Questions
Thoughtful questions for reflection on key topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These questions and topics deserve careful consideration, open dialogue, respectful inquiry, and real answers.
Thoughtful questions for reflection on key topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These questions and topics deserve careful consideration, open dialogue, respectful inquiry, and real answers.
If prophets speak for God, how should members respond when prophetic teachings contradict each other across different eras?
Does the claim that prophetic words carry divine authority leave room for prophets to make mistakes?
If a prophet's words "shall not pass away," what happens when those words are later disavowed or reversed?
If policy and doctrine cannot be distinguished in a church claiming continuing revelation (as Elder Oaks stated), how should members evaluate policy changes?
When a policy is reversed, does that imply the original revelation was incorrect, or that God changed His mind?
How can members have confidence in current policies if past policies have been abandoned?
Is President Hinckley's "true or fraud" dichotomy a fair framework for evaluating the Church?
If there is "no middle ground," what should members do when they encounter legitimate historical or doctrinal concerns?
Does the binary "true or nothing" framework discourage critical examination of Church history and teachings?
Can an institution be partially true - containing both divine elements and human error - or must it be entirely one or the other?
Should documented inconsistencies in prophetic teaching affect a member's confidence in current Church leadership?
Is it possible to maintain faith while acknowledging historical problems, or does intellectual honesty require reevaluating foundational claims?
What standard of evidence should members apply when evaluating the Church's truth claims?
Why was the Book of Mormon introduction changed from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" of American Indians?
If DNA evidence contradicts the Book of Mormon's historical claims, should members prioritize scientific evidence or scriptural tradition?
Does changing foundational claims in response to scientific evidence strengthen or weaken confidence in the text's authenticity?
How much genetic dilution would be required to completely eliminate Hebrew DNA markers in only 1,500 years?
Why have chapter summaries been modified to remove explicit references to skin color if the underlying scripture remains unchanged?
If the 1955 and 1981 chapter descriptions accurately summarized the scripture, what justifies altering them?
Does removing racial language from summaries while retaining it in the text constitute honest engagement with scripture?
Should members be made aware of how scriptural summaries have evolved over time?
What is the significance of changing "white and a delightsome people" to "pure and a delightsome people" in 2 Nephi 30:6?
If individual words in scripture carry profound significance, what are the implications of quietly substituting words?
Does textual revision constitute an acknowledgment that the original wording was problematic?
How should members interpret scriptures that have been altered versus the original manuscripts?
Why was Joseph Fielding Smith's quote about the Lamanite curse selectively edited in the Come Follow Me manual?
Does updating digital versions while printed versions remain unchanged create different experiences for members?
Should the Church provide transparent documentation of changes made to teaching materials?
Is obscuring problematic teachings through textual revision an appropriate approach for a church claiming divine authority?
Does the pattern of quiet revision suggest the Church prioritizes reputation over historical honesty?
How can members trust current teachings if past teachings have been quietly modified?
What would honest engagement with problematic racial teachings in the Book of Mormon look like?
If dark skin as a sign of divine disfavor is now disavowed, should the scriptures containing these teachings be annotated or contextualized?
Can the Book of Mormon be considered morally authoritative if it contains teachings the Church now disavows?
If the Book of Abraham is not a conventional translation, why does the Pearl of Great Price introduction describe it as "An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham"?
What is the difference between a "translation" and a "revelation inspired by" ancient texts?
If the papyri Joseph Smith possessed are now known to be common Egyptian funerary texts, how did they produce a text about Abraham?
Does redefining "translation" after the fact constitute an adequate response to evidence, or does it represent moving the goalposts?
How can confidence be established in a text that cannot be verified against its purported source material?
What does Joseph Smith's claim to translate the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates reveal about his prophetic discernment?
If Joseph Smith could be deceived by nineteenth-century forgeries, what confidence can be placed in his other translations?
Should prophets be expected to have divine discernment when evaluating purportedly ancient documents?
How does the Kinderhook episode affect the credibility of the Book of Mormon translation claims?
What does the First Presidency's acceptance of Mark Hofmann's forgeries reveal about prophetic discernment?
If prophets, seers, and revelators could not detect elaborate forgeries, what does this imply about their revelatory gifts?
Why were Ensign articles about Hofmann's "discoveries" removed from the digital Gospel Library?
Does removing embarrassing historical content from searchable archives constitute historical honesty?
