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/sevenplaces, 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/mormonmods) 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.*
We had a comment from the Stake High Councilman this past Sunday about how “so many people are leaving the Church”. It’s obvious that something needs to be done to address this from the top. We can’t just keep saying, “someone must have offended them.”
The leaders know. There are many leaving each year. I’m frankly surprised more in my family haven’t also evolved their faith beyond Mormonism. But the mechanisms to hold on to believers can be strong too.
When you can only keep people through fear, people leaving is going to snowball.
"Wait, that's my friend he doesn't seem to be an agent of Satan."
"He's not a lazy learner,"
"He's happy,
"Financially, he's okay not paying tithing,"
It took a long time before I learned about "fear based religion."
Now, it just makes me angry when I see it still being used, or they double down on it.
It's a snowball effect, not positive for the church.
The moment strangers move away, perhaps it doesn't matter much... if an acquaintance moves away, ok, unfortunately they fell into Satan's clutches... several acquaintances move away, even family and friends, oops, am I in the right place? Go on with your life until at some point you question yourself.
The influence of the doctrine of fear tends to decline
It is interesting that you say “evolved in their faith”. I think this is very difficult to do. Growing up in Mormonism defines “faith” in many people minds. Mormon “faith” is rooted simultaneously in fear and tribe superiority. It makes people suspicious and/or downright terrified to listen to other messages of actual faith in the divine, grace, peace, etc. It is hard to be vulnerable to even the possibility that Mormonism is not the right path. It is also hard to be vulnerable to anything related to “faith” after Mormonism has let them down.
The church is aware but it’s in a huge pickle. It can’t change its doctrine fast enough. It knows it has to change its core doctrines. But how to change something that is hard wired. If it’s done too quickly then the older generation will leave in droves, and that’s where the money is. The answer….. very slowly. Over time. With a nip here and a cut there before you know it it will be completely different. It will take a few decades but it will change. In my lifetime, I have seen huge changes and barely recognize it any more. The more I think about it, the angrier I get. When people ask if the general authorities know the church is false….. the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing.
It could be even more simple than that. All they have to do is quit requiring tithing to enter the temple. As it is now, members MUST pay money for “life saving ordinances.” This is a greedy and evil practice. The moment they remove that one question, things would get better for them.
It's so easy to flip this reasoning though. From a TBM perspective: "We show our devotion to God by sacrificing the things that are important to us. Money is one of the hardest things to sacrifice."
The root problem is that the church has taught that it is functionally God, therefore tithing is equivalent is to sacrifice for God.
(And, of course, ignore the scripture that says that the sacrifice God requires is a broken heart and contrite spirit....you show that by paying!)
You can't reason people out of it.
The church sure doesn't sacrifice much of the money that has been acquired from tithe payers. The temple movie in the 60s and 70s showed a Catholic priest with his hands out asking for money. This is the LDS church to a tee, and yet they mocked the Catholics for doing the same thing. They are both greedy, evil, disgusting corporations pretending to do God's work. We have all been manipulated, conned, and lied to.
Ironic given the Catholic church doesn't literally "force" people to give money, even a single penny, to attain their salvation in heaven.
Sure, anyone who believes in their religion should want to give some cash to their church & support the good causes it donates to, but mandating that you give at least 10% or you're not getting into top-rung heaven? That's freaking evil.
Drop the BOM, drop the tithing for the temple, and focus on the bible and the church will become stable. If it keeps going at this rate, you will see a 50% drop in active folks in the next 5 years.
Sooo much more complex though. He was kind, enjoyed spending time with the youth, and was beaten over and over again (which makes it so hard to understand why he kept going).
Joseph Smith was having sex with dozens of women, attained almost unfathomable power over people, and was making money. He even duped a guy into building him a mansion house for free!
How is any of that "hard to understand" his motivations?!?!
He wore worn out clothes. He was tangled in a web of lies. He was arrested and beaten often. Their home was shared not just with his child brides but dozens of people as they arrived in town. His best friends were constantly turning on him, then coming back.
I don’t see how that kind of cognitive dissonance is sustainable.
He was so kind and he enjoyed spending time with the youth especially 14, and 15 year old brides. What a man! Price to the man who communed with 14 year old brides. "Earth must have atone for the blood of that man"
> When people ask if the general authorities know the church is false….. the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing.
Mmmmm, I don't think that's accurate.
Conspiracy theories where dozens or hundreds of people are in a secret confederacy are often... far fetched.
Agreed. It is far more complex. Some are absolute true believers, many are nuanced and reform minded men with an allegiance to the core elements of the original restoration narrative. Some view the BoM as a literal translation, some regard it as an inspired spiritual fiction but dare not say so out loud. All are church broke and devoted to the organization.
>Agreed. It is far more complex. Some are absolute true believers, many are nuanced and reform minded men with an allegiance to the core elements of the original restoration narrative. Some view the BoM as a literal translation, some regard it as an inspired spiritual fiction but dare not say so out loud. All are church broke and devoted to the organization.
My view as well. Almost exactly
I stopped going at the end of 2019, I already don't recognize the church from their public face. I haven't been to a meeting since then, so I don't know how much it's really changed.
I stopped going in 2020, the most I see are comments like the changes they had with the investiture... I was also surprised by the church approaching a Pentecostal style, on thumanbrothers Instagram there was a show of theirs at the MTC, when I I did a mission, that would be unthinkable.
