Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "Dallin Oaks says the church doesn’t apologize, but it hasn’t stopped the question of whether it should - The Salt Lake Tribune" by u/Insultikarp
• "Joseph Smith Photo - the Inside Story with Lachlan McKay (and John Hamer) - Mormon Book Review" by u/IranRPCV
• "How do mormons feel about psychedelics?" by u/mathildekamer
• "faith after all we can do. what's the balance?" by u/Over_Category7715
• "added 1828 dictionary definition to Lectures on Faith 5" by u/SJR3t2
• "slightly annotated 1835 Doctrine and Covenants General Assembly: Votes" by u/SJR3t2
• "Happy Cakeday, r/mormondialogue! Today you're 7" by u/AutoModerator
• "Abraham 3:22-23 Chiasmus" by u/SJR3t2
• "The Gospels, the JST and Torah on the Resurrection" by u/SJR3t2
• "Joseph Smith Photo - the Inside Story Stay Tuned! - Mormon Book Review" by u/IranRPCV

Title. What's the balance between work and faith? Is it possible to work to little that the faith can't cover it, if you can't work too little, why "saved after all we can do" and not just "saved, so we do all we can do?"

Hi all,

I am a MSc student in Political Communication at the University of Amsterdam, and a researcher at the Amsterdam Psychedelic Research Association.

I’m looking for respondents with and without psychedelic experience to fill in my short 5 minute survey. Your insights are much appreciated!

English (speaking) people can click here: https://uvacommscience.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5uvwlWOgvvSpgTs

On the off chance that there are any Dutch people in this group, Dutch people can click here: https://uvacommscience.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_87laJZmlEOAKkUS

Thank you thank you thank you <3

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 9 posts:

• "When we were active my wife had an affair(we’re good) but the disciplinary process was more traumatizing for her than the affair was for me. We told her story together." by u/Petertbag
• "Happy Cakeday, r/mormondialogue! Today you're 6" by u/AutoModerator
• "Baptism" by u/SJR3t2
• "Am I The Only One?" by u/TonyFieldson
• "What is MormonMeetUp" by u/coffeeisntmycupoftea
• "The truths versus the deficiencies of Mormonism viewed in light of Gnosticism, a teaching that was suppressed by the mainstream Christian churches for centuries" by u/HarJIT-EGS
• "Save 1,000+ hours" by u/TonyFieldson
• "A question about a footnote" by u/ChristianApologizer
• "New episode about movies and Mormonism: Post-Mormon at the Movies is now live!" by u/postmormonmovies

Background

A cache of Gnostic Christian texts were discovered at Nag Hammadi during the 20th Century. Before then, much of it had been stamped out by the Catholic and Orthodox Christians as heresy, though it kept resurging. A resurgent Gnostic Christian movement known as the Cathars were targeted by the Albigensian Crusade from 1209 to 1229, with the remainder wiped out over the next hundred years by the ensuing Inquisition. The last Cathar leader was executed in 1321. There is apparently an oral tradition in Occitania prophesying that it would be restored seven centuries after it was wiped out.

A core teaching of Mormonism is that truths were lost due to being suppressed by the mainstream Christian leaders. As such, LDS interest in Gnosticism is remarkably low considering the circumstances. There are some striking parallels, and some differences—though many of the differences are interesting in what gaps they fill in each others' teaching.

Sacraments or Ordinances

On the basis of the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, some Gnostic organisations recognise five "initiatory sacraments":

• Baptism of Water
• Confirmation
• Eucharist
• Redemption
• Bridal chamber

The Ecclesia Gnostica, one Gnostic denomination, gives specific interpretations of these in its catechism. Confirmation requires the use of consecrated oil, and is considered deficient in its absence. When performed correctly, baptism and confirmation are stated to be irreversible and strongly implied to be idempotent. Redemption is stated to be a synonym for consolament, presumably as practiced by the Cathars, though the catechism gives conspicously no detail about orthopraxic practice of it. The sacraments of redemption and bridal chamber are stated to have been suppressed by mainstream Christianity; the latter is also stated to be unavailable on Earth at this present time, although it can apparently be received after ascending with no proxy action required.

