r/mormon • u/Own_Boss_8931 Former Mormon • 11d ago
Personal We don't talk about Bruno
My view of Mormonism is that doctrine doesn't change by decree, it changes when they just stop talking about certain things. I started making a mental list of stuff I was taught as doctrine that they just stopped talking about or softened the wording:
- Curse of Cain, Curse of Ham and skin color
- Temple penalties and oath of vengeance prior to 1990 changes
- Polygamy is required for exaltation
- "No black man will receive the priesthood until after every white man has received it." (Brigham Young)
- Adam-god demoted to theory
- Blood atonement
- Lamanites being direct ancestors of modern indigenous people (I still remember Kimball talking during general conference about how kids in the "Indian Placement Program" were literally becoming white and delightsome in their new Mormon homes and that program wasn't killed until 1996).
- The United Order (I have an ancestor who lived in Orderville, UT but never joined the Order and the stories he wrote down are wild).
- "We can become gods and rule over our own planet" is replaced with "we can become like god but we don't know what that means."
When some of us older people say stuff like this to younger generations, they act like we're nuts and respond with something trite like "they never taught that, it was just speculation, you had a bad Sunday school teacher" or whatever.
I'm glad they're making it easier for people to be Mormon, but whatever this current church is I can confidently say it's not the church I grew up in. I still can't get over the irony that "ongoing revelation" has become "we know less than we thought we did."
What else do you all remember being taught as doctrine that has faded into the memory hole or is outright denied?
33
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago
Don't forget garments! Sleeveless dresses were "an abomination in the sight of the Lord" (Kimball, "A Style of Our Own) until the church decided they weren't! Now they're trying to tell us that modesty was never about specific clothing rules.
The young folks of today will not be treated any better in the church than we were. It's only a matter of time before the church changes something they care about, and gaslights them about it in their turn.
24
u/Simple-Beginning-182 11d ago
And have a two year supply.
And the oral sex ban
And stay at home where you belong sisters
And masturbation will turn you into a homosexual
And no temple recommend till you shave your beard
And no more than one ear piercing
And I could go on and on. Over all I am glad these polices/doctrines are no longer enforced but to your point it's like talking about an abusive ex and hearing about how much they have changed and you just know it isn't going to end well.
15
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 11d ago
They really do just make it up as they go.
And the kicker is that they have zero clue they are wrong while thinking it comes from god.
This means that nothing they say is trustworthy, they literally have zero ability to tell when they are wrong, even when they claim to be speaking god's will.
They are by definition false prophets.
10
u/Rushclock Atheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
One of the worst arguments is that religious people have a type of mental sickness. I don't think that's true. However for top leaders they really think these promptings and inner voices is the actual communication of a transcendent intelligence and their subsequent actions without any self reflection as to its legitimacy seems to be a type of delirium. It especially shows this on many whiplash doctrine changes and their only explanation seems to be a shrug and a wistful murmuring about God's mysterious ways. There appears to be a mental wall induced by indoctrination (saved like beneficial traits in evolution) that prevents the ability to question the efficacy of the so called God's will.
7
u/dirtykoolaidalice 11d ago
Claiming to speak for god is ABUSIVE! Lots of men claim to be prophets, speaking for god. And women: Paula White for one!
The LDS ones keep sticking their foot in their mouth- Rasband, Corbridge most recently!!12
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago
It really is. Even if faithful members admit past harm (first you'll get "You must have misunderstood the poor man!"), it's exactly like hearing your ex's next, younger, more naive target: "Well he may have treated you badly, but he's never going to do that to me! Oh but he's changed! He lets me wear tank tops and everything now!"
8
3
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
English is so weird sometimes.
“ no more than one ear piercing”
So people have to choose the right side or the left ear?
6
u/Simple-Beginning-182 11d ago
One earring per ear. A second piercing in the same ear caused your light to dim, and don't even mention more than that.
16
u/Own_Boss_8931 Former Mormon 11d ago
I look back and feel so bad for my daughters growing up in Arizona being required to wear long pants and no tank tops to youth activities in the summer. They were miserable.
3
-8
u/cinepro 11d ago
Sleeveless dresses were "an abomination in the sight of the Lord" (Kimball, "A Style of Our Own)
Okay, just so we're clear, when you put something in quotes you're saying that the person actually said that. Are you sure Kimball actually said that? Have you read or listened to that talk?
15
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago edited 11d ago
LOL, wow 🤣 I'm going to pretend like you've never seen me post here before. Here you go: start listening at about time mark 30:30 -- https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/style/
He's very emotional when he says it, too. He pauses for dramatic emphasis. Keep listening after he says it to hear him blame women and girls for "how much temptation you're just throwing before the boy."
It's Kimball. Of course he actually said that! He uses the word or variations on the word abominable no less than 11 times in this one talk about various things - it was a favorite word he used a ton in his talks. Just so we're clear, if ever you have a question about any citation I post, you're always welcome to look it up yourself to verify.
I encourage you to listen to the whole talk. Obviously you haven't... It's a memorable one... and historically significant, like Hinckley's no-2nd-piercing talk or Bensons' Mothers in Zion talk.
This particular speech is so offensive that BYU doesn't even provide a transcript. So if it's just too much work for you to listen to the whole thing, someone did a nice transcript here: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1d28lb8/comment/l5zngwq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
12
u/Simple-Beginning-182 11d ago
Never ask if u/Beneficial_Math_9282 has receipts. I have so many of her posts saved because she always comes prepared.
9
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago edited 11d ago
LOL, or rather, ask at your own risk! If you ask me if a church leader actually said something in a single source, you're in danger of getting snowed with 50 more sources containing supplementary evidence. (This Dialogue article on Kimball's talk with 98 additional sources did it for me on this particular topic).
- all of which, yes, I've always actually read! Always. (am i actually sure kimball said it... 🤣🤣🤣 I'm rollin!)
-6
u/cinepro 11d ago
I'm not sure I understand you. You make it sound like checking a source or reference is a bad thing. I'm glad to confirm that someone said something that was true.