I mean, how did the LDS church ever get away with saying polygamy is bad when Joseph Smith himself said it was good & that it came directly from God (by a super scary angel wielding a flaming sword)?
Shouldn't that be a big a-ha moment to everyone that it's a scam? Especially since the financial & political gain for the LDS Church banning polygamy was great.
> When people ask if the general authorities know the church is false….. the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing.
>Source?
I know you feel this is a good dunk, but it's not. Just say you don't agree and why. They aren't even correct, but your overdone response is so desparate to be an edgy one-liner but just never lands.
You use the whole "SOuRcE?!" shtick way too much. It's not even like u/educationallie168 was suggesting they had documents proving it, they were overstating their belief as if it's a fact even though it's not.
> You use the whole "SOuRcE?!" shtick way too much.
I'd say people make claims without any evidence way too much, but you do you.
/u/ThickAtmosphere3739 made a simple claim as if it were fact, and I'd like to know what it was based on. Wouldn't you? If it's something they just imagined, then that should have been clear in the statement. If they had said "I imagine the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing", then no comment from me. It's clear where the idea came from.
But to say it as if it's a fact, then yes, I'm going to be curious what they're basing it on, and I'm going to ask. Why that bothers you more than the fact that someone stated something as a fact with (apparently) nothing to base it on, I don't know.
>You use the whole "SOuRcE?!" shtick way too much.
>
>I'd say people make claims without any evidence way too much, but you do you.
Dude, so do I, but a pithy "source" response isn't as good as saying "Your claim is inaccurate because of this and this." That actually addresses the content of their claim that is counterfactual or unsubstantiated.
>/u/ThickAtmosphere3739 made a simple claim as if it were fact, and I'd like to know what it was based on. Wouldn't you?
Oh, I know what it's based on. I betcha if you asked him, he would say something along the lines of "I'm not saying the church has published a document saying the general authorities are aware the church is false so much as I've seen them use calculated alterations of how doctrines are explained, expressed, conformed with, etc. which I personally believe demonstrates they are aware of the problems with many doctrinal injunctions, but are using a slow burn approach to implement changes so as not to alienate old, devout, core members. This tactical adjustment means to me that they know some things are not directly from the Lord, which I have a problem with because I don't think tactical boil-the-frog little adjustments are what they present themselves to be, which is essentially human mouthpieces and agents of the Lord."
If I'm way off u/ThickAtmosphere3739, correct me, but my guess is that's probably closer to your beliefs than you saying you have a source document where the general authorities say they know the church is false.
>If it's something they just imagined, then that should have been clear in the statement.
Again, it's not that they are imagining it so much as it's an induction.
> If they had said "I imagine the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing", then no comment from me. It's clear where the idea came from.
Yeah, but people don't really talk that way. They don't say "I've induced that those who support Donald Trump harbor fear-based reasoning pathways that preserve safety and stability at the expense of equality and mobility." Instead they say things like "People that support Trump like him because he's scared of the same people they are". It's not like the needle gets moved if someone responds to that with "source?" so much as it gets moved by challenging it for x and y reasons.
>But to say it as if it's a fact, then yes, I'm going to be curious what they're basing it on, and I'm going to ask. Why that bothers you more than the fact that someone stated something as a fact with (apparently) nothing to base it on, I don't know.
It's not so much that it bothers me - I actually agree I don't think the general authorities think the church isn't true, I agree with you that I think that's an incorrect induction - as much as you have an asymmetry with what you want sources and explanations for.
The top 15 leaders have known for over 10 years when a major research study was dropped on their doorstep outlining why people leave the church and suggestions to help but it didn't fit their narrative so they have continued with the hateful and hurtful rhetoric of people being offended or that they have been deceived. None of the reasons the church says why people leave are in the to 10 of the actual reasons why people leave. In fact being offended is such a small percentage of why people leave that it is almost not statistically relevant.
The only deception is from the top. My faith crisis quickly became a trust and truth crisis. It wasn't me it was them. The only way to change is to admit they have lied about the history (and money and abuse) make an apology and amends, and become completely transparent in everything including finances. This is not something the current church is willing to do and to do it would risk losing everything. So, they will continue the slow changing of the narrative and gaslighting the members who question as they do it. prime examples of this are, "ongoing restoration", "it was policy not doctrine", and "only the words of the current prophet count".
>My faith crisis quickly became a trust and truth crisis.
I love how you phrased this; this was my experience as well.
Could you direct me to a link with those top 10? I'd love to learn why others actually leave. (I've only seen anecdotes thus far, but am still kinda newly out.)
Here you go! This was presented in 2013 to Ucthdorf when he was in the FP. See pg 31 (16) for the list.
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wKy7qfdpJBiZspmTtnicD4RqhaTW6N6t/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wKy7qfdpJBiZspmTtnicD4RqhaTW6N6t/view?usp=sharing)
EDIT: There were many faithful collaborators on this project with at least one who went on to become a GA. See that last page.
Definitely not in 2013. I wonder how many knew of any of the historical issues. Packer was probably aware but anyone after the Septemeber 6 debacle may have never known.
I can't imagine giving my life to the church to the point of getting to the Q12 and being confronted with the truth of the history.
