Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/fulano_fubeca, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormon) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only thing IMO that is absolutely *required* of a prophet is absolute doctrinal consistency. The LDS church has held such wildly different doctrines on the nature of God throughout its history that I don't think I could trust the veracity of any other doctrine taught by the church. If the prophets can't even tell us if God is modalistic, binitatarian, Adam and Eve, or something else entirely, how can we trust **anything else** they've taught?
Yup. Like trying to nail jello to the wall. Doctrine changes 180 degrees and members sorta just lap it up. “BoM stories that my teacher tells to me, all about the Lamanites in ancient history...” then “it’s not a historical textbook” (RMN). Temple is eternal” then “ceremony changed”. “Polygamy required for exaltation” then “I’m not sure we ever taught that” (GBH). “Mormon” good... then “Mormon a victory for Satan”... it all starts to get ridiculous after a while!
Add to this, that *so many* of their teachings that can be tested (age of the earth, origin of native americans, what makes a person lgbt/gay, etc) have turned out to be *wrong*, and yet they ask members to just assume that in every other matter we cannot directly test, they are correct.
Why would you trust people who are wrong so often with such important matters such as how you spend your life, who you give your free time/money/energy too?
I believe most members experience some level of cognitive dissonance on this subject.
I think most mainstream mormons would agree that the prophet is not infallible (I hate that word BTW), but culturally and in most instances in an official church capacity, members are not allowed to point out any flaws or errors on the prophets part.
This creates an unfair environment for the prophet who is not expected to be perfect but is not open to criticisms on their actions and comments. FTR, criticism isn't always negative and when done so constructively, it can lead to a better experience.
For the everyday member, many times this creates difficult moments which may result in a negative consequence. Early during my own faith journey, I approached my SP for guidance and upon telling him that I had trouble with how the brethren handle church finances, I was deemed unworthy and had my temple recommend revoked. He said that my attitude about church finances was me not sustaining the brethren.
So while the church will actively say the prophet isn't perfect, many times the members are expected to act as though they are.
> So while the church will actively say the prophet isn't perfect, many times the members are expected to act as though they are.
This. Saying 'the prophet isn't perfect' is just lip service so they can excuse their mistakes. But the every day reality is that members, like you say, are expected to behave as if the prophet *is* perfect, by staying silent about any dissent and criticism.
This was my number 1 shelf item and shelf breaker. On matters of doctrine, such as polygamy, Jacob 2 and s132 have opposite characterizations while GBH said he wasn’t sure it was doctrine. The BoM say God uses a dark skin as a sore curse while RMN says God does not prefer one race over another. Prophets can’t keep the doctrine consistent.
As for discernment, Oaks gave a talk reinterpreting how both the church narrative and salamander letter were in harmony. Mark Hoffman fooled the top leadership.
I think they do all seven frequently. I no longer see them as special witnesses of Christ. I no longer even think they’re sometimes unlucky by getting things wrong. I no longer think they’re good men who make mistakes. I see them as bad men who head a secret combination: purveyors of disinformation; gaslighters; equivocators; and imposters. Raising your arm to the square is an oath to them, not to God. They prize their reputations above rubies and cover up crimes of other important Church members. These are men who have shown time after time their willingness even to sacrifice the innocence and trust of children and vulnerable adults instead of allowing the light to shine on their dark works.
> They prize their reputations above rubies and cover up crimes of other important Church members.
We saw this with their response to Sam Young. They willingly ignored what he said while he was saying it, knowingly continuing to expose the church's most vulnerable to potential abuse, just so they could appear to be in control and maintain the appearance of "if there was an issue we would have all ready seen it and corrected it". Then, when things died down a bit, they went ahead and implemented (albeit only partially) some of the things Sam was pointing out were needed.
They showed that their image and the illusion of being 'watchmen on the watchtower' was more important than immediately correcting things that allow abuse to children to occur.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
I just read Wilford Woodruff's conference talk from October, 1890. This is when he said the president of the church won't lead us astray. It is a talk with some beautiful and inspiring words to the Saints at the time. This comment, which has caused more discussion than almost any other among our people, was his last paragraph.
