Wednesday, October 2, 2019

220 Questions for Mormons with Doubting Loved Ones

Introduction

Too often, an ideological chasm can develop between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their friends and loved ones who doubt some aspects of the gospel or who no longer believe in the Church at all. 
The Church has, in the past, tended to steer its members away from material that could be damaging to testimonies, instead emphasizing only Church-approved sources of information while describing doubters and apostates in terms that can be considered trivializing or denigrating.  Perhaps as a consequence of the Church's approach, many faithful believers experience almost visceral reactions to doubt, criticism, unorthodoxy, and apostasy.  They can be deeply reluctant to wade into any of the anti-Mormon material they’ve been warned against.
Although I no longer believe in the Church, I do strongly believe that it is not my place to try and affect or destroy the faith of another person. I remember what it was like to be a fully invested believer, and I recall how offensive it was to hear outsiders mock a faith I held so dear and to see people trying to discredit doctrines I cherished. But I also remember what it was like to have what I now realize were misconceptions about what some critics were actually trying to say about my religion. A difference in religious beliefs should not be the barrier to healthy friendships and familial relationships that it can frequently become. In the interests of helping people understand each other and helping to destigmatize doubt, I’ve prepared a list of items that I hope members of the Church will be willing to consider—not so that anyone can show them the supposed errors of their religious traditions, but so members can see that, for better or worse, the critics, skeptics, and apostates do have some valid concerns. Yes, some might leave the Church because they’re offended, because they find the lifestyle too demanding, or because they don’t want to feel guilt for their sins any longer. But more often than not, the impetus for disaffection from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is far deeper, far more nuanced, and far more complex than something that can be packaged into the clichés we’ve all heard.

I have endeavored to phrase these questions in a way that is non-argumentative and open-ended. Clearly, I’ve made my own determinations about the answers to these questions, but I don’t wish them to be presented in such a way that implies that my conclusions are the only conclusions. Nothing is accomplished by asking something so blunt and so disrespectful as—if you’ll pardon the example—“Why is God so racist?” Faithful Latter-day Saints will not even accept the premise of the question. It doesn’t help anyone understand another person’s views on the Church's history with racial issues. A better approach is to ask what explanations we have for the Church policy that formerly restricted people of color from certain ordinances.

As much as possible, I have also tried to provide publicly available internet links, so that readers can see what I’m basing my questions on. I first tried to find direct Church sources for each issue, such as the official website and the Joseph Smith Papers Project. It’s not reasonable, of course, to expect the Church to provide a public statement for every little confusing concept or every little troubling apostolic comment, so when an official source was not available, I searched for Church-friendly sources, such as BYU scholarship, FAIR Mormon, and the Deseret News. In a pinch, I have fallen back on more neutral sources, such as The Salt Lake Tribune, The New York Times, and Wikipedia—although I’ve tried to keep the Wikipedia links limited, as that obviously does not carry the same weight as long-standing national news media outlets. You will find no links to MormonThink or ex-Mormon discussion boards here (although I suppose there are some links to unfriendly YouTube channels in some cases where videos of Church leaders are cited). There were many items that, although I felt they raised important questions, did not make the cut because I couldn’t find a reliable enough source free of blatant anti-Mormon angles.

The purpose of this is, again, not to influence any member to abandon a testimony. The purpose is to demonstrate that there are numerous legitimate concerns that inactives and apostates may have. It is to show that even though there may be acceptable answers to these issues, there are not simple, obvious explanations for everything. My goal in this is to help both members and ex-members alike narrow that ideological chasm. As you read, I’m sure you’ll find items that you can answer right away. I’m sure there are items that you know there’s an explanation for, but you’d have to do some digging to find it. But my hope is that, for most questions, an open-minded reader may be able to say, “Well, that’s something that I think I can reconcile, but I can see why it bothers some people so much.”

When a friend or loved one expresses doubt or experiences a loss of faith, it can damage relationships—sometimes irreparably. Everyone should feel entitled to maintain their own convictions, and divergent religious paths should not have to threaten the stability or the happiness of a family unit. The Latter-day Saint movement draws upon a rich history and detailed theology, which can be both a source of wonder for the faithful and a source of consternation for the skeptics. This is merely an attempt to uncover complexities in the doctrines and histories, to dispel misconceptions about the concepts that spur people to leave the Church, and to help families see a middle ground in which they can understand each other, even as they continue to hold different beliefs.

With these objectives in mind, here are 220 questions that I hope all Latter-day Saints with doubting loved ones will be willing to ponder.


Joseph Smith

1.   Why does the 1832 account of the First Vision, written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, detail a different motive for his prayer, a different number of appearing personages, a different pronouncement from the heavenly visitor, and a different year of occurrence than the 1838 account canonized in Joseph Smith—History?

2.   Why did some early Church leaders seem to teach a version of the First Vision in which Joseph Smith was visited merely by an angel instead of by God or Jesus?  [Brigham Young, 1855; Wilford Woodruff, 1855; George Albert Smith, 1863; John Taylor, 1879]

3.  Can a plausible theory that Joseph Smith personally crafted the stories of the Book of Mormon be supported by his mother’s claim that, prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he would occasionally give “amusing recitals” about “the ancient inhabitants of this continent…their mode of warfare, as also their religious worship…with much ease”?

4.  Why does so much Church-produced visual media (films, paintings, etc.) not depict Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon using a seer stone in his hat (until recently—October 2015, March 2018 and June 2019)?

5.   Why was all the effort that ancient civilizations went through to produce, compile, preserve, abridge, and bury the Book of Mormon records necessary if Joseph Smith was able to translate the Book of Mormon without the Golden Plates present?

6.    Why did several of Joseph Smith’s early revelations lead his friends and followers into endeavors that can appear not to have achieved their stated objectives? [selling the copyright to the Book of Mormon; Zion’s Camp; the search for treasure in Salem; the United Order; the command to build a temple in Missouri]

7.    Can all of Joseph Smith’s trouble with law enforcement throughout his life be dismissed as unfounded accusations from persecutors of the Church?

8.  Considering the similarities between Freemason ceremonies and temple endowments, can it be considered suspect that the endowment was introduced on May 4th, 1842—less than two months after Joseph Smith became a Master Mason?

9.    Do Joseph Smith’s many titles, including Prophet, Mayor of Nauvoo, Lieutenant General, Master Mason, “chairman, Prophet, Priest, and King over the Council and the world,” and candidate for President of the United States, hint at anything in his character that could lend credibility to a non-prophetic narrative that he sought power and prestige?

10. Why did Joseph Smith teach in 1835 that the coming of the Lord “was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene”?

11. Can Joseph Smith’s claim that he had translated part of the forged Kinderhook Plates represent a legitimate challenge to his revelatory credibility?

12. Why is Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Bible so similar to Adam Clarke’s previously published Bible commentary?  [BYU Journal of Undergraduate Research; Interview with BYU’s Dr. Wayment, last paragraph on page 6]

13. Does Joseph Smith’s Happiness Letter to Nancy Rigdon, which has been frequently quoted in General Conference, pave the way for the kind of moral relativism the Church preaches against today (Ensign, 2014; Conference, 2014; Ensign, 2015) because of lines like “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another”?

14.  Why do Church videos tend to depict Joseph Smith as unarmed when he was martyred—even though it’s historically documented that he was provided with a gun and that he defended himself by shooting three of his attackers?

15.  Why did Neil L. Andersen advise us to “give Brother Joseph a break” instead of providing inspired, apostolic explanations for some of the controversial events in the prophet’s life?

Scripture

The Book of Mormon

16.  Can reasonable questions about the credibility of the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses arise considering their statement bears the eight names written in the same handwriting (instead of the men’s signatures) and considering all witnesses were members of either the Whitmer family (Hiram Page was married to a Whitmer) or the Smith family?

17.  Is the power of the Book of Mormon witnesses in any way diminished by the fact that James Strang was also able to produce multiple witnesses for his Voree Plates?

18.  Is it strange that the Angel Moroni reclaimed the Golden Plates that bear unique ancient symbols but did not reclaim the ordinary-looking seer stone used to translate them—only for it to remain unused until the Church publicized its existence in 2015?

19.  Although some things in the Book of Mormon once thought to be anachronistic (such as cement and barley) have been demonstrated not to be anachronistic, do those discoveries have any effect on whether remaining anachronisms will be overturned (such as horses, chariots, steel, elephants, silk, honey bees, and wheat)?

20.  If, as President Ezra Taft Benson taught, the Book of Mormon was written for our day with an inspired collection of records, stories, and speeches that would be most relevant to us, why does so much of 2 Nephi quote what’s already available in Isaiah, why do large sections of Alma go into such detail on secular warfare, and why does Ether include so many summaries of the lineage of Jaredite kings?

21.  Why do so many passages from the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible match up word-for-word even though one was translated from Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian to 19th-century English and the other was translated from several languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) into 17th-century English?

22.  If the term “Christ” comes from the Greek “christos” used to translate Jesus’s Hebrew title in early Biblical translations (anglicized in the present day as “Messiah,” meaning “anointed one” in the original Hebrew), why would the translated Book of Mormon not simply use the English title “Messiah” instead of a Greek word that wouldn’t have been spoken in ancient America?

23.  If the Hill Cumorah where Moroni buried the golden plates is the same location as the final battles of the Nephite civilization and the Jaredite civilization (an idea put forth by Bruce R. McConkie), should there be millions of weapons and other ancient artifacts littering the area surrounding Cumorah?

24.  If the Book of Mormon contains “the fulness of the gospel,” what could be the reason that it does not discuss eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, temple endowments, the age of accountability, the three degrees of glory, eternal progression, the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, or the offices of bishop, patriarch, stake president, and seventy?

25. If 1 Nephi 1:20, which is often called the thesis statement of the Book of Mormon (Deseret News; BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson; The Church News; some LDS blogger; some other LDS blogger) indicates that the “tender mercies” of God will make his faithful followers “mighty even unto the power of deliverance,” is that thesis statement undermined by the fact that the Book of Mormon outlines the splitting of a family into rival factions, chronicles a thousand years of repeated wars and conflicts, and ends with the righteous becoming extinct and the wicked inheriting the promised land?