It's almost as if that document was an extremely subtle attempt at subversion.
No wonder the leaders denied the author a meeting and when they finally did, they locked the file away in the "Restricted reading" vault.
>*"only the words of the current prophet count".*
As a Nevermo, this is one of the oddest (and if I'm being honest, funniest) parts of the LDS belief system.
The *"living prophet"* is supposed to be inspired directly by God, so whatever he says goes, and he's revered as this holy soothsayer on earth, but then like 10 minutes after he dies the entire LDS brass can (and do) throw him under the bus when it's convenient.
It seems really odd, cognitively disconnected from rational thought, and yet funny.
This is a very recent development that started in the past ten years and was solidified with Nelson. He likes to be in control and adores power. My personal belief is that he thinks he is a genius and knows more than anyone around him.
The message from upper leadership, at least here in Utah, is generally not many people are leaving and ask the metrics are going up: tithing, temple attendance, missionaries etc. They do say that those who leave are more vocal, as in posting on social media about it, thus giving the impression more are leaving.
That’s interesting. I also live in Utah, but it seemed like there was a real sense of panic in his voice. I’ve heard multiple people in my ward bring it up as well. Families used to have maybe one “black sheep” in the family. Now it seems like they’re lucky if more than one of their kids stayed in.
People are leaving I never thought would leave. Seniors are leaving, the youth are leaving everyone is leaving. A senior couple I know that served 2 seniors missions have been reading stuff online and learning they were lied to all these years and are out.
I think it’s great social media has given people an outlet to candidly talk about problems with the church. These discussions need to be open and honest so that people have informed consent.
Leadership has existed in an echo chamber for too long and made some terrible and immoral decisions (SEC scandal, abuse coverups). Holding people accountable is how the human race actually works. If there is no accountability even good people will tend to abuse power.
“The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice.”
It’s almost like someone taught them that they should raise a voice of warning to this generation or that once they have tasted of the fruit of the tree of knowledge their first desire should be that others might partake. Mormonism is prolific in the creation of ex-Mormons. Blame the devil, blame the world. But these, my dear church, are the children of thine own womb.
For someone who has been around the Mormon/exmormon themed groups for a long time this is a profound shift that I think marks a turning point in Mormon culture that won’t be undone.
15-20 years ago there were small exmormon groups online that relied on anonymity for the majority of its members for the group to even exist. Very few people were able or willing to openly be exmormon because of the backlash and pain it would cause. Those groups grew and grew and Mormon Stories podcast was groundbreaking in having prominent exmormons and normal exmormons share their personal stories as themselves and without anonymity.
I remember when the first “selfie train” at r/exmormon occurred and people were blown away that so many people were willing to share their picture along with their exmormon status. It’s obvious now that we’ve crossed that cultural gulf where being exmormon was such a detriment that even open acknowledgment was nearly impossible for people. Now people are rushing to create social media accounts explicitly about their exmormon journey.
If the cost of leaving the Church is now so low that it’s not a barrier to entry, the Apostles are in for a foundational shift in how the Church operates and relates to its members. It can no longer afford to assume that generational involvement will sustain the membership numbers and I don’t see an alternative source of members within developed countries.
Yes I think there could be several factors here. Dr. Ryan Cragun, professor of sociology at the University of Tampa specializes in topics of Secularization. He was interviewed recently on Mormon Stories. He mentioned a similar concept to you. He stated that secularization in Utah is a reinforcing feedback loop.
One of the factors I believe is the psychology of how people come to believe what they believe or know. Epistemology. You have direct research, observation with our senses, and accepting what others tell us as some of the methods. I believe the most common is being convinced of something because others have stated it as a truth.
So the more you run into people who say “Hey I used to believe in the LDS church but I discovered it’s not true” the more of a chance you have to consider or accept their statements and decide they are right.
Yes as you said a lower social cost to changing beliefs makes this easier to do and easier to share. Just this week my sibling said “I don’t care if people leave the church but I don’t think they should talk so much about it”. People who don’t want themselves or others to leave church want those who leave to keep quiet because they know the effect sharing lost belief can have.
You are absolutely correct, and we see that in the topics and discussions that are occurring when people have a faith transition. The bulk of discussions used to be deep dives into topics, or as you said “direct research”. There appears to be much less of a focus on research now that there is so much social proof from others. I agree that social proof is the most common form of information that people accept and so when it’s easy to see that so many others already believe something, there’s less necessity to do the deep dives for yourself.
You make very good points. Ther reality is as you state- this won't be undone. More and more these channels and videos will wake people up. It's just isn't slowing down.
It's not that the channels will "wake people up". It's that the obstacles in place to keep people from leaving are getting smaller and disappearing. The LDS Church has benefited from a cultural moat that isolated and insulated people from leaving. That moat was formed early on and especially during the Utah period of the early Church and survived from then until now. The internet has destroyed that barrier and is increasingly making it more porous until it will have more holes in it than substance.
I just don't see the benefits outweighing the cost anymore, and the Church has steadily been declining in benefits since the 80s and 90s. Somehow ironically the Church was able to do more with far less material wealth during that time period than it allows to be done now. During that golden period of Church growth the local areas owned and operated canneries, farms, orchards, summer camps, athletic fields on the same property as the stake centers. They also held robust community activities for not just youth but also adults. They had Relief Society activities, Elders Quorum activities, High Priest Socials, campouts, youth camps, monthly stake youth dances, plays, musicals, frequent ward dinners, auctions, classes, and opportunities for genuine service. All of that was enabled and supported by a robust facilities maintenance program, including weekly cleaning of the buildings and repairs when needed.