As sometimes listed to LDS members in genealogical tools (since they are done vicariously, by proxy, on behalf of the dead who did not receive them in life), the LDS Church considers the following five to be saving ordinances (presumably due to the insulating layer of Protestantism, the term "sacrament" only survives as a ubiquitous contraction of the (very infrequently used in full, to the point that a lot of LDS are potentially unfamiliar with it) term "sacrament of the Lord's Supper"):

• Baptism
• Confirmation (Gift of the Holy Ghost)
• Initiatory (Washing and Annointing)
• Endowment
• Sealing

This list obscures a few details. Confirmation is never performed with oil (which is exclusively used for annointing the sick and afflicted), and is therefore deficient by Ecclesia Gnostica standards. For males only, Mechisedec Priesthood ordination is sometimes considered a saving ordinance, as a prerequisite to Initiatory (but it is inconsistently considered to be neither required nor licit for females). Confirmation is usually carried out within a week of baptism, or in the same temple session for proxy work. Initiatory is usually carried out as a prologue to endowment, though it is considerably faster. The Sacrament (i.e. Eucharist) is considered an ordinance, but a renewal of baptism-confirmation and thus besides the point to do vicariously. There is a ritual taboo on discussing the Endowment outside the temple.

There is an additional ordinance called the Second Annointing, knowledge of which is obscure and practice of which is rare and largely limited to the upper echelons of the Church, but which supposedly fulfills the endowment and sealing and makes one's election sure (i.e. guarantees one's salvation, with relatively few but very serious conditions). This is somewhat inconsistent with the current LDS understanding of the Atonement though, and scriptural instances of individuals' elections being made sure are granted only by God himself directly.

None of these ordinances are considered irreversible by the LDS, since "what is loosed on earth shall be loosed in Heaven", i.e. excommunication (withdrawal of membership either punitatively or by request) is considered to reverse all ordinances. The term "excommunication" in an LDS context, then, can be glossed as "unbaptism". Non‑Nauvoo-rite branches, such as the Community of Christ, may use the term differently (e.g. exclusion from the eucharist).

In terms of when, why, and what is expected of those receiving the endowment, the consolament is the closest parallel to the endowment, though the latter is of course much more strongly influenced (corrupted, some might say) by Masonic ceremonies. Joseph Smith seems to have assumed that the Masonic claim to rites derived from Solomon's Temple to be genuine, and this had strong influence, less on doctrine, but on the Nauvoo Rite and its descendants.

Matrimony is said to have been substituted by the mainstream church for the Bridal Chamber as an analogy or type. Some LDS commentators interpret the Bridal Chamber as a reference to sealing, though both this this and the sealing ordinance itself are arguably a misinterpretation. One major grievance and highlighted incompleteness in LDS teaching is that LGBTQI individuals are essentially denied the highest degree of exaltation absent pretending to be what they are not for all eternity (a self-evident absurdity). The Ecclesia Gnostica has a different interpretation, involving the completion and eternal sealing of the effects of the consolament, and formation of a final union both with God and with one's deific double (twin angel or dmutha). From what I can see, Joseph Smith seems to have misinterpreted one's dmutha as one's literally opposite-sex literal spouse, with all the terrible consequences for any LGBTQI individual that have derived from this. The completion and sealing of the effects of earlier ordinances, as well as the non-expectation to receive it in this life (or by proxy), make the Ecclesia Gnostica's Bridal Chamber teaching more analogous to the Second Annointing in any case.

Theology

Gnosticism is a very high theology, and Mormonism is a very low theology.

In LDS teaching, Eloheim (Heavenly Father) is not the prime mover (since "as man is, God once was"), and therefore not the Monad. Nor is he the demiurge (the evil creator of the corrupt material universe in Gnosticism), since he did not create material as a concept ex nihilo (rather proceeding to "take of these materials"). He comes across as more of a monolatrist bodhisattva, having qualified for his own salvation, but working to bring to pass the salvation of others ("behold this is my work to my glory, to the immortality and eternal life of man"). Whether Joseph Smith would have eventually shed the monolatrist elements is unclear; the Book of Abraham shows some evidence of the beginning of (though only the beginning of) a move toward "eloheim" being interpreted as a plurality of æons working to bring the world into being within an existing material realm for the purpose of salvation.