26. Why did Nephi claim that “the Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of men save he shall prepare a way” even though we know that the first two commandments God ever gave in the Garden of Eden were mutually exclusive (multiply and replenish the earth but don’t eat the fruit)?

27. Could there have been other possible divine solutions for Nephi’s inability to get the brass plates from Laban other than an instruction to break one of the Ten Commandments?

28.  Why did God command Nephi to kill Laban if, according to Ether 8:19, “neither doth [the Lord] will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man”?

29.  Are the similarities between the vision of the Tree of Life in 1 Nephi and a dream Joseph Smith, Sr. had in 1811 a possible indication that Joseph Smith drew upon his family’s experiences while bringing forth the Book of Mormon?

30.  Is it odd that the prophecies of history in 1 Nephi 13 outline Jesus’s appearance after His death, the formation of a great and abominable church, the arrival of Christopher Columbus, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, but nothing more recent than Joseph Smith’s lifetime?

31. Why does Nephi say in 2 Nephi 5:15 that gold, silver, and precious ores were in “great abundance” but explain in verse 16 that he didn’t build his temple of so many precious things because “they were not to be found upon the land”?

32.  In the Allegory of the Olive Tree, why does Jesus want to cut down the vineyard and burn it and why is it the servant who has to talk him out of it?

33. Is King Benjamin’s statement that “the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam,” a reference to the kind of punishment for Adam’s transgression that the second Article of Faith states we should not receive?

34. Does it say anything about God’s capacity for compassion that he allows his prophet to teach principles that can appear to belittle His children, such as “the natural man is an enemy to God” and that no matter how much we give to Him we will still be “unprofitable servants”?

35. How are the relationships between God the Father and Jesus Christ described in 2 Nephi 11:7, Mosiah 15:1-4, Alma 11:38-40, 3 Nephi 11, Ether 3:14, and Ether 4:12 distinguished from the concept of the Trinity?

36. How did Alma the Elder gain the authority to baptize without the laying on of hands and why did it require a long-dead holder of the priesthood to appear in the modern dispensation to restore that authority?

37. If God knows the desires of our hearts, why did he need the blood of the righteous people of Ammonihah to stand as a witness against the city’s chief judge?

38. How does the teaching that God would not save the Ammonihahites so that “blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against” the perpetrators align with the story of the Stripling Warriors, in which Helaman declares that “whosoever did not doubt...should be preserved by [God's] marvelous power”?

39. Is it concerning that there is no mention of a warning shot or any attempt at diplomacy before Ammon began killing and maiming thieves in defense of King Lamoni’s sheep?

40. In his capacity as a missionary, was it right for Ammon to threaten the life of Lamoni’s father, even as a negotiating tactic?

41. Why does Alma chapter 41, despite having a convenient context in which to discuss the degrees of glory, imply that the afterlife has only two destinations?

42. If God “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance,” why did he destroy the sinful Nephites but not destroy the sinful Lamanites?

43. When Zerahemnah surrendered his weapons to Captain Moroni but admitted that he couldn’t promise never to fight the Nephites again, would Christ have made the same decision that Moroni did to demand that Zerahemnah choose between death and swearing a dishonest oath?

44. Was it morally justified or consistent with the cause of freedom when Moroni executed Amalickiahite prisoners who would not vow to support free government?

45. Are there any problems—morally or politically—with Moroni threatening to execute citizens of his own nation who did not wish to join his army?

46.  Does Moroni’s use of enemy soldiers as slaves provide any insight into his character?

47. Was it a righteous decision for Moroni to threaten to use Nephite children as soldiers if Ammoron didn’t meet his demands?

48. Were any positive or Christlike attributes exhibited by Captain Moroni when he to threatened to kill the leader of his own government?

49.  Other than his strong belief in the gospel, what else about Moroni’s behavior supports the claim made in Alma 48:17 that “if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni…the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men”?

50. Could it be evidence of human authorship rather than divine translation that Alma chapter 56, which contains a letter written by Helaman, refers to Helaman in the first person until verse 52, which twice refers to Helaman by name in the third person?

51.  What are the differences between the secret combinations with secret signs condemned in the Book of Mormon and the modern temple ceremonies’ signs and tokens that the participants are instructed not to discuss publicly?

52.  Why would a loving Father in Heaven express hatred for any of His children?

53. When is the last time someone was converted to the gospel with such intensity that it involved a loss of consciousness or a massive muscle failure, like what happened repeatedly in the Book of Mormon?  [Alma the Younger; King Lamoni; Lamoni’s entire household; Lamoni’s father; the five men who confirmed Nephi’s prophecy that the chief judge had been murdered; Nephites witnessing the signs of Christ’s birth]

54. Does the public execution of an enemy with a joyful prayer that God will punish other enemies in the same way demonstrate sufficient dedication to the cause of peace or sufficient respect for human life? [3 Nephi 4:28-31]

55.  How does Jesus’s use of the term “damned” relate to the Church’s current teachings about the possible destinations of souls in the postmortal existence?

56. Did the addition of the endowment and the sealing ordinance constitute declaring more than the baptism-centric doctrine Jesus taught in 3 Nephi 11:38-40, an act He said “cometh of evil”?

57. Why did Jesus allow the disciples to pray to him in 3 Nephi 19:18 if he told them in 3 Nephi 18:19 that they should pray to the Father?

58.  When Jesus quoted Malachi 4 in 3 Nephi 25, why did he advise the Nephites to remember the Law of Moses if His atonement had already made that law obsolete?

59. Why are the promises made to Nephite disciples in 3 Nephi 28 to “speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom” or to “never taste of death” not available to the rest of us in the same way by a simple, faithful request?

60. Is there any contradiction in the land of Desolation first being located in the northern Nephite territory near Bountiful (Alma 22:29-30, Alma 50:33-34, and Alma 63:5) and later being located in the southern Nephite territory near the Lamanite lands (Mormon 3:5-6 and Mormon 4)?

61. Why did Mormon need to repent in Mormon 5:1 of something God told him to do in Mormon 3:16?

62. In its final battle that cost all but 24 lives out of a force of 230,000, is it strange that Mormon’s army was able to sustain a higher percentage of casualties than Pickett’s Charge, the Battle of the Thermopylae, or the Charge of the Light Brigade, as well as numeric losses greater than the Battle of Antietam, the Battle of the Bulge, or the combined deaths from both atomic bombs?

63. If God “is a God of miracles,” why do prophets and apostles no longer have current stories of miraculous mass healings (ten lepers; malaria victims in Nauvoo) or miraculous manipulation of natural forces (walking on water; parting the Red Sea; gulls in the Salt Lake Valley) or angelic visitations (Nephi, Laman, and Lemuel; Nephi again; Alma the Younger; restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood; Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple) or raising the dead (Lazarus raised by Jesus; Timothy raised by Nephi) or other miraculous displays of power (the brother of Jared moving the mountain of Zerin; Nephi and Lehi protected in prison)?

64. How were the Jaredites, at best a Bronze Age civilization, able to construct watertight, submersible ocean-faring vessels?

65. How were the Jaredites able to fit enough food and fresh water in their eight tree-length barges for all the voyagers and all their livestock to survive the 344-day ocean journey?

66. Why were cureloms and cumoms—unlike other animals in the Book of Mormon such as horses, sheep, and elephants—not translated into English words?

67.  How was King Coriantum able to live to be 142 years old?

68. Ether 12:6 teaches that “ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith,” but wasn’t a witness without a trial of faith given to Laman and Lemuel, Alma and the sons of Mosiah, Saul of Tarsus, Korihor, King Lamoni’s household, and the Lamanites who stormed the jail to kill Nephi and Lehi?

69. If two million Jaredites died in the final battles of their civilization and Shiz and Coriantumr had armies of approximately one million soldiers each, doesn’t that mean the probability of the last two people alive being specifically Shiz and Coriantumr would be roughly one in one trillion?

70.  According to Moroni, if the Church is true and has 15 million believing members, should angels still regularly minister unto men?

71.  If it’s awful wickedness to say that God will save a baptized child and damn an unbaptized child, but it’s not awful wickedness to say the same about adults, doesn’t that mean that God is a partial God and a respecter of persons because of how many children die before the age of accountability and because of how many adults die without an opportunity for baptism?

72. In Moroni chapter 9, when the Lamanites “deprived [their prisoners] of that which is most dear and precious above all other things, which is chastity and virtue,” and in the next verse those prisoners are tortured and killed, does that imply that woman’s virginity is more precious than her life?


The Doctrine and Covenants

73. Why did the Church rescind doctrine from the Doctrine and Covenants by removing the Lectures on Faith in 1921 through a committee process instead of by prophetic revelation or by a churchwide vote? 

74. Why was a restoration of the priesthood through John the Baptist and through Peter, James, and John necessary if the Three Nephites were still alive and still held the priesthood given to them by Christ in 3 Nephi 18?

75. Why was a revelation from 1830 that was first published in the 1833 Book of Commandments expanded in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants to include a section about heavenly visitors who are not mentioned in the original revelation? [This is currently D&C section 27]

76. Why are Elijah and Elias treated as separate beings in Doctrine and Covenants 27 and during the visitations in the Kirtland Temple if they were the same Biblical person? [Elias is the latinized form of the name Elijah and Paul quotes Elias in Romans 11:2-3 with Elijah’s words from 1 Kings 19:14]

77. Why is the Terrestrial Kingdom compared to the glory of the moon instead of to the glory of the Earth?

78. How can the statement in Doctrine and Covenants 77 that the Earth will only exist for a total of seven thousand years be reconciled with the scientific consensus that the Earth is billions of years old and that homo sapiens has existed for hundreds of thousands of years?

79. When Joseph Smith prophesied of the American Civil War in Doctrine and Covenants 87, why do some of his predictions appear not to have come to pass, such as Britain joining the war, other nations being pulled in, slaves revolting, Native American remnants attacking the Gentiles, various natural disasters, and the end of all nations?

80. Why are we accountable for some things that are not in the Word of Wisdom (coffee and tea) but not accountable for something that is (eating meat only in times of winter, cold, or famine)?

81.  Doesn’t the devil know that he does not have a body, therefore making it easy for him to pose as "the spirit of a just man made perfect" by declining to shake hands when Doctrine and Covenants section 129’s method of detecting a false angelic messenger is applied?