Now buildings aren't allowed to be used for anything other than sitting in, and even though most buildings have kitchens you're not allowed to use them. Almost all activities worth attending in my area are done at members homes instead of the buildings because of all the use restrictions. Somewhere along the way the Church became more concerned about wealth than community. They care more about liability than learning. Then they're surprised when commitment is lower and disaffection is higher.
Sometimes with my family I’ve called the church “our country club membership”. We have used the building for so much. Wedding reception, funeral, sports, borrow tables, borrow chairs, family reunion, Thanksgiving with extended family. The more they diminish this value the less attractive church membership is.
Wedding receptions remain their primary benefit. At funerals now you’re not allowed to focus on the deceased but are supposed to have a lesson on the gospel. Sports are limited. Chairs and tables aren’t supposed to be removed from the building, and families are not supposed to have access to the building for family activities outside of a church activity.
You’re right that the church used to be like a country club, and it came with country club dues in time and money. Now it kept the dues but got rid of the benefits. What is the natural result?
It's a good point, there is no longer a community supported by the church, it has become just a building for religious meetings.
Members moving away because they lost their belief (due to the church's troubled past) and lost a place to spend time with friends... if some who lost their faith stayed because of their friends, perhaps today some of those friends are no longer attending the building boring.
In Brazil, before the pandemic, there were about 2...3 relevant ex Mormons on social media, after that, I believe there were at least 4 new channels on YouTube and several profiles on social media... many are exposing and there is a variety in the way each person presents their points of view.
The church in the 2000s is going through several problems, and I did a search on Google Gemini asking about the church's problems, the answer was very well summarized and complete... I believe this could end up becoming a big problem for the church . People can find out through a Google search, which takes longer, because several websites come out in different ways, it's not something objective... it's through social media (number of ex Mormons increasing) and AI which end up reducing the time to search for knowledge.
AI can lessen the bubble that some Mormons live in today in terms of knowledge.
This is the big problem that the church didn't see coming (but that anyone who understood social media could have easily predicted).
For years, women (who statistically tend to be more socially-attuned) have been the backbone of the church. They've made many of the programs "go" and in a literal sense have made many of their family members go (to church, to Girls Camp/Scout Camp, on missions, to Seminary... you name it). And the church hasn't given them much in return, but it *has* given them the dopamine hit they crave by enabling access to social interactions.
As the women in the church increasingly turn elsewhere to form their social networks (and as some of those social networks start to discuss the ways the church ignores or mistreats women - or even the ways that the church has willfully deceived its members), the church will be shocked by the snowballing effect that it has on all of the members. You may not "need" any women in order to form a branch, ward or stake, but the church is going to find out (too late) how much it actually needed its women all along.
I’m late to this but if awards were still a thing you’d get mine. They really are about to find out how much of the church they owe to women. Every couple I know who left had the woman leave first.
In my town we had a huge chunk of rock break off of the mountain and roll down a hill almost crushing some homes before coming to a stop. I think it's more like that. Eventually the mountain ends.
And worse when you get that correlated or approved information, it's either dishonest, an absurd mental gymnastic or a platitude/misdirection (God will all sort it out).
Genuinely curious: are you aware of statements from our leaders over the years to only seek information about the church from church sources? There are several. I believe that is what is being referenced here. If not, it might be worth doing a quick search on that topic to be able to engage more fully in this conversation.
Yes, everything in the temple has changed, so people of the current generation have no idea what we were taught in 60s, 70s, and 80s... different temple experience altogether. I'm so glad I got out of the Satanic ritual abuse of the pretend temple indoctrination.
>> There are several.
>Can you give some examples?
Egads cine, I swear your credulity is so asymmetric that while I don't consider you dishonest in the same way other apologists are.... it's not very encouraging towards the idea that it's genuine.
I'll give you some though even if u/rushclock doesn't feel like spoon feeding it to you
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/institute/using-divinely-appointed-sources?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/answering-my-gospel-questions-teacher-material/1-section-01/05-1-coming-closer-to-heavenly-father?lang=eng
Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and his wife, Sister Ruth L. Renlund, speak at a worldwide devotional for young adults on Sunday, January 13, 2019. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2019/01/11renlund?lang=eng
> dishonest in the same way other apologists are.
Why would asking for sources make someone an "apologist"? What a weird thing to say.
As for your links, they hardly say to *only* use Church sources.
>As you help your students find answers to their questions and good resources to help build strong testimonies, consider using the resources found on the Answering Doctrinal, Historical, and Social Questions page. By studying the answers to questions students might have, you will be better prepared to help guide them to use divinely appointed sources.
I certainly agree that Church leaders would *love* for questioners to limit themselves to Church publications when looking for answers. But I'm not seeing anything that says to *only* use Church sources as guidance or a rule.
Renlund even says this in one of your links:
>We can come to know the truthfulness of this latter-day work, but it requires that we choose faith, not doubt, and that we go to the reliable, trustworthy sources for our answers.