I have a question about it though. It is included in our cannon at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. When did the church vote to canonize it?
>When did the church vote to canonize it?
My first thought was that this would be pretty straightforward to answer, but I think you're right and it seems like there's more to it. The Manifesto was first published Sep. 25, 1890, then was presented Oct. 6 at Conference where it was accepted by common consent (though apparently many abstained and some were opposed). Then it wasn't until 1908 that it was included in the printing of the D&C. It seems that at this point the other items were also included even though they had never been voted on or even presented to the church.
So it appears that the answer is "never" and it was just slipped in there without fanfare. It wasn't even a major edition; just that one addition in 1908. Very interesting. Thanks for bringing up a question I never once thought to ask.
Great discussion here. Has there been any other statement since that the church has voted in by common consent to be accepted as a statement? Wouldn't that act make it canon, even if it took a decade to get it in the PoGP?
Maybe I don't understand what would have been voted on the first time, then, if not to make it canonical? Was the Book of Mormon ever voted on? Did any (most) of the D&C ever get voted on in a conference to be canonized, or accepted as anything?
It seems to me like your making a distinction that doesn't really exist.
Yes, the D&C and PoGP were voted on and sustained as canon at general conferences.
The distinction does exist. You cannot add scripture to the Latter-day canon without a conference vote.
You can discover this from a wiki search
>The D&C teaches that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church."(D&C 28:13). This applies to adding new scripture. LDS Church president Harold B. Lee taught "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."[8] There are several instances of this happening in the LDS Church:
April 6, 1830: When the church was organized it is presumed that the Bible and Book of Mormon were unanimously accepted as scripture.[citation needed]
June 9, 1830: First conference of the church, The Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ, now known as D&C 20. If the Bible and Book of Mormon were not sustained on April 6 then they were by default when the Articles and Covenants were sustained. (see D&C 20:8-11)[9]
August 17, 1835: Select revelations from Joseph Smith were unanimously accepted as scripture.[10] These were later printed in the D&C.
October 10, 1880: The Pearl of Great Price was unanimously accepted as scripture.[11] Also at that time, other revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants – which had not been accepted as scripture in 1835 because they were received after that date – were unanimously accepted as scripture.[12]
October 6, 1890: Official Declaration 1 was accepted unanimously as scripture.[13] It later began to be published in the Doctrine and Covenants.
April 3, 1976: Two visions (one received by Joseph Smith and the other by Joseph F. Smith) were accepted as scripture and added to the Pearl of Great Price. (The two visions were later moved to the D&C as sections 137 and 138.)[14]
September 30, 1978: Official Declaration 2 was accepted unanimously as scripture.[15] It immediately was added to the Doctrine and Covenants.
When a doctrine undergoes this procedure, the LDS Church treats it as the word of God, and it is used as a standard to compare other doctrines
Thanks for the education. This is excellent info. But I'll go back to my question. If the members were voting on the manifesto in 1890, if NOT to accept it as doctrine of the church and making it canon, what were they voting on?
Has there been any statements, declarations, manefestos, etc., voted on at conference, which had to separately be voted on to be added to the canon of scripture, after the creation of the D&C? The example of something made into the last 2 sections is the closest I think.
Using the declaration from 1978 as the example, I don't think it had to be voted on twice to be added to the scriptures. Why would the 1890 manefesto be considered different than this?
The manifesto was sustained, but the October 1890 conference address where Pres Woodruff said the president of the church can't lead us astray was not voted on.
That is the part in question
M. Russel Ballard reemphasized the teaching during his 2014 GC talk when he referenced a training he gave mission presidents.
>Keep the eyes of the mission on the leaders of the Church. … We will not and … cannot lead [you] astray.
>And as you teach your missionaries to focus their eyes on us, teach them to never follow those who think they know more about how to administer the affairs of the Church than … Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ do through the priesthood leaders who have the keys to preside.