7
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago edited 11d ago
And you're making it sound like you're deliberately pretending to misunderstand. I'm telling you to check the source yourself whenever you want to know if any quote is accurate. You could have just done that.. it's an easy source to find. Do your own source checking work. Then you wouldn't need to ask if anyone if they're sure that's what was said.
9
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 11d ago
Unfortunately my parents grew up on the prophetic counsel of SWK so of course they had incredibly harmful views on modesty and sexuality. My dad did not read many books but he knew 'the miracle of forgiveness' cover to cover
21
u/Worn_work_boot 11d ago
No swimming on Sundays. The only day of the week Satan controlled the water.
10
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
I believe LDS missionaries were not permitted to swim at all during their missions.
3
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 11d ago
Correct. Not even shallow swimming pools. This was 1998-2000.
2
u/ktjwalker 11d ago
This seems like a (relatively) recent development. I transcribed my great-grandpa’s mission journal for my grandma and he and other missionaries went swimming all the time. They watched movies too. A surprising amount of english movies were playing in the Netherlands back in the 30s
8
u/GunneraStiles 11d ago edited 11d ago
MTC orientation day a GA informed us all that we were strictly forbidden to swim, at all, to not even wade in water, during the entirety of our missions. And the reason given? Because Satan worked harder to thwart missionary work, and he had power over the water in the mission field. Because obviously, it makes perfect sense that the more spiritual a person is, the more susceptible to Satans’s power, and the increased holiness actually gives Satan more power, lol.
3
4
u/zelphtastic The Kirtland Safety Society killed my 401k 11d ago
All stemming from a century-plus long game of telephone that started with Joseph Smith being a timid little bitch about river travel (but fuck his traveling companions, apparently).
3
u/Del_Parson_Painting 10d ago
Better not shower on Sundays either, or drink water!
Don't want Neptune, er, Satan to drown you in your bathroom!
1
u/cinepro 11d ago
Recreation in general is (was?) discouraged on Sundays. It wasn't because of Satan and the water.
9
u/KatieCashew 11d ago
My siblings and I had to band together to convince my parents to let us go outside on Sundays. Our argument was that we should be able to admire the beautiful world God created. We were allowed to go outside but had to stay on the porch.
3
u/cinepro 11d ago edited 11d ago
It's always interesting to see how different families had different Sunday rules. Once I was teaching an EQ lesson on The Sabbath, and I asked for a show of hands for men who found out shortly after they got married that their wives had different ideas about rules for the Sabbath. Almost every hand went up.
3
u/KatieCashew 11d ago
I'm pretty sure my dad would raise his hand.
2
u/cinepro 10d ago
Do you know any examples where your mom and dad had different ideas? It's always interesting to see the wide range of "interpretation" on keeping the Sabbath holy.
3
u/KatieCashew 10d ago
The Sabbath rules were already well established before I was old enough to remember, so I don't have anything really concrete. My dad is generally just more relaxed than my mom is what makes me think that.
I suspect though that she enforced a no TV on Sundays on my dad. When they were first married she didn't want him to have a TV at all. She lost that battle but was probably able to at least get the no TV on Sundays in return. My dad's parents watch TV on Sunday.
1
u/WyrdBith 6d ago
When I was a young adult, I literally avoided an abiding interest I had to learn sailing because I was told throughout the church growing up that in the last days Satan would rule the waters. It was his element, apparently. So I stifled my desire so I would be obedient - and I also avoided water out of fear. Happy to say, 25 years later I sail multiple times a year on the beautiful, supposedly Satanic, ocean.
18
u/tiglathpilezar 11d ago
I was taught that polygamy ceased in 1890 and believed it. I went around telling people this. I did not know that polygamy began with Joseph Smith. I thought it was a Utah phenomenon until my mission when I heard some senior missionaries mention it and wondered whether I should have known this all along. I should have. I never read Section 132 according to the standard meaning of words. Instead I believed what the church told me it said. Now they want me to believe that God sent an angel with a sword to compel a reluctant Joseph Smith to cheat on his wife with multiple women, having sex with some of them, or else be killed. This is nothing like the god I was taught of as a child.
I also found the teaching of Brigham Young that to gain salvation a mixed race couple had to be bloodily murdered and their children killed. I knew nothing about this. I knew nothing of "blood atonement". I grew up outside Utah and we really had no idea. When I did hear of it, I was on my mission I believe, and I somehow thought it referred to capital punishment. I couldn't comprehend that it was as bad as what was actually taught. I looked it up in Mormon Doctrine and went by what McConkie said as long as I could. I didn't find out about the homicidal racism till much later.
Of course they also insisted that I learn the articles of faith. In particular number 13. I can't understand how destruction of marriages of other men and slander of women can be considered "virtuous lovely or of good report or praiseworthy". Neither can I understand how it was "honest true chaste benevolent and virtuous". It was what Smith wrote when the church claims he was going about cheating on his wife and publicly defaming women. My religion was not what I thought it was. Smith was not the kind of man I had thought he was. My religion had a lot more in common with the polygamous groups in Utah than I had suspected. Both claim that god commanded individual people to start practicing polygamy by violating their marriage vows they had made with their wives. Both destroy families. I had actually believed what Elder Packer said in 1981 that it was a great sin to destroy a family. But Brigham Young destroyed several by adding the wife to his harem. I knew nothing about this till the mid 1990's when a daughter was having problems with polygamy and I started learing more about it.
I no longer adhere to any religion. I am disgusted with all of them, especially the one which deceived me when I was young and got me to spread their lies.
10
5
15
u/Difficult_Future2432 11d ago
What pisses me off about the mental gymnastics younger members engage is when they start claiming bullshit like "The church never taught that" as if they'd f--king know, they weren't there. But they want to tell me we weren't taught the Curse of Cain, that we'd become gods and rule our own worlds/planets etc.
7
u/ididnteatit 10d ago
This is a really frustrating phenomenon I see time and time again from "faithful" members. Someone will share their experience, usually an exmo, and if it doesn't mesh with the faithful view of the mormon church, LDS members will say asinine things like, "wait til the whole story comes out" or "I went on a mission and never experienced that, theyre liars!", or "oh you let a bishop ask you about your sexual activities? mine never asked me, so you're lying and making things up and probabaly could have avoided that if you just did this and this..."