Should the Church provide full disclosure about past errors in judgment rather than quietly obscuring them?
Why has Church leadership discouraged members from researching beyond official Church resources?
If official sources omit or obscure historical information, is independent research necessary for understanding Church history?
Can members make informed decisions about faith if they are discouraged from examining all available evidence?
If the Kinderhook Plates and Hofmann forgeries were rejected as fraudulent, on what basis should the Book of Abraham be retained as scripture?
What distinguishes the Book of Abraham from other texts that Joseph Smith incorrectly identified as authentic ancient records?
Should scripture require verifiable connection to its claimed source, or is faith sufficient?
How should members respond when evidence contradicts foundational truth claims?
What theological justification existed for preventing Black members from holding the priesthood or receiving temple ordinances for over a century?
If temple sealings are essential for exaltation, what are the eternal implications for Black families who were denied these ordinances?
Were the prophets who taught and enforced the priesthood ban speaking for God or expressing personal prejudice?
How should the Church address the spiritual harm caused to Black members and their families during the ban?
Is "disavowal" an adequate response to over a century of racially discriminatory doctrine and practice?
Does characterizing racial teachings as "theories" accurately represent how they were presented to Church members?
Why does the Church use the word "disavow" rather than "apologize" or "repent"?
What does institutional repentance look like, and has the Church demonstrated it regarding racial policies?
Does the Church's disavowal of racial theories extend to scriptures like 2 Nephi 5:21 that describe dark skin as a curse from God?
How should members interpret Book of Mormon passages that connect skin color with divine favor or disfavor?
If these scriptures contain teachings the Church now disavows, should they be annotated, removed, or contextualized?
Can scripture be considered authoritative if it contains teachings later recognized as morally wrong?
If racial teachings are wrong now, were they wrong when prophets taught them as divine doctrine?
Does moral truth change based on cultural pressure or social movements?
Can an institution claiming divine guidance teach immoral doctrines for over a century and still maintain credibility?
What responsibility does the Church bear for teaching harmful doctrines as divine truth?
If prophets taught racist doctrines as revelation, can members trust that current prophets are not making similar errors?
How can members distinguish between genuine revelation and prophetic prejudice?
Does the history of racial teachings demonstrate that prophets speak for God, or that they sometimes speak their own opinions?
What mechanism exists within the Church to correct prophetic error?
Should the Church provide formal acknowledgment of the harm caused by racial policies rather than a buried disavowal in an essay?
How can institutional reputation be balanced against the need for historical honesty and accountability?
What would meaningful reconciliation with Black members and communities look like?
Does the quiet approach to addressing racial history demonstrate institutional integrity or institutional self-protection?
Did social pressure and the Civil Rights movement influence the timing of the 1978 revelation?
If the ban was God's will, why did He change it? If it was not God's will, why did He allow it for so long?
What does the timing of the revelation suggest about the relationship between social change and prophetic revelation?
Why were children of same-sex couples specifically targeted when children of other parents living contrary to Church teachings (atheists, polygamists, Church critics) faced no similar restrictions?
If the stated concern was avoiding conflict between home and Church teachings, why wasn't this standard applied consistently to all families with differing beliefs?
Was the 2015 policy presented as revelation from God or as an administrative decision?
What spiritual harm may have been caused to children and families during the four years the policy was in effect?
How can the 2015 policy be reconciled with Christ's instruction to "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not"?
Did the policy directly contradict Christ's explicit teaching about children?
Should Church policies ever restrict children's access to ordinances based on their parents' choices?
What does it mean to "forbid" children from coming to Christ, and did the 2015 policy constitute such forbidding?
If the 2015 policy came through revelation, why was it reversed only four years later?
Does revelation from God require testing, evaluation, and potential reversal based on outcomes?
What does the rapid reversal suggest about the source of the original policy?
If both implementation and reversal came through revelation, did God change His mind in four years?
How can members distinguish between genuine revelation and institutional decision-making presented as revelation?
Does the pattern of policy, harm, criticism, and reversal reflect divine guidance or institutional response to pressure?
What confidence can members have in current policies if recent policies have been reversed?
Should members question policies that appear to contradict scriptural principles, or accept them as revelation?
If prophets can implement harmful policies for years before recognizing error, what does this reveal about prophetic discernment?
Are prophets protected from making significant errors affecting the eternal welfare of members?