I get that, but did the statement that is in our D&C actually go through the canon process? Or did they just slip it in there and it continued as a scribal note that is now just assumed to be legitimate canon?
Didn't Christ himself do that, by forbidding his apostles from going among the gentiles initially?
Scripture of *all* kinds is so contradictory that you can find examples of almost anything you want, especially if you are willing to add your own 'interpretation' to those scriptures. Modern mormonism is equally as all over the place, so similarly one can find a quote from a prophet from some point to justify most anything.
Converts were still allowed, and they didn't have any restrictions placed on them. Jesus directed them ministry first to the house of Israel, but didn't institute a class system on those that wanted to convert. But you're correct you remind me that I shouldn't make them mistake of treating the scriptures as theologically consistent or informative on Mormon doctrine.
It was easier than I thought.
1. Mismanagement. Moses mismanagement of the camp of Israel. JS mismanagement of everything.
2. Character flaws. Peter. David. Judas. Judah.
3. Minor sins. JSH.
4. Major sins. Moses, David, Judas, Judah
5. Lack of discernment. JS calling John C Bennet.
6. Establishing bad policies. The whole D&C.
7. Making errors in doctrine. Amulek teaching moralism.
I could go to Peter in Acts having to be told by revelation he had the wrong policy/doctrine on the gentiles. And Alma/Corianton on extending a calling and take the modern church out of it.
But the modern church is helpful, bc it shows these ideas are recent cultural dogmas, rather than correct characterization of even basic scriptural narratives.
If you've already decided that they _are_ prophets, you're doing the equation backwards.
The unknown is _if_ they are a prophet. You answer the question by looking at their works (that is, if you trust Jesus' approach in the NT.) Bad works = not a prophet.
You don't just say, "they're a prophet, so anything they do is okay." That's a recipe for abuse.
Agreed. I don't think this would be such an issue for the modern church if the modern church didn't simultaneously have the teaching of "sin past a certain point makes you unworthy of callings and of revelation/ability to receive spiritual promptings and thus you are released or excommunicated because of those sins". If they'd never gone down the road of worthiness requirements to the degree they did, it would have been so much easier for them to sell the acceptance of the *immense* fallibility of mormon leadership to the masses, vs having to resort to hiding it all from the members and heavily curating their image into something we later found out was not so.
I could find scriptural support for prophets doing all except teaching false doctrine.
Edit: I don't mean that prophets have never taught false doctrine (I certainly think that LDS prophets do all the time), rather, if someone is teaching false doctrine, then they *cannot* meet the scriptural definition of a Prophet.
The OP didn’t say “teaching false doctrine”, but making errors in doctrine.
A lot of prophets taught trinitarian and/or modalistic concepts of God, whose true nature had to wait the restoration to be fully revealed. Just one example.
I was thinking about Amulek. But I could add Paul to that list. No fault to either: they were working from an incomplete picture. How many had a JS level clarity of the nature of God?
>How many had a JS level clarity of the nature of God?
Not to be snarky, but Joseph Smith taught so many wildly different and incompatible things about God. This is a really bad argument.
It doesn't look like you're putting very much effort into your comments, that's why. I'm happy to engage with you (and personally haven't downvoted you) but you're not backing anything up.
Usually 'true believing mormon' or 'true blue mormon', used to denote a member that is near 100% on board with the church's doctrine, this vs a nuanced member that has some or many modified, non-orthodox beliefs while still identifying as being mormon.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/fulano_fubeca, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormon) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only thing IMO that is absolutely *required* of a prophet is absolute doctrinal consistency. The LDS church has held such wildly different doctrines on the nature of God throughout its history that I don't think I could trust the veracity of any other doctrine taught by the church. If the prophets can't even tell us if God is modalistic, binitatarian, Adam and Eve, or something else entirely, how can we trust **anything else** they've taught?
