Got my first pair of garments yesterday. Anyone know what’s up with the crotch pocket? It seriously catches me off guard every time, and I’m curious to know whether it’s intentional or just bad design.

Don’t be nasty. I’m just a boy with some questions.

Grew up LDS baptized and all, my family and I just stopped going to service when I was like 15. Really feel like going again, I know what ward I'm in and everything, so I can just walk in join?

I'm gonna ask out this mormon women that I've been talking to off and on when I go talk to the missionaries or when I'm hanging out with them. Is there any mormon something or rather that I should know? I'm not a mormon, and I don't wanna screw anything up.

Looking for pop songs by lds mormon singers kinda like those in gospel library app > music > youth music > youth album

Where can I find more of those kinda songs or where to find a list of lds mormon pop style singers

Thank you

I recently learned that Deseret Book has commissioned Ty Mansfield to write a follow-up book to his 2004 “In Quiet Desperation.” The original book deals with Stuart Matis, a gay member who took his life on the steps of our stake center some 25 years ago. As a gay church member myself, I’ve followed Ty’s writings over the last few years, and I have been deeply concerned with the traction his ideas (and other apologists like him) have made with Latter-Day-Saints who have gay family members. 

I’ve explored the problems and dangers of the LDS gay apologist movement in the essay linked here. I hope you’ll read it and pass it along to anyone who may believe that somehow the church is becoming a more loving place for its gay members.

LINK: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:55fb1080-e3fc-4910-a280-3d01d30b5e7b

I found this gem.

https://youtube.com/shorts/aUaejRb3yj4?si=vDfyqLrFczFKffEQ

From the sounds of it they are paying for members of Africa to support themselves and families... Seems like a good way to get people to join the church in that part of the world. Be poor or come to us and we will pay your way.... Seems interesting as most in other places struggle to get help when they need it....

Unfortunately I got divorced in 2019, my ex wife remarried rather quickly that same year. She married in the temple so to my understanding the sealing has been cancelled.

I was at a tithing settlement with my bishop and he mentioned how if I get sealed the first presidency has to sign off on it? Kind of unnerving. I’m a temple worthy member so I don’t see any major issues with it.

It was my belief the sealing was already ca canceled, therefore I don’t need more approval? Guess I was wrong on this.

I'm coming at this post from a perspective of climate change pessimism, verging on doomerism. Trump won three days ago, so I'm writing this at an emotionally low point. It is not bait, and it is not hyperbolic; it represents my true beliefs. But it is dark.

---

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. (Matt 24:21-22.)

I believe that the world will end within my lifetime.

I am fully aware that people have believed this before, and been wrong. People have been prophesying the imminent End of the World since the Five Discourses of Matthew were written. Since I am writing this, and you are reading it, we can assume that the world did not end within their lifetimes. Literally everyone before us has been wrong about this.

But if there _is_ such a thing as The End of the World... then there will be a whole generation of people who end up being right -- the world _did_ end within their lifetimes.

Naturally, it's anyone's guess what happens next. I'm not implying that the _rest_ of it is necessarily going to happen. I don't know whether I believe in a Second Coming, as such.

I'm just saying that I think the world is going to end, and soon -- that I, and my family, will watch our world crumble and burn around us, and we probably won't survive.

Our global economic system is a high-wire act. Virtually every component of global commerce is hyperfragile; when things start to fail, like during Covid, the effects are far-reaching, unpredictable, and potentially catastrophic.

As extreme weather events become more frequent, failures will become more frequent, and also more consequential. As bigger and bigger systems start to buckle under the strain, the global economic system will collapse entirely, along with political and social systems.

If we don't die from war, or from plague, or from famine, then maybe we'll live to be part of whatever meagre society can be built from the ashes. But the world as we know it is coming to a rapid end.

Or at least, that's what I believe.

Before watching the movie, I skimmed The Deseret News' review of the movie: here. I cannot even figure out what movie they are talking about at DN. From start to finish, the movie takes Mormon doctrine seriously. The missionaries are depicted with empathy. Early on, it is established that these young women have endured difficult situations and that we should care about them. They were not clowns or fools. They were earnest young people trying to do good.

The doctrine was discussed in an accurate way. I could not find a single instance where something was suggested to be church doctrine that was not actually doctrinal.

The review complained about religion being made into a stereotype in a lot of movies. Then when a movie is made that does not feed into the stereotypes, they complain that it was made. It's nuts. If someone can explain what the concern is, I'd like to know. It is true that the movie depicts extreme misogyny. It sure doesn't glorify it. No where is it suggested that violence against women is justified or right.

Finally, this is the first movie I could think of where sister missionaries are the protagonists. I really liked that. If there are others, I apologize for forgetting about them. Movies like God's Army and The Best Two Years have shown male missionaries. It was great to see something different.

It was not a perfect movie by any means, but I liked it. The church would be lucky, in my opinion, to be shown in such a sympathetic way in the future. I'd like to hear what others think.

In a recent popular post on this subreddit the question was asked:

How would you react if God came down and told you the Church was true despite the mistakes of its Prophets and leaders?

I just want to highlight the obvious doublespeak that is going on with this question. It isn't logically possible for a thing to be both true and false at the same time. In logic it's known as the "Law of Non-Contradiction". I'll provide a little logic lesson here:

The Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is one of the foundational principles of classical logic and metaphysics, asserting that contradictory statements cannot both be true simultaneously. Attributed originally to Aristotle, the law states that for any proposition P, it is impossible for both P and not P to be true at the same time and in the same respect. Formally, this is often written as: ¬(P ∧ ¬P)

The origins of the Law of Non-Contradiction can be traced to Aristotle's "Metaphysics" (Book IV), where he considers it the most fundamental principle of thought and reality. Aristotle writes, "It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." This law underpins much of Aristotelian logic and has been central in Western philosophical traditions for millennia.