How should members respond when prophetic policies cause demonstrable harm?
Does this episode strengthen or weaken confidence in prophetic leadership?
Has the Church acknowledged the harm caused by the four-year policy?
What accountability mechanisms exist when Church policies harm members?
Should leaders who implemented harmful policies be held accountable?
How should affected families view their experience during the policy period?
Why do some policy changes receive formal announcement while others are implemented quietly?
Does the Church apply consistent standards when evaluating children's worthiness for baptism?
What distinguishes a "policy" from a "doctrine" when both affect members' access to ordinances?
If prophetic teachings were consistent expressions of eternal truth, why would Church leaders need to warn members against relying on past prophetic statements?
What does it mean for prophetic teachings to "not become more valuable with age"?
How should members evaluate prophetic teachings if some expire while others remain binding?
Who determines which past teachings should be dismissed and which should be followed?
How can using "Mormon" be a "major victory for Satan" in 2018 when it was acceptable and even promoted under Presidents Hinckley and Monson?
If President Nelson's position on "Mormon" was correct in 1990, why did subsequent prophets actively promote the term?
Was the multi-million dollar "I'm a Mormon" campaign advancing Satan's purposes, or was President Nelson's 2018 characterization an overreaction?
How should members reconcile President Monson's "Dare to be a Mormon" with President Nelson's characterization of "Mormon" as Satanic?
Was Brigham Young speaking as a prophet or as a private individual when he taught the Adam-God doctrine?
If the Adam-God doctrine was personal opinion, why was it incorporated into sacred temple ceremonies?
How can members distinguish between prophetic teaching and personal opinion when both are delivered from the same pulpit?
Is Elder Renlund's statement that prophets do not teach "doctrines fabricated of their own mind" historically accurate?
If prophets do not teach their own opinions, why have so many teachings been dismissed as "opinion" or "theory"?
What reliable method exists for members to distinguish inspired teaching from personal speculation?
Does the phrase "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" accurately describe prophetic teaching when doctrines are later dismissed as opinion?
If debate ends when the prophet speaks, which prophet ends the debate when they contradict each other?
Does each new prophet restart debates that previous prophets closed?
How is the instruction "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over" practically meaningful if prophets regularly reverse predecessors?
How should members view teachings once presented as divine truth but later abandoned (polygamy, racial doctrines, Adam-God)?
If prophets are human and make mistakes, how does this affect the Church's claims about prophetic authority?
Does the pattern of teaching, then disavowing, then teaching again suggest consistent divine guidance?
How did a General Authority tell fabricated faith-promoting stories for years without detection?
What does this episode reveal about accountability for Church leaders?
How does prophetic compensation through living allowances align with Christ's instruction "Freely ye have received, freely give"?
Is it appropriate for prophets and apostles to write books for profit while serving as Church leaders?
Is Elder Oaks' teaching that members should not criticize Church leaders "even if the criticism is true" consistent with principles of accountability?
Does prohibiting criticism protect institutional power or serve truth?
How can error be corrected if accurate criticism is discouraged?
What are the moral implications of Joseph Smith's teaching that "If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you"?
Does accountability for sin depend on whether someone reports it, or on the sin itself?
How does this teaching align with the scriptural principle that God knows all things?
What does "throw a cloak of charity over my sins" mean in practical terms?
How did early Latter-day Saint men twist Joseph Smith's words to justify sexual misconduct?
Does a teaching bear responsibility for how it is misused if the misuse follows logically from the teaching?
If "there could be no accuser" negates sin, what safeguards exist against abuse?
What does "What many people call sin is not sin" mean, and who determines what constitutes sin?
Why did Joseph Smith request that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him secretly, without Emma's knowledge?
If Joseph Smith was following God's commandments in practicing plural marriage, why was secrecy from Emma necessary?
Why did Joseph Smith request that the letter be burned?
Does God's commandments ever require deception and secrecy from one's spouse?
What does the pattern of secrecy suggest about Joseph Smith's confidence in the righteousness of his actions?
Why did Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger predate the 1843 revelation on plural marriage?
Was the relationship with Fanny Alger commanded by God, or was it adultery as Oliver Cowdery claimed?
Why was Oliver Cowdery excommunicated for identifying the Alger relationship as adultery?
Did Joseph Smith develop theological justifications for plural marriage to retroactively legitimize earlier behavior?
