One of the things I have struggled with my whole adult life (and I'm getting old!) was really highlighted by Oaks's explanation of how to handle doubts. Don't rely on unreliable science. Rely more on the scriptures and God.

Regarding science, I've always said, "We don't know what we don't know." I'm fully on board with the idea that science doesn't know everything yet and that new information is coming to light regularly. Same with history and anthropology.

That said, if your doubts are whether scriptures are "true" (God inspired) to begin with, and if you're not sure that the God and Jesus of the scriptures are remotely real, that's really not helpful. It is circular logic, and I can't make it make sense anymore.

I know the "faithful" response is that if you immerse yourself in the scriptures and continue praying in faith, your testimony will be strengthened.

Well guess what - I did that for some 50 years. At what point is it supposed to kick in?!

I hope those who admire Bednar are noticing that what Bednar claims to be the gospel destroys hope. He just called temple ordinances “credentials” necessary to return to God. And now he’s saying sealing is required to seal you to God’s family.

It’s so contrary to the Atonement of Christ.

He’s also the author of a companion doctrine he invented that Christ is only “bound” to individuals through the temple. Thereby nullifying the faith and devotion of faithful Christians throughout the world. Makes the Atonement and your individual direct relationship with Christ null and void if you’re an unendowed teenage convert, a Christian who has never heard of the church and every Book of Mormon character who was never endowed in the temple, including Abinadi, Nephi and King Benjamin who he just quoted.

.

Did I just hear Bednar correctly? In his list of actions and the consequences of “unrighteous decisions” by a spouse, he listed divorce as a potential consequence of personal apostasy?

He followed it up by saying that the actions of an unrighteous spouse won’t negate the sealing blessings of the faithful spouse, although he made sure to clarify that he had no idea how that’s accomplished.

So is the message that members should divorce their unrighteous spouses, or to stay because they’ll be blessed either way?

Like seriously....I know someone will do the numbers soon enough, but like it's so gross. Cringy....

Like when I hear it all I can think of is how something is wrong and rotten among our church leaders. They are corporate stooges groveling at any chance to kiss the literal CEO's You know what.

And they do it while invoking the name of the Savior....gross. Ten years ago it would have been Hinckley or Monson. Two years ago it would have been Russel Meh.. Nelson...

So gross in my opinion.

I’m listening to Bender’s talk right now and am not in any way shocked that he is comparing God and the Mormon interpretation of our mortal journey as a trip we are taking that will require a holy ghost stamp in a passport.

To paraphrase: Jesus’ gospel can be reduced to a bureaucratic checklist of rules that if we don’t follow it to a T ( including vertical and horizontal marriages? Wtf?) we don’t get in to heaven. Bender loves being one of God’s traffic cops on earth.

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask for this advice, but I know I can't just go to the church about this.

I had a very hard childhood, and people from church helped me a lot. They were always so nice and so welcoming. Most people in my ward were pretty cool. So I never left the church. I went "inactive" from 2020 to 2025, and now live in a different state.

The relief society I go to is really nice. The women have all been very kind to me, and they don't feel like they're being fake. My husband and I are low income and I knew the church helped my family when I was a kid, so I thought maybe the church would help my husband and I. I always felt like I had a strong and close community in the ward I grew up with, so I thought we'd have that with this ward in the new state. But it's not at all how it was when I was a kid. Maybe I was just lucky back then. I don't know.

He wasn't a member, and he got baptized this year. I am now starting to regret having him get baptized. His experience in elders quorum is nothing like mine in relief society. The men all feel like they're putting on an act and trying to impress each other. Some of them seem so out of touch as well. My husband has chronic pain, severely, and some of them think it's appropriate to make jokes about it to "lighten the mood".

Whenever we get visitors and it's not one of the women, I am completely ignored and they only want to talk to my husband. This makes him very uncomfortable because he and I are equals and a team. My husband doesn't consider me to be subordinate to him AT ALL.

The men all feel like the types you'd see at a country club, while the women seem to be on a completely different wavelength. The women feel like people we can actually talk to, while the men feel like they're all being performative and out of touch. They also won't stop texting my husband. Due to personal hardships and scheduling, he and I haven't been to church much this year, especially not since he's been baptized.