In Aristotelian metaphysics, the law is not just a rule of thought but is viewed as a law of being, meaning that contradictions cannot exist in reality itself. For Aristotle, to deny the LNC would be to give up on the idea of rational discourse and intelligibility since language and meaning would lose coherence if contradictions were allowed.

Significance in Logic and Philosophy

The LNC is foundational in both classical logic and analytic philosophy:

Logic: The LNC is essential in maintaining coherence within a logical system. It helps prevent contradictions that would lead to logical paradoxes and explosions (where if one contradiction is accepted, any proposition could theoretically be derived as true).

Epistemology and Metaphysics: The law serves as a foundational principle in the theory of knowledge and the nature of reality. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant regarded the LNC as a fundamental rule that structures human thought and reality. According to Kant, while the LNC is not necessarily a fact about the world independent of human minds, it reflects how we must think about reality to make sense of it.

Modern Formal Logic: The LNC is foundational in classical logic systems, such as Boolean algebra and predicate logic, which rely on binary truth values (true/false). Here, the LNC helps to uphold logical consistency, which is vital for formal proofs and reasoning in mathematics, computer science, and beyond.

So even asking the question: "How would you react if God came down and told you the Church was true ( P ) despite the mistakes of its Prophets and leaders ( ¬P )" I would be confused, and have some questions for God. Because the Church can't both be true, and false at the same time. It can't claim to be fully true, while admitting that at the same time it's actions are false. If its actions are false, then it can't be true. If it's true, then its actions can't be false.

The most obvious way to logically resolve this dilemma is to try and decouple the truthfulness of the Church and its teachings from the actions of its leaders. If there is no logical relationship between the two things, then they can't be contradictory. However, for the LDS church, they have a really hard time with this because when they say "The Church is True" what they mean by "True" is that their leaders are the only chosen and authorized leaders to be able to speak for God, and nobody else can. Unfortunately for them, they've taken it even further and stated that their leaders are infallibly correct in the execution of their roles, as a testament to the truth claims that they make. In LDS theology, to be "TRUE" is to be representative of God, who is all good, and the truth rests exclusively with the leaders of the church and their teachings. For decades the teaching has ultimately rested on the premise that obedience to current leaders is the ONLY method of determining "truth", and so the leaders teachings and actions are the very standard of "truth" to judge everything by.

This definition of truth could be logically consistent, if it weren't for the fact that nobody else in the world (including some portions of people within the LDS Church) define truth as "whatever the current LDS leaders teach". For almost everyone else, the word "true" means something like "matches with my experience of reality". Sometimes it even implies moral rightness, or goodness. So it wouldn't be odd to say "the golden rule is true". When these competing definitions of truth collide, we run into odd questions like the one that kicked off the discussion in the first place. "How would you react if Gold came down and told you that the Church was true, despite the mistakes of its Prophets and leaders?" Because for me, the Church can't be true, if it's leaders are teaching things that are knowingly or reasonably false. If they claim to be representatives of Jesus Christ, but fail to follow in the footsteps of his most frequent and well known teachings, there is no way in my understanding to claim that is "true".

So, can the LDS Church be true if it's leaders teach things that are false? Not in any way that I understand the word truth. And I refuse to accept any other definition, just for the sake of making believers feel better.

We have this amazing "mormon culture" that is bigger than the church and bigger than the ex-mormon community.

Sure there are various pockets, different identities and some positives, some negatives, some harm and trauma and in some cases victimization and marginalization (on both sides).

Some curse the day mormon became associated in any way with their life (and for very valid reasons) while others firmly believe it's the greatest association and blessing in theirs.

What I'm trying to say is, we're all part of an active and vibrant mormon culture. We are mormonism if we are participating in it at all.

And I think that's pretty cool that we all exist.

I've noticed a significant cultural change within the Church over the last 16 years. Prior to 2008 there was a smallish (but significant and growing) percentage of the Church membership that was well educated and socially progressive. These progressives were a moderating force for the default conservative position that Benson imposed upon the Church. One example of this moderating force being somewhat effective was the gradual elimination of a "year supply" of food and other doomsday prep tendencies (also a Benson legacy). Many of these progressive Mormons lived outside of Utah and because of their level of education, were seeing success in their careers. This success led to higher callings within the Church.

The turning point in all of this was Prop 8 in California. The Church came out hard in favor of Prop 8, surprising a bunch of these "ProgMo's".  I was living in San Diego at the time and Mormons were generally viewed favorably with a reputation of being honest, family oriented, well-to-do financially, and fantastic neighbors. All of this good will evaporated in the first few weeks of the Prop 8 campaign. Even those in favor of the measure like the Catholics and Evangelicals, distanced themselves from the Mormons. As a result of the Prop 8 support, the Church saw many high profile exits (at least in California) notably an entire Stake Presidency in Malibu asked to be released. Bishoprics all over the State were hastily patched up with new callings being issued and more than a few entirely replaced. Much of the ProgMo population simply stopped coming to Church. As an active member in the area, I immediately felt the loss of that population.

The Church also suffered the consequences of that moderating force. Famously, the Brethren doubled down on their position in November of 2015. It was no longer enough to be against same-sex marriage, it was now officially designated as apostasy. Babies belonging to these apostates couldn't be blessed and children with a gay parent couldn't be baptized. Now the movement out of the Church really picked up steam. Many of those people who simply stopped coming to Church had their names officially removed. Other moderates who had survived the Prop 8 fiasco stopped attending. Less than 4 years later the Nov ‘15 declaration was rolled back but my observation is that the members did not.

My question now is, are there any progressive members left? Do they have any influence? What does the future of the Church look like without that presence?

I had a great conversation with my neighbor today and he mentioned that he appreciated I was the first "Mormon" neighbor he had who didn't try to convert him or invite him or his family to events...he said he didn't feel like a project in the neighborhood.