How should a prophet of God handle situations where divine commandments conflict with societal norms?
Is secrecy and deception consistent with prophetic integrity?
If Joseph Smith felt compelled to hide his actions, what does this suggest about his own assessment of their righteousness?
Should prophets model moral clarity and honesty, or is deception sometimes justified?
How should members evaluate Joseph Smith's prophetic calling given concerns about his moral character?
Can a prophet engage in systematic deception and still be considered a reliable spiritual guide?
What standards should be applied when assessing the character of prophets?
Does the principle that "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" excuse problematic personal behavior?
If Joseph Smith's teaching about accusation is fundamentally flawed, what other teachings might warrant reevaluation?
How can members trust teachings that seem designed to minimize accountability?
Does this teaching reflect divine wisdom or human self-interest?
If the purpose of plural marriage was to "multiply and replenish the earth," why did Joseph Smith marry women with whom there is no evidence of children?
How can the argument that Joseph Smith's plural marriages were non-sexual be reconciled with D&C 132's stated purpose of procreation?
Why does the Gospel Topics Essay emphasize that Helen Mar Kimball's marriage occurred "several months before her 15th birthday" rather than stating "she was 14"?
If the first wife must consent to plural marriage (D&C 132:61), how is consent meaningful when refusal can be overridden (D&C 132:65)?
Did Joseph Smith follow the requirements of D&C 132 in his plural marriages?
How many of Joseph Smith's plural marriages occurred without Emma's knowledge or consent?
If taking multiple wives without following the Law of Sarah constitutes adultery (D&C 132:62), were some of Joseph's marriages adultery?
How can D&C 132:1 justify plural marriage by citing David and Solomon when Jacob 2:24 calls their polygamy "abominable before me, saith the Lord"?
Can God condemn an act in one scripture and justify the same act in another concerning the same individuals?
Did God ever explicitly command Old Testament prophets to practice polygamy, or was it merely tolerated?
How should members reconcile Jacob 2:27 ("one wife") with D&C 132's endorsement of polygamy?
Why was Joseph Smith sealed to over twenty women before Emma was sealed to him?
Why did Joseph Smith and the Partridge sisters participate in a second marriage ceremony to create the appearance of Emma's consent when they had already been sealed?
Can participating in a deceptive re-marriage ceremony be reconciled with prophetic integrity?
Why did Joseph Smith marry women who were already legally married to living husbands?
How does polyandry align with the scriptural requirement that plural wives be "virgins" (D&C 132:61)?
What were the spiritual implications for the legal husbands of women sealed to Joseph Smith?
How should members understand Joseph Smith's 1844 statement that he could "only find one" wife when he had over thirty?
Is "lying for the Lord" an acceptable practice for prophets?
If polygamy was commanded by God, why did Joseph Smith feel compelled to lie about it?
Does public denial of practices while privately continuing them constitute integrity?
If Brigham Young taught that polygamy was required for exaltation, what does this mean for monogamous members?
Was Brigham Young speaking as a prophet when he declared that only polygamists could become Gods?
If Brigham Young was wrong about this teaching, what other teachings might be wrong?
How can the modern Church's excommunication of polygamists be reconciled with Brigham Young's teaching that polygamy was essential for exaltation?
What does the pattern of Joseph Smith's marriages reveal about the practice of polygamy?
How should members view the ages of Joseph Smith's plural wives, particularly those who were teenagers?
What does the marriage to Helen Mar Kimball (age 14) suggest about the nature of these relationships?
Why did several of Joseph Smith's plural wives later marry Brigham Young, implying they were not virgins?
Does the pattern of polygamy in early Mormonism reflect divine mandate or human desire justified through theology?
Can religious authority be used to legitimize behavior that would otherwise be considered inappropriate?
What safeguards should exist when religious leaders claim divine justification for unconventional practices?
If garment design reflects sacred and unchanging principles, why has the Church made numerous changes to garment design over time?
How can the claim "the Lord's standards will never change" be reconciled with documented modifications to garment requirements?
Does the pattern of garment changes suggest eternal principles or cultural adaptation?
Why was wearing a bra and underwear under garments not allowed before, but is now approved?
What prompted the change from allowing members to make garments at home to requiring purchase from the Church?
Why did garments originally have full-length sleeves and legs when modern styles include shorts and t-shirts?
