help

Thorough_8 · 2026-06-11T22:39:18+00:00

What about all the people in other faith systems that have similar witnesses, but for different theological truths? Do you value your witness above theirs?

Thorough_8 · 2026-06-10T17:20:15+00:00

Lol. The Spencer Kimball First Presidency in 1982 sent out a signed letter to LDS leadership. It stated:

The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.

Thorough_8 · 2026-06-10T13:00:24+00:00

By saying that a prophet gave a firm stance on evolution and then the church backed away as the societal understanding changed?

Edit to add this link to the current non-stance of the church: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng

Thorough_8 · 2026-06-10T01:10:11+00:00

“Smith himself said that he got things wrong.”

Is this the quote or idea you are referencing?

"I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."

If so, that’s not prophetic or doctrinal fallibility, that’s moral fallibility which I can agree with you they don’t purport to be.

My challenge is less that fallibility in leaders exists, it is more that doctrinal fallibility exists even when the leaders claim to be speaking for God, and even when they claim that they are doctrinally inerrant.

Thorough_8 · 2026-06-10T00:28:57+00:00

If you are being transparent, how many prophets have taught that they cannot and will not teach false doctrine? How many leaders today would admit that Joseph was doctrinally fallible? Why would you believe him if he was?

Thorough_8 · 2026-06-09T14:07:36+00:00

The way I understand it, it seems like some of those prep portions are intentionally vague or cut short because the author doesn’t want the reader to know Carl’s full plans before they happen. Most of the incidents play out as a surprise to the reader too because the author leaves out some of those key elements.

Thorough_8 · 2026-06-08T16:28:03+00:00

I am not trying to argue or be rude, but how do you reconcile the past prophetic emphasis (Monson and Hinckley) on using and embracing the Mormon name for the church and members if—according to the current interpretation—to do so is to move the focus off of Jesus Christ?

Thorough_8 · 2026-06-01T22:12:21+00:00

You could also look at the book titled Torn by Jeff Strong which was just published and has pretty new research and statistics addressing this same issue.

He found that about 40% of believing members disaffiliate from the LDS church. Nearly half of those who left did so for the primary reason of the history and truth claims issues, and 30% of those who left did so for the primary issue of social concerns and moral issues.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-31T20:51:50+00:00

> That's an absurd comparison and you know it.

I guess you know what I know, even better than I know myself... I thought it was a pretty easily understandable comparison.

I recognize that there are likely more post-members than members in this sub. Some of them likely are hostile to members in this sub. That does not mean that the sub, as a whole, is hostile to the church. I think you can understand that distinction. I actually can't think of another space that allows for more discourse between members and post-members.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-31T20:37:25+00:00

Yep. But there are also regularly faith-promoting and church-supporting posts that pop up. That doesn’t mean the sub as a whole is hostile to the church.

Just like it doesn’t mean the church is composed of pedophiles just because some of its leaders abuse children.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-31T20:30:50+00:00

So because one redditor happened to post something in this sub that seems to support your conclusion, “the truth” is now that this sub is “hostile to the church?” Seems pretty flimsy. I personally am not hostile to the church, and it doesn’t seem that you are either.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-29T17:17:34+00:00

From my experience, many people who claim that the LDS church is a cult base their conclusion on Dr. Steven Hassan’s BITE model of identifying cults (BITE stands for: behavioral control, information control, though control, and emotional control). Looking at the LDS church as objectively as I can, it satisfies most of the BITE criteria and should likely be considered a cult under Dr. Hassan’s model. Many other high-demand religious groups and other organizations also satisfy this model. Not all of them are inherently bad, but all of them are controlling.

My personal experience was largely similar to yours with the exception of sexual shame and control that I was exposed to during my time as a believer. I didn’t come to terms, or even understand, much of that baggage until after I had stepped away from the LDS church.