Me and my neighbor share alot of common thoughts and histories....we are both veterans, we both work/worked in manufacturing, we both have a lot of POC heritage but are mostly "wasp" looking ...we both participate a lot with our kids highschool stuff (he used to).....we were just talking about the election and where the nation is and he mentioned that he appreciates that I am not afraid to speak about my love of Christianity, especially in California. This led to a discussion about Mormonism and he said he wasn't sure my relation to it, because he has seen Utah plate cars in my driveway before but in all of our conversations and interactions, which are good, I never invited him over or spoke about church things. My neighborhood, has quite a few members and he has lived here a long time.

Anyways....I told him I don't really practice anymore but still support my kids, especially my kids who are becoming adults as they go to college and get married...., but there is a lot of church history and policy that I think doesn't actually match the LDS leader's hetoric and they don't seem to be able to handle the changing times. He said he was astounded to hear someone like me say this and he never heard a Mormon admit fault with the church. I said it was obvious....he said he had LDS friends before at work, and back in the 1980s and 1990s at their plant (drywall??) they used to do a lot of Christian stuff, especially over Christmas. He said it was nice but he was always annoyed because as one of more active christians on the floor, who tried to be good to everyone,, he was always being asked by Mormons about reading the book of Mormon.

He told me he even started studying the faith and church privalety, when the internet got bigger and he could find info on a wide range of issues. He said he tried to ask his friends about some LDS stuff, mostly out of curiosity and they never had good answers or they had never heard about some of the items. He said no one would admit Joseph Smith was an active polygamist, only that he received relevation for it. He said there was a ton of stuff on byu and sunstone websites about the adam-god theory and he was surprised that he found references to it being taught, even in the mid-century, way after Brigham young and yet no one in his peer group seemed to know about it. He said it was a regular part of the religious doctrine before but wasnt now.... He said no one knew how to respond. He didn't want to be rude so he didn't ever pursue it....but he said that's when he realized that the faithful LDS members, either don't know half of what their own history is or they willfully hide it and he felt as a Christian this a very shady and "scammer" thing (to use his words ..) to do. We both agreed this is probably why alot of members want to invite people to events or to read the book of Mormon but are afraid to actually engage in a straightforward way the reality of church history or doctrine.

I told him most members know there's so much BS in the doctrine and history, they just don't know how to handle it so they get told all the time by missionaries and leaders to not be afraid to open their mouths and share but they dont cuz they know it will invite scrutiny...and the LDS leadership has not prepared them to actually engage in an intellectual or honest way about the church's more rough parts.

(TLDR)...and it occured to me how sad and telling it is that we are bamboozled on a regular basis by our leaders and how we all know, we hold back on sharing real quality aspects of the church because the actual history and doctrine and current method for dealing with it is embarrassing and it's hard to for the world to respect a group of people who are so easily manipulated and in reality quite ashamed.

So I've been on quite a Rollercoaster the last few years. I do have a background in catholicism although it's been a long time since I've considered myself a catholic. Just making that known as it plays a bit into the way it is now.

A few years back i felt a pull back to religion. My husband was born and raised in the church. Served a mission, etc. At the time he was inactive but he always lived the WoW principles but everything else wasn't there. My kids decided to be baptized (they were past 8). I decided it would be easiest for the family if i followed suit. I never really had a testimony of the book of Mormon. I just kinda went bc I wanted my kids to be assured that we were an eternal family, and not "split."

We got sealed in the temple and I hoped the temple would be something absolutely wonderful. I received my endowments and had a panic attack as soon as I got home. I went from wearing garments on Sundays and temple to not wearing them at all anymore. I still haven't been back.

As the holidays approach, I find myself feeling sad about attending lds services.. the advent and Christmas season in my old church was 1 of the things I loved most. Lighting candles, midnight mass, Christmas hymns, etc. I saw a video earlier today that the Notre Dame Cathedral bells rang out goes the 1st time since the fire 5 years ago. The sound of the bells stirred something in me that I thought was gone.

I had already told myself that in my older years, I would probably not go to a Mormon church anymore. I literally told my husband that I wouldn't go by myself if he preceeded me in dying. There's no meaningful place for widows and they're almost always called to the nursery but the church is made for men and intact families/couples.

Now I'm unsure if I even want to wait that long. Our ward has an abysmal YM program/leaders are nowhere to be found. My oldest has expressed a desire to visit another church. I told myself "maybe when my kids are grown" I can decide what I want to do on Sunday. I do feel like if I pine around my old stomping grounds and my kids are interested in going with me, I'll be blamed if they don't stay in, even though the program there is a shell of what it used to be.

I'm not even sure what I'm wanting, advice, maybe understanding, or someone who will sympathize. Just knowing the upcoming holiday season i will feel the hollow feeling of talks about tithing, obedience, and no wonder or hope surrounding Christmas.

This is solely an observation that I have seen an I am curious if others may have noticed the same. Note my particular blindspots being that I am only one person and I grew up in a Wiccan household, so I may be more drawn to notice these things.

A common statement I think we all hear is that when people leave the Church, they become atheist. Although my experience is only looking at those members I've interacted with, I've noticed that many leave the Church and then follow a type of spirituality that aligns well with Wiccan theology or is just Wicca. It makes me wonder if perhaps my observation is a more broad occurrence, people who follow this type of spiritual path are just described as atheist or perhaps self describe as such because it's easier (and safer) to say that then it would be to say what they may currently practice.

The reason I believe this is may be due to the similarities shared between the Church and Wicca (strangely enough). The idea of a Heavenly Mother and Father, rituals in the hopes of a particular outcome, and a veneration of ancestors.

Anyways, I hope this was written well enough to be worthy of your read. I'm interested to know if others have observed the same and to see your thoughts on it if you have. If you have experience with this, I would also love to hear what attracted you to your new spiritual path.

This is more of a rant that I need to get off my chest than anything else (PIMO, more O than I)

I am going through all my mission things right now and threw nearly everything away. I was a prolific writer and had about five binders that I had written as I studied (there are journals as well, about a dozen). I kept the journals and study notes.

But the letters? Trash. Mission t shirts? Gone. Old church articles? I destroyed them.