What theological basis exists for introducing sleeveless (tank-top) garment styles in 2024-2025?
How does the introduction of sleeveless garments affect the standard that clothing must have sleeves to be modest?
For decades, sleeveless clothing was deemed immodest because it exposed garment-covered shoulders. What changed?
If sleeveless garments are now acceptable, were previous modesty standards unnecessarily restrictive?
How should members who were taught specific modesty standards view those who benefit from relaxed standards?
Does the concept of modesty change, or do interpretations of modesty change?
If temple covenants regarding garment wearing were presented as unchanging divine requirements, what justifies modifying them?
Do members who received endowments under different garment standards have different covenant obligations?
How can garment wearing be an "outward expression of inner commitment" if the outward expression keeps changing?
Does the pattern of garment modifications suggest the Church adjusts to social and cultural trends?
If the original full-length garments reflected divine requirements, what justifies abandoning those requirements?
Are changes to garment design driven by revelation or by member comfort and cultural acceptance?
How does the Church distinguish between eternal principles and cultural preferences in garment design?
Were members taught for generations that specific garment designs reflected eternal principles?
If so, does significantly modifying those designs demonstrate that the "eternal principles" were cultural preferences?
How should members who made lifestyle choices based on old garment standards view those changes?
Does the Church acknowledge when previous standards were unnecessarily burdensome?
What is the significance of "many styles for sale" when garments are supposed to be sacred religious clothing?
How does the commercialization of garment options affect their sacred nature?
Should sacred religious clothing be a source of Church revenue?
If members are instructed not to modify the garment, why can the Church modify it?
What distinguishes institutional modification of garments from individual modification?
Should members have input into garment design decisions that affect their daily lives?
How should members evaluate the statement that garments represent the Church's "unchanging divine standards"?
Does the history of garment changes strengthen or weaken confidence in the Church's consistency?
What does the pattern of accommodation to contemporary standards reveal about the nature of Church practices?
If Christ's atonement fulfilled the Law of Moses and ended the necessity of temple sacrifice, did it also end the necessity of the temple itself?
Why did early Christians not build temples or perform temple ordinances?
Is there any evidence that early Christians practiced anything resembling modern LDS temple ordinances?
Were signs and tokens part of ancient Hebrew temple worship?
Should temple work be performed for ancient Hebrews who participated in the original temple but never received endowments or sealings?
If temple ordinances are essential for salvation, were ancient covenant people excluded from them?
How did God provide for the salvation of people who lived before modern temple ordinances were revealed?
If temple ceremonies were revealed by God, what justifies removing or modifying elements?
Were the original elements of the temple ceremony incorrect or unnecessary?
If original elements were unnecessary, why were they included? If necessary, why were they removed?
Why was the left-shoulder/right-shoulder robe switch removed from the ceremony?
Why was the covenant for women to "hearken" to their husbands removed?
Does removing the "wife hearkening" covenant align with contemporary views on gender equality or with revelation?
Why were physical gestures symbolizing penalties for revealing the endowment removed?
If penalties were necessary components of sacred covenants, does their removal fundamentally alter the covenant?
Why has temple ceremony dialog been repeatedly shortened?
Do people who received their endowment at different times make different covenants?
If someone endowed in 1970 made covenants that someone endowed in 2025 does not make, what are the implications?
Which version of temple covenants represents the "correct" divine requirements?
How can temple ordinances be essential for exaltation if they keep changing?
Why was the phrase warning against "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" removed from the endowment?
Did this phrase accurately describe certain patterns of prophetic teaching?
What does the removal of this phrase suggest about the temple ceremony's evolution?
How can members distinguish between eternal divine requirements and cultural elements in temple ceremonies?
Does the pattern of modifications suggest that temple practices reflect evolving institutional traditions?
If ceremonies are repeatedly modified to align with changing cultural norms, are they anchored in eternal principles?
What role does temple worthiness play in member standing and access to blessings?
If temple ordinances have changed, how should members view their own endowment covenants?
Are members bound by covenants that the Church has since modified or removed?
Should sacred ordinances be subject to revision, or should they be fixed and unchanging?
What does the history of temple modifications reveal about the claim that these ordinances are divine requirements?
Can ordinances be both revealed by God and subject to institutional revision?
Should the Church provide members with documentation of changes made to temple ceremonies?
How can members make informed decisions about their covenants if they don't know how those covenants have evolved?