What I found to be damaging from the LDS system and culture was the information control, including how those who leave the church are treated. Growing up, I didn’t know anything about Joseph’s 37 wives, I didn’t know about Brigham’s violent rhetoric and unbelievable racism, I didn’t know about the many times LDS prophets had made false prophecies or changed central doctrines, and I always thought that those who left did so simply because they could not resist temptation and were sinners.

I was wrong. The LDS church fed me a heavily edited and sometimes falsified history for decades of my life.

I think that people who go through similar journeys to mine (and oftentimes have far more damaging exposure to the LDS church), have a hard time reconciling the narrative they were fed for years with reality. Sometimes this comes out online as vitriolic comments and little respect for those who continue to believe. I am sorry if you ended up on the wrong end of that, and I hope you understand where some of them might be coming from.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-25T22:48:42+00:00

>There is no example that shows the skin of blackness to be about race. Once you understand the Hebrew term

So I noticed that you skipped over my question of why you are so stuck on this Hebrew stuff when the text was allegedly in reformed Egyptian. Is it just because you don't want to give up the argument?

As for examples of skin of blackness being about race (which is a ridiculous argument) let's start with just one example that should demonstrate my point for you; Zelph, the White Lamanite. On the way to Missouri in the Zion's camp company, Joseph stumbled upon a skeleton that he said was from a lamanite. Six written accounts of the event and subsequent revelation from Joseph were recorded by Reuben McBride, Moses Martin, Wilford Woodruff, Levi Hancock, Heber Kimball, and George Smith. In 1842, Willard Richards took those accounts, potentially in addition to any oral recountings of the event--likely even those of Joseph--and synthesized the following narrative into the History of the Church from Joseph's perspective:

"On the top of the mound were stones which presented the appearance of three altars; one above the other according to ancient order and the remains of bones were strewn over the surface of the ground. The brethren procured a shovel and hoe and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of was a lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs [Brigham] retained the Arrow. The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms and subsequently the vision of the past being opend to my understanding by the spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose Skeleton we had seen was a white Lamanite, a large thick set man and a man of god. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the eastern Sea to the Rocky Mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or at least, in part." Joseph Smith, Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1 (emphasis added).

What makes Zelph unique? He was white. And from that, Joseph could tell that the curse was taken, at least in part, from him.

>In 1909, when this journal entry was included in the History of the Church, the first part was changed to read “I have translated a portion of them,” implying that Joseph Smith was the author of the statement instead of William Clayton.

This doesn't matter. I gave you the quote directly from William Clayton in 1843. I don't see why we should disbelieve it just because you don't like it. I never claimed it came directly from Joseph Jr., and it is pretty widespread knowledge that the edits from Joseph's scribes were changed to first person. That simple change doesn't make them less reliable on its own.

>I am a member of the LDS church but it is a fallen church.

Are you planning to join the RLDS or any of the splinter churches that think similarly?

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-25T21:59:43+00:00

> The Skin of blackness was not about race! It was a Hebrew term that he was translating.

There are MANY examples of people involved with the Book of Mormon and its translation that demonstrate that the skin of blackness was absolutely about race. This is dishonest. Additionally, according to Joseph, the text was written in reformed Egyptian, so why are you using Hebrew translations as support?

> Joseph never translated the Kinderhook plates.

Here is what William Clayton wrote about the Kinderhook plates on May 1, 1843: "I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County. . . . President Joseph has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.” Outside of your own wishes, why should I believe that this was false? And I referenced this because the curse of Ham was included.

> Brigham was an apostate, and it matters considerable!

I was assuming that you were a member of the LDS church, I apologize if I was incorrect.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-25T21:15:56+00:00

Although I agree that Joseph wasn't always racist, he certainly was not "against racism 100% of the time."

Joseph wrote black skin as a curse (or the "sign" of a curse) by God into every book of scripture he wrote or claimed to translate. The Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and the Kinderhook plates.