It was bitter, and not sweet. Some of my graduation (high school and college) cards ended up in that box. I have one from my mother (whom I do not have a good relationship with) calling me a man of God and that he had a lot of work in store for me. My wife said that the college graduation card sounded like a mission farewell card. It made me realize something: she had said that since I was a child. She also told me that she never pressured me to go - at least not explicitly.

I now realize that she did. And I went.

On a contrasting note, my grandmother (who has passed )also had a letter for college graduation ... and it was nothing but how she admired who I was for me, and not for what the church had in store for me (she was a non member). The difference in mentality is shocking. She was genuinely proud I had graduated and was very interested in me.

My mission fortified my testimony of Christ. That, I am grateful for. I have a brother who is about to go on his mission and I am probably driving him crazy that he needs to go for the right reasons and not because I or our brothers have gone.

I have never heard of a single, good, valid or rational reason for this given the facts that all of these people were family, believers, friends, invested, etc. in Joseph's claim.

It is undeniable and part of the official narrative that Joseph kept the plates hidden from everyone during translation.

From a blanket hiding them from Oliver during translation to them being covered with a cloth to being locked in a box or hidden somewhere else.

There could be a case made to keep them hidden from strangers and antagonists, but there is literally no good or valid or mental gymnastic/apologetic as to why the plates needed to be hidden from Emma or Joseph's family or Oliver or Martin or Peter/David.

In fact, the dumbest and stupidest event in the history of the production of the Book of Mormon would have NEVER HAPPENED if Martin had seen the plates to begin with. There would have been no 116 page loss.

Being that these plates were claimed to be made by human hands originally by Mormon and handled by Moroni, etc. they weren't written by God or created by God or imbued with magical/mystical power.

It remains, to this day, one of the most damning exercises in the production of the Book of Mormon and an indictment against those who were duped by the excuses then in 1828-1830 and those who nod their head and believe that yes, the plates needed to be hidden from his wife, his mother and father and brother and those people who literally BELIEVED in him and were "all in".

Prof. Anthon exposed the stupidity of the excuse, unintentionally, when he said the following:

I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the "curse of God" upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of rogues. He then left me.

Why would God curse Emma, Joseph Sr. Lucy, Hyrum, Oliver, Martin, Peter/David, etc. if they saw the plates while translation was happening?

Did they see the spectacles/interpreters/Seer Stone (later called the Urim and Thummim) and didn't die?

Did they see the sword of Laban, the Liahona or the breastplate and not die?

Who in their right mind would accept an excuse from anyone that an admitted manmade and man authored book would KILL people if they saw it and so must be hidden from ALL EYES except in one single occasion where for a moment only 11 family members and close friends saw them after which they disappeared from their view and from the earth forever because God took them back to heaven.

For hell's sake, Mormon and Moroni could have killed all the Lamanites by just marching on them with the Gold Plates in hand if they would curse a viewer to death.

Why would God engage in actions of a fraudster in producing the Book of Mormon?

That action with no valid explanation other than that of the common magician, conman and fraudster remains to this day an indicting fact of those who could be duped then and embarrassingly were.

Faith

The Oxford English Dictionary defines faith as:

2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning, also known as petitio principii or begging the question, is defined as:

A logical fallacy where a conclusion is supported by a premise that assumes the truth of the conclusion.

Differences

1. Purpose: Faith is often used to describe spiritual or emotional conviction, while circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.
2. Nature: Faith involves trust or belief, whereas circular reasoning involves flawed logic.
3. Context: Faith is typically associated with religion, spirituality or personal beliefs, whereas circular reasoning occurs in arguments or debates.

Similarities

1. Lack of empirical evidence: Faith often relies on spiritual conviction rather than proof, and circular reasoning lacks logical evidence.
2. Self-referential nature: Faith can involve self-referential beliefs (e.g., "I believe because I believe"), and circular reasoning involves self-referential logic.
3. Potential for bias: Both faith and circular reasoning can be influenced by personal biases and assumptions.

To illustrate the difference:

Faith: "I believe in God because of my spiritual experiences." (Personal conviction)

Circular Reasoning: "God exists because the Bible says so, and we know the Bible is true because it's the word of God." (Flawed logic)

To illustrate similarities:

"God exists because I feel His presence in my heart, and I know this feeling is real because God exists."

This statement assumes the truth of the conclusion (God exists) to support the premise (feeling God's presence).

Circular Reasoning

"We know the Bible is true because it's the word of God, and we know it's the word of God because the Bible says so."

This argument assumes the Bible's authority to prove its own authority.

Common Thread

Both examples involve:

1. Self-referential logic
2. Assuming the truth of the conclusion
3. Lack of external evidence

The day may come where I choose to stop participating in the church community.

We are going to move soon and that may be the catalyst if our new ward is too unwelcoming to diversity of thought and participation. But for now my wife and I continue to choose to participate in our own way and for our own reasons.

But I have been doing this journey for 14 years. Here are a few of the things that have helped me enjoy most of the journey while not being a literal believer in all things mormon.

Secret #1 - I actually was one of those people (pre PIMO) who had a good church experience.

I believed it to be true. I found value in it. I liked the community. I liked the surface version of mormon doctrines. So having a foundational start that was good has helped. My oldest son never liked the mormon culture of superficial perfection and injuring those on the margins. Even though he was a believer. So when he found out it wasn't true in the way it teaches that it is true, he was out in a flash.

Secret #2 - You can pretty much believe whatever you want and be a faithful mormon.

So as a PIMO, I fit right in believing what make sense to me and discarding the ridiculous. You want to believe prophets are fallible men who teach false doctrines? You fit right in with many of the TBMs on this board who will mock you for believing the sunday school lessons that "A prophet will never lead the church astray and our only path to safety is to strictly follow his teachings.". The key is to just live and let live. If you want to push your new beliefs on others, it can back fire. But other than that, mormons don't believe the same things as other mormons, so why should I be any different?

Secret #3 - Find a way to make it work with your immediate family (i.e., spouse).