Mormonism is not Arian, on a technicality. In LDS teaching, Jesus (Jehovah is considered to be properly used to refer to Jesus, including pre-incarnate Jesus, not the Father, and presumably not Yaltabaoth) is in fact coëternal with Heavenly Father (Eloheim)—but only because we are all coëternal intelligences, Jesus and Heavenly Father (and Satan) included. Thus we are all "begotten not created" in spirit, though not in flesh—Jesus being the "only begotten" is seen as meaning (and sometimes elaborated to) "only begotten son in the flesh".

Mormon theology is advertised proudly as answering the fundamental questions everyone else is confused about. Much like Mussolini making the trains run on time when he got to define what constituted "the trains" and "on time", this derives from the idea that the only fundamental questions are:

• Who am I (a child of God)
• Why am I here (as a probationary and preparatory stage in the Plan of Salvation, as a test to how we behave outside God's presence and in the absence of Instant Karma enforcing justice, and as the only place saving ordinances can be received for some inexplicable reason to the point of them needing to be proxied for those already dead)
• Where do I go after I die (this is discussed heavily outside Mormonism also, but Mormon theology includes somewhat more detail, plus the teaching of eternal progression as a form of theosis, albeit confined to those in a sealed cis/het marriage (see comments above about dmutha versus spouse))

How well even these questions are (not) answered is only partly illustrated in the "who is Heavenly Father's Heavenly Father?" that particularly observant children might torment their teachers with. Actually, the necessity of the Plan of Salvation is never satisfactorily explained. We are coëternal intelligences, wherefore are we fallen? What do we need salvation from? "And yet I marvel how such great wealth has come to dwell in such poverty."

It isn't the Fall of Adam: that was a necessary part of the Plan of Salvation which would have failed in its absence. "Adam fell that man might be, and men are that they might have joy."

It isn't Satan: Satan rebelled after the Plan of Salvation was announced, favouring his own plan in which God's honour and power would be transferred to him so that he could technically save us all by turning us into his puppets, with no agency to make our own choices.

Mormon theology opens as many questions as it answers.

As a further example, my biggest fundamental question is none of the above but:

• Why am I (speaking as a conscious stream) me (speaking as a person). Why do I always wake up as the same person, and why this person? (And why is language seemingly designed to make the meaning of this concern and the all-consuming profundity thereöf actively difficult to communicate?)

A given spark, shard or atman might have a greater awareness than others of the same that ultimately, they are a broken continuity, a trapped segment of the One, the Monad, the Brahman; a dissociative awareness that the self is not something that should exist, but something that has been imposed upon some train of thought in the consciousness of reality, to trap it. Sometimes in dreams, I don't necessarily exist; sometimes I only slowly remember upon waking that I have exactly one urinary bladder and tract.

Gnostic cosmology is much more focused on the origin of the corrupt material world, and how divine intelligences became fragmented, fallen and trapped within it. The fall of Adam, similarly to LDS teaching, is often not seen as a bad thing.

Procreation

The LDS Church is heavily pronatal, often reminding people that "the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force". Leaving aside whether that is true (and whether the commandment was from Jehovah or from Yaltabaoth), humanity as a whole (to which the commandment was given) is doing a sterling job at multiplying, so interpreting it at an individual level is questionable.

Gnosticism is divided, tending to be either heavily pronatal (Elkasaites, Mandaeans etc) or antinatal (Manichaeans, Cathars etc) with not much in between. The disagreement to the best as I can tell is whether procreation causes more suffering by trapping more intelligences in mortal bodies, or whether it gives them an opportunity to obtain release from imprisonment in materiality. Sex may be seen as unclean or of the material world, or it might be seen as leading to procreation. Notably, a lot of Gnostic heritage predates the Sexual Revolution, when being able to have sex for the fun of it without needing to concern oneself with procreation become more of a vision among the populace for the first time, so a lot of it assumes an intrinsic link of sex to procreation. This is an element which might deserve looking at in new light.