82. Could the teaching that children who die before the age of eight are eligible for the Celestial Kingdom create any inequities in the Plan of Salvation between those who were sent here briefly to receive a body and those of us who were sent here to prove our worthiness over a lifetime that extends long past the age of accountability?

83. Could the fact that only 3 sections and 2 official declarations have been added to the Doctrine and Covenants since Joseph Smith’s death indicate that direct prophetic revelation has waned significantly since 1844?


The Pearl of Great Price

84. Why has academic Egyptological study delineated starkly different interpretations of the Book of Abraham facsimiles than the interpretations provided by Joseph Smith?

85. Why would God put Joseph Smith in contact with the Book of Abraham papyrus, allow him to believe it was a record written by Abraham, and employ it as a vehicle to reveal scripture to him despite the lack of vehicles required for his many Doctrine and Covenants revelations and for his inspired translation of the Bible, which he started prior to coming in contact with the Book of Abraham papyrus? 

86. If God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, why did he condemn a third of his children at the outset of his plan, allow his gospel to be absent from the earth for almost two thousand years, and then establish a church that, in the last days, still only represents approximately two tenths of one percent of the planet?

87. If an important distinction between Jesus’s and Lucifer’s plans was that Jesus wanted to deflect all the glory to God, why is the Church named after Jesus instead of God, why do we call Jesus our Savior, and why do we celebrate Jesus’s birth and resurrection without any holidays for God the Father?

88. Why does modern astronomy not align with the explanation of Facsimile 2 Figure 5 in the Book of Abraham, which states that certain stars receive their light and power from the revolutions of Kolob?

89. If a big part of Joseph Smith’s story was a need for clear answers to the numerous conflicting denominational interpretations of the Bible, why is there so much variety in the interpretations of the Book of Mormon?

90. In Joseph Smith—History, why does the prophet state in verse 10 that “I often said to myself…are [the churches] all wrong together,” but state in verse 18 when he was in the Sacred Grove that “at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong”?

91. Why did God need to prepare the Urim and Thummim for the purpose of translating the golden plates (Joseph Smith—History 1:35) if, according to the Church website’s essay on seer stones, Joseph could use the Urim and Thummim and his own previously found seer stone “interchangeably”?

The Plan of Salvation

92. How will proxy temple ordinances be performed for the countless people for whom there is no genealogical record whatsoever?

93. How does the Second Anointing align with the purpose of mortal life being to test us based on our faith and our actions?

94.  If God is such a strong proponent of free agency, why did he condemn Lucifer’s followers for all eternity with no hope of redemption even though they’d exercised their free agency on exactly one issue?

95. What sins have you committed for which eternal separation from God would be a fair punishment (if you had received no ordinances) and what sins could you commit that would cause loving mortal parents to punish you with permanent separation?

96. Should we need to meet an age requirement, a worthiness requirement, and an ordinance requirement to be eligible for full communication from our Heavenly Father—and what requirements would loving mortal parents impose for their children to be eligible to communicate with them?

97.  If resurrection will restore our physical bodies so that not one hair from our heads shall be lost, and if the Proclamation on the Family declares that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose,” why would apostle Joseph Fielding Smith teach that in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms “the power of procreation will be removed” and that “men and women will, in these kingdoms, be…neither man nor woman”?

98. Would a perfected being have emotionally evolved beyond the need to be worshipped by His children?

99.  If there must be an opposition in all things and Adam would not have fallen without someone to tempt him to eat the fruit, could this mean that God intentionally created Lucifer as an evil being in order to make the Plan of Salvation possible?

100. Doesn’t Jesus’s role as an advocate with the Father (Doctrine & Covenants 45:3-5; 1 John 2:1) make him more merciful than God?

101. If God’s love is not unconditional [Elder Christofferson; Elder Nelson, in which he also quotes President Joseph F. Smith expressing a similar sentiment], why are we held to a higher standard of love [President Kimball instructing us to love our families unconditionally] and why does Jesus have unconditional love [Elder Nelson] if God the Father does not?

102. Can the Plan of Salvation be seen as inefficient when it has a lot of elements that can be interpreted as post hoc corrections for the weaknesses of other elements?  [Establishing a church compensates for the veil of forgetfulness at birth; Missionary work compensates for limited access to ordinances; Proxy ordinances compensate for the limits of missionary work; Genealogy compensates for limits of proxy ordinances; Temple Sealings compensate for separation in the afterlife]

103. Because Joseph Smith was told in revelation that he would see the coming of the Son of Man if he lived to the age of 85 (Doctrine and Covenants 130:14-15), does that mean that God’s purposes can be delayed by more than a century due to the loss of one individual whose death the omniscient God would have foreseen?


The Modern Church

Organization and Procedure

104. If “we believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church,” isn’t it odd that there are 15 apostles in the current dispensation but only 12 were established by Jesus during His mortal ministry and only 12 were established during His post-mortal visit to the Nephites?

105. Why does a church that is so proud of its worldwide membership draw disproportionately from its western US population for its highest levels of leadership? [US membership of 6,681,829 and worldwide membership of 16,313,735 shows 59% of members live outside the US]

106. If no one should be ordained to any office in the Church without a vote of the membership (Doctrine and Covenants 20:65), why have so many prophets been ordained before their first General Conference? [Monson’s announcement; Nelson’s announcement]

107. Why is there no scriptural revelation for the order of prophetic succession?

108. Considering how many Book of Mormon prophets and scriptural authors were from the same lineage, does that mean that Joseph Smith III might have had a valid claim to the Presidency of the Church?

109. Why are mystical objects—such as the Liahona used by Lehi’s family, the translation tools once possessed by King Mosiah and the Jaredites, or the seer stone used by Joseph Smith—no longer utilized as prophetic resources?

110. Does Elder Bednar’s explanation for why “we can expect the President and other senior leaders of the Church will be older and spiritually seasoned men” allow for God’s method of preparing younger prophets like Jeremiah, Samuel, Mormon, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young for the work of the gospel?

111. Would the present-day Church ever call an apostle who was previously an outspoken critic (like Saul of Tarsus or Alma the Younger) or who was previously excommunicated (like Orson Pratt)? 

112. If Jesus was a carpenter, if Peter, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen, if Joseph Smith was a farm boy, and if the symbolic humility of these vocations is so important, shouldn’t we expect to find a few former factory workers and janitors and short order cooks among today’s apostles?  [Nelson was a surgeon; Oaks was a jurist; Eyring was a professor; Ballard was a businessman; Holland was an education administrator; Uchtdorf was a senior VP for Lufthansa; Bednar was a professor; Cook was a lawyer; Christofferson was a lawyer; Andersen was a businessman; Rasband was the COO of Huntsman Chemical; Stevenson was the COO for ICON Health & Fitness; Renlund was a cardiologist; Gong was in the US State Department; Soares was a corporate auditor]

113. If the Book of Mormon is true, what assurances do we have that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the correct continuation of that restored truth—as opposed to the Strangites, the Bickertonites, the Temple Lot church, the Snufferites, the Community of Christ, the Kingston Group, the Fundamentalist LDS church, or any other church that traces its roots back to Joseph Smith’s restoration of the gospel and his divine translation of the Book of Mormon?

114. Although it’s understandable that a religious organization inspired of God can make mistakes through its imperfect leaders, is there a level of imperfection or an accumulation of individual imperfections that would preclude the possibility of that organization being inspired of God?

Finances

115. Is the practice of tithing members’ interest or surplus as outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 119 better reflected by the current tithing policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or by the current tithing policy of the Community of Christ?

116.  Why would a loving God expect us to pay our tithing before we make sure our families are provided for, as taught by Elder Lynn G. Robbins in the April 2005 General Conference, as written in the December 2012 Ensign, and as taught by Elder Valeri V. Cordón in the April 2017 General Conference?

117. Can the Church be considered to have no paid clergy when apostles draw salaries,  sit on the CES Board of Directors, and sell doctrine-based writings through the Church-owned Deseret Book?

118. When Church leaders obtain Deseret Book publishing deals to expound on gospel topics with their apostolic celebrity guaranteeing sales, where is the line drawn to distinguish this practice from priestcraft? [President Nelson; President Oaks; President Eyring]

119. Could Elder Durrant’s “poor judgment” in allowing his son to create a website selling merchandise based on Durrant’s “Ponderize” talk be interpreted as an attempt at priestcraft?

120. Could requiring a full tithe for access to the temple be construed as the Church itself selling signs and tokens for money?

121.  Regardless of any doctrinal stance on the issue at stake, should it be okay for a religious institution to contribute almost $200,000 to influence the outcome of a state’s political referendum?

122. What non-financial gospel purposes are served by the Church’s housing complexes, its shopping malls, its private hunting preserve, its cattle ranch, its insurance company, and its other large real estate holdings?

123. What is the ratio between the number of temples the Church has built and the number of homeless shelters the Church has built?

124. Can anything about the Church’s priorities be inferred from the fact that it spent approximately six times as much money to build the City Creek Center in Salt Lake City as it spent in humanitarian cash donations from 1985 to 2011?  [an estimated $2 billion] [$327.6 M]

125. What possible downsides beyond the effort required to make the information available could be keeping the Church from being transparent about its finances the way some other churches are and the way the Church itself used to be?

Membership Statistics

126. Has the narrative of Church growth as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands rolling forth to fill the whole earth [D&C 65:2, 1831; Kimball, 1976; Hinckley, 1995; Ensign, 1996; Hinckley, 2007] shifted, judging by Elder Cook’s reminder that Nephi foresaw the Church’s “numbers would be small because of wickedness”?

127. Is it coincidental that the Church stopped announcing its membership statistics in General Conference after the first five consecutive years of slowing membership growth in the entire history of the Church?

128. Why did Elder Jeffrey R. Holland assert in April 2016 that the Church was creating stakes in double digits each week on average when the church only added 92 stakes during the entire year of 2016?  [2015 statistical report] [2016 statistical report]

129.  Is it strange that Elder Holland would predict that the number of missionaries would hit one hundred thousand by 2019, only for those numbers to decline every year after the 2014 peak?

130.  How well can the Church be servicing God’s goal of spreading truth to all His children when the Church makes up approximately two tenths of one percent of the world population (assuming every member on record is active), when there is currently about one full-time missionary in the world for every 115,000 people, and when the number of convert baptisms per missionary in 2018 was less than four?