For those that can't do that, being PIMO is hell. I was fortunate that even when my wife was TBM we chose each other first. She chose me over the church. I chose her over the church. Which meant, I was willing to continue on participating to support her and she didn't ask me to be disingenuous in how I showed up. I would often say that I love my wife more than I hate the church. We are so fortunate. My wife is no longer TBM and sees the damage the church does to many, especially those on the margins. We also have been fortunate that the local church (for us) has still been good. As a RSP she was a great help to many of the women who were questioning their faith path. They even created a support group that continues on to this day.

Secret #4 - Find your own people in or out of the church.

We have ward friends who think very much like us. We have dinner weekly and do weekend outings often. What a blessing. I have made many good friends from these on-line groups and have breakfast with some often. Even backpacking or hiking events. My life is more full of better friends now as a PIMO than ever as a TBM. What a blessing. So by still participating in church as a PIMO I don't feel like I am missing out. On the contrary, my life is fuller now than before.

Secret #5 - Don't give a sh*t.

At the beginning this was tough. When the prophet or a local ward member would tell the story of someone who left in the most unflattering terms, it was hard not to get angry. Only those who are weak leave. Only those who want to sin leave. Only those who were never truly in leave. Grrrrrr. But then the day comes that you look at those people (prophet or bishop) as just another person standing on the corner talking to themselves. They are doing the best they can. I know better. I can still love them without having to agree with their ignorance. But not giving a sh*t about their opinion has been the last secret of living a healthy and happy PIMO life.

As I said, I have been lucky. My wife and I are on the same page. We talk more now than ever in our marriage. And we already had a good marriage. We still take it one day at a time. We attend when we want to. We participate at the level we want to. We help people in and out of the church. We are building OUR network of friends regardless of where they may be. Some in the church. Some out of the church. Family is still our core regardless of how they want to believe.

Good luck on the journey. Life is a joy even when its not.

Y’all I’m supposed to teach a lesson on Sunday and I am really struggling this time around. I usually teach relief society and we’re supposed to try to pick a talk, but I am struggling between last conference and all the stuff going on politically. Do you guys have some suggestions for me, please help!

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/10/18oaks?lang=eng

I am speaking in Sacrament Meeting in a couple of weeks. The Bishopric gave me this talk by President Oaks as material. I am going to focus on the themes in Section III of the talk, especially political conflict and turmoil. I am looking for stories about people who transcended conflict, people who were peacemakers. One of the things I want to acknowledge is that, in the words of Bono, "we're one, but we're not the same.
We get to carry each other, carry each other... one."

Please give me examples of unity transcending conflict and differences. I am particularly interested in stories from history, sports and pop culture. I have the scripture side of it nailed down already. I am an experienced public speaker and want to make this talk topical rather than a mere regurgitation of President Oak's address.

This Sacrament Meeting address is an excellent opportunity to counterbalance some of the ugliness we've just experienced with the election.

Thanks in advance.

EDITED TO ADD, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE SO FAR:

I.            CONFLICT & CONTENTION

In 3 Nephi 11:29-30 the Savior counsels us to avoid contention:

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

In the October 2024 General Conference President Dallin H. Oaks taught, “It is significant that among the first principles Jesus taught when He appeared to the Nephites was to avoid contention. While He taught this in the context of disputes over religious doctrine, the reasons He gave clearly apply to communications and relationships in politics, public policy, and family relationships.”

Sometimes, in Mormon culture, this command has conflated contention with conflict. These are two very different things.  Unresolved conflict can be as corrosive as indulged contention.  Conflict is an unavoidable part of life.  We are not going to agree on many things. This is inescapable.  In fact, conflict can be a catalyst towards greater empathy, increased wisdom and spiritual growth.

The Prophet Joseph Smith put it this way: “I am like a huge rough stone...and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force...thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almightly.” Conflict is the contact.

So then what’s the difference between conflict and contention? The Savior told us in 3 Nephi 11:29-30.  Contention is conflict with the added element of “stirring up the hearts of men and women with anger, one against another.” In conflict, we have the opportunity and capacity to demonstrate love.  In contention, we indulge in mutually destructive anger.

II.            U2 “ONE”

There are people sitting the pews today that voted for the other Presidential candidate.  These pews this morning are full of conservatives, liberals, Democrats, socialists and even some Republicans. Of course that doesn’t even begin to explore differences we humans have in race, nationality, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.  And yet, we are commanded to “be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.” Doctrine & Covenants 38:27.  With all that differentiates humanity, how can we ever be one?

U2’s 1992 classic “One” is an exploration of unity and division, composed during a period of deep tension within the band.  The song originated in a Berlin studio during the recording of Achtung Baby, where band members Bono and the Edge favored a new, experimental sound, while Larry Mullen Jr. and Adam Clayton preferred to maintain U2's traditional rock roots. This creative impasse led the band to the brink of breaking up, but “One” became a breakthrough, uniting them around a shared vision despite their differences​. Outside the Berlin studio, German reunification was underway, which also influenced the lyrics.

Here’s the Chorus of One:

Well, it's too late tonight
To drag the past out into the light
We're one, but we're not the same
We get to carry each other, carry each other
One

Bono later recalled the parodox of tension and unity in the band at the time. “There was melancholy about it but there was also strength. One is not about oneness, it's about difference. It's not the old hippie idea of 'let's all live together.' It is a much more punk rock concept. It's anti-romantic: 'we are one but not the same. We get to carry each other.' It's a reminder that we have no choice. I'm still disappointed when people hear the chorus line as 'got to' rather than 'we get to carry each other.' Like it or not, the only way out of here is if I give you a leg up the wall and you pull me after you.”

If the members of U2 had been one AND the same, instead of one, BUT NOT the same, the world would not have been blessed by their music for the past 40 years.

III.            Attorney Peacemakers?

I know what you’re thinking, “Hold up, Brother BigBlueMagic. Aren’t you a litigator?  Are you really giving a Sacrament Meeting talk about contention? What’s next, is Bishop X going to invite a politician to give a talk next Sunday on telling the truth?”