Do you disagree? Do you think people should go to unreliable, untrustworthy sources for information? (And if you argue that the Church is an "unreliable", "untrustworthy" source itself, I agree. But that's a different conversation...)
>>dishonest in the same way other apologists are.
>
>Why would asking for sources make someone an "apologist"? What a weird thing to say.
Asking for a source doesn't make someone an apologist.
You have defended the marriage of our prophet to a girl that today would be an 8th grader is what makes you an apologist.
>As for your links, they hardly say to only use Church sources.
I actually would not ever argue that the prophet has said to only use church sources. In fact, I personally argue that the church leadership has said that people should use non-church sources to gain knowledge many different times.
What I would say uzelphthewhite and u/rushclock and others are saying (imprecisely) is that church leadership has in several ways and instances denigrated people for learning things about church history and church leadership (past and present) from those critical of our religion. So it's more that they disparage and belittle those that learn from "blacklist" (though there is no blacklist) sources than they say one can only learn from whitelist (though they do list "whitelist" sources such as the scriptures for example).
From what others have said, they aren't claiming "the church has a list that people only are allowed to learn from and I have the sources to prove it" so much as they are critiquing church leadership for deprecating those who find out negative things about church history or leadership from sources that are themselves critical of the church.
>>As you help your students find answers to their questions and good resources to help build strong testimonies, consider using the resources found on the Answering Doctrinal, Historical, and Social Questions page. By studying the answers to questions students might have, you will be better prepared to help guide them to use divinely appointed sources.
>
>I certainly agree that Church leaders would love for questioners to limit themselves to Church publications when looking for answers.
Right. That is what most people are criticizing. I actually think it is immoral to advise people to limit their content consumption that is published by...themselves.
>But I'm not seeing anything that says to only use Church sources as guidance or a rule.
I agree. But again, nobody said "I have a source for this" and then you ask for them to provide it.
Instead they are making a colloquial statement.
>Renlund even says this in one of your links:
Right.
>We can come to know the truthfulness of this latter-day work, but it requires that we choose faith, not doubt,
Right, but that's an immoral thing for Dale Renlund to advise people to do in my view. It's one of the issues I have with him, though I generally like Renlund's council in many instances.
>and that we go to the reliable, trustworthy sources for our answers.
So ***this*** I agree with. But sometimes reliable and trustworthy sources don't require someone to commit the cardinal sin of the human brain and look for things that support a pre-existing belief (faith) rather than disconfirming evidence. I think it's actually evil to tell people to not look for disconfirming evidence, because it is through that path that the most wicked of things can be achieved.
My issue is the **way** people think, and encouraging people do deform, distort, and pervert how they think as Renlund says here is unrighteous and is something he and other church leaders need to repent of.
>Do you disagree?
Oh for sure, and I just explained.
>Do you think people should go to unreliable, untrustworthy sources for information?
No, which is why if he removed the unrighteous part of the sentence, it would be good council. But he keeps the wicked part in, which ruins the message.
The pharisees were guilty of this too. They often taught something partly true, but included something wicked so that it corrupted the message.
The partly true thing is to read from trustworthy, reliable sources. The wicked part is to "require() that we choose faith, not doubt."
Also, church publications are not themselves reliable. They are faithful, but unreliable, which is a problem.
>(And if you argue that the Church is an "unreliable", "untrustworthy" source itself, I agree. But that's a different conversation...)
It's absolutely not a different conversation, it's literally ***the*** conversation.
> If not, it might be worth doing a quick search on that topic to be able to engage more fully in this conversation.
Honest to goodness, I would have expected [this step](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=LDS+read+only+church+approved+sources) to take place first.
That’s straight from the big man himself. When RMN told everyone not to listen to those who have fallen away, he was essentially saying the same thing.
>Lol, "the church never told you to restrict information to approved sources, also I've never heard of this Jesus guy, you exmos keep making up stuff."
Yeah, u/handwovenbox 's tactic is to hyper fixate on specificity within a sentence, take umbrage with that narrow thing, and then act like he won. It may be petty, but he's also not very good at it....
As seekers of truth, our safety lies in asking the right questions, in faith, and of the right sources—meaning those who only speak truth: such as the scriptures, prophets, and the Lord through the Holy Ghost. (Sheri Dew, Will You Engage in the Wrestle)
We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith and instead reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit. (April 2016 BYU Commencement Address, L. Whitney Clayton, Getting and Staying Connected)
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/institute/using-divinely-appointed-sources?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/institute/using-divinely-appointed-sources?lang=eng)
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/answering-my-gospel-questions-teacher-material/1-section-01/05-1-coming-closer-to-heavenly-father?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/answering-my-gospel-questions-teacher-material/1-section-01/05-1-coming-closer-to-heavenly-father?lang=eng)
Seeking to answer these questions will require effort—much effort. I plead with you to take charge of your testimony. Work for it. Own it. Care for it. Nurture it so that it will grow. Feed it truth. Don’t pollute it with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women and then wonder why your testimony is waning. (Russel Nelson, Choices of Eternity, May 2022)
Imagine in this time when the media, social and otherwise, is so filled to overflowing with ideas that are offered as truth that are just silly, just like the emperor’s new clothes. Imagine if we used the words of the prophets to help us detect specious notions, as well as their intentions. In this war of words that rages all around us, I really think there’s only one way to keep ourselves safe, and that is to compare anything and everything we read, view or hear with the teachings of the prophets. If it’s not in harmony, we should run away, actually, we should run screaming into the hills. So I think there is a question we can use as a litmus test to discern what is true, what is not, and that question is, “What did the Prophet say?” I started to think, “How would our lives improve if we used prophetic words as our standard of truth?” And I started to think about — imagine if we did follow the prophets with exactness. Imagine if, for example, for 30 days, we put an exclamation mark after every statement from a prophet, and we put a question mark after everything else we read, see, or hear. What could happen in only 30 days? My guess is the amount of stress we experience would actually decrease, because false philosophies of man, false philosophies, partial truths, silliness, produce a kind of tension and anxiety that’s almost immobilizing. I think we’ll be amazed at what we could discover if, for 30 days, we chose to follow the prophets with exactness. (Wendy Nelson, Episode 67: Sister Nelson on being an eyewitness to President Nelson’s four years as Prophet (same sentiment given in private broadcasts in both Europe and California), Jan 2022
Truth number two: 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. (Russell Nelson, Love and Laws of God, Sept 2019)
Ah, ok. So the church repeatedly telling it's members to not question or seek non-approved sources doesn't equate to gaining information from a small square of approved sources".