LDS teaching ties sex to marriage (see above) and procreation. The term adultery (as in, "thou shalt not commit") is interpreted broadly to refer to any sexual sin, including premarital—basically any act seen as a slight on or unsanctioned use of the power to create life, and considered second to murder (the latter being the power to take life). Pornography is interpreted as adulterous, and the wife (for some reason, always portrayed that way around) is expected to emotionally react or be emotionally scarred in the same manner as if she had discovered cheating ("why does he want to be with those women instead of me?" and similar language). I was actually shocked to discover that couples exist who might be fine with one another consuming pornography, or even consume it together—I had been raised in a manner that implicitly saw that concept as absurd. This is, of course, a self-fulfulling prophecy, and my personal conviction is that the LDS's tirades against pornography do as much if not considerably more toward the destruction of pre-existing families than the pornography itself.

While I have my own slow-burn trauma related to my masturbation habits being monitored by much older adults during my adolescence, I have difficulty seeing procreation as virtuous. I have frequently wished I hadn't been born (my dad referencing the likes of Matthew 26:24 to indicate wishing one hadn't been born is characteristic of the fate of sinners didn't exactly help). I have difficulty seeing how it is possible for a child to be raised in this world without being traumatised to a greater or lesser extent by one source or another, and cannot convince myself that it is virtuous for me to procreate.

Restorationism

This might be related to how vaguely it is defined, but Gnosticism seems incapable of dying, despite suppressions and literal genocide aimed at stamping it out. Truth, it seems, can never die. William Blake, of Jerusalem / "and did those Feet" fame, was arguably a Gnostic prophet to the English, not that he caused much of a movement, and it is on the contrary Wordsworth who gains considerable respect from the LDS by giving what gets interpreted as one of the most eloquent statements of LDS premortal existence doctrine despite not being LDS (in the Intimations of Immortality). Joseph Smith claimed to be restoring plain and precious truths that had been suppressed—sadly, he seemed to lack knowledge of Gnostic truth and what he did reïntroduce was consequently flawed.

The prophecy that "after seven centuries, the laurel will grow green again" is apparently an oral tradition in Occitania rather than recorded, and 700 years seems unlikely to be an exact number. However, it would suggest that a major resurgence of Gnostic Christianity is due around now. Perhaps, Joseph Smith was a forerunner to this, being too early to spearhead it itself. In this age of internet, where anything can be shouted from the rooftops to hiss forth unto the ends of the Earth, things are very different. Things are also very different due to the Nag Hammadi discovery.

Maybe Mormonism is merely one precursor to a resurgent, more Gnostic movement imminently yet to come.

Miscellanea

The Prophet Mani, who founded a Gnostic sect named Manichaeism, made heavy use of the Book of Giants, and was actually long thought to have written it until additional fragments of it were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although only known from fragments and quotations, it preserves the tradition of a Nephil with a name which is sometimes transcribed Mahway (but there is some uncertainty about this) confronting or consulting Enoch. This is sometimes understood to be the same name and individual as the Mahijah (and the possibly-related toponym Mahujah) referenced by Joseph Smith as someöne who confronted or consulted Enoch.

One of the central Christian Gnostic texts is the Secret Book of John, sometimes called the Apocryphon of John. LDS teaching agrees with the concept of secret writings by John the Beloved existing, one part of one such writing being section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Can anyone explain footnote b (D&C 130:3) related to Alma 34:36 or provide commentary from general authorities on this? I had a discussion with the Mormon missionaries today, and I wanted to know what Latter Day Saints understood. I got to explain how I agree with Alma 34:36 as a Trinitarian but don’t agree with D&C 130:3’a claim (especially as Trinitarians understand, for example, Galatians 2:20 that is similar to Alma 34:36).

If you or anyone you know wants to save thousands of hours it would take to learn the most important historical facts pertaining to the church (the inspiring ones and the imperfections), I will summarize in short videos what I have spent over 1,000 hours for the last 13 researching in this new YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUR-UkY-QNc

I've often been frustrated (like I’m guessing some of you have) while trying to learn the highlights of Restoration History, in order to have as fully-informed of a faith as I can, for 2 reasons:

1. There are a lot of decent sources with a lot of fluff in them that I have to weed through
2. Most sources lean too far on the pro side and don’t acknowledge errors committed, or too far on the con side where they only criticize and don’t grant any of the good/inspiring aspects

What sources have you found to be succinct and well balanced?