There’s no question my job bathes in conflict. But first, a lawyer joke.

A lawyer goes to hospital for a very serious, risky operation.

The anaesthetic wears off. He comes to and looks about. His doctors are there, but it's all very dark.

'Why are the curtains closed?' He asks.

'Well,' his surgeon replies.' The warehouse across the street is ablaze. We didn't want you waking up thinking you hadn't survived the procedure.'

I have been a litigator for X years.  That’s a lot of conflict. I want to share with you some of the things I’ve observed and learned — often the hard way — about conflict and contention.

Whenever I try a new case, I take opposing counsel out to lunch at the very beginning. I’ve noticed this simple act makes it more likely that opposing counsel and I will remain collegial and friendly, even if we battle aggressively.  The simple act of breaking bread permanantly alters how we see each other.  If I have heard an attorney talk about their background, family and favorite sports teams, I’m far less likely to treat them with disrespect.  Unless they’re a BYU fan.  Just kidding.  I’m more likely to see them as a full person, and less likely to be stirred up to anger against them. In short, we will have conflict, but we are less likely to become contentious.

Contention can be avoided when we humanize each other. Gay rights activist Harvey Milk put it this way: “The more people open their hearts to us, the less we will have to fight for our rights.”

If opposing counsel and I remain collegial, we do our clients a great service. Clients should not have to pay bills fueled by ego and petty fights. In the best scenarios, opposing counsel and I can come up with a resolution that benefits everyone. Opposing counsel and I can be calm intermediaries, even peacemakers for our clients.

Abraham Lincoln counseled young lawyers, “Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.”

Of course, I am only human. As time has passed, I have become better at keeping contention out of the conflict of litigation, but I still stumble.  Discipleship, like the practice of law, is an ongoing process of refinement.

The point I hope to make here is that we should hope to encounter more conflict, as strange as that sounds, because it presents more opportunities for us to eschew contention, practice peace and to be peacemakers. President Russell M. Nelson taught us in the April 2023 General Conference that,

Contention drives away the Spirit—every time. Contention reinforces the false notion that confrontation is the way to resolve differences; but it never is. Contention is a choice. Peacemaking is a choice. You have your agency to choose contention or reconciliation. I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.

The more we encounter conflict, the more opportunities we have to practice peacemaking.  The more we practice peacemaking, the better we become at creating peace. As we practice peacemaking, we will make our families, homes, ward, Las Vegas and the world a better place. But we can’t do that if we run away from conflict.

IV.            LOVE IN CONFLICT

One of the highest levels of discipleship is to be able to demonstrate love within conflict.  That is, we show love while conflict is active.

During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, Freedom Riders rode racially integrated buses throughout the segregated south as a form of protest. When the Freedom Riders would stop at a bus station, all Freedom Riders, black and white, would use the facilities designated for whites only.  In May 1961, John, a young African American male was on such a bus when it pulled into Rock Hill, South Carolina.

A Klu Klux Klan mob was waiting for them when they arrived.  When John tried to walk into the white waiting room, he was severely beaten.  A white police officer looked on and allowed the beating to continue for several minutes before finally intervening. John did not seek retribution against his attackers, physically or legally. He even refused to press charges.

Many years later, he explained why:

Diffusing the fury of violence by obstructing and redirecting the intention of an attacker is itself an act of love … Having compassion for your attacker means you harbor no malice and seek no retribution for the wrong that has been done. It is an offering of love that asserts the victim’s self-worth. It makes room for the inner working of his or her soul that has a way of invoking a quiet insistence to do what is right.  

John found himself in physical conflict but refused to be stirred up to anger and engage in contention. No matter what the mob did to him, he retained total power to refrain from contention, which he courageously did. By refraining from contention, John demonstrated love for his attackers. 

The next time you or I face contention, we must remember that we have complete power to decide whether or not we will engage in contention. John’s beating teaches us that the choice and power to refrain from contention is totally ours. Nobody can take that power away from us.

John choice was not by accident.  John had grown up in a deeply religious home where his parents shared the teachings of Jesus with him.  At five years old, John aspired to become a preacher, and would often deliver passionate sermons to the chickens in the yard. Years of study and discipleship had helped him internalize these teachings from the Savior:

43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

MATTHEW 5:43-44.

Time went on, and as the years passed by, the conscience of one of the Klansman began to wear him down. Elwin Wilson couldn’t shake from his mind and soul the way John and others refused to participate in contention, even as they were beaten physically.  Elwin began to seek out the Freedom Riders he had attacked to ask for their forgiveness. He found many, but he could find John.  What had happened to him?

Well, as it turns out, John had become a member of Congress.  Congressman John Lewis of Georgia.  And in 2009, Elwin Wilson met with John Lewis to apologize and ask for his forgiveness.

Congressman Lewis recalled,

Wilson had apologized to other Freedom Riders during ceremonies honoring them in South Carolina and had mentioned his wish to find the men he had beaten up that day in Rock Hill. I welcomed him to Washington and as we sat, Wilson looked deep into my eyes, searching my expression, and said he was the person who had beaten me in Rock Hill in May of 1961. He said, “I am sorry about what I did that day. Will you forgive me?” Without a moment of hesitation, I looked back at him and said, “I accept your apology.” The man who had physically and verbally assaulted me was now seeking my approval. This was a great testament to the power of love to overcome hatred …

Sometimes conflict is unavoidable as we tread the path of righteousness.  Harvey Milk put it this way: “Rights are won only by those who make their voices heard.”

John Lewis always understood the difference between conflict and contention. He was fearless in the face of conflict, acting with faith that he could defeat contention.  And he did.

V.            POLITICS, CONFLICT & CONTENTION

I need a little audience participation.  Everyone stand up.  I’m serious. Everyone stand up.  Shake the hands of the family in front of you, behind you, and to your left and right. 