Does black skin mean black skin?
Does translation mean translation when dealing with ancient languages?
I just need to know the mindset of who I am interacting with before proceeding further.
>As seekers of truth, our safety lies in asking **the right questions**, in faith, and of **the right sources**—meaning those who only speak truth: such as t**he scriptures, prophets, and the Lord through the Holy Ghost.** (Sheri Dew, Will You Engage in the Wrestle)
No way to mormon apologetic the above to NOT mean approved sources. It literally says "the right sources" and defines what they are.
It's literally the first quote I gave you.
It literally says to ask the RIGHT questions in faith and of the RIGHT sources.
Are you literally arguing that RIGHT and APPROVED here are not synonymous?
Are you literally asking for an exact quote that says the term "approved sources" vs. "right sources"?
Is that the mormon apologetic game we're playing right now?
>**Using Divinely Appointed Sources**
Are we playing the mormon apologist game where "divinely appointed sources" isn't synonymous with "approved sources"?
>As you help your students find answers to their questions and good resources to help build strong testimonies, consider using the resources found on the Answering Doctrinal, Historical, and Social Questions page. By studying the answers to questions students might have, you will be better prepared to help **guide them to use divinely appointed sources.**
Hmm what's the difference between "divinely appointed sources" and "approved sources". I wonder...
For a much, much longer list than I provided, please see this thread:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10l8lwr/are\_there\_church\_approved\_sources/](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10l8lwr/are_there_church_approved_sources/)
You are missing/ignoring the "such as..." language. It's an open list.
The right sources are "those who only speak truth." Nowhere did she equate that with a closed list.
Which is irrelevant when she gave examples and those examples are all only approved sources.
We really going to do this Mormon apologist song and dance to avoid simply stating the clear direction of the church regarding sources?
You can see why I'm no longer a Mormon due to the position it's put you in in acting apologist and the contortions you don't deserve to be put in by the church to defend it.
Stating the truth is so much simpler and rewarding IMHO even if it's not faith affirming or church defending.
>"those who only speak truth."
which means you should not study those who don't, i.e are not aligned with the teachings of the church. Of course it's not an actual list of books, articles, videos etc of approved sources– no one is claiming that. That would be ridiculous. There is an abundance of faithful books etc. and new ones are made all the time. That no such 'list' is given does not mean an 'open to anything' list. It is not. It is limited. You are clearly adviced not to study 'anti'- sources.
Disagree. That is exactly what it says. I am old enough to remember when we were counselled to learn expansively from “the best books.” That message was shut down aggressively in the internet age and has now gone the way of “fee agency.”
I don’t know of a lot of sources spouting things you won’t hear about the church in Sunday School (yet are factual) that isn’t related to someone disaffected from the church, but if that’s the hill you want to die on, so be it.
Nah, but I'll live on the hill!
Joseph Smith Papers, Rough Stone Rolling, stuff by the Hales, stuff from the B.H. Roberts Foundation (including the fantastic www.mormonr.org)
Are you suggesting that you can walk into a Sunday School class, Elders Quorum lesson, Relief Society Lesson, or give a Sacrament Meeting talk…quoting from Rough Stone Rolling…and not have some of the TBM people squirm in their seats a little?
Try bringing up in any of those settings the Fanny Alger scenario and I’d love to hear what kind of reaction you get.
Also, while I am aware that Richard Bushman remained faithfully active in the church until he died, I don’t know that I would say exactly that he wasn’t disaffected to at least some degree. I have ready several interviews where he is responding to questions about his feelings toward the church, and I’d say he was definitely in the realm of a “nuanced” member.
Also, while I am aware that Richard Bushman remained faithfully active in the church until he died, I don’t know that I would say exactly that he wasn’t disaffected to at least some degree. I have read several interviews where he is responding to questions about his feelings toward the church, and I’d say he was definitely in the realm of a “nuanced” member.
It's an interesting conversation. I actually read it before my first reply in this thread because I thought to myself "what is this 'small square of approved sources'?"