Questions, Criticism, and Discipline

131. How many stories are told in General Conference about an apostate or an inactive member who is happy, healthy, and successful without eventually returning to the Church?

132. Why did Elder and Sister Renlund dismiss their doubting friend’s actions as “church history Whac-a-Mole” instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of his spiritual and emotional crisis?

133.  If, according to Elder Cook, “one purpose of prophets is to help us in resolving sincere questions,” why are none of the Gospel Topics essays on the Church website signed by or ostensibly authored by any of the apostles or prophets?

134.  How does teaching that “when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done” and “when the prophet speaks the debate is over” complement our personal responsibility to gain our own spiritual witness of what we’ve been taught?

135. Can Church leaders be considered anti-intellectual when they make statements such as “I find it unnecessary to investigate or rethink my beliefs,” [Henry J. Eyring, 2018] when they refer to intellectuals as one of the three biggest threats to the Church [Elder Packer, 1993], and when they suggest that “research is not the answer”? [Elder Oaks, 2019]

136. If the Church so carefully separates policy, which can change, from doctrine, which cannot, why does it seem to resist calls for policy changes? [policies on race; partial concessions to Sam Young’s call to end sexual questions in one-on-one interviews; walking back the November 2015 policy after more than three years of backlash]

137. Would God actually allow criticism of a leader to diminish that leader’s capacity to perform his or her calling and is it ethical or healthy to teach that this is the reason why factually correct criticism of leaders is wrong?

138. Was it entirely fair for Elder Robbins to dismiss criticism of the prophet as “guilt trying to reassure itself,” especially considering that Elder Uchtdorf reminded us the year before that God runs his Church through imperfect people and that “there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes” and considering that Elder Ballard would express a similar sentiment to Uchtdorf’s the year after?

139.  Does Elder Oaks’s assertion that the Church does not give apologies say anything about his level of compassion or his devotion to accountability?

140. Why did the Church summon Jeremy Runnells to a disciplinary hearing instead of providing him with answers to the concerns he outlined in his Letter to a CES Director? [exchange between Runnells and his stake president starting on page 13]

141. Why was Bill Reel told during his disciplinary council that he could be excommunicated for calling Jeffrey R. Holland a liar in his podcast even if Elder Holland actually was lying? [transcript, p. 26-29, recording, approx. 1:20:00]

142. Can the decision to excommunicate Sam Young be construed as an indication that the Church feels a stronger urge to protect its own authority than to protect its children from sexual abuse?

143.  Why has the Church excommunicated Fawn Brodie, D. Michael Quinn, Denver Snuffer, Sam Young, John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, Kate Kelly, Bill Reel, and others for publicizing criticism, but not Joseph Bishop, who has confessed to sexual misconduct committed while he was President of the MTC, and not Sterling van Wagenen, who pled guilty to sexually abusing a child?

144. What, other than spiritual and emotional trauma, can excommunication be expected to accomplish for a believer who receives it as verdict from a disciplinary council?

145.  Is it kind or Christlike for the Church to press criminal charges against the woman who shouted “stop protecting sexual predators” during General Conference instead of trying to understand or address her concerns?

146. If there were a Church policy that was hurtful and needed to be changed, what realistic options would members have to directly alert the General Authorities of the need for a new policy?

Statements of Modern Leaders

148. Why are revelations in Church history presented as the words God literally spoke but anything recent that’s claimed to be revelation is presented as the apostles’ own words based on divine inspiration?

149.  Can it weaken the apostles’ claim to the power of prophecy when Joseph Fielding Smith, as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught that “we will never get a man into space” less than a decade before Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon?

150.  When Boyd K. Packer told a CES symposium in 1981 that “some things that are true are not very useful,” was he advocating dishonesty by suggesting that troubling historical data should be deemphasized or should be omitted entirely from discussion?

151. Can it be considered blaming the victims of trauma for Elder Scott to suggest that “the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse”?

152. What aspect of his apostolic calling was Boyd K. Packer fulfilling when he claimed that the three primary enemies of the Church are feminists, homosexuals, and intellectuals?

153. When President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked about the central and unique LDS doctrine of eternal progression in a 1997 interview with Time Magazine, was he being dishonest or evasive when he answered:  “I don’t know that we teach it.  I don’t know that we emphasize it…”?

154. If the call to avoid tattoos and piercings is based on the teaching that the body is a temple, why did President Hinckley teach that it’s still permissible for women to damage that temple with piercings for one pair of earrings?

155. Was Elder Holland being dishonest when he implied that Mitt Romney would not have sworn a temple oath—only to adjust his answer after the interviewer demonstrated knowledge of the pre-1990 endowment ceremony?

156. How much can an organization contribute to peace on earth and goodwill toward humankind when it teaches with so many war metaphors? [a few recent examples to supplement hymns and scriptural references:  Joy D. Jones, Neil L. Andersen, Bradley D. Foster, Brian K. Taylor]

157. Was Elder Clayton promoting a form of blind obedience when he taught that “real obedience accepts God’s commandments unconditionally and in advance,” or was Elder Perry promoting a form of blind obedience when he compared us to a team of horses and explained that “the only way for a horse to know it is always doing the right thing is to be obedient”?

158.  Does it encourage healthy relationships in mixed-faith families when Elder Maxwell and Elder Andersen compare apostates to Judas Iscariot?

159. Why did Elder Oaks dispel the myth of the “theology of prosperity” if the Book of Mormon teaches this theme repeatedly? [2 Nephi 1:9-11; Jarom 1:9; Mosiah 1:7; Alma 36:1; Alma 37:13; Alma 49:30; Alma 50:19-20; Helaman 12:1-2; 4 Nephi 1:23]

160.  Considering how much the Church stresses the importance of the family, doesn’t it seem strange or even unhealthy that Elder Walker would praise a pioneer’s decision to leave his pregnant wife and six children to join the Mormon Battalion, that Elder Soares would praise a missionary’s decision not to leave his mission after the death of his sister, and that Elder Andersen would praise another missionary’s decision not to leave his mission after his entire family except for two younger brothers died in a plane crash?

161. Why would a religion that offers “ultimate happiness [and] true peace” teach that “if you feel a little overwhelmed, take that as a good sign”?

162.  Why would President Nelson claim that using the nickname Mormon is “a major victory for Satan” despite the fact that President Monson used it to advertise during his administration, President Hinckley extolled its value, and even Joseph Smith embraced it? [History of the Church Vol 3, p. 297 “Truth is ‘Mormonism.’ God is the author of it.”]

163. With all the problems in the world, why would God choose to have His prophet reveal that the nickname of His church is “a major victory for Satan” instead of having him denounce something that is causing widespread suffering among His children?

164.  Is the hand that a person uses to take the Sacrament really so crucial to the efficacy of the ordinance that it required Elder Oaks to publicly correct deacons who had taken it with their left hands?

165.  Do Church leaders tacitly admit that, despite scriptural precedents and the restoration of Priesthood power, there is a present-day lack of public, visible, miraculous healings?  [Elder Hallstrom cited being a child of God, having a body in His image, and the potential for eternal life as examples of miracles; Elder Bednar taught that we should have the faith not to be healed; Elder Eyring told a story of a friend with cancer whose miracle was not to be healed but to have a moment of lucidity with her family before she passed]

166. Are some of the Church’s efforts to downplay the possibility of scriptural-style angelic visitations (Elder Oaks in a multi-stake fireside; Elder Holland in General Conference) similar to what Joseph Smith was told during the early days of the Restoration?

Social Issues

Gender

167. When Elder Oaks taught in a General Conference Priesthood session that “women and men are equal, with different responsibilities,” is it likely that, after his long career in law, he would not have recognized while writing his talk how similar his phrasing was to “separate but equal”?

168.  Does the teaching that God will call a man through the veil by his temple name and then the man will call his wife through the veil by hers mean that, as Brigham Young is reported to have said, “woman will never get back [into God’s presence], unless she follows the man back”?  [Quoted in the Introduction to William Clayton’s journals under the section titled “The Nauvoo Temple, 1845-1846”]

169.  Do teachings such as Elder Oaks’s claim that immodestly dressed women are “becoming pornography” and Elder Callister’s claim that when a woman’s clothing is “too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure” shift responsibility away from men and onto women when it comes to controlling one’s thoughts and actions?

170. Can the Church be said to treat women with the same respect it treats men when it has taught that “it was never intended by the Lord that married women should compete with men in employment” [President Benson quoting President Kimball], when an apostle advises women seeking husbands not to “wander around looking like men…put on a little lipstick now and then,” and the when the prophet tells men that their wives are their “most precious possessions”?

171. Is it fair to say that women have a strong voice in the Church when only 9 of the 130 General Authority positions can be filled by women?

Race

172.  Why would a God who created humanity and knows our natures have chosen to use skin color as a way to distinguish between the wicked people and His chosen people?

173. Why does the Book of Mormon teach that dark skin is unenticing and why does God seem to believe that dark skin would make someone loathsome?

174. Why does Mormon call the Native Americans “dark, filthy, and loathsome” and wicked beyond precedent while not mentioning any of the loathsomeness among the Gentiles who would later manipulate them, steal from them, and murder them?

175. What explanations do we have for the policy that kept black members from the blessings of the priesthood and the blessings of the temple that can demonstrate that the policy was moral?

176.  Why have so many racially charged and unkind things been proclaimed by past prophets and apostles, such as Brigham Young teaching that interracial relationships are punishable by death, Mark E. Peterson claiming that black people could enter the Celestial Kingdom as servants, and Bruce R. McConkie writing in Mormon Doctrine that “negroes are not equal with other races” due to a “lack of spiritual valiance” in the premortal existence?

177. Regardless of the ban in place to prevent black members from receiving temple ordinances, was it still racially problematic for the Church to allow Jane Manning James, a black woman, to be eternally sealed to Joseph Smith specifically as a servant?

178. Why was a hoax website the closest the Church has come to issuing an official, explicit apology for the Church’s past policies regarding race?

Sexual Identity

179. Is there any data to support Elder Spencer W. Kimball’s teachings in The Miracle of Forgiveness that masturbation can lead to homosexuality and that homosexuality can lead to bestiality?