Is it appropriate for members to discuss temple changes, or should such discussion be prohibited?
Was tithing practiced in the primitive Christian Church, or was it part of the Law of Moses that Christ fulfilled?
When Christ instructed the rich ruler to "sell all he had," did He tell him to give his wealth to the apostles or to the Church?
Is the story of the widow's mite about tithing, or about the intent and sacrifice behind giving?
If tithing is a "donation," why is it required for temple worthiness and access to exaltation?
How does requiring tithing for temple access align with Paul's teaching that giving should not be "of necessity"?
Is linking financial payment to spiritual worthiness and eternal salvation coercion or voluntary giving?
When "pay or be excluded from exaltation" is the choice, is that a free-will offering?
If tithing "isn't about the money," why is it the only acceptable demonstration of faith for temple worthiness?
What does it mean for Joseph F. Smith to call tithing the "Law of Revenue to the Church"?
Are General Authorities truly exempt from paying tithing while receiving living allowances?
Should destitute families pay tithing before buying food, as the Church has instructed?
Is describing tithing as "fire insurance" against divine judgment appropriate?
If there is "no cause-and-effect relationship" between tithing and blessings, what does the promise of blessings actually mean?
How can the Church simultaneously promise blessings for tithing while disclaiming any guarantee of blessings?
If some non-tithe-payers prosper while some tithe-payers struggle, what is the actual effect of paying tithing?
If tithing is a "standing Law unto them forever," what justifies modifications to its implementation?
How can Joseph F. Smith's teaching that "one day tithing will not be necessary" be reconciled with the "standing law forever" doctrine?
When will the Church decide it has accumulated sufficient wealth to discontinue tithing?
Did Christ ask for money, or did His teachings emphasize spiritual transformation, love, and service?
How does requiring financial payment for worthiness align with Christ's ministry to the poor?
Would Christ exclude people from His presence based on their inability or unwillingness to pay?
Why doesn't the Church provide detailed public accounting of how tithing funds are used?
Should members have the right to know how their contributions are spent?
How much accumulated Church wealth is sufficient before tithing requirements are reconsidered?
Is it ethically defensible to require payment for access to essential ordinances and eternal salvation?
Does God require payment for blessings, or is this an institutional construct?
How does the practice of tithing differ from the concept of paying for salvation (which Christianity has historically condemned)?
Can worthiness be contingent on revenue generation and still reflect Christ's teachings?
Why did the Church deliberately structure investments through shell companies to conceal the magnitude of its wealth?
Was the creation of thirteen shell LLCs to obscure financial assets an accounting error, or a systematic multi-decade effort?
What motivated the Church to "go to great lengths to avoid disclosing" its investments?
How did the Church justify misrepresenting that shell companies had "sole investment and voting discretion" when Ensign Peak retained control?
If an individual member engaged in comparable financial fraud through shell companies, what would be the consequences?
Should the Church be held to the same standards of honesty it requires of its members?
Does the Church's response (paying a settlement without admitting wrongdoing) demonstrate institutional integrity?
How should members view the contrast between temple recommend requirements for honesty and institutional behavior?
What did the Church hope to accomplish by concealing the true extent of its financial assets?
Would transparency about Church wealth raise uncomfortable questions about the necessity of tithing?
How does the Church's accumulated wealth contrast with its teaching that destitute families should pay tithing before food?
What does approximately $32 billion (now estimated much higher) in hidden investments suggest about the Church's financial priorities?
How does the SEC violation align with Elder Bednar's counsel that Latter-day Saints should "be known for integrity"?
Can the Church credibly teach honesty while engaging in practices that violate federal securities law?
What does "fraudulent acts" mean in the Church Handbook, and how does institutional fraud compare?
Did the prophets and apostles who authorized these practices recognize they were morally and legally wrong?
What does twenty years of concealment across multiple Church Presidencies reveal about prophetic guidance?
Should prophets, seers, and revelators have recognized the ethical problems with concealing wealth through shell companies?
If Church leaders authorized practices that violated federal law, what does this suggest about divine guidance?
What prompted a Church employee to report these practices to the SEC?
How should members view the whistleblower who exposed the concealment?
Was the whistleblower acting with greater integrity than the institutional leaders who authorized the concealment?
Has the Church acknowledged wrongdoing or demonstrated repentance for the SEC violations?