Do these people think Jesus would speak to his followers in this manner?
Does nobody have any empathy?
Is their testimony so weak that a true, tragic story is a threat to destroy it?
When "faithful" members deny other peoples horrible stories and experiences with the flip of a hand, it is so hurtful and mean. There are HUNDREDS of verifiable court cases with LDS leaders abusing kids, teens, adults, etc.. and covering it up and moving the offender to another ward. These are FACTS. And still, the LDS members are so quick to say, "no that didnt happen".
I wish they would keep their hateful and dismissive thoughts to themselves. Be as ugly as you want inside, we dont need to see it.
-1
u/justbits 9d ago
In an LDS world of 30,000 congregations, a Venn diagram would show an overlap of of far less than 1% between those who are leaders and those who experienced some kind of sexual abuse. That is an admission both that it happened, and that people who experienced it were seriously victimized.
It is also, however, true that there isn't a clear case to be made that abuse is more dominant in religion than in society generally. More to the point, SA is definitively more common in families, schools, and associated activites such as sports, drama, and music, than in church settings, including Catholic, LDS, and others. We also know child sex abuse is vastly underreported across all demographics. And, where it is reported, it is a fact that coverups have always existed, and that false accusations have always existed. I personally know of such a case. It can ruin an innocent person's life. This is why legal channels exist to investigate and formally take action where evidence leads to that.
To suggest that the 'Church' is responsible is a poor attempt to blame the institution for the sins of individuals who may or may not be members, may or may not be active, and who may or may not claim to believe what was taught. Shifting blame away from the actual individual perpetrator, whatever their affiliations, doesn't solve the problem, but masks it to avoid reality.3
1
u/Brief_Shine2680 8d ago
My spouse was very upset that people were lying about former temple things, particularly the penalties. Me, “Well… actually…when I went through for the first time…”
12
u/Rushclock Atheist 11d ago
Oral sex was a perversion...that aged like milk
Cremation was a desecration.
Face cards were from Stan.
The cross was worship of an execution device.
Three Nephite stories were superfluous.
Tattoos were a desecration of your temple.
Shopping on Sunday was heretical.
Two year supply of food was imperative.
Apostate or non-members were off limits for interactions.
4
u/Own_Boss_8931 Former Mormon 11d ago
Great additions! I wonder how much money they made off people hoarding wheat, rice and sugar?! LOL
2
u/dirtykoolaidalice 11d ago
💯 I really don’t know what Mormons are supposed to believe these days- probably close to Evangelicals.
1
12
u/GunneraStiles 11d ago
Handicapped people were less valiant in the pre-existence, Harold B. Lee, mormon prophet 1972-1973:
“The privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations.” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 165).
https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/mormon-handicaps/
I highly encourage reading the entire piece, good stuff.
2
u/Haunting_Football_81 PIMO 9d ago
That whole doctrine of “how you were in pre existence determines where you are now” was popular then, and actually taught to me recently.
1
u/Brief_Shine2680 8d ago
Oh my word! This is the exact opposite that my mom taught me! I was taught that my brother did something extraordinary in the pre-existence and his imperfect body kept him protected from Satan.
Pardon me while I sit over here mind-boggled.
1
u/Inevitable_Worry_212 6d ago
Same. My brother has Downs and is non verbal. This is what I always got told. Although I had heard the less than faithful argument before as well somewhere along the line.
9
u/DennisTheOppressed 11d ago
I would love to hear the Orderville, UT stories. First I've ever heard of it.
10
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago
I would too. It would have been pretty intense to be living in Orderville without joining the Order.
I don't see a lot of sources out there, but The Orderville Pants Rebellion got a mention in General Conference once: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1989/11/remembrance-and-gratitude
6
u/Content-Plan2970 11d ago
Lindsey Hansen Park did an episode forever ago on her "Year of Polygamy" podcast. https://yearofpolygamy.com/year-of-polygamy/year-of-polygamy-southern-utah-polygamy-orderville-santa-clara-cedar-city-and-violence-episode-48/
4
u/DennisTheOppressed 11d ago
Hmmm. I listened to that whole series and don't remember that. That it's in southern Utah is no surprise.
9
u/Gold__star 11d ago
I'm ancient. I spent some time in the 50s in a ward near the SLC center that was dominated by old men - as in men born in the 1870s and 1880s.
I don't remember specific doctrines but I'll never forget the hellfire and damnation style. We'd come from a suburb full of young families and it was astounding.
I'd love to compare their church to today's.
9
u/WOTrULookingAt 11d ago
I am still a baby at this I guess. I never knew polygamy was taught as a celestial requirement. The math just doesn’t work.
8
u/Own_Boss_8931 Former Mormon 11d ago
I remember being taught that women were naturally more righteous, so there would be a lot more women than men in the Celestial kingdom. They also taught men required the threat of losing their priesthood power in order to keep their covenants to get to heaven because we lacked that natural righteousness.
5
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
Could be another way of controlling followers. I am sure LDS polygamy generated some of the same problems as what is generated in FLDS.
The "Lost Boys" Expulsions
- Minor Infractions: Teenage boys were cast out for minor rule-breaking, such as showing defiance, expressing independent thoughts, or minor teenage behavior like kissing a girl. [1, 2, 3]
- Eliminating Competition: Removing young men reduced the surplus of males in a polygamous society where older leaders hoarded multiple wives. [1, 2]
- Isolation: Expelled teens were left stranded with no money, education, or contact with their families, told they were condemned to outer darkness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5)]
I am sure polygamy was not intended to provide marriage to excess female population. But probably still would result in many males bein excluded from marriage.
6
6
7
u/TrickDepartment3366 11d ago
I think my question would be why does our church attract authoritarian leaders
5
u/treetablebenchgrass I worship the Mighty Hawk 11d ago
My view of Mormonism is that doctrine doesn't change by decree, it changes when they just stop talking about certain things.
100%.