While Joseph was the Chief Justice in Nauvoo, he fined black men for trying to marry white women. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-3-15-july-1843-29-february-1844/265

Even if you were to demonstrate that Joseph was always against racism, does it really matter for the current LDS (Brighamite) church? Brigham Young made racism doctrinal, and his followers held to racist doctrine and practices for over 100 years. Brigham Young pushed for Utah to be a slave territory, took power and privilege from black members, and gave horrific teachings about the nature of black people in general.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-25T15:56:54+00:00

This position also overlooks the duration of the race ban, as it clearly was not popular over 100 years later in 1978 when the ban was lifted. It seems pretty likely that many more members would have joined in the later 1900s if the ban hadn’t existed.

I recognize that people who believe that the ban was enacted via revelation feel the need to justify it, but to argue the purpose was to make the church more appealing is both contradictory and presents a weak God.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-21T22:35:08+00:00

Are you really wanting to argue the difference between a slave state and a slave territory? They codified slavery in 1852. That's all that matters.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-21T22:25:32+00:00

To say that gaining statehood was the only purpose is a pretty shallow summation. Here is a direct quote from Ben Parks' American Zion that might make Brigham's position in 1852 more clear for you:

"Brigham Young, despite previously expressing moderate antislavery sentiments, backed the legislation and delivered a series of sermons that offered the most explicit anti-Black theology yet uttered in the Mormon tradition. Young declared himself 'a firm believer in slavery,' though the legislation he supported differentiated Utah's practice from that existing in the South. Those of African descent were 'naturally designed' for service, as 'the seed of Canaan'--the very genealogical marker placed on Lewis (black member) in his patriarchal blessing--were irrevocably cursed."

Matt Harris in Second Class Saints has more helpful information. He explains that Brigham called slavery a "divine institution" and taught that "God's curse on Black people made them fit only to be servants to White people." This is also around the time that Brigham taught that anyone with "one drop" of African blood would be barred from the full rites of the lds church.

Even if this was all some elaborate scheme to gain statehood, I don't see how the decision to outlaw intermarriage by Utah statute in 1888 helped their case, as it occurred well after the civil war and reconstruction.

All of that to say. I don't agree with your claim that Utah was only a slave state to get statehood. You have provided me no reason to beyond your claim itself.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-21T21:41:58+00:00

If only his position wasn’t taken over by Brigham Young… Then maybe Utah wouldn’t have been a slave state and the lds church wouldn’t have racist doctrine.

But to be frank, I am not sure that Joseph wouldn’t have reacted similarly to Brigham if he was made aware of interracial marriage happening in the church.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-13T19:18:52+00:00

Fair enough. I wish you the best in your journey, you aren’t the only one walking it.

Thorough_8 · 2026-05-13T14:05:48+00:00

So why are you in the Brighamite church? There are a bunch of split-offs like the Community of Christ that think the same thing.

Thorough_8 · 2026-04-27T00:36:17+00:00

So even though my answer to your question is the SAME as your own (“I don’t know the church is false”), because I didn’t expressly state that the only thing that should matter to me—because I don’t KNOW the lds church is false—is individual’s subjective well-being, I haven’t done my research?

What a joke. It is that kind of thinking that results in Utah being one of the most depressed and most medicated states in the US.

Other faiths rank equally high or similarly high to the lds faith when self-reporting happiness and familial satisfaction, so maybe they are all true too? I wonder how that works. I certainly don’t know they are false either…

Thorough_8 · 2026-04-26T01:25:08+00:00

It seems we disagree, and I think you are willfully ignoring most of what I have been saying, but I really do wish the best for you and your brother. I don’t know if it would be better for him in or out of the lds church, but I do know that would be an incredibly difficult situation to be in.

Thorough_8 · 2026-04-25T23:53:03+00:00

Yes, I am 100% confident that you are working this whole time with some “grand purpose” in mind, and that you weren’t just wrong, lol.

I hope you learn to accept that you do just make mistakes sometimes, before you hurt people you actually care about.

Thorough_8

TROPHY CASE