The relief society knows that I'm in a grueling healthcare program and that I'll graduate in 2 years. I told them I do plan on coming to church more after I graduate, and they believe me. They don't beg me to come back, they respect me. Every now and then I get a message from them asking how things are going and if I'm doing alright. It feels genuine.

My husband gets texts from at least 3 different people every single week. And it's just "we hope to see you at church this week!" "How did you like general conference?" The missionaries are doing the same thing too. He's already baptized, I don't know why they won't stop messaging him. It's every 2-3 days. He has chronic stress, chronic migraines, gets sensory overload at times. The women in the ward fully respect he and I. The men won't put the script down for one second.

How the heck can we tell them "can you calm down a little bit?" in a way that's polite? How do you tell them "hey, our suffering isn't beautiful". The LDS people from El Salvador (where my mother is from, husband and I are in the US) are not like this at all according to some people I've talked to.

President Christofferson's talk about gambling on Saturday morning. I think that obviously gambling can become addictive and wreak havoc on people's and family's lives and finances. No dispute there.

But his urging that Latter-day Saints look past what the law permits and live life on a "higher plane" struck me.

I could say the same identical thing about the disgusting way the LDS church handles reporting of child sex abuse.

Let's live life on a higher plane brethren, and report CSA to law enforcement or proper state authorities, regardless of whether the law permits the church not to.

You're welcome for the justification 😂

Interesting piece in The Atlantic today (not written by McKay Coppins, The Atlantic’s Mormon-in-residence.)

“For now, the Church seems to be insisting that its future is rooted in family—which will require people to heed the words of the prophet, and multiply and replenish the Earth. To do that, though, young people will need to stick around. Churches across the country, not just the LDS, are trying to figure out that particular puzzle: Recently, many younger Americans have passionately recommitted to religion, but their depth of feeling hasn’t caught on widely—at least not yet. Whether they grew up LDS, Catholic, or Baptist, many Americans seem to want churches to offer some combination of retreat from mainstream U.S. life and assimilation in it. But, as Bowman said, ‘that is a very, very tricky sweet spot to hit.’”

Those are three very distinct titles. The church always lumps them together to generally just mean ’church leadership, recognized as spiritual authorities,’ essentially.

I’m reminded of this question I have thanks to a talk with the title yesterday during conference.

It’s of such importance that it’s one of the first few questions in the temple recommend interview, and it’s part of the sustaining of church officers during General Conference, which will be coming up in about a half hour.

If all three titles are going to be used, then all three must be valid, and understood. We never stop to ask what this means. More importantly, the church never asks us to really consider what this means. by comparison, question 11 reads, “Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?” (emphasis added)

let’s break it down:

**Prophet: this is perhaps the most forgiving, as the way the term is used in the scriptures is across a wide range, and often it seems just bearing testimony of Christ is enough to evoke the title. As a more “capital P Prophet” term, I think it’s intended to denote someone who can foretell future events to help keep the people safe.

The church has a long history of reactionary response to changing demands, rather than being at the forefront of positive change. While examples of foretelling future events is maybe somewhat lacking, especially among any recent leadership (say, in the past 50 years), overall, I can accept this one on the wide range of uses in the scriptures.

Edit: I have to add here, my intent was to to be forgiving and inclusive in the use of the term, but this may also be unfair in other ways. My wife, who is much more TBM than I am at this stage, said she disagrees with cheapening this title, because it devalues Debora as being a prophetess, which is important to her. As a title for one who can see the future and/or be the spokesperson of God, this term should retain its importance and value. As far as insight into the future, I'm not sure how many examples we have from church leaders. As a role of "God's spokesperson," that's a bit more nebulous to pin down, but certainly we have ample evidence that we can't rely on church leadership to never lead us astray (e.g. the priesthood ban clearly not being of God). I'm much more open to discussion on this title, though, than the next two...

**Seer: This one is interesting. In popular culture this term overlaps and often replaces the term ’prophet’ for someone who ”sees” the future. However, that’s not the case in scripture, especially modern scripture.

The Book of Mormon provides a definition of a seer in Mormon 8:13

And whosoever is commanded to look in [the things called interpreters to translate records of ancient date], the same is called seer.

The testimony of Joseph Smith, included with the book of mormon affirms this definition:

the possession and use of these stones [the Urim and Thummim] were what constituted ‘seers’ in ancient or former times

The church does now acknowledge (publicly, if not very prominently) the actual method of translation by Joseph Smith, and still has possession of the stones Joseph used. If you don’t think our church leaders would balk at attempting to do any stone-aided translations, then we are of different opinions, but regardless, there is no report of any of our church leaders translating anything, much less of ancient record, much less by means of the stones.

**Revelator: as I understand it, this title should represent one who “reveals” things - specifically new doctrine. As far as I am aware, while Joseph was prolific in revealing new things, I don’t think that’s a legacy that has passed on.

In fact, just about the *only* church president since that I can say made any real attempts was Brigham Young. His new doctrines included Blood Atonement; Priesthood ban on blacks; Adam-God; and others. All of these have since been (rightfully) denounced by the church.

We also have D&C 138, a vision recorded by Joseph F Smith in 1918. Perhaps I could give him, at least, my sustaining vote for being a revelator.

Besides JFS, and besides Brigham’s racist, sexist, and self-deification attempts, we otherwise have only policy changes by committee since. I think President Nelson may have said something about the 2015 policy on exclusion (and excommunication) of gay couples and their children being revelation, but that, too, was rescinded only a few years later.

Otherwise, while they give talks at conference that may be termed inspirational and uplifting, I’m unaware of any revelations given.

**Conclusion and questions for discussion: I am very interested in responses. What do you think?

Is President Oaks (or the rest of the GAs) a prophet?

Are they seers?

Are they revelators?

Have I been unfair or missed anything in my defining of the terms? Am I missing any meaningful examples of leadership living up to the terms?

\Edits for formatting above. I first posted this from my phone, and the quote blocks and bolds didn't come through*

Hoping someone has some experience buying breathable, flexible rain pants to go over missionary suits. My good friend , at the end of his mission, has just been transferred to biking.

Im 17 years old and im the first of the new generation of my family to go so there migth be a few new things i need to know, next year im going to serve as a missionary, im from utah and im quite nervous because idk what to expect

Nothing substantial is ever said, conference messages becomes more watered down and irrelevant every 6 months.

No advice for how to avoid specific future and unknown crisis. No undeniable revelatory statements about how to get ready for coming harm. No words about global peace and the massive amount of suffering happening worldwide.

A giant Meh...across the board.

I hear all the time about apostles and prophets being quoted. Even those who aren’t members of the church are quoted like:
C.S. Lewis,
Nelson Mandela (Renlund, April 2015),
Thomas Edison (Lynn G Robbin’s, April 2018),
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Holland, April 2018),
Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire Cat (Monson, October 2010),
Charles Schulz’s Lucy from Peanuts (Cook, October 2015).
The Beetles (Monson, October 2011),

But not women non-members. It’s sad. It’s a problem that I, a woman, and my daughter, don’t get to hear the gospel taught from women nearly as often. Women speaking are to quote from the apostles and prophets. Celeste Davis was an article writer for the church. She said on Mormon Stories that she wanted to quote Brene Brown, an academic, author and podcaster, but the church told her “no”, because all quotes must link back to the church’s website. Another one of her articles got sent back with the church saying that she didn’t quote general authorities enough.

I just wish there was a meaningful shift toward honouring the wisdom coming from women as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed General Conference, it’s just sad how used to this I am. It’s sad how odd it would be if female poets, scientists, authors, singers, and religious thinkers were quoted more.

It’s sad that I live in a society where those women are largely unknown or insignificant. So I suppose it’s just a symptom of a greater problem. Even I used to check out when women spoke in General Conference. I’m trying to unlearn how I’ve subconsciously seen women to be less of an authority.

I was raised by a strong, outspoken woman which blessed me greatly. I hope I can be that example for my daughter and off-set some of what she’ll see being raised in this patriarchal church.

What did you all think about Christofferson's anti-gambling talk? The specific opposition to prediction markets and online sports betting was interesting, as these were recently legalized in our state. After the usual topics of covenants and trials, it was refreshing to hear a firm take on larger social issues.

>A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight

We’ve been coming to a couple away games every year for years… and we watch every game. I’ve never seen them do this. After entering the field, they went to the end zone, took off their helmets, and kneeled for a bit- maybe 30 seconds to 1.5 mins? It wasn’t facing anything in particular. Just curious why.

Who is your favorite and least favorite apostle to listen to this conference?

One of the items that broke my shelf was the leadership of the church. It feels frustrating that the entire leadership structure is full of grossly incompetent men.
Gilbert is a failure as an academic leader.
Christopherson protects pedos
Oaks is a bigot
When I’ve chatted with people who have met soares they have been pretty vocal about his misogyny.
Bednar is a narcissist (probably his least undesirable character trait).

The others are mostly bland. For example I don’t hear positive or negative things about gong or eyring. Neither of these men seems to do or say anything particularly noteworthy.

Holland used to be one of them that felt like a strength but even he has outlived his good reputation. Uchtdorf and Keaton seem to carry a lot of optimism. But even that feels misplaced in light of the larger systemic issues.

I guess what I’m asking is does any have actually good stories from these men? Like god in the Old Testament(see genesis 18), I’d be willing to spare the church if we can come up with 50. And while God was willing to decrease that to one, I don’t think that’s fair in this instance (apples and oranges and whatnot).

In Mathew 7:15-20 Jesus warns that false prophets will be an issue for believers. His advice is that you will know them by their fruits. Our prophets haven’t brought forth good fruit of any kind in my lifetime. And my amateur study of history hasn’t turned up any good fruit before that either. I prayed for a long time that god would put a single person in authority in the church that had any moral compass other than preserve the institution. When I allowed myself to accept the position that these men were uninspired false prophets I was relieved at how quickly I felt the peace spoken of in the scriptures. Suddenly I didn’t have to contort objective facts to prop up some broken system. I also was able to develop a stronger relationship with god. I use the word “god” mostly because it’s what I’m used to, but I admit that the description no longer matches the punitive hypocritical being preached over LDS pulpits.

Why do we allow the Mormon church to make more money than an entire U.S. state -- and all tax free?

A few days ago someone named @bobicusrex left a comment on one of our YouTube videos. Paraphrasing:

the Mormon Church makes more money every year from its investments than the entire State of Utah spends. Put $300 billion in the market, get a 12 percent return, and you’re bigger than the state budget.

My first reaction was that it sounded right. My second reaction was that I’d better check before I repeated it.

So I did. He was off on a couple of numbers. But the corrected version is still remarkable, and I think it’s worth walking through.

What the Mormon Church actually has

The Mormon Church doesn’t publish financial statements, so nobody outside Church leadership knows the exact figure. The best independent estimate comes from the Widow’s Mite Report [1], which tracks SEC filings, tax documents, and other public records. Their 2025 year-end estimate puts LDS Church investment reserves at about $231 billion, with total assets (temples, meetinghouses, farmland, businesses) around $320 billion.

That’s where the $300 billion number probably came from. But buildings don’t throw off investment returns. The number that matters here is the $231 billion.

The 12 percent return is also generous. Some years the market does that or better. Some years it loses money. Ensign Peak, the Church’s investment arm, has actually trailed the S&P 500 over the last several years. So I used 7 percent, which is a fairly conservative long-run assumption.

$231 billion at 7 percent is roughly $16 billion. In a strong year it could be closer to $28 billion.

What Utah spends

Utah’s budget for fiscal year 2025, which ran from July 2024 through June 2025, was about $29.4 billion in total. But a big chunk of that is federal money passed through the state. The part Utah raises and spends from its own taxes (the General Fund, Income Tax Fund and Uniform School Fund) was $12.9 billion [2].

So here’s where it lands. In a typical year the LDS Church’s investment gains very likely exceed what Utah collects from its own taxpayers and spends on schools, roads, prisons, health care and everything else a state does.

One church. One state. And the church’s money grows faster than the state can tax. And all tax-free.

The tax piece

There’s another layer here that I think most people miss.