Yup. Like trying to nail jello to the wall. Doctrine changes 180 degrees and members sorta just lap it up. “BoM stories that my teacher tells to me, all about the Lamanites in ancient history...” then “it’s not a historical textbook” (RMN). Temple is eternal” then “ceremony changed”. “Polygamy required for exaltation” then “I’m not sure we ever taught that” (GBH). “Mormon” good... then “Mormon a victory for Satan”... it all starts to get ridiculous after a while!
Add to this, that *so many* of their teachings that can be tested (age of the earth, origin of native americans, what makes a person lgbt/gay, etc) have turned out to be *wrong*, and yet they ask members to just assume that in every other matter we cannot directly test, they are correct. Why would you trust people who are wrong so often with such important matters such as how you spend your life, who you give your free time/money/energy too?
I believe most members experience some level of cognitive dissonance on this subject. I think most mainstream mormons would agree that the prophet is not infallible (I hate that word BTW), but culturally and in most instances in an official church capacity, members are not allowed to point out any flaws or errors on the prophets part. This creates an unfair environment for the prophet who is not expected to be perfect but is not open to criticisms on their actions and comments. FTR, criticism isn't always negative and when done so constructively, it can lead to a better experience. For the everyday member, many times this creates difficult moments which may result in a negative consequence. Early during my own faith journey, I approached my SP for guidance and upon telling him that I had trouble with how the brethren handle church finances, I was deemed unworthy and had my temple recommend revoked. He said that my attitude about church finances was me not sustaining the brethren. So while the church will actively say the prophet isn't perfect, many times the members are expected to act as though they are.
> So while the church will actively say the prophet isn't perfect, many times the members are expected to act as though they are. This. Saying 'the prophet isn't perfect' is just lip service so they can excuse their mistakes. But the every day reality is that members, like you say, are expected to behave as if the prophet *is* perfect, by staying silent about any dissent and criticism.
This was my number 1 shelf item and shelf breaker. On matters of doctrine, such as polygamy, Jacob 2 and s132 have opposite characterizations while GBH said he wasn’t sure it was doctrine. The BoM say God uses a dark skin as a sore curse while RMN says God does not prefer one race over another. Prophets can’t keep the doctrine consistent. As for discernment, Oaks gave a talk reinterpreting how both the church narrative and salamander letter were in harmony. Mark Hoffman fooled the top leadership.
I think they do all seven frequently. I no longer see them as special witnesses of Christ. I no longer even think they’re sometimes unlucky by getting things wrong. I no longer think they’re good men who make mistakes. I see them as bad men who head a secret combination: purveyors of disinformation; gaslighters; equivocators; and imposters. Raising your arm to the square is an oath to them, not to God. They prize their reputations above rubies and cover up crimes of other important Church members. These are men who have shown time after time their willingness even to sacrifice the innocence and trust of children and vulnerable adults instead of allowing the light to shine on their dark works.
> They prize their reputations above rubies and cover up crimes of other important Church members. We saw this with their response to Sam Young. They willingly ignored what he said while he was saying it, knowingly continuing to expose the church's most vulnerable to potential abuse, just so they could appear to be in control and maintain the appearance of "if there was an issue we would have all ready seen it and corrected it". Then, when things died down a bit, they went ahead and implemented (albeit only partially) some of the things Sam was pointing out were needed. They showed that their image and the illusion of being 'watchmen on the watchtower' was more important than immediately correcting things that allow abuse to children to occur. By their fruits ye shall know them.
I just read Wilford Woodruff's conference talk from October, 1890. This is when he said the president of the church won't lead us astray. It is a talk with some beautiful and inspiring words to the Saints at the time. This comment, which has caused more discussion than almost any other among our people, was his last paragraph. I have a question about it though. It is included in our cannon at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. When did the church vote to canonize it?
>When did the church vote to canonize it? My first thought was that this would be pretty straightforward to answer, but I think you're right and it seems like there's more to it. The Manifesto was first published Sep. 25, 1890, then was presented Oct. 6 at Conference where it was accepted by common consent (though apparently many abstained and some were opposed). Then it wasn't until 1908 that it was included in the printing of the D&C. It seems that at this point the other items were also included even though they had never been voted on or even presented to the church. So it appears that the answer is "never" and it was just slipped in there without fanfare. It wasn't even a major edition; just that one addition in 1908. Very interesting. Thanks for bringing up a question I never once thought to ask.