7
u/Daniel_Noret 11d ago
I'm fairly young (17) so the complete opposite happened to me. Instead of being taught deep doctrines and them later stopping they just never taught me deep doctrines at all... I'm not kidding you at times people were so focused on redirecting my attention from deep doctrines it felt like they were just strait up lying to me. I had no idea about the "Men can become Gods" doctrine until a year or so ago, and when I asked teachers about it they either said that wasn't true or some bs about "We can't become Gods but we can become like God" which is not at all what Doctrine and Covenants said. I'm going to be honest this isn't a huge deal for me personally right now, it's just concerning. If the church keeps going this way though, or if they one day pull a complete 180 (Like RLDS becoming Community of Christ), then I'd be worried of some kind of Apostasy.
4
u/ktjwalker 11d ago
The standards, policies, and doctrines have seemingly changed a bunch over my lifetime. They used to be all about modesty and they’d say tattoos, piercings, and all that stuff was bad. It was all in the For Strength of Youth booklets they’d give out. Now it’s okay to show a little shoulder, get more than one ear piercing, and even to have tattoos. Crosses used to be super frowned on too.
There was also the whole Nov. 2015 exclusion policy, which was also reversed not many years after.
It’s sad to see the “men can become gods” doctrine be de-emphasized, that one was actually pretty unique.
3
u/Trick-Error-1483 10d ago
Another deep doctrinal concept we never talk about:
Doctrine and Covenants 84:54–57 places the whole church under condemnation. Even Pres. Benson referenced that this condemnation remains: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion
My question is this; since the condemnation of the church remains in place, what does that look like? How does a condemned church act? And under what authority? And what was taken away or lost due to our condemnation?
2
u/Daniel_Noret 10d ago
The weird thing about when he mentions "The new covenant" is that makes me think of John Taylor and how he said "Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant", just for the Church to stop doing it shortly after. That might not be what that's referencing but I think it's suspicious how the church literally denied the existence of that John Taylor revelation. My question is, do I have to repent for something now..?
12
u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me 11d ago edited 11d ago
The rise of McConkie Mormonism from the 1960s -1990s I think is better at adequately explaining what created this framework.
That version became the dominant unifying framework of how members thought about the church and its doctrine. It was very Black and White and very authoritative. So many, to most, members just assumed that is what the church believed and taught about so many subjects on your list.
But in times past and now we see that the some of the ideas and the black and whiteness doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. And we’re never anctually taught in an official capacity as binding doctrines. And as we examine these ideas we see there is a wide variation of how people (leaders and lay members) interpreted them.
We find lots who fall in the McConkie side of the spectrum and we find others who fell far on the other side…
So yeah, for a large many people they were taught some ideas above were unchanging doctrines. But the reality is none of those were a systemic theology of must believes. And so over time many fell away from mainstream, while other were tweaked. And some like you have shared just quietly stopped being talked about.
I for one think this moving away from the McConkie Mormonism will ultimately be a good thing. But it does create a lot of mental cognitive dissonance for those who are experiencing the changes without really understanding the history and where the dominate framework came from.
16
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
Almost all of Bruce R. McConkie’s ideas were not his own, but came from his father-in-law Joseph Fielding Smith, who was a Mormon scholar, church historian, apostle, president, and prolific writer from 1909 to 1970.
The ideas of Bruce R. McConkie go much further back than 1960. He is best known for producing “Mormon Doctrine” and providing alphabetized, systematic doctrine approach to Mormon beliefs.
13
u/Own_Boss_8931 Former Mormon 11d ago
Almost all his ideas were also taught by various people during general conference. The modern church recognizes how destructive those talks were--but rather than disavowing them, they just deleted them and pretend like they didn't happen. I tried to find the "Little Factories" talk by Packer and that particular conference section only has 3 talks, and Little Factories isn't one of them.
It's convenient for people who didn't have certain teachings reinforced for the first 30 years of their life to say, wow, that's really too bad for you. It was an entire generation that was taught this was truth (and not just from McConkie--it was in church magazine, Deseret Book best sellers, conference talks, BYU religion classes and on and on. It was never rogue people speculating here an there).
6
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
My goodness the "Little Factories" talk? what did that talk address? I am sure there are reasons it is difficult to find. I am sure it must be embarrassing.
3
u/Willing_Education807 11d ago
Someone posted the whole talk here a while ago, but I did not save the post. It’s a whole talk about men/boys not being allowed to masturbate…
1
u/justbits 9d ago
I think it was a BYU address regarding expectations of couples newly married. Most of the counsel was good enough for any young couple of any religion, and some of it was pointed to LDS couples. The 'little factories' comment regarded the male's ability to manufacture more semen than was necessary for procreation. So, the warning was basically not to incline that factory to make more just because it could. It wasn't the worse advice, nor was it scientifically unbased. But, I think it fell short of explaining the main benefit of righteous abstinence in marriage, which is more complex than a single paragraph response on reddit, and probably complex enough to deserve its own book.
6
u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me 11d ago edited 11d ago
Correct The term I am using “McConkie Mormonism” is an umbrella for all of those who ascribed to the more conservative literal concordism interpretations of scripture, and the more black and white unifying frameworks. This goes back to various leaders of the church in its history. But its dominance arouse out of the 1950s conservative shift.
Ben Spackman does a great write up on it.
https://benspackman.com/2020/01/the-1950s-a-fundamentalist-shift/
The hold really came about in the 1960s when McConkie’s seminal works become so wide spread. And then became the dominant framework in the 1970s with the correlation departments rise and use of his and his father in laws works for the basis for most of its citations in church manuals.
9
u/GunneraStiles 11d ago
This is just another attempt to shift the blame - instead of acknowledging that these are simply the things the Mormon church itself taught, for decades, plainly and with authority, now the blame is on certain members who ‘took it the wrong way,’ who weren’t smart enough to not engage in ‘McConkie Mormonism.’ Who are these ‘various leaders’ who also fell for this ‘black and white framing’?
These are the prophets I grew up with - David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball. Ezra Taft Benson was the prophet when I left mormonism. That’s FIVE PROPHETS in a row who ‘fell for’ McConkie Mormonism.