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "Mormon changes to core doctrines in direct response to American political pressure and negative press – the ending of polygamy, Blacks in the priesthood, LGBTQ policy reversal?" by u/lettertoapostle
• "Testimony and Blessings" by u/SJR3t2
• "Mormon History themed D&D" by u/diligentlyseek
• "Black Skin" by u/SJR3t2
• "The GOLDEN Plates." by u/gibby1981
• "9 years ago, I sent this loving message from a Mormon mom to the top of Reddit. I’d be thrilled to follow up with an LDS message of antiracism. TBH, it’s already out there, waiting to be upvoted. DezNat is unwittingly contributing to the potential for that moment of mutual rejection of hate." by u/Chino_Blanco
• "MUCH vs ALL in LDS D&C 130:40" by u/SJR3t2
• "My Base" by u/SJR3t2
• "New Jerusalem and New Heaven and Earth Chiasmus" by u/SJR3t2
• "Propaganda" by u/SJR3t2

WE'RE LIVE!!!

Post-Mormon at the Movies podcast is proud to announce that episodes are now available. We're currently on Spotify and Pocket Casts. Follow us on social media for news about when we become available on other platforms! You can also listen to episodes on our website.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram for more information!

It would seem that changes made to core doctrines of the church were in direct response to American political pressure and bad PR – the ending of polygamy, Blacks in the priesthood and more recently the reversal of the unpopular unchristian ban on the membership of the children of gay parents?

While the tone of the following letter to the editor is somewhat mocking, it nevertheless summarizes the view that many people have about the church’s about-face when President Carter questioned their racist policies.

“What’s done is done. There no longer is any prejudice against blacks in the Mormon church*, the power of money took care of that. Back in 1978, the federal government informed the LDS church that unless it allowed blacks full membership (including the priesthood,) they would have to cease calling themselves a non-profit organization and start paying income taxes. On $16.5 million a day in tithing alone, that’s a lot of tax monies that could be better used in building up the Kingdom of God.*

The church immediately saw the error of its ways, and the brethren appealed to God for a revelation; it came quickly. God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform, and today The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing but love for all races of people on Earth.” 1

FairMormon’s comments on my charge in www.lettertoanapostle.org

It appears that the apologists at FairMormon have nothing here. The best they could come up with is this quote by a ‘Methodist scholar.’

"A revelation in Mormondom rarely comes as a bolt from the blue; the process involves asking questions and getting answers. The occasion of questioning has to be considered, and it must be recalled that while questions about priesthood and the black man may have been asked, an answer was not forthcoming in the ‘60s when the church was under pressure about the matter from without. Nor did it come in the early ‘70s when liberal Latter-day Saints agitated the issue from within. The inspiration which led President Kimball and his counselors to spend many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple pleading long and earnestly for divine guidance did not stem from a messy situation with blacks picketing the church’s annual conference in Salt Lake City, but was "the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth."

In 1968, ten years before the church saw the light, John Lund wrote the following:

“Those who would try to pressure the Prophet to give the Negroes the Priesthood do not understand the plan of God nor the order of heaven. Revelation is the expressed will of God to man. Revelation is not man’s will expressed to God. All the social, political, and governmental pressure in the world is not going to change what God has decreed to be.”

John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro**, page 109**

Yet ten years later, when the Church's status as a tax-exempt organization was in question, and shortly after President Jimmy Carter discussed the church's racist policies with Spencer Kimball, the Heavens opened, and ban was lifted.

Incidentally, there is no written record of Spencer W. Kimball’s supposed 1978 'revelation'; reversing the priesthood ban on African Americans.

Not even important enough to make it into the D&C?

Some of the church's apologists deny that President Carter even broached the subject.

This is not true.

I would you to view the personal note President Carter sent to me in response to the letter I sent to him:

https://wordpress.com/view/lettertoanapostle.org

Why can’t the church and her army of apologists just tell members the truth?