180. Would Christ have approved of BYU’s electroshock gay conversion therapies from the 1980s?

181. Was the November 2015 policy, which excluded children of gay married couples from receiving the saving ordinance of baptism until they children reach age 18 and acquire First Presidency approval, in keeping with the second Article of Faith?

182.  Why would the Church add a policy in its handbook that excluded gay couples and their children only to rescind it less than four years later?

183.  If, as Elder Nelson stated, the 2015 additions to the Church’s handbook in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage were revealed as part of a “prophetic process,” why was the “the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord” on this matter so short-lived?

184. Would Jesus, who was criticized for being friendly with sinners, endorse Elder Oaks’s advice that “in most circumstances,” parents should ask children in homosexual relationships not to bring their partners to family events, and would He support Elder Christofferson's admission that allegiance to the Savior means that “relationships may be interrupted” between family members who have made different choices?

185. Does it display an inordinate focus on homosexuality that, during a presentation about the Church’s information security, Elder Ballard and Elder Oaks seem less concerned about security and more concerned about whether an information leaker in the news was “confirmed homosexual?” [timestamp approx. 5:00]

186. When prophets and apostles have taught marginalizing things like “there are no homosexual members of the Church,” lightheartedly condoned violence against gay men [starting at 10:39] in a speech that was published as a pamphlet for adolescent boys, and declared that confusing gender and distorting marriage are two notable methods by which Satan “seeks to destroy God’s work,” is it possible that the Church bears some of the responsibility for Utah’s high teen suicide rates?

Polygamy

187.  If the revelation on polygamy was given in 1843 because God was answering Joseph Smith’s questions about “the principle and doctrine of…having many wives and concubines,”  why had Joseph already taken approximately 28 additional wives before God revealed the “conditions” of this “new and everlasting covenant” to him?

188.  Why did Joseph Smith marry dozens of women—including girls as young as 14, mother and daughter pairs, and women who were already married to active Church members—and then permit a denial of the practice of polygamy to be published in The Times and Seasons, a newspaper for which he served as editor (with names of purported certifiers attached to the article, including Eliza R. Snow, who’d married the prophet less than five months prior, and Newel K. Whitney, who’d given the prophet consent to marry his daughter Sarah less than four months prior)?

189. Why did Joseph Smith not follow the procedures for polygamy laid out in Doctrine and Covenants 132 (including obtaining consent from the first wife and only marrying virgins)?

190. Can it paint the origins of polygamy in a different light for Oliver Cowdery to have referred to the relationship between Joseph Smith and his first polygamous wife, the sixteen-year-old Fanny Alger, as “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair”?


192.  Was God compromising Joseph Smith’s free agency when He sent an angel with a drawn sword to threaten him with destruction if he did not keep the commandment of polygamy?

193.  What are the most likely reasons for Joseph Smith to have married young women who lived in his home?  [Sarah and Maria Lawrence; Emily and Eliza Partridge; Fanny Alger]

194.  If Doctrine and Covenants 132 indicates that the purpose of polygamy is to multiply and replenish the Earth, why is there so much debate over whether Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives and why is it so difficult to determine if Joseph had any children by them?

195.  If Jacob 2:23-30 implies that polygamy is an abomination unless the Lord commands it to raise up seed, why was Joseph Smith married to women who already had husbands and why was at least one of his sealings conducted while the woman was pregnant with another husband’s child?

196.  Is there an inequity inherent in Doctrine and Covenants 132 providing means for men to take additional wives without committing adultery but specifically stating that women who take additional husbands commit adultery and risk destruction?

197. Why did God make such extreme threats and extravagant promises when it came to polygamy?  [Emma Smith was told “she shall be destroyed” if she didn’t accept polygamy; Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs was told that an angel with a drawn sword threatened Joseph Smith that if he did not establish the principal of polygamy he would be stripped of his priesthood and killed; Helen Mar Kimball was told if she married Joseph Smith, “it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred”; Joseph Kingsbury was told he and his deceased wife will be “crowned & enthroned togeather in the Celestial Kingdom of God” for his participation as a public husband for Joseph’s wife Sarah Ann Whitney]

198. Why was a section declaring unequivocally monogamous beliefs included in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, allowed to remain as scripture during the polygamous eras of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and finally removed in 1876, only for an official declaration affirming monogamy to be issued 14 years later?

199. Why did the Church allow polygamist marriages in non-US territories (and even a few in Utah) even after the official declaration of 1890 unequivocally stated—without qualifying by locale or by national law—that polygamy was being neither taught nor permitted?

200. Why did President Hinckley say on Larry King Live that polygamy is not doctrinal when it’s still canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants, when it was taught as a requirement for exaltation by Brigham Young, and when two of the First Presidency are currently sealed to multiple women, making them polygamists in the afterlife?

201. Why do Church-produced films like Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration implicitly depict the prophet as being monogamous, especially when accusations of polygamy played a central role in the events leading to Joseph Smith’s murder?

Miscellanea

202.  Is it possible that the Church gave its own documentary about itself the same name as a previously released unflattering documentary as part of a strategy to prevent people from finding negative representations of the Church by giving the new film a higher public profile and a higher search engine profile?

203.  How would Jesus, who advised us to give not our alms to be seen of men, feel about the branded yellow shirts the Church has its volunteers wear during disaster relief efforts?

204.  Why is the symbol on the top of the temples Moroni, who is not an object of worship, instead of the Savior?

205.  As far as the efficacy of invoking God’s healing power is concerned, should there be any difference between a prayer of an ailing member, a priesthood blessing pronounced on that ailing member, and that ailing member’s name being added to the temple prayer roll?

206.  If we have already prayed in faith with a request for divine aid, why should going without food for a period of time make our prayers more actionable in God’s eyes—especially considering the many scriptures that discuss receiving answers to prayers and make no mention of fasting?  [1 Nephi 15:11; Moroni 10:4; Doctrine and Covenants 8:1; Doctrine and Covenants 29:6; Matthew 21:22; James 1:5-6]

207.  Why is money discussed in the temple endowment narrative if there should have been no concept of trade, commerce, or currency when Adam and Eve were the only two humans in existence?

208.  Why don’t temple preparation classes describe the initiatory and endowment ceremonies in detailed enough terms for people to decide whether they’re comfortable with them before their mission calls have been received or before the final days preceding their weddings?

209. Can it be considered a form of brainwashing to have young children learn and perform a popular primary song that contains the phrase “follow the prophet” fifty-four times?

210.  Why did Brigham Young teach the Church that Adam and God the Father were the same person if this was not actually the case?

211.   Why would early Church leaders including Brigham Young have taught the concept of Blood Atonement if it is not doctrinal?

212. Why would President Heber J. Grant use his time in the October 1938 General Conference to share favorite quotes, poems, and hymns—and to warn against car accidents on three separate occasions—but to make no prophetic mention of Hitler and to deliver no prophetic warning of the Holocaust?

213. Does it threaten the credibility of the spirit of discernment when General Authorities bought forged historical documents from Mark Hofmann, the director of temple endowment films pled guilty to sexual abuse, convicted sexual abuser Michael Jensen was found worthy to serve as a missionary, and a former MTC President admitted to a pattern of sexually predatory behavior?

Finding Truth

214. If faith-promoting folklore and Paul H. Dunn stories can cause people to feel the Spirit about false things, should there be methods of learning truth that aren’t ultimately trumped by the divine method?

215. If the scriptures state that faith is not a perfect knowledge, do the scriptures advise anything about having faith in concepts against which there is plentiful evidence?

216. Why do members of other faiths claim to have received spiritual confirmations of the truthfulness of their own scriptures and how can we be certain that our own spiritual confirmations aren’t as misguided as theirs?

217. Should we be expected to rely on spiritual confirmation alone to determine truth considering that the devil can give us false revelations?

218.  If the Holy Ghost can tell us the truth of all things, can we experience a burning in the bosom to gain a testimony that the priesthood ban was a divinely approved policy or that God sent an angel with a drawn sword to instruct Joseph Smith to marry a woman fifteen years his junior or that it was our Heavenly Father’s will to restrict ordinance access from children of some gay parents for a short period?

219.  Does the Church’s procedure for finding truth provide any method for a truth seeker to learn if the Church is not true or provide any advice concerning what someone should do if no spiritual confirmation is received—other than to continue attempting to receive spiritual confirmation?

220. Is it fair to expect people to continue making important life decisions as though the Church is true when it can be so difficult to find satisfactory answers to concerns that can present the possibility that those life decisions may be based on a fraud? 

Thursday, September 19, 2019

The Prophet Swears He Loves You

The president of the church gave a devotional at BYU on Tuesday and sparked some outrage in typical Nelson style.  It was a relatively short address, but it was packed with objectionable material.   Nelson is a man who really needs no introduction (although his public appearances do seem prone to lengthy, fawning introductions), so I'll just dive right into things with the first statement I found troubling:
You are of the House of Israel and you have been sent here to help gather God's elect.
Why are we sent to gather just the elect?  Why would God, whose work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, only want to gather a specific type of person in the latter days?  I thought the first part of the mission of the church was to proclaim the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.  We wouldn't want to foster any kind of elitism in the membership by implying that our missionary efforts bring in only the best, would we?
Truth is truth.  Some things are simply true.  The arbiter of truth is God.  Not your favorite social media news feed, not Google, and certainly not those who are disaffected from the church.
Okay, that's fair if we start with the assumption that the Mormon God is real.  But Santa Claus is theoretically the arbiter of naughtiness and niceness, too, so....

And, honestly, the overwhelming majority of people don't consider their social media news feed as an arbiter of anything, and I think it's spectacularly condescending of a prophet to imply such.  Perhaps Google has a slightly better reputation for truth.  But lumping apostates in with these two ridiculous examples and adding a modifier that identifies them as the most ridiculous example of all is unfair, manipulative, and dishonest.  Yeah, disaffected members are not the arbiters of truth.  But neither is Russell Nelson.  So just because he says God is the highest authority on truth doesn't mean the god he pretends to represent is real enough to have any power to shape, defend, impose, or represent truth.
Because the Father and the Son love us with infinite, perfect love and because they know we cannot see everything they see, they have given us laws that will guide and protect us.  There is a strong connection between God's love and his laws.
Infinite, perfect love.  Nelson has stated in the past that, "While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional."  What I'd like to know is how something can be both infinite and conditional.  If it's infinite it encompasses everything, and if it's conditional, it excludes certain circumstances, which means it's not actually infinite.  And, honestly, if a love is dependent on whether its recipient behaves in a certain way, I don't see how that love is perfect, either.