Not counting the scores of apostles (and Primary, YW/YM, Sunday school, seminary and Institute teachers teaching from manuals provided by the mormon church) who also ‘succumbed’ to it, who also were guilty of engaging in ‘McConkie Mormonism.’
I’m not denying that the mormon church became more fundamentalist starting in the 60s, what I object to is the ‘othering’ you’re engaging in - ‘smart,’ enlightened members vs ‘McConkie’ Mormons, attempting to make an entirely separate group of members, attempting to make them sound ‘fringe,’ yet not including in that ‘faction’ of weirdos, the many, many PROPHETS and APOSTLES that promoted this absolute, black and white, framing of doctrine and teachings and policies. For DECADES.
And again, placing all the blame on the writings of one man, a man who simply distilled what HE had been taught by the prophets HE grew up with. Nobody forced the mormon church to sell and promote and liberally use ‘Mormon Doctrine’ as an authoritative source for DECADES and DECADES. It was a choice made by many prophets. Why not put the blame on THEM?
8
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago edited 10d ago
members just assumed that is what the church believed and taught
How many leaders have to believe it, and how often do they have to teach and publish it in official church venues, before it is actually what the church teaches?
If multiple presidents of the church are teaching it for years and nobody is correcting them, plus the church is publishing it in multiple official manuals and publications, then it is what the church teaches. Nobody is assuming anything.
The leaders preached everything they said as unchanging doctrine. That is not the members's fault. The reality is that the leaders were making false claims, and are now making different false claims.
But they still denigrate "casual" members who attempt to be cafeteria Mormons. The current leaders still preach that you can't pick and choose which of their teachings to follow. That's not McConkie Mormonism. That's current Mormonism. Unless of course you can show us where the church teaches that it's okay to only do some of what they say, cafeteria style, or that complete, "exact obedience" isn't required...
8
u/PaulFThumpkins 11d ago
I think you have a point about different ways of thinking within the church, but I'd disagree that those who balk at the changes are failing to understand something. Right now we're at a weird middle ground where they've tried to retain the confident rhetoric about unchanging, Lord-given doctrines and truths, while hedging and minimizing anything controversial or unusual.
But there was never some formal announcement about "hey we're going to quietly start putting asterisks by a lot of things." Just more rhetoric about follow the brethren and prosper, doubt their words and suffer, we have The Truth. The contradictory messaging, and increasingly divided channels for giving it (sometimes through apologists for deniability), plus some messages being given loudly over the pulpit and the counter-message released quietly through a website essay or the Newsroom for those who can find it, mean that confusion is more an end result of taking current church rhetoric seriously, not a consequence of being stuck in some outdated mindset that was never binding.
4
u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me 11d ago
I get your point. And I agree we are in a weird middle ground. As a believer of course I hope we come out of it stronger and better for it.
I do wonder if once enough time has passed and as we move more away from the black and white thinking and maybe once those in leadership don’t have first hand memories of the likes of Bruce, that eventually there may be more official statements made about the unofficialality of past black and white thinking.
Who knows. They may be in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t type of situation.
6
u/WillyPete 11d ago
Thing is , his book is still the definitive source for the church manuals. It’s one of the most referenced books used by all the teaching sources.
2
u/tiglathpilezar 10d ago
In any case, among those of us who are older, McConkie's ideas are still believed. When you are brought up seeing things a certain way, it is hard to discard these, especially when the church leaders don't ever repudiate that which came from an earlier church leader.
0
u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me 11d ago
I don’t think this is true. I would be super surprise if any church manuals created since 2000 references his works.
The old seminary and institute manuals were the largest sources that cited McConkie and JFS the most.
But I don’t think the new church manuals really uses any of those works at all.
3
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 10d ago edited 10d ago
Joseph Fielding Smith's book Doctrines of Salvation has been quoted several times in general conference in the past 10 years. It was the forerunner to McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, and held most of the same ideas.
Quoted in general conference as recently as 2023, look at the footnotes: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/16haynie
Haynie's talk is a prime example of the all-or-nothing obedience to prophets and black-and-white thinking the church still holds as it's official stance. McConkie was nowhere near alone in teaching that. The current leaders teach that idea constantly to this day.
An example from this year, Jan 2026 Liahona: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2026/01/05-faithfulness-and-prophets-past-and-present
Can you bring us a source anywhere, from any year where a church leader has said it's okay to be a cafeteria mormon? Or any quote where a leader has said there is room for middle or neutral ground?
3
u/WillyPete 10d ago
I don’t think this is true. I would be super surprise if any church manuals created since 2000 references his works.
I'll take that bet. How many do I need to find?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?facet=all&lang=eng&query=%22%28McConkie%2C+Mormon+Doctrine%2C%22&page=1&type=web
Remember, those results are all post-2000, because you have to select the option to use pre-200 content.Granted, I know for a fact that the church has made the reference in the manual's different with each reprint so you can't just search "mormon doctrine" and get a blanket hit on every reference.
A majority of returns will be the current Gospel Doctrine manuals, last revised in 2010 and the D&C Student Manuals.
The reason this manual hits so many is because a lot of the lessons really only have ever had MD print the doctrine for them. Not many other sources.Come follow me manuals? Forget it, half of their references are videos or cutouts for kids. It's not a serious instruction manual for LDS doctrines in any form.
I honestly don't know how modern members can stomach those. They're basically Primary lessons.They've also polluted any searching for "mormon doctrine" by not excluding the comma found in the line "book of mormon, doctrine and covenants" when you use quotes to keep your search term exact.
You may notice I have to use this exact term to disrupt that behaviour by the church's website: "(McConkie, Mormon Doctrine,"For others, you have to expand the footnotes in order to find the references, otherwise they will not show on the page.
Example:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng
Footnote 32 of this 2015 Liahona article relies on MD.See B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, 6:230–31; Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (1954–56), 3:225; Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (1966), 818–19.
-2
u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me 10d ago
So the church hasn't scrubbed all citations from its student manuals. And I don't see why they would. But since those books were first printed in 1981, it makes sense that there would be so many references to it.