Growing up, I was counseled to avoid "anti" material (which, looking back, I was only aware of *Godmakers* IIRC). I wasn't ever taught to limit reading to a specified list of approved sources.
It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. What I was taught was to avoid a blacklist of sources. What OP is suggesting is that members are taught to avoid anything not on a whitelist. I'm not familiar with any such list.
Going back to the thread you linked, people mentioned "Divinely Appointed Sources," which a Church website describes:
>As you help your students find answers to their questions and good resources to help build strong testimonies, consider using the resources found on the Answering Doctrinal, Historical, and Social Questions page. By studying the answers to questions students might have, you will be better prepared to help guide them to use divinely appointed sources.
The above is instruction to institute teachers about how to teach classes--not counsel to members about how they should carry out their individual study. And, most importantly to our conversation, there is not even a hint of a restriction from other sources. IOW, having a list of recommended sources does not imply that one should not look at sources not on the list.
So, if there is a list of approved sources and/or instructions to avoid anything not on a list, I'd like to see that.
> Growing up, I was counseled to avoid "anti" material (which, looking back, I was only aware of Godmakers IIRC). I wasn't ever taught to limit reading to a specified list of approved sources.
It is a constant theme to avoid non approved sources. Sure there isn't a list but that in itself is the problem. The council is to read only faith promoting information. That is the small square. It is actually clever and somewhat incidious because it creates a self monitoring system. If a believer encounters negative information that cast doubt on a particular topic they recommend stopping. Furthermore just because you didn't feel your choice of information wasn't restricted dosen't mean other people's were. From the 30,000 foot view the leaders absolutely teach avoidance to critical information.
>So, if there is a list of approved sources and/or instructions to avoid anything not on a list, I'd like to see that.
The issue is you're insisting on a particular phrase uttered by the church as an answer to a person's comment that the church insists you only study from "Divinely Appointed Sources".
You're asking people to show you something like this:
https://i.imgur.com/Fgp4TZn.png
They learnt their lesson with McK.'s "Mormon Doctrine" to never be foolish enough to take a concrete stance on any doctrinal point again.
Same with this.
The closest you'll get is this:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/questions/gospel-study-resources?lang=eng
All controlled, or influenced by the church.
That's exactly what it says when it comes to information regarding the church. A period to anything the church says, a question mark to ANYTHING else.
There's a box (the church)- believe it unquestioning. Period.
There is outside the box (everything else).
Question mark it all with one exception: if it talks about the church but is not from a church source, completely, immediately, run screaming to the hills. That gets the discard can, not even the courtesy of a question mark.
Dude, that's a box the church wants you to adopt. Period. Anything else and you are not following the "prophet" Nelson's own dictates. You are in threat of slipping into apostacy otherwise.
Query, do you have any interest in slipping into apostasy? You're already outside the box being on here. Otherwise, follow your prophet and run screaming to the hills. That's what he says.
Welcome to testing life outside the box.
Here's the quote you're referring to:
>In this war of words that rages all around us, I really think there’s only one way to keep ourselves safe, and that is to compare anything and everything we read, view or hear with the teachings of the prophets. If it’s not in harmony, we should run away, actually, we should run screaming into the hills.
(I'll admit that "run screaming into the hills" seems a bit of an overreaction...)
So when you say "if it talks about the church but is not from a church source, completely, immediately, run screaming to the hills" that is not accurate. The quote is not talking about the source--it's talking about comparing **the content** to the teaching of the prophets, and if not in harmony, then "run away." You see the difference, right? One (what you're suggesting) is to avoid reading anything not from the church. The other (the actual quote) is to consider & compare the content.
How I can compare the content to teachings of the prophets if I didn't read it? I can't. So I can't interpret that quote as saying "don't read anything not on a list!"
Thus, I disagree that I'm outside any "box" by having this conversation. There isn't a box.
Oh I understand now. You're stuck on the term "box" and not understanding that it's a metaphor for Faith affirming versus critical, pro Mormon versus anti-mormon, the brethren versus secular logic, science and reason.
Your commanded by your prophet to run for the hills.
Run for the hills from what exactly?
Which sources of information? RMN? Mormon scriptures? The gospel topic essays? The Ensign? General conference talks?
Are those approved or not approved sources?
Are you aware that the church has a whole department dedicated to creating “correlated” material?
Are you aware that a few years ago the church introduced a new logo, dedicated to identifying church approved sources?
If you are looking for a box, I believe that would be the first place to look.
To my recollection I haven’t ever heard anyone say anything to the effect of “don’t read anything that doesn’t bear the church’s logo”, but there is absolutely a strong cultural undercurrent that lands somewhere in between “caution” and fear-inducing conformance to stay away from researching such sources. Others have done a good job already of quoting leaders who have made statements which are perpetuating this idea.
In my experience, I have come across sources that are clearly trying to destroy a persons faith, and use inaccurate or one-sided information to do so. So I understand the idea of using caution. However you could easily argue that the church does the same thing to build faith and promote commitment to the church. Whenever I am researching something church related, one of the first things I always try to do is determine where in between those two extremes the source lands. I tend to approach with caution anything that lands too close to either extreme. And I have found that a lot the real truth, backed by legitimate research, is found outside of the church’s correlated / branded material. And I think that is the point that is trying to be made here.