Nelson is also going to spend a few minutes trying to tie God's love and God's laws together as closely as possible, making it sound like the laws are a manifestation of his love.  Which is weird, considering that when Nelson was announced as the new prophet, he answered a reporter's question about the church's dealings with LGBT members by explaining that "we've got the love and the law in balance here," to which Oaks exuberantly replied, "Yeah, the love of the Lord and the law of the Lord!"  Why do we need to balance two things against each other if there's such a strong connection between them?  Why do we make them sound like two opposing forces if one is an extension of the other?

And why does the prophet of God keep babbling about love like he's just making shit up whenever a fun new concept occurs to him?  
Divine law is incontrovertible!
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. (Ironically, I'm pretty sure I've expressed that sentiment over and over again.)  But it's especially untrue to assert something like this when the strategy concerning divine law is to change the laws and then insist afterward that the laws had always been policies.  You can say just about anything is incontrovertible when you're changing the definitions of the crucial words involved.

You know what else is incontrovertible?  The accuracy of this blog.  But if you find something here that's factually incorrect, I'll just reinterpret what I said to define "accuracy" as "sincerity," therefore my original statement that the accuracy of this blog is incontrovertible is still correct.  Magic!  I'm now infallible!
Divine laws are God's gifts to his children.  Just as our family's laws kept our children safe as they grew to adulthood.  Just as divine laws governing the heart and the flight of airplanes keep you safe on the operating table or while traveling.  Abiding by God's laws will keep you safe as you progress toward eventual exaltation.  
The law of gravity can kill you, and not because you're breaking it.  The metaphor that laws are there for protection doesn't hold up.  At all.

We are physically unable to violate natural laws.  I can't make an airplane fly without lift.  I can't keep myself from falling back down when I jump.  What humans have done is discover workarounds and develop ways to fly that utilize other natural laws and forces.  It's not as though anyone can fly by breaking the law of gravity.  Gravity is still exerting itself on the airplane, but the designers of that airplane have come up with methods to counteract the existing and unbreakable law of gravity.

Contrast that with God's laws.  These are very easily broken.  When you have premarital sex, it's not like flying—well...I mean, it can be, but I mean it's not like flying in the sense of this metaphor.  You aren't finding ways to work within the laws to achieve the desired goal.  You're just breaking the law.  

Now, an argument can easily be made that the law of chastity is designed to protect us, but that doesn't carry over to the other side of the metaphor.  Is Nelson seriously suggesting that God put the laws governing the cardiovascular system and gravity in place to protect us from our hearts not beating and to protect us from drifting off into space?  That's not protection, those are just common sense requirements for him to allow his children's physical bodies to maintain life.  Without those laws in place, nobody without a heartbeat is going to live long enough to float out of the atmosphere anyway.

The more you really try to parse it out, Nelson's comparison between these two types of laws, which he tries to assert are essentially of the same type, makes less and less and less sense.  Sure, though, it sounds fine if you try not to think about it.
Sometimes we as leaders of the church are criticized for holding firm to the laws of God, defending the Savior's doctrine, and resisting the social pressures of our day.  But our commission as ordained apostles is to go into all of the world to preach the gospel unto every creature.  That means we are commanded to teach truth.  In doing so, sometimes we are accused of being uncaring as we teach the Father's requirements for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.  But wouldn't it be far more uncaring of us not to tell the truth?  Not to teach what God has revealed?  It is precisely because we do care about all of God's children that we proclaim his truth.  We may not always tell people what they want to hear.  Prophets are rarely popular.  But we will always teach the truth.
Metric fucktons to unpack, here.

First thing I want to hone in on is resisting social pressures of the day.  Some examples of that would be polygamy and the priesthood ban.  Both of those changes were things that the church resisted vigorously before eventually caving to outside pressure.  Both of those were things on which the church was far behind the historical curve. Both of those are things that the church now claims to abhor.  So yes, please tell us more about how the prophets held firm in defending the racist and misogynistic doctrines of the Savior.

Next, if their commission as apostles is to preach the gospel to every creature, why do they spend so much time speaking to audiences that are already LDS?  Why are the speeches before other institutions like the NAACP the outliers in their speaking tours?  Why aren't they preaching on the streets, appearing on talk shows, visiting remote areas of the world without Mormon populations, and taking frequent and lengthy interviews with international news media?

And, Nelson, you're accused of being uncaring because, even as you teach some awful things, you have no sense of empathy in the methods you employ to teach them.  If you're going to oppress, marginalize, and vilify classes of people whom you believe do not follow the covenant path, you can at least be gentle about it.  But you have your bulldogs Oaks and Holland blustering at the pulpit every general conference and you take steps that you quite clearly don't need to take—which becomes apparent when you repeal them after only a few short years.  You didn't need to be an asshole about it, you chose to be an asshole about it, and now you're extending the assholery by refusing to admit fault or to apologize for it.  Even ignoring the unkindness of the doctrine you propagate, you went about "defending" and "teaching" it in ways that were unkind and unnecessary.

Would it be far more caring not to tell the truth?  Well, it could be, but let's not pretend you ever entertained that as an option.  And even if you're telling the truth, there are nicer ways to go about delivering the bad news that someone's on the road to hell for their gayness.  You were a doctor, for Christ's sake, have you never heard of a bedside manner?  Yours is shit.  You're basically kneeling at the beds of people you've decided without medical evidence have some horrible terminal illness and then expecting them to maintain full faith in your role as their doctor when you keep changing your mind about if you're going to treat them and how much effort you're going to put into the treatment.  Are you really surprised that some people are looking for another doctor?
Let's consider the definition of marriage.  In recent years, many countries including the United States have legalized same-sex marriage.  As members of the church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage.  The truth is, however, that in the beginning...in the beginning...marriage was ordained by God, and to this day it is defined by him as being between a man and a woman.  God has not changed his definition of marriage.  God has also not changed his law of chastity.
Jesus Christ.

First of all, thank you for agreeing to abide by a law that doesn't actually affect you.  Legalizing same-sex marriage is not the kind of law that you have to obey as a citizen or as an organization.  It's not like a speed limit.  You aren't capable of committing an infraction against a law that says state and local governments can't deny couples the right to marry based on sexual orientation.  So your noble reminder that we abide by the laws is meaningless.  I don't issue warrants without probable cause, either, but you don't see me bragging about how committed I am to abiding by the Fourth Amendment.

And Nelson goes into astronomical levels of hypocrisy here when he starts talking about the definition of marriage.  "A man and a woman" clearly states both genders involved in his ideal marriage as singular.  As in, one of each.  So we're pretending that in the Bible and in the early days of the Restoration, God wasn't in favor of the definition of a marriage as "a man and several women" and "a man and several women, some of whom are already married to other men."  We're also pretending that the man giving this speech is not married for eternity to two women—he's not civilly married to both of them, of course, but he's still living within a celestial definition of marriage that is between a man and two women.  And his claim that God hasn't changed his definition of marriage is clearly absurd.

And I'm not sure we can claim that God hasn't changed his definition of chastity, either.  Doctrine and Covenants 132 indicates that a man can take several wives without committing adultery.  The church today is pretty clear that having sex with anyone other than a singular wife constitutes adultery.
Though we of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles cannot change the laws of God, we do have the charge to build up the church and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations.  Thus, we can adjust policy when the Lord directs us to do so. 
Oh, okay.  So that means that policies are directed by the Lord too.  Which means we can throw out the idea that it was Brigham Young's fault that we discriminated against black people for more than a hundred years.  Because policies can only be changed when the Lord directs the leaders to do so.  Which means that, since the church was not founded with the priesthood ban in place, at some point the Lord must have directed Brigham Young to make an "adjustment."

It also means that, decades from now, when the church is trying to claim that the homophobic and transphobic policies that caused them so much trouble way back in the 2010s were instituted by imperfect human leaders, we can all point to this and remind the church that God's prophet assured us the policies were put in place at the Lord's behest.
Consider the policy announced in November 2015 related to the advisability of baptism for children of LGBT parents.  Our concern then—and one which we discussed at length and prayed about fervently over a long period of time—was to find a way to reduce friction between gay or lesbian parents and their children.  Because parents are the primary exemplars for their children, we did not want to put young children in the position of having to choose between beliefs and behaviors that they learned at home and what they were taught at church.  We wanted to facilitate harmony in the home and avoid pitting children and parents against each other.  Thus, in 2015, the policy was made to assist children and their parents in this circumstance, namely that children being raised by LGBT parents would not automatically be eligible for baptism at age 8.  Exceptions to this policy would require First Presidency approval.
Okay, well, I hate to upstage the mouthpiece of the Lord, here, but the best way to reduce friction between gay or lesbian parents and their children is to stop teaching that there's something fundamentally wrong with the parents and that their sexual characteristics need to be corrected or suppressed for them to be worthy of God's kingdom.  I mean, it's kind of an obvious solution.

And I don't understand how denying the children baptism actually would avoid putting them in the position of being taught different things at church than at home.  There is no primary class for children who are older than 8 but have not been baptized in which the students are taught only the things that jive with what they hear from their parents.  So all we'd really have is unbaptized children attending the same Sunday School classes they would have attended prior to the policy adjustment, hearing the same exact lessons they would have heard prior to the policy adjustment, and experiencing the same contrast between ecclesiastical teachings and parental teachings as they would have prior to the policy adjustment.  Only they're not baptized.  Which—considering how church culture works and how brainwashed children can react impolitely to differences they can identify but not properly understand—probably served not to reduce friction in the home, but to impose a social stigma on these children even though they have done absolutely nothing to deserve such a conspicuous contrast with the other children at church.

Which means either the apostles made a really stupid decision, or the motive being put forth by Nelson was not the real motive.   