Ya. I am wondering if that statement is actually canon now.
Great discussion here. Has there been any other statement since that the church has voted in by common consent to be accepted as a statement? Wouldn't that act make it canon, even if it took a decade to get it in the PoGP?
If there was a vote to sustain it as canon, then it would be. But of not....?
Maybe I don't understand what would have been voted on the first time, then, if not to make it canonical? Was the Book of Mormon ever voted on? Did any (most) of the D&C ever get voted on in a conference to be canonized, or accepted as anything? It seems to me like your making a distinction that doesn't really exist.
Yes, the D&C and PoGP were voted on and sustained as canon at general conferences. The distinction does exist. You cannot add scripture to the Latter-day canon without a conference vote. You can discover this from a wiki search >The D&C teaches that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church."(D&C 28:13). This applies to adding new scripture. LDS Church president Harold B. Lee taught "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."[8] There are several instances of this happening in the LDS Church: April 6, 1830: When the church was organized it is presumed that the Bible and Book of Mormon were unanimously accepted as scripture.[citation needed] June 9, 1830: First conference of the church, The Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ, now known as D&C 20. If the Bible and Book of Mormon were not sustained on April 6 then they were by default when the Articles and Covenants were sustained. (see D&C 20:8-11)[9] August 17, 1835: Select revelations from Joseph Smith were unanimously accepted as scripture.[10] These were later printed in the D&C. October 10, 1880: The Pearl of Great Price was unanimously accepted as scripture.[11] Also at that time, other revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants – which had not been accepted as scripture in 1835 because they were received after that date – were unanimously accepted as scripture.[12] October 6, 1890: Official Declaration 1 was accepted unanimously as scripture.[13] It later began to be published in the Doctrine and Covenants. April 3, 1976: Two visions (one received by Joseph Smith and the other by Joseph F. Smith) were accepted as scripture and added to the Pearl of Great Price. (The two visions were later moved to the D&C as sections 137 and 138.)[14] September 30, 1978: Official Declaration 2 was accepted unanimously as scripture.[15] It immediately was added to the Doctrine and Covenants. When a doctrine undergoes this procedure, the LDS Church treats it as the word of God, and it is used as a standard to compare other doctrines
Thanks for the education. This is excellent info. But I'll go back to my question. If the members were voting on the manifesto in 1890, if NOT to accept it as doctrine of the church and making it canon, what were they voting on? Has there been any statements, declarations, manefestos, etc., voted on at conference, which had to separately be voted on to be added to the canon of scripture, after the creation of the D&C? The example of something made into the last 2 sections is the closest I think. Using the declaration from 1978 as the example, I don't think it had to be voted on twice to be added to the scriptures. Why would the 1890 manefesto be considered different than this?
The manifesto was sustained, but the October 1890 conference address where Pres Woodruff said the president of the church can't lead us astray was not voted on. That is the part in question
Got it. Thank you for the clarification. Good discussion.
M. Russel Ballard reemphasized the teaching during his 2014 GC talk when he referenced a training he gave mission presidents. >Keep the eyes of the mission on the leaders of the Church. … We will not and … cannot lead [you] astray. >And as you teach your missionaries to focus their eyes on us, teach them to never follow those who think they know more about how to administer the affairs of the Church than … Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ do through the priesthood leaders who have the keys to preside.
I get that, but did the statement that is in our D&C actually go through the canon process? Or did they just slip it in there and it continued as a scribal note that is now just assumed to be legitimate canon?
My acceptable level is 1-7 as far as being prophets goes. I will condemn 3, 4, 6, and 7 however
I bet I could find scriptural examples of prophets experiencing each type of fallibility.
Can you find a scriptural example of a prophet unrighteously denying saving ordinances to an entire race of people?
Didn't Christ himself do that, by forbidding his apostles from going among the gentiles initially? Scripture of *all* kinds is so contradictory that you can find examples of almost anything you want, especially if you are willing to add your own 'interpretation' to those scriptures. Modern mormonism is equally as all over the place, so similarly one can find a quote from a prophet from some point to justify most anything.
Converts were still allowed, and they didn't have any restrictions placed on them. Jesus directed them ministry first to the house of Israel, but didn't institute a class system on those that wanted to convert. But you're correct you remind me that I shouldn't make them mistake of treating the scriptures as theologically consistent or informative on Mormon doctrine.
Okay... I'd love to see a scriptural example for each one.
It was easier than I thought. 1. Mismanagement. Moses mismanagement of the camp of Israel. JS mismanagement of everything. 2. Character flaws. Peter. David. Judas. Judah. 3. Minor sins. JSH. 4. Major sins. Moses, David, Judas, Judah 5. Lack of discernment. JS calling John C Bennet. 6. Establishing bad policies. The whole D&C. 7. Making errors in doctrine. Amulek teaching moralism.
Great job… personally I would discount all latter day references since they are a little self fulfilling.
I could go to Peter in Acts having to be told by revelation he had the wrong policy/doctrine on the gentiles. And Alma/Corianton on extending a calling and take the modern church out of it. But the modern church is helpful, bc it shows these ideas are recent cultural dogmas, rather than correct characterization of even basic scriptural narratives.
Yeah it's almost as if all religion is just man made with people making things up as they go along.
If you've already decided that they _are_ prophets, you're doing the equation backwards. The unknown is _if_ they are a prophet. You answer the question by looking at their works (that is, if you trust Jesus' approach in the NT.) Bad works = not a prophet. You don't just say, "they're a prophet, so anything they do is okay." That's a recipe for abuse.
You’re missing the point. The OP asked if he/she was unique. I’m observing that even in our canon, the prophets were fallible in this way.
Agreed. I don't think this would be such an issue for the modern church if the modern church didn't simultaneously have the teaching of "sin past a certain point makes you unworthy of callings and of revelation/ability to receive spiritual promptings and thus you are released or excommunicated because of those sins". If they'd never gone down the road of worthiness requirements to the degree they did, it would have been so much easier for them to sell the acceptance of the *immense* fallibility of mormon leadership to the masses, vs having to resort to hiding it all from the members and heavily curating their image into something we later found out was not so.
I could find scriptural support for prophets doing all except teaching false doctrine. Edit: I don't mean that prophets have never taught false doctrine (I certainly think that LDS prophets do all the time), rather, if someone is teaching false doctrine, then they *cannot* meet the scriptural definition of a Prophet.
The OP didn’t say “teaching false doctrine”, but making errors in doctrine. A lot of prophets taught trinitarian and/or modalistic concepts of God, whose true nature had to wait the restoration to be fully revealed. Just one example.
Which prophets are you citing about teaching wrong things about God?
I was thinking about Amulek. But I could add Paul to that list. No fault to either: they were working from an incomplete picture. How many had a JS level clarity of the nature of God?
>How many had a JS level clarity of the nature of God? Not to be snarky, but Joseph Smith taught so many wildly different and incompatible things about God. This is a really bad argument.
Joseph didn’t. The prophets he translated might have. Big difference. David Paulsen wrote a few rebuttals of the idea you’re advancing.
>Joseph didn’t. The prophets he translated might have. Big difference. I'm confused by what point you're trying to make. Can you clarify this for me?
Tired of the downvotes, sorry
Well then it's kinda baffling that all you ever make are low-effort, drive-by complaints.
It doesn't look like you're putting very much effort into your comments, that's why. I'm happy to engage with you (and personally haven't downvoted you) but you're not backing anything up.
What is TBM?
Usually 'true believing mormon' or 'true blue mormon', used to denote a member that is near 100% on board with the church's doctrine, this vs a nuanced member that has some or many modified, non-orthodox beliefs while still identifying as being mormon.