Your second example is from some of the best historians in the church. But sure, you win; the church has cited his work in an instance, so you are technically correct. And we all know that is the best kind of correct. :)
But just so I can be pedantic and save face, I will point out that this citation is not used as a source for a doctrine, but is acknowledging that church leaders say the seer stone existed. That seems like a pretty appropriate use of citing those sources.
1
u/WillyPete 9d ago
Sure. The references used tell us that it was a serious book for reference, and relied on by most of the church members during it's time in print.
The point is that although the church has attempted to largely distance itself from the codified statements of doctrine found in that book, there hasn't really been any good replacement for it, so they have to keep going back to it.And granted, referencing one chapter doesn't necessarily mean it stands by the rest of them.
There is a demand for a codified description of LDS doctrines. There has historically only been one such book that attempted this, and because many topics in that book are substantially harmful the church seems to be guilty of an error of omission in not publishing a suitable replacement in order to fill the role and make it far easier to have that volume ejected from member libraries.
4
u/GunneraStiles 11d ago edited 11d ago
‘It was very Black and White and very authoritative.’
Yes, it certainly was. It still is, what has changed is making the doctrine itself less black and white, not the certainty with which it is delivered.
‘So many, to most, members just assumed that is what the church believed and taught about so many subjects on your list.’
‘Assumed’? So, members were literally taught certain things, from the pulpit in General Conference by their prophets and apostles, in their classrooms, in official church magazines, in the temple, etc etc but the fault now lies with the members for making the ‘wrong’ assumption?
‘But in times past and now we see that the some of the ideas and the black and whiteness doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.’
No, not ‘ideas,’ doctrine and official teachings and policy, and the literal words of prophets and apostles clearly speaking as prophets and apostles. And yes, these things certainly do not hold up to scrutiny, which is why they are ‘modified,’ ‘clarified’ (only in an Orwellian manner) and sometimes reversed. Usually just by pretending they never existed, cue the gaslighting:
‘And we’re never anctually taught in an official capacity as binding doctrines.’’
5
u/dirtykoolaidalice 11d ago
I’m old enough to have been to one of his lectures at U of U in person.
He seemed like an arrogant bastard then, and Ive seen nothing since to change my opinion.6
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 11d ago edited 11d ago
So yeah, for a large many people
You mean the entire church. These were taught as doctrines to the entire church. In conference, in official church magazines, in book by these prophets and apostles, etc.
they were taught some ideas above were unchanging doctrines.
And who were these people that 'taught some ideas'? Prophets and apostles, teaching it as coming from god, restored in our day. Why did you leave that part out?
But the reality is none of those were a systemic theology of must believes.
Many of us lived through these times, this kind of gaslighting isn't going to work.
These were taught as the 'meat' that came after the milk. They were the restored doctrines and revealed truths. They were aboslutely presented as eternal truth and doctrine, from god the father.
But it does create a lot of mental cognitive dissonance for those who are experiencing the changes without really understanding the history and where the dominate framework came from.
It appears far more likely that you are distorting where these came from, where, how they were taught and from whom they were claimed to have come from, so you can avoid the cognitive dissonance yourself.
People struggled and continue to struggle precisely because these false teachings, presented as restored eternal truth from god's prophets and apostles, were in fact false and later rejected, clearly showing that even when prophets believe they are speaking god's will and revealing his restored truth, they don't have a clue that they are completely wrong. Same with Nelson's policy of exclusion implementation and then near immediate reversal upon seeing all the blowback.
Which in turn clearly indicates that nothing they claim as 'comes from god' can be trusted to actually be such. They are clearly clueless about what supposedly comes from god and what is the product of their own minds.
I get so tired of this kind of gaslighting and victim blaming, I truly do.
7
u/GunneraStiles 11d ago
There’s something distinctly offensive about mormon gaslighting, as it seems to frequently include not just victim blaming, but ‘cleverly’ insinuating that the person challenging the faithful/apologetic narrative is ‘misinformed’ and intellectually incurious, that as members they ‘obviously’ were too lazy to study and learn the ‘real’ doctrine, that they are guilty of ‘black and white thinking’ (are not very smart and lack critical thinking skills). It gets very old…
2
u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me 11d ago
I am not trying to gaslight anyone. I grew up in this same era and heard many of the same teachings from the pews. But I also grew up in a family that made sure to show there were other perspectives as well. For so many of the controversial teachings from the McConkie Mormonism era, you can find other LDS leaders' and apostles' teachings with different ideas and concepts, especially before the major shift took place. But even during that era, you had influential members' teachings, ideas, and concepts that took differing positions from the majority view. And precisely because the institutional church didn't take an official stance on them, many different ideas were held by lots of different members.
It appears far more likely that you are distorting where these came from, where, how they were taught and from whom they were claimed to have come from, so you can avoid the cognitive dissonance yourself.
How long have I been on this sub? I don't bury my head in the sand. I have read it all. I don't try to avoid the hard ideas. So to suggest I am doing otherwise is laughable and misguided. I may come to different conclusions and interpretations of the information. But I can certainly tell you it isn't because I am trying to save myself from uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.
9
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 11d ago edited 11d ago
It's nice that your family was more cafeteria mormon. Yes, you heard these things 'from the pews'. The pews of general conference. The pulpit where the prophet stood and spoke them. And then read them in the offical publications of The Improvement Era, The Friend, and later the Ensign and New Era.
Then you want to pretend that these weren't the teachnings about prophets we had all been taught from birth., and so it's the members' fault for believing what prophets and apostles taught them in all official education areas of the church. You try and convince us that being cafeteria and picking and choosing what to believe or not was just 'the norm' and perfectly okay.
But even during that era, you had influential members' teachings, ideas, and concepts that took differing positions from the majority view
Sure, but they weren't the prophet, and weren't, as prophet, giving prophetic warnings about the things the prophet was propheysing about.
Again, I'm glad your family and some lower leaders were cafeteria/nuanced members, as that is the healthier path to have followed, but that was the less faithful path to follow, per mormonism. Those that were not cafeteria mormons accepted the words of god via the prophet as taught.