What accountability exists when institutional leaders authorize practices that would result in discipline for individual members?
Can the Church discipline itself for fraud, or do members simply have to accept institutional behavior without recourse?
How does this episode affect confidence that the Church operates under divine guidance?
Does the Church's behavior in this matter reflect prophetic leadership or corporate self-protection?
Should members trust an institution that concealed $32 billion while asking them to pay tithing?
What does the Church's response to being caught reveal about institutional priorities?
Is a $5 million fine adequate consequence for twenty years of securities law violations involving $32 billion?
Does paying a settlement and declaring the matter closed constitute accountability?
Should the Church have publicly apologized to members rather than issuing a defensive statement?
What do the Presiding Bishopric's responses in the 60 Minutes interview reveal about institutional transparency?
How does the Church's public response to the SEC matter compare to its expectations for member confession and repentance?
Why are some parts of the Word of Wisdom enforced while others are ignored?
Does D&C 89:12-13 prohibit eating meat except in times of winter, cold, or famine?
Does D&C 89:10-11 prohibit eating fruits, vegetables, and herbs out of season?
Does D&C 89:17 endorse "mild drinks" made from barley (beer)?
Why are beer and wine prohibited when D&C 89 appears to permit or endorse them?
What exactly does "hot drinks" in D&C 89:9 prohibit?
If "hot drinks" refers to temperature, why are hot soup and hot chocolate acceptable?
If "hot drinks" refers to caffeine, why are Coca-Cola and Pepsi acceptable?
If "hot drinks" means specifically coffee and tea, where does this interpretation come from?
Why is herbal tea acceptable but traditional tea prohibited when both are hot?
How did the Church arrive at the current interpretation that permits some things while prohibiting others?
Who has authority to interpret what the Word of Wisdom means, and has that interpretation changed over time?
If members followed the literal text of D&C 89, what would be prohibited and what would be permitted?
Does the current enforcement of the Word of Wisdom reflect the actual text of the revelation?
Is the Word of Wisdom primarily about health, or about obedience and conformity?
If health is the primary concern, why aren't other unhealthy choices (excessive sugar, processed foods, lack of exercise) part of worthiness interviews?
Why can a member drink multiple caffeinated sodas daily and remain temple worthy, while a single cup of coffee disqualifies them?
Does the Word of Wisdom as enforced actually improve health, or is compliance the real measure?
Should access to temple ordinances depend on beverage choices that have no clear scriptural basis?
How can members be judged worthy or unworthy based on arbitrary distinctions lacking theological foundation?
Is it just to deny temple access to someone who drinks tea but approve someone who regularly eats meat?
If members follow the "spirit" of the Word of Wisdom as general health guidance, what behaviors should affect worthiness?
Why does the Church enforce the "letter" of some provisions while ignoring the letter of others?
How can members know which parts of the Word of Wisdom are binding and which are optional?
How has the interpretation and enforcement of the Word of Wisdom changed since 1833?
When did the Word of Wisdom become a requirement for temple worthiness rather than a suggestion?
Did early Church leaders, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, strictly observe the Word of Wisdom as currently interpreted?
Can the Word of Wisdom be coherently interpreted if some prohibitions are enforced and others ignored?
What principle distinguishes coffee (prohibited) from hot chocolate (permitted)?
What principle distinguishes caffeinated soda (permitted) from iced coffee (prohibited)?
What principle distinguishes herbal tea (permitted) from green tea (prohibited)?
Is the current interpretation of the Word of Wisdom based on revelation or on accumulated tradition?
Does the selective enforcement reveal theological principle or institutional preference?
How should members respond to requirements that seem inconsistent with the underlying scripture?
Is Joseph Fielding Smith's teaching that an unfaithful husband's wife will "be given to another husband in eternity" doctrine or personal opinion?
What scriptural basis exists for "reassigning" eternal marriage partners based on one spouse's faithfulness?
How should women in such circumstances view their eternal sealing status?
Does this teaching reflect eternal truth or patriarchal assumptions about marriage?
Is it appropriate to equate disagreement with Church policy to disagreement with Christ Himself?
Does the equation of Church and Christ eliminate any space for institutional error or human fallibility?
If the Church and Christ are synonymous, what does this imply about every policy, legal action, and teaching?
Can this claim be sustained given documented policy reversals, doctrinal changes, and ethical failures?