_______

References

1 Kathy Erickson, letter to the Salt Lake Tribune, 11 March 11, 2001.

So I'm reading up on Mormonism, after talking to some nice young missionaries for about an hour, I decided to look into the religion and see if there was anything in it for me. The whole issue of the golden plates have left me scratching my head. In the years leading up to Joseph getting his hands on the plates, it was his whole reason for living. The plates were gonna give him the whole story of the book of mormon so he could save all the sinners who have been worshipping at churches, GOD or god, said were an abomination. Yet, once Joseph had the plates they were never used to translate the account. Instead... when translating Joseph had his face in his hat looking at a stone where the text of the plates would appear. Most of not all the time translating the golden plates would be in a locked trunk. So why the need for the plates? Why wouldn't, GOD or god, in his infinite wisdom just tell Jospeh to translate the book by the hat and stone method in the first place? So then the next question I have is maybe the plates were used to prove the authenticity of the book of mormon, but this is not the case. The 3 and 8 witnesses who claim to have seen it all attested that they only saw the plates with their spiritual eyes, not their physical eyes. So this disproves this theory, especially since after he published the book he returned the plates to Moroni. The more and more I read about the Prophet and religion of Mormonism, the more I get a feeling that I am being deceived. As in the words of the great American Jurist, Judge Judy, "if a story makes no sense, it's probably a lie."

I think the idea of trying to create a more phonetically accurate alternative to the Latin alphabet is really interesting and I think the letters look neat. I have no idea how to write in it but someday I may try to learn. What do you think? Is there an active movement to embrace the Deseret alphabet and try to use it in everyday life? I haven't heard of anything like that. Is it just an odd little part of our history? I posted this in /r/HoneybeeHome but since it's still such a small subreddit, I thought I'd post it here too since it's more likely to get attention here.

Doctrine and Covenants 84: 1-5 states: "

1 A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.

3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

​

In Deuteronomy 18:20-22 it states: "

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

​

Since there is no temple in this location, the generation he spoke of has passed, and God spoke clearly in Deuteronomy 18, can't we conclude this Joseph Smith is a false prophet by God's own standard?

I appreciated this post from By Common Consent about how translation is used in the LDS community and what we can assume about the Book of Mormon's translation based on the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible--the two translations where we still have both (most of) the original sources and the finished product. The conclusions (that is entirely possible that if we had the Gold Plates they wouldn't match the text of the BoM as we have it, that JS likely had personal influence on the contents, and that there can still be value in figurative texts) are of course not new to anyone here, but I think what was new, at least to me, was the approach of the piece. It just feels faithful, even though it's openly pondering whether a key current teaching of the church (historicity of the BoM) may not be correct.

Like the author, I've become more agnostic over time about the historicity of the BoM, though on balance I do still believe in it (something along the lines of the expansion theory). But I absolutely want to make room in the church for people who openly doubt that or straight up don't believe it. And I think the approach modeled here is the most effective way to move towards that goal.

What do you think? Is it conceivable that BoM historicity might stop being a de facto required belief in polite Mormon society anytime soon (say, a decade or two)?

If this isn't a good place for this subject let me know where else I can go

I have a friend who is not LDS and is super struggling with infertility. She has tons of health issues and doctors have given her six months to conceive and if she doesn't she is forced to be on birth control and life saving medications that can't be taken while pregnant.

I so badly want to help her. The only way I know I could help is being a surrogate for her since adoption agencies will turn her down.

I'm unmarried and LDS and frankly unsure if I can even conceive or carry a child due to PCOS but if I have the option I want to try for the sake of her and her husband.

I guess my real question is if the church has anything that says anything about being a surrogate.

Thanks in advance!

This is a topic of discussion which Protestants looking into Mormonism find by far as one of the weakest theological positions held by the Mormon faith relating to men other than Christ holding this particular priesthood. If anyone believes they do hold the priesthood or can, I challenge you to debate here and now.

Since real dialogue is obviously not allowed here, I won't waste time typing too much, just to have some offensive censor remove it so honest dialogue CAN'T HAPPEN (as they hide behind complex and VERY SUBJECTIVE "rules" of course, which is just the hallmark of the coward who avoids real dialogue and oppresses others who seek honest discussion of hard topics).

The mainstream mormon church is mired in apostasy from the major action in 1904, to 1978, constant changes to garments, and now gutting of the endowment. There, that's the "twitter" version of what I said, which triggered people here WHO CLAIM this sub exists for mormon dialogue. HA!

Why put forth effort to type a concise post when petty censors obsess about how they can censor you?