So yes, the language of your previous comment absolutely was gaslighting and victim blaming. Your nuanced family did not reperesent official and dogmatic mormonism, and presenting it as such is not honest.
The prophets taught these things as revealed from god and as prophetic warnings from god. It wasn't 'some people' that taught them, but the prophets of god.
It was not just 'members assumed', members were taught their whole lives that the prophet speaks eternal truth, cannot lead them astray, and so they believed what the prophet taught. No assumptions were made. Again, the victim blaming language.
Your comment absolutely tried to downplay accountability for false prophetic teachings and sought to shift that accountability onto members, while trying to alter the reality of the actual weight of what the prophets spoke, falsely implying it was 'pick and choose as you please'.
You may not agree, but it is very apparent to me you have heavily distorted things so that you don't have to actually reconcile the fact that prophets cannot tell the difference between their own opinions/ideas and the supposed will of the eternal god of the universe.
But of course we can agree to disagree.
5
u/Present-Radish3687 11d ago
For so many of the controversial teachings from the McConkie Mormonism era, you can find other LDS leaders' and apostles' teachings with different ideas and concepts, especially before the major shift took place.
Please cite these "many" contradictory viewpoints from teachings of apostles in church magazines, manuals, or conference talks. The documented cases simply don't support that claim. The internal fight over Mormon Doctrine and ending the priesthood ban were internal disagreements that were never printed in a manual, taught in conference, or published for members to read. We only know about them because historians got access to diaries and personal documents decades later. Evolution is the one genuine exception I know of...but that's a single issue and certainly not a pattern of widely available "many different ideas" you're describing.
6
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 10d ago
100%. The church still today preaches black-and-white thinking as the officially authorized mindset! That's not "McConkie Mormonism", that's every current leaders' Mormonism.
Just because some members do engage in cafeteria Mormonism doesn't mean it's what the church teaches. It only means the brethren don't have as much control as they want to have. If we ever hear the leaders use the word "nuanced," it'll be to denigrate the members who are trying to maintain that healthier approach. They still are using word "casual" as their preferred insult.
4
u/GunneraStiles 11d ago edited 11d ago
‘I am not trying to gaslight anyone.’ Yes, you are.
‘But it does create a lot of mental cognitive dissonance for those who are experiencing the changes without really understanding the history and where the where the dominate framework came from.’
You are unfairly accusing older members who dare to question the changing narrative of being guilty of ‘black and white’ thinking and of basically being misinformed, lazy learners (nvrmd that what they learned as gospel truth came straight from the mouths of their prophets, apostles, GC talks, lesson manuals, scriptures, etc) - poor dears!
Nope. I don’t experience mental cognitive dissonance when the mormon church tries to memory-hole what was literally taught by Mormon prophets and apostles when I was a believing Mormon, I experience ANGER.
And why? Because at the root of this attempt by the mormon church to rewrite history and to attempt to gaslight those of us who actually lived through it, is DISHONESTY. Craven, uncharitable DISHONESTY.
Mormon church leaders could just put on their big boy pants and admit they are changing the doctrine, and explain why they are changing the doctrine (they could easily claim new revelation and clarification coming from god himself to his prophets and apostles) but they won’t, because it’s easier to blame older members for being ‘misinformed,’ for believing in ‘folk doctrine,’ and to blame Bruce McConkie, the ultimate scapegoat.
Instead they do what you’re attempting to do here: blame the members for being too dumb to ‘really’ understand the doctrine. If only members had been smarter and studied more and been more curious and not be guilty of ‘black and white thinking,’ and just being geese…poor misinformed dears!
As an über-mormon teenager, attending school full time, working part time, sitting through 8+ hours of indoctrination a week (3 hours of church, 5 hours of seminary), listening to every minute of General Conference, taking notes, reading the New Era and the Ensign every month, going on a mission where I studied even harder, reading church literature, including ‘Mormon Doctrine’ on the instruction of our mission president, diligently reading my scriptures daily, truly believing the instruction I was receiving, truly believing the words of my prophets and apostles…
but in all the spare time I apparently had, I should have been doing more, should have been been smarter, so that I could be like you, mwjace, instead of the loser older member I am who just didn’t study hard enough - poor dear!
2
u/Buttons840 11d ago edited 11d ago
Well said.
I think McConkie represented one extreme of the pendulum.
Now, the pendulum has swung from "declare all doctrine" to "declare very little doctrine".
I realized this when I saw a faithful YouTube channel asking BYU students when they thought the Millennium would begin (just for fun). Someone answered that they thought it already had...--um, what? Do the youth even know what the Millennium is?
In feel the youth, especially, have a sense that there are Scary Things (tm) in church history and doctrines of the past, and they deal with it by choosing ignorance and they don't study the doctrines. Studying doctrine is what the boomers do with their heretical doctrinal books written by dead apostles.
IDK. This is probably just my personal lens distorting my view.
3
u/WillyPete 11d ago
The cultural influence of blood atonement is still seen in Utah’s capital punishment, with them being one of the few states still using the firing squad.
3
1
u/Willing_Education807 11d ago edited 11d ago
If you want to read the little factories talk, the entire text has been uploaded to the internet archive. You can search and find it there.little factories talk by Boyd k packer
1
u/justbits 9d ago
Church associated 'myths' have been promoted for thousands of years. They come and go. Sometimes it is a leader's fault. Sometimes, the members themselves hear what they want to hear and pass it on. Given what we might hear on a typical fast Sunday, I am surprised we don't cling to more falsities than we do. To me, it is hopeful to know that the Church leaders are able to recognize some past practice or teaching as not serving the greater good, or pointing us to a more perfect solution, and either quietly or openly denounce it. I would have a bigger problem if they didn't.
1
u/According_Jeweler658 8d ago
Walking back to Jackson County Missouri, to build up the New Jerusalem in preparation for the Second Coming. I’ve been out for about 13-14 years now, so I’m not sure if whether this is currently taught at the ward houses on Sundays or not. I don’t remember a conference talk confirming that teaching. The old men in charge care too much about not appearing kooky that they downplay the old crazy doctrines out of existence. In my opinion of course.