Oh—and one last thing before I move on to the next quote:  Nelson is hoping his listeners don't know what the words "automatically" and "exception" mean.  He says that the original policy meant that certain children weren't automatically eligible for baptism.  When a child of heterosexual parents nears the age of eight, the bishop begins the process of preparing them for baptism, no questions asked—institutionally speaking, this happens automatically because there are no barriers to it.  When a child of LGBT parents nears the age of eight, nobody is supposed to begin the process of preparing them for baptism—institutionally speaking, this is not automatic because it requires First Presidency approval to get the ball rolling.  So when he talks about exceptions to the policy, he's not talking about exceptions.  Because the requirement of First Presidency approval is built into the policy itself.  A true exception would be if a child of gay parents were able to start baptism interviews with the bishop without requiring any external approvals.  If it requires First Presidency approval, it's not automatic.  Maybe that's nitpicking, but I don't want him to get away with claiming that he made any exceptions.  Because he didn't.  He transferred the power to permit these situations expressly to himself and his two sidekicks, which is more about preserving his right to gatekeep than it is about the concepts of leniency or exceptions.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have continued to seek the Lord's guidance and to plead with him in behalf of his children who were affected by the 2015 policy.  We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others.  That grieved us.  Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep for whatever reason, we weep.  So our supplications to the Lord continued.  We also took note of LGBT parents who sought permission from the First Presidency for their children to be baptized.  In nearly every case where the LGBT parents agreed to teach their children about and be supportive of the covenant of baptism, the exception request was granted.  As a result of our continued supplication, we recently felt directed to adjust the policy such that the baptism of children of LGBT parents may be authorized by bishops without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents requested the baptism and understand that a child will be taught about sacred covenants to be made at baptism. 
The arrogance is astounding as Nelson tries to position himself as having greater moral credibility than God.  Nelson and his friends, it seems, were valiantly pleading with an intractable Heavenly Father on behalf of the people who were affected—not hurt, offended, marginalized, victimized, targeted, or distressed, but affected—by the policy.  In much the same disgusting way as the lifting of the priesthood ban was described as the result of "[pleading] long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren," Nelson makes it sound like he really really wanted to be be nice to the homosexuals but God just wouldn't let him.  Don't make Nelson out to be the bad guy, it was God's fault it took so long to fix this.

And the unctuously magnanimous claim that the First Presidency was liberal in its granting of approvals admits that these approvals were not granted in every case.  In fact, he specifies that it was granted in nearly every case in which certain other conditions were met.  So, overall, who knows whether the actual approvals were 90% or 10%?  He clearly states this as an indication that he was generous in allowing these children to be baptized, but he leaves a lot of room in his statement to see how it's possible that he was not generous at all.

I'm also a little concerned by his use of "custodial parents."  It sounds like this could refer to a situation in which, for example, a child's father is married to a man and the child's mother has also a man.  If the mother and the child's step-father have custody of the child, they would need to be the ones who request the baptism.  I completely understand that custody arrangements and step-child situations can be extremely complicated, but it seems wildly unfair to give the power to request a baptism wholly to the "custodial parents."  What if the biological father is—understandably—against the baptism?  What does the church do in cases in which there is shared custody?  And why in the hell did they think a one-size-fits-all policy requiring First Presidency approval for any deviation was practical? 
Finally, we also clarified that homosexual immorality will be treated in eyes of the church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality.  
Wow, that's so great.  We're treating homosexuality the same as heterosexuality.  Took us long enough.  Of course, what he means is that being in a gay marriage isn't considered apostasy anymore.  Which is basically bragging about no longer being a total asshole about it.  And, importantly, what it also means is that homosexual immorality will be treated in the eyes of the church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality in matters of formal discipline.  Homosexual intimacy of any kind is still a sin and heterosexual intimacy is only a sin if it takes place outside of a marriage.  The church will continue to teach this and Nelson only means that they're not going to kick you out anymore if you're a woman married to a woman.  That doesn't mean your bishop isn't going to repeatedly counsel you to change your sexual orientation—which is something he'd never bother a straight couple about.

So Nelson's statement is framed to imply equality, but there's really nothing of the kind going on here.  It's just slightly less inequality.
Though it may not have looked this way to some, the 2015 and 2019 policy adjustments on this matter were both motivated by love.  The love of our Heavenly Father for his children, and the love of the brethren for those whom we serve.  Because we feel the depth of God's love for his children, we care deeply about every child of God, regardless of age, personal circumstances, gender, sexual orientation or other unique challenges.  
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.  (Why does that sound familiar?)

I wonder if Nelson understands why it didn't look to some like the policy changes were motivated by love.  He doesn't really seem to give the sense that he realizes that this was harmful even to people whose lives it didn't address.  He doesn't give any indication that he realizes it made a broader statement about how the church views the LGBT community regardless of the individual lives it "affected."  He doesn't acknowledge that it may have hurt people who were not directly impacted by it.  What he does acknowledge, however, is the depth of love he feels for everyone.

You got a funny way of showin' it, Russell.  Actions do speak louder than words.  It's very easy to claim that you love everyone, but it's clearly more difficult for you to behave in a way that demonstrates the love you insist that you have.

It interests me how often this policy and its reversal have been mentioned by leaders recently.  To me, this is an indication that the response to it has been so overwhelmingly negative that even the apostles have started to believe that ignoring it is not a viable tactic.  What's disappointing is that they still believe that sticking to their guns when they broach the subject is a viable tactic.  Rather than admitting that, as imperfect men, the leaders have made a mistake that has hurt people, Nelson goes the authoritarian route, links his actions inextricably to God's will, and tries to deflect any criticism toward the unassailable character of our Heavenly Father.  I think that will prove to be a losing strategy, but I suppose they're mitigating a bit of the possible damage to their membership strength by forgoing their usual approaches of hoping no one will notice it or hoping everyone will forget about it.

I'm sure Nelson will grace us all with more self-aggrandizing authoritarianism and more gilded bigotry during general conference in a few weeks, but for now, these words of witlessness are the latest declarations from the Lord's appointed prophet.  This, apparently, is the best God can do.

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Soares & Christensen, Q&A, B&S

Yet another apostle has now graced us with what seems to be the church's new favorite gimmick—a Face-to-Face event.  Elder Soares, joined by Elder Christensen of the seventy, spoke to a small and slightly-too-intentionally-international group of young adults to answer their slightly-too-carefully-selected questions.  Though the devotional was structured to avoid having to confront particularly challenging concepts head-on, it was, nonetheless, a little revealing.

I'll begin with a completely unimportant quote that I found amusing.
"Where I Can Turn for Peace" is one of my favorite hymns.
Okay, Elder Soares, but the song you're referring to—the one you sat through a performance of like five minutes ago—is called "Where Can I Turn for Peace?"  I find it funny that he accidentally gets the name wrong while praising it as a personal favorite.  Although, to be fair, it's very likely that he learned the hymn in one of the other languages that he speaks, so when he first fell in love with its message, I'm sure the exact title wasn't the one in the English hymnbook.
We both loved God more than we would ever love each other.
Gross.  

Sister Christensen said this while telling the story of how she met her husband.  This just seems...wildly unhealthy.  You're choosing your eternal companion and you still seem to think it's a good thing that the person you're going to spend the rest of forever with will still mean less to you than an omnipotent being who doesn't even personally interact with you?  You're never going to have the kinds of bonding experiences with God that you'll have with your spouse.  You'll never struggle to raise a family with God, help shoulder God's emotional burdens, experience physical intimacy with God, or share in life's lighter, sweeter moments with God.  At the very least, wouldn't it make sense that, even if your relationship was initially founded upon a joint loyalty to your creator, you'll come to love your eternal companion in a way that is more intense and more entire than the way you feel toward your Father in Heaven?

I also thought that some of the things that the Christensens shared smacked of sexism.  For example, Sister Christensen said she identified qualities in her husband that told her that he was someone she should follow.  And Elder Christensen joked that the reason they have "more than twenty dollars now" is "thanks to her."  This was clearly a joke (and the audience laughed), but it seems to me that the basis for why people thought this was funny was that it was so silly to think that the financial success of a family could be an achievement of the wife.  The punchline was this weird, gooey, sour mixture of misogyny and false modesty.

Also, clocking in at over 12 minutes, the discussion in response to the question about marriage is the longest of this interview.  Interesting that these two leaders are comfortable spending more time talking about their personal histories with their spouses than answering the distressing doctrinal inquiries of their flock.
You know, I don't know this particular circumstance of this young man who asked the question.  Let me talk just in general. 
Uh, no, that's not okay.  This was how the question began:  "Every day, I feel so much hatred and embarrassment and guilt in myself for being home [early from my mission] and feel as if I have let God down."  You don't need to know any specifics, Elder Christensen.  You can talk in generalities later, sure, but if you don't start with a specific statement to the individual who posed the question to tell him that he absolutely should not hate himself, you're missing a big opportunity to do some good.

Elder Soares later does a similar thing.  He'll speak generally and give some kind words, but neither one of them will really express empathy toward a rather shocking confession that should worry people.  You have someone following the true gospel of Christ and this person hates himself.  This is not how you like to think your religion works.  Say something nice to this person, directly, to help free him from his downward spiral of self-flagellation!
I think we all question whether our offering to God is good enough. 
I wonder why so many of us question that, Elder Christensen.  It's not like a Book of Mormon prophet taught us that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.  So it's completely baffling to me that this is such a common subject of self-assessment.
To come home early from your mission might be for your learning and growth.
This is such a shitty thing to teach people who are suffering.  Oh, you suffer from a terminal disease, financial trouble, loneliness, mental illness, cultural stigma, sexual trauma, anxiety, the death of a loved one, or drug addiction?  This is actually a good thing!  It will be for your learning and growth!