I’m going to let you in on a terrifying truth.  There’s a really good chance you just shook the hand of someone who voted for the other Presidential candidate earlier this month.  Can you believe that?  What is wrong with them?  Does Bishop Smith know?  Has he revoked their temple recommend yet? A member of the Church voted for the person that opposed your candidate! 

Well, what Bono said really is true.  We are one, but we are not the same.

President Oaks has noted that we live in a perilously contentious time, especially as to politics:

This is a time of many harsh and hurtful words in public communications and sometimes even in our families. Sharp differences on issues of public policy often result in actions of hostility—even hatred—in public and personal relationships. This atmosphere of enmity sometimes even paralyzes capacities for lawmaking on matters of importance where most citizens see an urgent need for some action in the public interest.

So what are we to do as we sit here in the pews with members of the ward that inconceivably voted for that other candidate?

President Oaks offers the following advice:

Potential adversaries should begin their discussions by identifying common ground on which all agree.

To follow our Perfect Role Model and His prophet, we need to practice what is popularly known as the Golden Rule: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” We need to love and do good to all. We need to avoid contention and be peacemakers in all our communications. This does not mean to compromise our principles and priorities but to cease harshly attacking others for theirs. That is what our Perfect Role Model did in His ministry. That is the example He set for us as He invited us to follow Him.

Let me add three more suggestions: (1) humility; (2) listening; and (3) assuming the best in others.

1.       Humility: If you and I were to write down a list of the 10 political beliefs we are absolutely certain about, I can guarantee that there is one thing our list will have in common— that at least on some of the items, we are profoundly wrong. It’s just like Yogi Berra said, “It aint the heat, it’s the humility.”

2.       Listening: We do not have to agree to listen. Let’s adopt this standard from Ernest Hemingway: “When people talk listen completely. Don’t be thinking what you’re going to say. Most people never listen. Nor do they observe. You should be able to go into a room and when you come out know everything that you saw there and not only that. If that room gave you any feeling you should know exactly what it was that gave you that feeling.”

3.       Assuming the best in others: Rousseau said: “I would rather be a man of paradoxes than a man of prejudices.” Adapting that to how I see others, I have the choice to see unavoidable human paradox, rather than prejudice.

[TESTIMONY]

I close with the closing from President Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address, given at a time when the nation was descending into true contention—the Civil War.

“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Let us follow Christ, act on the better angel of our nature, and be peacemakers.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Hey, I have a presentation about mormonism and wanted to do an Interview. I already sent E-Mails to a few churches but don't have any responses so I thought maybe by i could get some answers on here:

1. How has your faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints influenced your daily life?

2. What role does community play in the Mormon Church for you and your family?

3. Could you share some teachings and practices of the Church that are particularly important to you?

4. How do you deal with challenges or doubts regarding your faith?

5. What are some misconceptions people have about the Mormon Church that you would like to clarify?

This is in response to this post here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1gmdwnp/evidence_joseph_smith_had_a_photographic_memory/

First, it is possible Joseph did have a didactic memory but it's not needed as an explanation as I will demonstrate below.

Second, I'll see if I can find it again, but there was a very, very popular book printed in England and in the US in both New York, Boston, etc. in the early 1800's that was a system of improving memory and recall taught in schools, etc. I don't think it was "The New Art of Memory" but it could have been. In the late 1700's and early 1800's Mnemonics it was it's own popular topic "the Art of Memory".

Such works as "The Art of Memory", "The New Art of Memory", "The Improved Art of Memory", "Memoir on the Art of Memory", "A System of Mnemonics; or, The Art of Assisting the Memory", "A Key to Feinaigle’s Improved System of Memory", "The Art of Memory on a New and Improved Plan", etc

This hyper interest fell into the same category as the Egyptomania and Shorthand/Cryptography that were extremely popular at the time.

To say it another way, in the 1700's and 1800's there was an enormous surge and focus in "systems" and new systems and improved systems, etc. that covered writing, memory, archaeology, history, medicine, etc.

So yes it's undeniable Joseph had a good memory because every single historical evidence states that and there's literally not a single thing contradicting that. Dishonest apologists needing to make Joseph dumb and stupid will have to invent "bad memory Joseph" evidence from thin air to avoid accepting that Joseph did have a good memory.

However, his memory being didactic or something he actually worked on, evolved or exercised, although possible, isn't needed.

The Evidence of evolved or didactic memory not being needed in a few examples.

I will explain each in detail below (may take multiple replies due to Reddit's character limits):

1. As already well known, the Book of Mormon is filled with hundreds of oral narration corrections where one thing is stated, then either clarified, changed, contextualized or expanded upon after dictation. All of these are hard evidence that the person dictating was expressing a thought, vocalizing it, and having a subsequent thought literally pop into their mind after vocalization. It is completely perpendicular or opposite to someone reading from a written text. HOWEVER there are exceptions in the Book of Mormon and those are...

2. The King James Version copied chapters in the Book of Mormon have every evidence of being READ which is opposite of above.

A. They have every evidence of being READ from an English written source.

B. They have every evidence of said written source being READ of having English punctuation and many examples in variances in the Book of Mormon from the KJV text are based/triggered by English punctuation such as commas, etc.

C. They have every evidence of said written source having been broken down into VERSES as many changes in many verses are additions at the END of KJV English Verse divisions.

D. They have every evidence of said written source having other changes be triggered by English "conjuctions" such as "and", "or",  "but", "for", "nor", "yet", and "so".  Meaning the dictator of the Book of Mormon's changes to the KJV copied or read verses, in many cases are tied to the above conjunctions appearing.

3. In the Scribe Manuscript there are changes all over and corrections however there is an undeniable pattern that "original idea narrative" pages vs. "KJV copied" pages have MORE changes and corrections than the KJV copied pages (referring to point 1 above) meaning two different sources instead of one book of plates written and translated line upon line. One source is from memory and thought and the other is being read.

4. In the "original idea narrative" sections are filled with oratory pauses and "finished one thought via summary statement, pause while I gather my thoughts for what I'm going to dictate next" such examples of "In this manner" or "thus did" or many other redundant rephrasing or paraphrasing of what was already narrated.