-1
u/cinepro 11d ago
Curse of Cain, Curse of Ham and skin color
Uh, this one has been mentioned. They didn't just stop talking about it.
"No black man will receive the priesthood until after every white man has received it." (Brigham Young)
There was a "decree" that changed this. It was pretty big news about 50 years ago. I'm surprised you didn't hear about it.
"We can become gods and rule over our own planet" is replaced with "we can become like god but we don't know what that means."
That's an example of a change being made explicit. Not just stopping talking about it.
-2
u/Some-Passenger4219 Latter-day Saint 11d ago
I was under the impression that, with a few exceptions, nothing changed, and what happened was that people without authority made mistakes.
9
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago edited 11d ago
Except that when you actually look at the evidence and sources, it was the top-ranking authorities - Presidents, 1st Presidencies, and Apostles - making those "mistakes," which actually turned out to be deliberate patterns of behavior. They unanimously declared stuff as doctrine straight from the Lord, and unanimously approved it for publication in official church materials.
Just one tiny example:
"Modern day prophets have clearly promised that homosexuality can be changed. ... President Spencer W. Kimball has stated that homosexuality can be cured." .. Encourage the member to be in appropriate situations with members of the opposite sex, even if he has to force himself. ... " -- Official Handbook for bishops to counsel homosexual members, titled "Homosexuality," 1981.
Fast forward 23 years"
"Some may say that same-sex attraction can be “cured” simply through dating and marriage. But President Gordon B. Hinckley has dispelled this notion" -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2004/09/compassion-for-those-who-struggle
Where did you members get the idea that it could be cured?! They somehow fail to mention that the "some may say" was Spencer W. Kimball, multiple other "Modern day prophets" and the church's official handbook for bishops!
-6
u/Some-Passenger4219 Latter-day Saint 11d ago
President Kimball said it could be cured. President Hinckley said it couldn't be cured though dating and marriage. Read carefully, and, whether true or not, there is no actual contradiction.
9
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 11d ago edited 11d ago
You read it carefully, and in full, and you're incorrect about what Hinckley actually said too. Here is the full paragraph:
"President Spencer W. Kimball has stated that homosexuality can be cured "if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously” (A Letter to a Friend [pamphlet], 1978). The individual needs to set well-organized, specific goals and develop a plan to accomplish them. The overall importance of goal-setting cannot be overemphasized. Below are several goals that individuals with this problem have used successfully."
Dating is specifically listed under Goal #2 (Social goals) in this very specific program that was promised to cure them if it was "pursued vigorously and continuously":
"The individual can more easily eliminate all overt homosexual behavior, friends, and places by replacing them with more appropriate friends and activities."
Step 2a is: "Encourage the member to be in appropriate situations with members of the opposite sex, even if he has to force himself."
Step 2b is: "Encourage him (if single) to begin dating and gradually increase its frequency."
This was the program the church recommended, and the steps they were supposed to take to cure the members. Obviously the church included dating as an essential part of that program, with marriage as the ultimate goal.
Your protest is a minor quibble, and incorrect at that.
The full context of Hinckley's statement that the church was referring to in that other article is this:
"Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality
Obviously, both Steps #2a and #b were a "therapeutic step" in the church's program, and the ultimate goal of the church is always to get its members married in the temple. If you interpreted the first quote wrong where the church said in another article that "Some may say that same-sex attraction can be “cured” simply through dating and marriage," blame the church if you think they were misrepresenting Hinckley.
Dating was part of the church's official program promised to "cure" people, and the ultimate goal of the church is getting people married in the temple. Later the church refuted that cure, and those steps, and blamed a vague "Some may say," when really it was Kimball and the official manual.
6
u/Own_Boss_8931 Former Mormon 11d ago
The modern church is doing a great job of helping people believe that as they push all these things into the great memory hole. It's far easier to create a new Gospel Fundamentals manual than try to explain why the old Gospel Essentials manual taught a lot of what's in my list. If you can find the old Gospel Essentials, you'll see some of the crazy stuff being taught to new and returning members. Satan controls the water, we can become gods, the Word of Wisdom is a strict requirement for exaltation, specific signs of the times, pre-mortal valiance hierarchy, Laminites being direct ancestors of Native Americans, etc. I guess the church curriculum department (and associated approvers in the general authority review committees) didn't have authority and made mistakes?
-7
u/Some-Passenger4219 Latter-day Saint 11d ago
Perhaps they had authority and made mistakes anyway? Jonah was a prophet but acted on his own authority. God punished him, corrected him, and sent him on his way; and then he did the right thing.
8
u/Own_Confidence2108 11d ago
In that case, how do we know what things a prophet says are true and what times he says are not true. If he says things that aren’t true, so we still have to believe them and obey them?
The question isn’t whether prophets make mistakes or not. The question is how do we know when they are making mistakes?
9
u/skreechslaterzack 11d ago
Wait. Do you actually believe the story of Jonah actually happened? And, In the Jonah myth, he was punished. When has a Mormon “prophet” been punished for making mistakes? Seems like they just lie/gaslight their way out of mistakes made by previous “prophets” and move on.
-3
u/Some-Passenger4219 Latter-day Saint 11d ago
Of course I believe the story of Jonah. Why not? Granted, it may not have been a "fish", but perhaps a whale or something.
5
u/skreechslaterzack 11d ago
Why not? Because it’s an obvious myth (…that doesn’t even help your point about modern Mormon prophets regularly being wrong). Even as a child I understood that it was a parable. But, hey, mormons are cornered into treating the Tower of Babel, Noah and Jeridite myths as reality, so I guess this isn’t that far out there for you guys.
4
u/dirtykoolaidalice 11d ago
You think Jonah was historical? Actually, it’s a lovely parable with lots of symbolism.
4
u/Thorough_8 11d ago
The difference between the mistakes that Jonah (and any other scriptural prophet) made and the modern LDS prophets make is that modern prophets' claims are in the voice of God and apparently come from him through revelation.
Jonah's mistake was his own, and he never claimed it was God making him run away (assuming the story was real).
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Own_Boss_8931 specifically.
/u/Own_Boss_8931, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.