Thanks, I'm cured.
I mean, he's certainly not wrong that we can learn and grow from our setbacks.  But when that setback is still raw and still an ongoing experience, this attitude is not a particularly helpful starting point.  After you've had a chance to heal a little, it's useful to look back for learning opportunities.  But telling someone who is currently in crisis that they'll eventually be able to draw positive lessons from their struggles doesn't necessarily help pull them out of their little pit of despair--particularly when that pit is filled with something as deeply detrimental to emotional health as self-hatred.
You're good enough.  I wouldn't worry about coming home early.
Okay, we're getting almost in the area surrounding the vicinity that's in close proximity to nearly directly addressing the questioner's claim of self-hatred.  But I think any progress made is destroyed by the advice simply not to worry about it.  I'm pretty sure not worrying about it is one of the first things this person tried.  If that had worked, he wouldn't have enlisted apostolic counsel for his plight.
I would say for you—especially for this returned missionary—seek for the Lord to find peace. He knows your heart.  He knows you gave the best you could.  And he understands the pains you're feeling and the reasons you had to return home.  He is the only one who can really judge you correctly.  So don't worry about anything else, search for the Lord.  Search for peace.
Okay, so now that Elder Soares has chimed in, it's getting even messier.  He, at least, opts to speak somewhat directly to the person who submitted the question.  I thought it was huge that he referred to him as a "returned missionary," because even though that's technically accurate, within Mormon culture, there's a returned missionary and then there's a Returned Missionary.  The way he refers to this person makes it sound like he should be considered a legitimate Returned Missionary, with all the social status and implied spiritual dick size that entails, even though his service was abbreviated.  And that wasn't really a surprise for me, because from what little we've heard from Elder Soares in his time in the Quorum of the Twelve so far, he does seem like one of the more well-meaning leaders of the church.

But—

He didn't address the hate.  That one word in this question identifies the speaker, in my mind, as someone who is in a crucial personal crisis and who may be at risk for depression or suicidal ideation.  Someone in a position of authority needs to tell this person to seek professional counseling.  Someone in a position of authority needs to tell this person that he should never hate himself.  Someone in a position of authority needs to contact this person's bishop and make sure the ward is reaching out to him to make him feel loved and included instead of marginalized and stigmatized.  Someone in a position of authority needs to fucking acknowledge and validate this person's emotional struggle so he doesn't feel like he's screaming at a brick wall and receiving no assistance.  Someone, anyone, multiple someones need to tell this person he is loved and valued.

Absolutely no one should be telling this person not to worry about it.  But that's exactly what two of the Lord's anointed just did.  Both of them.

Also, it would have been nice if either one of these men had addressed the church body at large to remind them not to judge or informally ostracize people who have come home early from their missions.  Soares did say that Christ is the only one who can judge correctly, but it could have done a huge service to the people who have returned before their allotted mission length if he'd admonished the general membership in more direct terms for contributing to the suffering of people like the young man who posed the question.
Doubts are dangerous.  Questions are the way that we receive revelation.
This answer was given in Spanish, so some of the nuance may have been lost in the English translation, but these are the words attributed to Elder Christensen by his translator.

The church has really been trying to stress the distinction between a doubt and a question, and I think it's not doing a very good job.  Christensen's answer here makes it sound like receiving revelation is a tightrope walk.  You risk a lot by entertaining a question, because what if that question turns into a doubt?  The two concepts are frequently discussed hand in hand—one of them is considered to be unwelcome and dangerous while the other is considered to be acceptable and useful.  But when the two are so inextricably linked, it can make it seem like entertaining a question isn't worth the trouble because it can place you too close to the dreaded danger of doubt.  

Maybe I'm putting my tinfoil hat on again, but I have to wonder if the sloppy, often confusing treatment of these two concepts is intentional.  Because the church doesn't want your questions—it wants your obedience.  And if it can pretend to approve of questions while positioning them so close to something else that it actively demonizes, maybe it can effectively discourage questions while expressing support for them.  That way it can look like it welcomes them even as it tries to manipulate its members into avoiding them entirely.
Sometimes we move forward only reading things that we find on the internet or books or reading things that people wrote—people that we don't even know. When we do this, we forget to do the things that can help us.  Things such as reading the scriptures, praying, going to the temple, going to church, participating in institute classes.

This answer of Soares's was also translated into English.

Here he's apparently indicating that things that were written by people we don't know are of suspect validity.  What is the first thing he says we should do instead?  Read the scriptures.  Gee, I wonder how many of us are personally acquainted with Moses, Paul, Alma, Joseph Smith, or any other scriptural authors.

But regardless of the contradiction, it's still ridiculous reasoning.  The lack of a personal connection to an author does not make that author's information unreliable.  The accuracy of their claims and the soundness of their reasoning should not be judged based on how well we are personally acquainted with them.  Sound reasoning should speak for itself, truth should be buttressed by data, and complete strangers should be understood to possess the same capabilities as close friends to highlight truth and to produce lies. 

This is, of course, a relatively cynical way to live, so let me just clarify that I'm only suggesting people are well served by this approach when it comes to matters of greater import.  If a longtime friend tells you that The Last Unicorn is the pinnacle of cinematic achievement, then take their word for it and watch the movie.  If some rando on the street says so, feel free to ignore it.  Not only is this kind of information subjective, but it also doesn't have much impact on anything of great consequence.  It's when people start talking about morality and eternity and authority that I think we need to start being a lot more careful to judge information on its own merits rather than dismissing things from sources that aren't close to us.
I remember as a young missionary reading a scripture, I didn't know what it meant.  It talked of an overflowing surge that covered the earth, but my disciples would be in holy places.  And I remember thinking, how does that work?  I thought the scourge was pestilence or a plague.  How can one person stand and one person fall?  In today's world, that scourge is the problem of pornography.
This appears to be a reference to D&C 45:31-32, which doesn't seem to be about pornography at all.  I'm willing to concede that the scourge and sickness referred to here are figurative rather than being actual physical ailments.  But when the people who succumb to the scourge curse God and die, it sure sounds like this is talking about something that physically kills people.  But that's not really the main thing I want to bring up here.

Christensen appears to identify porn as one of the preeminent problems in the world.  So destructive is smutty imagery that it merited, apparently, a divine prophecy as a latter-day scourge and sickness.  I think that's completely absurd.  See, this planet still plays host to things like slavery and child sex trafficking.  Our species is responsible for deep-seated and indefensible cultural, racial, national, and sexual enmities and bigotries.  We start wars.  Some of us are consumed by greed or pride or selfishness. Some of us fundamentally discard and devalue empathy for our fellow human beings.  Pornography may be bad, but if you're seriously suggesting that this is the scourge of the world today that was foreseen by Joseph Smith in 1831, you're not taking an honest look at all the moral failings of humanity and it's really difficult to respect anything else you have to say.  Get some fucking perspective.
And, I remember, in our rehearsal you made this comment—if I could share it—you said, "If we saw the price that the brethren pay to receive revelation, we would have less doubts about the decisions they're making."
This is one of the youthful hosts attributing an earlier off-camera comment to Soares—which Soares nods to acknowledge.

Okay, so, what the hell is this talking about?  What is the price?  Does he mean that the apostles physically suffer in order to recieve divine instruction? Or is the process of receiving revelation mentally and spiritually taxing?  Does their revelatory ritual involve some kind of fight club?  Or does it take up a lot of their precious time?  Does it negatively affect their relationships with their families?  Do they lose money?  Does it make their hair gray?  What is the price?

Oh, right, we can't see the price.  And, apparently, we can't even define what anybody means by "price."  Which makes this entire comment completely useless.  This is a very important sounding way of saying, essentially, "There's a lot of evidence for why our decisions are awesome.  It's a bummer you can't see the evidence, but, man, if you could, it would blow.  Your.  Mind."  

They're pretending to be sitting on something truly wonderful and asking us to take their word for it on how wonderful it is—and they COULD be telling the truth, but since nobody will go into detail or let us see this wonderful thing, we have no idea how valid their claim is.

But it kind of makes you wonder—if this information has such power to dispel doubt, why is it not discussed openly for the benefit of the church membership?
Changes in policies is not something new.  It happens since the beginning.  The Savior changed policies and he entitled prophets, seers, and revelators to do the same according to the circumstances and needs.
Okay, then, Elder Soares, I'm gonna need you to go through this in detail and explain exactly what circumstances required ordinance discrimination against blacks and what needs required exclusionary policies against LGBT members and their children.  Because it seems like you're saying Jesus gave prophets the right to be giant dicks, and that really doesn't sound like him.
There are many in the scriptures that I would consider policy changes.  For instance, we no longer offer sacrifice of the firstling of our flocks.  The Savior put an end to that policy.... 

Okay, hold up, there, Elder Christensen.  Are you saying the Law of Moses was a collection of policies?  I really, really doubt that the Israelites would have considered all of that mere policy.  It was called a Law, it was given by God, and there were serious temporal and spiritual consequences for violating it.

If the Law of Moses was policy and not doctrine, does this mean that we can suffer eternal consequences for violating mutable policy even if what we've done is vindicated by immutable doctrine?  If the church is calling something a policy, then it should have administrative impact.  It should only have eternal impact if it's a proper doctrine.  

For example, it's church policy that we ordain boys as deacons at age 12.  If you interview an 11-year-old, find him worthy, and exercise your priesthood power to ordain him as a deacon, that's a policy violation—but nobody's going to a lower degree of glory over it, right?  Unless the Law of Moses was a policy, in which case, that opens the door to some possible extreme ramifications for a misstep like giving someone the Aaronic priesthood a year early.

And if failure to abide by a policy can carry punishments of the same magnitude as doctrinal violations, that means that when God places someone into the Celestial Kingdom, he's not just rewarding their belief and their faith and the virtue of their deeds—he's also rewarding them for observance of arbitrary, peripheral, non-essential administrative rules.  God is rewarding busywork.
We cannot condition our faithfulness to the immediate answers of our desires.
Translation (yes, I know, Elder Soares was answering in English):  It is unlikely that your prayers will be answered immediately.  If prayer doesn't work for you, don't stop believin'.  Just hold on to that feelin'.
I think Nephi was exactly like each one of us.  He had questions.  Didn't understand everything.  But he knew of one thing that helped to go forward.  He knew God loved him.  And that's what we need to know, my dear friends.  If we know that, everything will be easier in our lives.
Okay, on the surface, I guess that's sort of nice.  But the more we know, the more actionable information we can use to go forward.  Teaching people to be satisfied with not knowing things is shitty.  Especially when they feel that the questions they have are essential to their eternal salvation.
I had questions and I had them answered by the prophets, seers, and revelators.  I had them answered as I dive in the scriptures, as I learned more about the love of God for me.
Okay, so let's hear them.  If you don't have questions anymore, then you must have some real killer info.  Isn't that exactly what this Face-to-Face is for?  What were your questions, what did you struggle with, and what specific issues were substantively resolved?  Walk us through it.

Because the only things you've really offered today are simplifications, justifications, and platitudes.  Where are the details?  How much does any of this actually help?