Is Christ responsible for the SEC violations, the priesthood ban, and the 2015 children's baptism policy?
Can members choose to believe some prophetic teachings while rejecting others?
Are prophetic instructions merely suggestions, or are they binding commandments?
Do prophetic instructions have an expiration date, and who decides when something no longer applies?
How does selective adherence to prophetic counsel affect temple worthiness?
Is President Hinckley's counsel against multiple ear piercings binding on current members?
If this counsel is no longer emphasized, was it ever a requirement or merely a preference?
Is President Benson's counsel against R-rated movies still applicable today?
Does the R-rating standard make sense in countries where film ratings differ?
Is the content of media or its rating the actual concern?
Can members sustain Church leaders while openly disagreeing with prophetic teachings?
If openly disagreeing risks denial of temple recommends, is sustaining actually voluntary?
Does the expectation to "sustain" require agreement, or only support for leaders' authority?
For how many generations was the teaching about creating worlds and having spirit children presented as established doctrine?
Is the Church's FAQ characterization of this as "speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine" historically accurate?
If this was taught in official Primary, youth, and seminary materials, how can it be dismissed as speculation?
Does the current FAQ represent historical honesty or institutional revisionism?
How should members respond when long-taught doctrines are quietly dismissed as "speculation"?
What confidence can members have in current teachings if established doctrines can later be disavowed?
Does the Church owe members acknowledgment when it changes or abandons teachings?
Do these miscellaneous issues reflect isolated incidents or a broader pattern of institutional behavior?
How does equating Church authority with divine authority affect members' ability to evaluate Church decisions?
What responsibility does the Church bear for teachings that were presented confidently but are now dismissed?
When is "continuing revelation" a valid explanation for change, and when is it an evasion?
How can members distinguish between legitimate "policy vs. doctrine" distinctions and convenient reclassification of embarrassing teachings?
What criteria determine when a prophet was "talking as a man" versus speaking prophetically?
Is "lying for the Lord" ever justifiable, and who decides when deception is acceptable?
Does "it was a different time" excuse teachings that caused real harm to real people?
When does "all will be revealed one day" become an excuse for avoiding accountability now?
Is "we aren't meant to know that at this time" a satisfying answer to questions about documented contradictions?
What distinguishes "disavowing" a teaching from acknowledging error and offering apology?
Does suggesting someone is "asking questions with the wrong intent" address the substance of their concerns?
Is attributing faith questions to personal sin a fair or helpful response?
If the Church is not the source of truth it claims to be, what implications follow?
What would "adequate" answers to these issues look like, without relying on non-answers?
Can an institution require your time and money while labeling non-participants as "unworthy"?
Are all religions human creations, and if so, what does this mean for religious truth claims?
Does the pattern of doctrinal and policy changes reflect divine guidance or response to cultural pressures?
If the Church changes in response to social trends, how is it different from other human institutions?
Can an institution claim divine guidance while repeatedly aligning with contemporary social movements?
If something is wrong now, was it wrong when prophets taught it as divine truth?
Is morality fluid, or are principles of right and wrong consistent across time?
Can teachings be considered a "firm foundation" if they are subject to reversal and disavowal?
What responsibility does the Church bear for harm caused by teachings now recognized as wrong?
Is it possible to maintain faith while acknowledging institutional problems?
What does it mean when examining these issues leads to stronger personal values rather than spiritual crisis?
Can spirituality and meaning exist outside of institutional religion?
Is life simpler when religious explanations are set aside?
Have religions succeeded or failed in their attempts to explain and quantify God and life?
Is spirituality more than adherence to religious institutions?
What is lost and what is gained when leaving institutional religion?
Can personal happiness coexist with religious disaffiliation?
What does "living a good life" mean independent of religious authority?
How can former believers maintain community and meaning outside religious structures?
What values are worth keeping from religious upbringing, regardless of institutional concerns?
Is religious deconstruction a crisis to be avoided or a journey toward authenticity?
Is it reasonable to expect more from an institution claiming divine authority?
When expectations are repeatedly unmet, what conclusions are appropriate?
Does examining these issues constitute "losing faith" or "gaining clarity"?
What would it take for the Church to adequately address these issues?
How should members weigh institutional loyalty against intellectual honesty?
Is it possible to remain an active member while holding serious doubts?
What support exists for those navigating faith transitions?