talks, if at all. But I'm afraid that even if they don't use any, people will accuse them of giving AI talks anyways. I've seen lots of complaints recently that General Conference has been a generic message for years now, and I think that a lot of things that we attribute to "AI speak" have actually been used in general conference for a long time. For example

"It is not about being fashionable. It is about being faithful. It is not about being cool. It is about being chaste and keeping covenants. It is not about being popular, but about being pure."

The "It's not A it's B" is one of the #1 things I look for in AI generated text, but this is from a 2007 talk called "Stay on the Path" by Elaine S. Dalton. There's also a lot of words like "myriad" that I never see in any conversation unless it is AI saying it, but it's used pretty often in General Conference, for example

"Have Faith in Jesus Christ As you study Christ's life and teachings in a myriad of ways, your faith in Him will increase." (Jean B. Bingham, 2017)

These are just toy examples and super small. But I think that if Dalton's talk came out this weekend people would accuse it of being AI and cite "it uses AI language and feels super generic." AI detectors aren't very good at detecting AI speech in general, and I really feel like on Monday or Tuesday next week someone is going to pick out a talk, claim it as AI, and a witch hunt will begin while people look for evidence of something not true that confirms their bias.

If someone made a talk with AI and gave it at general conference, is there any way we would be able to tell?

As the Mormon counterpart to the Nicene/Chalcedonian “fully God, fully human,” since the Church doesn’t seem to like defining those kinds of details.

My dad would tell me Jesus is “half-God, half-human”. He also speculates that no 100% human could survive “bleeding from every pore”.

“God” can mean different things in context, like as a believer I would emphasize that “Jesus is God” in the sense that we are saved through him and that he represents the Father and holds “all power in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). But in a metaphysical or even genetic sense, “half-God, half-human” makes sense to me in a Mormon framework.

Edit: I should’ve clarified that I was referring to Jesus’ “genetic” or “biological” state between his virgin birth and resurrection. Like humans, he suffered hunger, pain, temptation, and eventually death, but unlike humans he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Now, this isn't a specific quote that I'm thinking of from someone, but a general idea that I've heard over and over again in LDS meetings. I'm not sure how I feel about it. In my experience, the gospel feels complex in the respect that it asks for everything from it's adherents. I wouldn't use the word simple to describe what I feel like the gospel is.

In your experience, is that true? Is the gospel simple?