5. Tied to the above are the astronomical number of pre-narration pauses or "thought/clause starters" led famously by "It came to pass" but also using "behold" and other "I'm starting to narrate a new thought clause".

6. In the scribe manuscript of the Book of Mormon (and on the plates if you are a believer) the complex narrative books have Chapter Headers that are outlines of what is to follow. These were NOT added after dictation but were dictated by Joseph first and then the subsequent text of the chapter given afterwards. In 1st and 2nd Nephi they are literally a point by point "table of contents" of what will follow.

7. Extremely long winded asides litter the book's "original idea narratives" and in some cases, are not closed back to the original opening subject. This is extremely evidenced today by the exact same thing in some people's political speeches where they start a thought, go "off script" and ramble for multiple sentences, from memory or thought, and then come back to the original thought. Look for the "-" in the Book or Mormon online to see multiple examples of this attempted to be addressed by modern editors.

8. Whole swathes of "original idea narrative" appear to be taken and inspired by contemporary events in Joseph's environment including his own family, newsworthy events, etc. and even the KJV Bible where it's simply a matter of retelling with a different name or context and the approach to this appears to have a mimic or parallel in the Book of Mormon author's changes to the copied KJV text. You can see the synthesizing mind at work.

9. As yet to be studied and broken down by actual scholars is the pattern in the Book of Mormon in how the author employed, how and when: Plot narrative/event summary, character oral statement summary vs. direct quotation, etc. and the patterns in these blocks and commonality on phraseology, terminology and chosen word usage.

The above is a summary and IF I get more time today or otherwise, I will elucidate/provide examples of the above in replies. Many I've already shared previously on the sub, but I would love to see other redditors provide their own examples of the above below.

Share what you learn and know and discover.

An era of “mormsploitation”

Opinion of Mormons has ranged from dislike to hatred for most of the church’s history. The Hinckley/Monson era that saw a level of legitimization of Mormonism is likely long past us.

Mormonism will likely never be an inoffensive and mainstream religion like Episcopalianism.

I think anglosphere culture is currently experiencing a mormsploitation moment, where there are many exposes of mormonism on YouTube with millions of views, as well as negative references to mormonism and Mormon institutions like BYU in popular culture. The level of knowledge of mormonism among English speaking social media users has gone up considerably, and most of that information emphasizes strange elements of mormon doctrine or history.

You could find solace in the fact that church leaders are actively finding ways to gradually trim off unpalatable elements of mormonism. It may be way more similar to evangelicalism in 20 years.

I still couldn't understand how mormons respond to this argument that christians use.

1. How can there be an apostasy when the verse says "...and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

2. Why did god let the apostasy happen? Couldn't he just protect the church like catholics say or send Joseph Smith early before the apostasy happens and prevent sincere believers who have no idea that an apostasy happened?

3. Where do you think sincere believers who had no idea that an apostasy happened and still lived according to what they were taught and believed will go to? Heaven or hell?

Hi.

Agnostic here.

My question is, does it disturb you that mormonism and islam look similar? I mean, mormonism believes that there was an apostasy and then god sent a prophet to kind of "update"(?) the religion. And islam believes that jews' and christians' books were corrupted and god sent a prophet to again update the religion.

I've seen many christians use this argument against mormonism.

Thanks.

Check out this fascinating quote about Joseph Smith Senior from the Chicago Times (1888):

...I don't believe he missed a night without stopping with me for at least three hours. There wasn't a subject he couldn't discuss intelligently, and my opinion of him was high. His memory was something extraordinary. He could repeat several chapters of a book verbatim after it had been read rapidly.

Now compare this with William Clayton's firsthand account of how D&C 132 (polygamy revelation) was produced:

Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

Joseph and Hyrum then sat down, and Joseph commenced to dictate the Revelation... He then remarked that there was much more that he could write on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present.

Consider:

1. Joseph explicitly states he doesn't need "translation tools" - he already knows it perfectly
2. He dictates a lengthy theological text from memory
3. Claims he could write even more - suggesting he's drawing from his own mental repository, not God.
4. Matches his father's documented ability to memorize and recite lengthy texts

This got me thinking about some interesting possibilities:

Inherited Trait: Eidetic (photographic) memory can run in families. If Joseph Sr. had this ability, there's a decent chance Joseph Jr. inherited it.

The Hat Strategy: We know JS would put his face in a hat with a stone to block out all light. What if this wasn't just for show? Sensory deprivation is actually a known technique for people with eidetic memory to recall information more clearly. The darkness would eliminate visual distractions and help him focus on his mental "images" of text (such as copying the Bible word for word) or memory banks of a pre-prepared narrative.

Supporting Evidence:

Lucy Mack Smith describes young Joseph giving detailed stories about ancient Americans before the BoM:

Joseph would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling... with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

Joseph has an ability to remember and recite incredible amounts of detail in a storytelling context. He also told these stories to his family prior to actually receiving the Book of Mormon from the Angel Moroni.

Emma Smith describes the translation process:

My husband dictated hour after hour with nothing between us... when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out.

*Joseph's Inability to pronounce certain words but be able spell them implies he is drawing from memorized text.

Bible passages in the Book of Mormon

• The Isaiah passages copied in the Book of Mormon largely follow the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, accessible to Joseph Smith. Sometimes there are word-for-word copies of verses, and in other cases there are small variations, consistent with someone working from memory rather than direct copying.
• Significantly, when Joseph later produced his inspired translation of the Bible (JST), he did not maintain these same variations from the Book of Mormon. If both translations are divinely inspired, why is God giving Joseph different versions of the same verses and phrases?

Early Storytelling and Memory Abilities From "Early Mormon Documents, Vol. 4" by Dan Vogel, several accounts describe young Joseph's ability to:

• Recall and recite lengthy narratives
• Keep track of complex storylines
• Remember specific details over long periods

Thoughts?

EDIT: