Ok what actually is the this revolutionary “covenant path” Nelson dropped a few years ago that seems to be the ONLY way to have any relationship with God.

Was looking at the church's style guide for unrelated reasons and happen to see page 73 which documents the only two approved typefaces for church communication. Thought it was interesting, especially the names. Note that Zoram replaced the previous sans serif font Helam.

Lavina wrote:

June 1989

A woman doing family research in the church archives is linked to a rumor that correctly predicts the banning of another individual from the archives and is called into a meeting with a church security official. The focus of the three-and-a-half hour “interrogation” is pressure to identify the supposed “inside source” who leaked the information. Only after repeatedly denying that she has any such source is she permitted to leave the building.[68]

My note: Depending on the circumstances this might be illegal. Details are lacking. Lavina's footnote says: [68] Notes on incident in my possession. In an organization this big there will always be moles, leaks and rumors. Heightened security helps, but at some point the Thomas Merton/Star Wars prophecy comes into play: The more you tighten your grip... the less you have.

[This is a portion of Dr. Lavina Fielding Anderson's view of the chronology of the events that led to the September Six (1993) excommunications. The author's concerns were the control the church seemed to be exerting on scholarship.]

The LDS Intellectual Community and Church Leadership: A Contemporary Chronology by Dr. Lavina Fielding Anderson

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V26N01_23.pdf

The top four officials in the church can’t even walk

It is mormon doctrine that those under the age of 8 automatically enjoy the blessings of the celestial kingdom, as they are incapable of sin. Given the length of eternity vs. the comparatively insignificant length of this mortal life, and also considering the vast amount of suffering that this mortal life almost guarantees, it would appear that under mormonism it's morally and ethically permissable to k*ll babies in order to guarantee eternal salvation for them. This belief is insane and that's shelf breaking for me. Thoughts?

Talks seem to have a theme. Why? Because that's the structure of the Church. It's not random.

I can only speak from firsthand experience. After that, I’ll make a few assumptions.

Coordinating Council Meeting: This meeting is held quarterly and includes an Area Authority, multiple stake presidencies, and occasionally other stake leaders or bishops when invited. The Area Authority gives counsel from above—usually an hour-long sermon. It outlines key priorities they believe need to be passed down and implemented.

Bishops' Council Meeting: This includes stake presidencies and all bishops in the stake. They counsel together, applying the information received from the Coordinating Council. They discuss what they felt and learned, then decide what stake members need to hear.

Stake Leadership Meeting: Attended by stake presidencies, bishops, and auxiliary leaders such as the High Council, Stake Relief Society, Stake Young Women, Stake Young Men, and Stake Sunday School presidencies. This is typically a quarterly meeting featuring a one-hour address focused on direction from above.

Stake Leadership and Presidency Meetings: These are internal meetings where individual presidencies (like the Stake Relief Society, Young Women, Young Men, Sunday School, etc.) meet with their counselors to plan and align on direction. Separately, the High Council meets with the stake presidency. The High Council plays a key role in overseeing the wards—each High Councilor is typically assigned to specific wards and auxiliaries to ensure that direction is being followed and implemented. While bishops also oversee their own wards, the High Councilors are the ones reporting back to the stake presidency. The stake presidency, in turn, takes that information and reports further up the chain.

Ward Council: Led by the bishop, this council of local leaders works together to identify and address the needs of ward members. The bishop guides lesson planning for Sunday School, Relief Society, and Elders Quorum.

Ward Leadership Meetings: These groups meet to carry out the direction given in the ward council, implementing specific lessons and themes.

I’m leaving out many other meetings, but you get the idea.

So, are conference talks from General Authorities “assigned”? No—not directly. But if you follow the same structural pattern upward, it’s reasonable to assume that the Prophet gives counsel in higher-level meetings, and that counsel filters down. I believe them when they say they’re not told what to say. But just like local leadership, by the time they begin planning their talks, they’ve been instructed on which topics and scriptures matter most in that moment. Naturally, their talks reflect that guidance—just in their own words.

It’s not that the Church hides this structure, but it’s often left open to interpretation—as if all leaders just happen to be inspired in the same way at the same time. In reality, they’ve all been in meetings with shared themes and direction from the top.

So when they say, “We’re not told what to say,” they’re technically right— But with a footnote. And the Church lives in the footnotes.

This is the way.

Updated: Moved bishops to sometimes invited to corrdinating Council.

1. Believes in the literal first vision.

2. Wants to believe in the first vision but unsure. Accepts uncertainty and continues in faith as if they believed.

3. Wants to believe in the first vision but unsure. Experienced significant distress and dissonance.

4. Absolutely does not believe in the first vision and is very distressed by this.

5. Absolutely does not believe in the first vision and is not distressed by this; enjoys being an active member and would continue doing so without outside pressure.

6. Absolutely does not believe in the first vision and is not distressed by this; only continues as an active member because of outside pressure.

What percentage of active, apparently TBM members do you think fit into each category and, if applicable, which category do you fit into?

Regarding abortion; When I was on my mission 23 years ago we had a women investigator who went through the discussions and decided to get baptized. She never disclosed to us (and why would she with something so private) that she had an abortion when she was 17. This was discovered in the pre-baptism interview with the bishop.

She was told that she was ineligible to get baptized because of a 'mistake' she had made 7 years prior. Needless to say she was devastated. And so was I. At that time, it was looked at as a 'case by case' basis. The bishop would have had to send an 'appeal' to the first presidency and they would have had to 'clear' it. The 'turnaround' time was unknown.

If the 'atonement' is so powerful and covered ALL sins, why would the church have this 'rule'???

Question; Does anybody know if this 'rule' is still in place in 2025?

To preface, I am a 25f born and raised in the church, married in the temple, etc. The last few years I've begun deconstructing all major institutional beliefs in my life- especially the church. I've done a lot of research and found the discrepancies in what we are taught as children and what is perpetuated as "false" by the leaders in the church and I'm at a point where I just don't know what to believe.

I decided to commit myself to studying the Bible (NASB for the most literal translation) and understanding what Christ taught. I also decided that this conference might be the make or break it for me.

Thus far, I've found myself increasingly uncomfortable with some of the things said in just the first session.

1. "Many are called, but few CHOOSE to be chosen." - direct quote from Sister Johnson that made my eyes widen as soon as I realized what an oxymoron/paradox that statement is.

2. Gimenez' claims that the Church is necessary above just a personal relationship with the Savior because it "will grant us access to Their covenantal love" required for the highest level of exaltation. WHAT? I didn't think God's ultimate love could be conditional.

3. Very few mentions of Christ (outside of Eyring) other than a quote here and there, with most topics focused on what RMN or other prophets/apostles have said, and extensive talk about how the Church is growing.

I could be overthinking all of this because suddenly I'm viewing things with a completely different mindset, but a lot of things aren't sitting right with me this time.

Anyone else?

for their religion?

Most religions say they are the true thing. Should people be willing to die for that belief?

** updated. More contex.

I was poking around looking at Google map at an old church and one thing led to another and I ended up on this site and it raised the question. Jews think they got it going on, muslims think the same and even amongst christian types they think they have the truth.

Ask the Register: Can a Catholic go to a Protestant service?

First paragraph, third sentence.

"On the other hand, we are never going to change what we believe because, well, the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth, so why would we?"

Holy Week has never been a Mormon thing. Literally in the handbook that it is against Mormonism.

Yes Gary, it is still the Mormon church. By your own admission, this is only the third attempt of Mormonism to incorporate Palm Sunday and Holy Week.

Non-Mormons can get all the information they need by listening to the prayers at General Conference. Any one praying for the people of the world or peace on earth or those suffering the horrors of war, or even help for the Holy Land (that Jesus loved so much) or the displaced or the poor or needy?

Anette Dennis in an intense closing prayer to God this afternoon literally prayed for "members of the church" and "the missionaries." Left out all of the rest of humanity.

So, let’s try that out.

Q: “Why did Joseph Smith marry and sleep with underaged girls?”

A: “Jesus!”

Is anybody else finding this talk problematic? And if so why?

For me, before getting into all the complexities of guessing what pre earth life consists of, I also had to frown at another quote from The Family: a whatever whatever to the world.

This question has been bothering me for a few days. Would Jesus and his trials need to exist in every universe to allow for the replication of Mormonism? Thank you all

I don't understand what this is. Never mormon. Always curious though. Do I have this right, twice a year there is a conference where the big wigs give speeches and possibly lay down new rules? But judging by the photos and posts, the big wigs are now like 1,000 years old and don't like abortion?

While the figures are no longer announced over the pulpit, they did release the 2024 statistical report a few minutes ago.

Initial thoughts:

• Growth rate down to 1.47% (from 1.49% last year)
• Children of record down by ~2,000
• Convert baptisms up by ~57,000

COR + converts = 400,299 but net increase was only 254,387 so ~146,000 either died, resigned, got excommunicated, or turned 110.

I'd need to have an actuary weigh in on this but to my unprofessional eye, 146,000 out of 17.5 million looks like it's in the ballpark for the worldwide crude death rate.

Russell began the rebranding the campaign with a demonization of the word “Mormon” and a focus on the full name of the Mormon church.

The Mormon church is trying to adopt an image of a mainstream Christian church now. With the general acceptance of wearing crosses, the attempted observance of Holy Week, and the signs in front of buildings now.

Uchtdorf just shortened the name of the Mormon church to “the Church of Jesus Christ”.

With the continuation of removing unique mormon doctrines, the Mormon church is already completely different from even 10 years ago.

I wonder how soon it will be before we are yelling “hallelujah” from the audience (to be clear i am in full support of this one) and the brethren will act like it’s always been that way.

Are there any exceptional people in leadership presently? Maybe they are super smart, self made, or just unarguably likable people. Everyone seems so mid.

Has anyone read this? Do you like it? Dislike it? What are your thoughts?

For me, the modern church is a double-edged sword.

-SURELY, I'm all for a healthier version of the church that is able to help people live a more-meaningful life and strengthen those around them. AND I hate that it wasn't that for so many of us and the church at the macro and micro level cannot acknowledge that

-ABSOLUTELY- improvement needs to happen to reduce harm to the marginalized AND at least at the member level, I see progress

-DEFINITELY- Consent and honesty should be corrected and prioritized AND it is naturally becoming increasingly more difficult for them to not do this.

-APPARENTLY- The church is spending more of its enormous wealth on doing good in the world AND I hate that they refuse to acknowledge that they were caught and forced to do so and are now getting full credit from their membership as if they weren't forced to do so.

I spent decades in Cognitive dissonance within the church. I now sit in a bit of Emotional and values-based dissonance between seeing my loved ones continue to be manipulated and lied to while the church rewrites its entire story vs. being ok with the good and value I still see within an organization that undeniably adds some value in the lives of its constituents.

Thanks for being with me while I sit with this.

My teenage daughter, TBM (as deep blue as you can get), was in the kitchen this morning when I walked in. She had a strange look on her face.

"Dad," she said, "I'm listening to old General Conference talks to prepare for tomorrow. There's one from 1979 that says birth control is evil..." (She's been on birth control for a few years for medical reasons.)

I'm in the process of deconstructing and she doesn't know and it's not the right time to tell her yet. I wasn't sure what to say other than something like "It's not evil and you're perfectly fine, I promise."

Then my wife walked in, who is aware of where I'm at, and asked what was going on. My daughter said the same thing, adding my reassurances, and my wife just responded "thank goodness for modern revelation!" (said in a way that clearly implied that more recent revelation has superceded that talk from ~45 years ago.)

To keep the peace, I keep most of my deconstruction-related thoughts to myself. I have no problem doing so. Believing in the gospel makes my wife and kids happy. I want them to be happy. I have no desire to mess with their testimonies or the peace they get from the gospel.

That said, I wish my wife could see the irony in her response. Back in 1979, I'm sure members said "thank goodness for modern revelation that tells us that birth control is evil." But now it's become "thank goodness for modern revelation that tells us that prior modern revelation was wrong."

Maybe some day. In the mean time, Happy General Conference to all those who will be watching for the sake of their families.