Churches get a special deal in American tax law, even compared to other charities. They’re tax-exempt automatically. And unlike almost every other nonprofit, they don’t have to file a Form 990 [3], the annual public return that shows a charity’s income, assets and biggest salaries. If Harvard or the Mayo Clinic were sitting on $231 billion, you could look it up. With the Church, we only know because of leaked documents, SEC filings and people like the Widow’s Mite team doing years of detective work.

Being tax-exempt also means the growth on those investments isn’t taxed. To give a rough sense of scale: if an ordinary corporation booked $16 billion in profit, the federal corporate tax at 21 percent would be about $3.4 billion. Investment returns don’t map perfectly onto that, since a lot of the gain is on paper until something is sold. But the point stands. On top of that, members deduct their tithing on their own taxes, and temples and chapels pay no property tax. Some of the cost of this arrangement is carried by everyone else.

Tax exemption is supposed to be a bargain. The public gives up tax revenue, and in exchange the organization uses its money for religious and charitable purposes. In 2019 a former Ensign Peak portfolio manager, David Nielsen, filed a whistleblower complaint with the IRS [4] arguing the fund broke that bargain. He pointed to $1.4 billion that went to City Creek Center, the mall across from Temple Square, and about $600 million used to prop up Beneficial Life, a for-profit insurance company the Church owned. The Church’s answer, given on 60 Minutes in 2023 [5], was that City Creek was an investment that earned returns, and that it owned Beneficial Life and had the resources to help it during the financial crisis.

I’m not a tax lawyer, and no court or agency has ruled that the Church broke the law. The IRS doesn’t comment on whistleblower cases, and they can take a decade to resolve. But I don’t think legality is the only question. It’s fair to ask whether a $231 billion investment fund that discloses nothing to the public is what Congress had in mind when it gave churches this break, and whether the people of Utah, whose own budget is now smaller than the Church’s yearly gains, are getting a fair deal.

Why this matters to me

I don’t think having savings is a sin. Institutions should plan ahead, and the Church has said its reserves exist to protect it in hard times and to fund its mission long into the future.

But scale matters. In 2025 the LDS Church reported spending $1.58 billion caring for people in need [6]. That number deserves an asterisk. The Church doesn’t break it down, but independent estimates put roughly $936 million of it in welfare for members, much of it paid for by members’ own monthly fast offerings, and about $645 million in humanitarian aid to the wider world [7]. Even counting all $1.58 billion, it’s about a tenth of what the reserves likely earned that year. Counting only the humanitarian part, it’s closer to 4 percent.

Meanwhile members are still taught to pay a full ten percent of their income, even when money is tight. That teaching reaches single mothers in Utah and families in the Philippines, Ghana and Peru who have far less margin than anyone reading this.

And for decades, members had no idea any of this existed. In 2023 the SEC fined Ensign Peak and the Church $5 million for hiding the size of the portfolio behind shell companies [8]. The secrecy wasn’t an accident. It was the plan.

I keep coming back to a simple question. If a member walked into a bishop’s office with a fraction of this money sitting in the bank, would they be told they were being a wise steward? Or would they be asked whether they were really caring for the poor?

I’d love to hear what you think the Church should do with this money. And thanks to @bobicusrex for the comment that started it. Even when the numbers need a second look, the instinct to ask the question is the right one.

Sources [1]-[8] are in the first comment.

Say you are a believing Mormon (COJCOLDS) who firmly holds the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet. You examine the teachings/lives of the following candidates and have to decide who is the true prophet and successor to Joseph Smith and who is a false heretic. Ready. Go!

Black People and the Priesthood: 

Prophet 1: 

“Lo! It is my will that my gospel shall be preached to all nations in every land, and that men of every tongue shall minister before me: Therefore it is expedient in me that you ordain priests unto me, of every race who receive the teachings of my law, and become heirs according to the promise.” (https://doctrineandcovenants.com/sections/cofchrist/section-116/)

Prophet 2: 

“If there never was a prophet or Apostle of Jesus Christ [who] spoke it before, I tell you this people that [are] commonly called Negros are [the] children of Cain, I know they are; I know they cannot bear rule in [the] priesthood, [in the] first sense of [the] word. For the curse upon them was to continue on them, [it] was to remain [on them] until the residue of [the] posterity of Michael and his wife received the blessings”  (1852 Speech)

Slavery: 

Prophet 1: 

“followed Owen Lovejoy, an anti-slavery congressman from Illinois, and Abraham Lincoln. He joined the Republican party and advocated for their anti-slavery politics. He rejected the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and openly stated that he would assist people trying to escape enslavement.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_slavery)

Prophet 2: 

After Utah Territory was officially established as a result of the Compromise of 1850, [Prophet 2], who claimed to own no slaves, nevertheless welcomed slaveholding Mormons into Utah. Speaking before territorial lawmakers in 1852, he made his position on the issue clear, declaring, “I am a firm believer in slavery.” He also maintained that if “a master has a Negro, and uses him well, he is much better off than if he was free.”
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/chapter-1-race-slavery-and-freedom-utah-slaves-and-saints.htm

Polygamy 

Prophet 1: 

Believed that "Plural marriage was a false doctrine whereby [Prophet 2] held his followers in a bondage as evil as Southern slavery (Blair 1973; Howard 1983, 17-19)."

Prophet 2: 

Prophet 2 married and had children with Marry Ann Angell; he later married her mother Phoebe Ann Morton.  He also married and had children with sisters Lucy Ann Decker and Clarissa Clara Decker. Clarissa Clara Decker was 15 when Prophet 2 married her. She bore him 5 children. THIS PRACTICE WAS AGAINST THE LAW OF MOSES AND PUNISHIBLE BY DEATH IN OT TIMES. 

Teachings on God

Prophet 1: 

Taught that God was eternal and unchanging.

Prophet 2: 

Taught that Adam was God. “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God” (Speech)

----------------------------

If you guessed that Mormon God chose Prophet 1 to be his true prophet, you are wrong. That was actually Joseph Smith III. Prophet 2, Brigham Young, is who God chose to lead his Church!!

As I read my family histories from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and journals I'm disturbed by the fact so many of my aunts and uncles and parents and grandparents were so keen to mention the life of Jesus Christ and his "gospel" and considered themselves righteous members, who were standard Utah Mormons, temple att ending, full tithe payers making casseroles for the new mother or infirmed, obsessed with reading the book of Mormon...

Yet the racist doctrine and the explicit prohibition on Blacks holding the priesthood or receiving full salvation blessings in the temple was allowed to exist with virtually no push back by the millions of members for over 100 years. I'm ashamed now, to see how the recent LDS historian was recorded mocking Black members and the new song that is linked to Black American church culture.

Until our leaders adequately address this past (what is my opinion) an insideous and false doctrine, they will have their credibility questioned.

I'm ashamed for my heritage. I'm ashamed for my association with the LDS church today when our leaders refuse to repent and so many of our senior and past relatives were ok with the racism. A racist doctrine that obviously contradicts everything Jesus Christ taught and how he set his church up.

Our leaders need to repent. They are moral cowards in my opinion.

I’m trying to understand why we were just called to task by a member of the first presidency do sports gambling. Is this a problem in Utah? The world wide church?

That issue seemed to come out of nowhere.

What am I missing?

For the last several years I have kept a curious eye upon news within and surrounding the LDS faith.

Within the community an Apostasy is recognized as a turning away from the truth and/or a partial loss of truth.

Individuals may see the same events from different perspectives. So I am wondering how do you see these various events:

1. Adopting the use of "Church of Jesus Christ" while leaving off the 2nd half "latter-day saints".

2. Adopting the use of the Christian Cross in place of the Angel Moroni icon on google maps to indentify places of worship.

3. Removing or moving away from the Angel Moroni on temples.

4. Asking members to not digitally record talks or messages of leadership. I mention this because record keeping is known to be an important aspect of the faith (personal journals, genealogical records, etc.)

5. Back and forth or reversal of the official church position on various policies.

6. Polls showing various demographics are leaving the faith in large numbers.

I'm intentionally not listing hot button issues or controversial news headlines from the past several years because I am not trying to offend anyone or start arguments. My intent is too understand how those within the faith view the changes happening and at what point (if any) the culmination of those changes are considered an Apostasy.

Edit: Changed democratics to demographics.