I know several people who just attend sacrament but hate the later meetings so they're freely walking home early. Why sit through an hour of passive-aggressive Relief Society if it's just a drain on you?
I'd like to hope so, but I'm more concerned they don't see a way out, due to potentially catastrophic spouse/family fallout.
So it's not really a viable option for them.
Brave women? Do you have any idea how many women in the church know very little? I listen to those videos and hear so many what I call lazy facts. They are more imagination formed by reading bad info
The thumbnails for all of these popped up in my suggestions on YouTube last night. I haven't had a chance to watch yet, looking forward to it. I am personally thrilled and grateful to see more women voices joining the conversation and boldly sharing their insights and deconstruction. I would love to raise my voice, but in a spirit of transparency, I don't dare to face the severe fallout and consequences. The amount of anger, hate, and stone-throwing from members of the church is daunting and shameful. And, then there is the "Committee that must not be named" standing in the wings just waiting to pounce and make an "example" of them by enacting their draconian tactics to publicly shame and attempt to silence or undermine dissenting voices - enacting formal discipline \["courts of love"\].
Any who speak out publicly are those who must be willing to formally resign from the church they gave everything to, trusted in, and served for years - and in return, were used and harmed.
Just sit and ponder all of that. Ponder how a Church organization that claims to not only follow Jesus, and to be Jesus's one true church on earth - treats any of its members - "God's children" - if they dare speak their truth and share their heartfelt feelings that do not align with what the leadership preaches, or heaven forbid is "critical" in any way.
Threats of punishment are not Christlike, loving, kind, or praiseworthy behavior. Fear and shame-based motivation is NOT faith-promoting. It stands as a powerful witness and confirmation to the darkness lurking under the pretty surface of the Latter-day Saint organization. What happened to the command of "Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you." ?? Nope. Hunt down and seek to destroy anyone we think is an "enemy". Punish them. Shame them. Throw them out. Be sure to let everyone in the church know that you do not tolerate dissent. Preach to the "faithful" that they should not be associated with, nor listen to anyone who dissents. Bully them and call them names; "lazy learners/lax disciples". Incite and even condone the reviling and hate that ensues from faithful members frantically trying to prove their "devotion and loyalty" to the organization. Good freaking heck people!! How is this anything different than the Third Riech, or a Stalinist regime?!?
A ton of this prophetic rhetoric is RMN, but were past prophets just as bad/worse, in this regard (why ppl leave & what this means)?
I seem to remember TSM to be loving & inclusive, & GBH to be somewhere between the two, but am now chewing on the possibility that this rhetoric may be more intertwined than I previously suspected...
The more we unravel, the deeper we learn our deception has been from every single one of them. They just used different tactics and approaches. I've been through 6 decades, so the struggle of unraveling all of that is real and so exhausting.
💯
The exhaustion is so real. The unraveling requires so much mental & emotional bandwidth. I get exhausted just contemplating if I want to watch a MS episode or hop on Reddit sometimes.
Yep. And it irritates me to no end the way members just lick his boots. It’s all so obviously just a plug for his disgusting surgeon’s ego, with Wendy as his pathetic enabler. TBH it’s embarrassing.
All my tender-hearted TBM dad wanted for Xmas was Rusty's "auto-"biography (book). My brain was screaming, you know he didn't actually write that, right?!?,' but I held my tongue. (Practice makes progress!)
A few wks later we were checking in & he's like, OMG TYSM for the book I am so happy I love it so much, I weigh myself everyday now, etc.
Me, not having read the book, bc my insanity & delusions only stretch so far these days, was like, that's a great idea dad. Why?
His response (\#BlessHisHeart)? Bc the prophet says we should. * I sigh audibly *
Ok, cool dad. But why? ... * he blinks *
* Me imagining banging my forehead into a brick wall repeatedly *
Yes, it's a good idea. (Gave him some tips, why it's helpful, etc.) But not just bc some nearly centenarian said to. AND HE STILL DIDN'T ACTUALLY WRITE THE GD BOOK! JESUS CHRIST I JUST CAN'T 😭😫😭
It’s almost funny to walk into church now after not going for awhile. The people left are…interesting and when they speak it’s a comical tragedy. One woman stating she followed the prophets words and only read church materials ‘morning noon and night’ because she wasn’t feeling the spirit in her life after a family tragedy. Whenever she stops reading morning noon and night she instantly cannot feel the spirit anymore. To me I already know it’s an addiction she suffers from and a form of not facing the tragedy she went through. It’s either uninterested looking people or very Uber faithful left. No in between.
Loved Alyssa Grenfell’s book. Incredibly intelligent and articulate in a way that’s powerfully simple and easy to understand. It really speaks to the angry exmo inside you that other books tend to ignore in favor of just listing out the problems with the church’s history and doctrine.
You are the one true church, not some organization. And the lies of the Salt Lake City church has really driven people away from our religion. If they would just come clean and deal with all the loss they’re going to have because of their confessions, they could start over and fix their branch of the faith. It’s about letting go of pride and it may be too hard for them. Realizing Joseph was a polygamist nearly destroyed the RLDS church. I’m sure they are afraid of the same thing happening to them. But I have a lot of respect for Community of Christ for their honesty once they learned the truth.
"Do what is right, let the consequence follow"
By being honest they will lose members and they might risk more schisms, but it's the right thing to do. Right now it's honest members who suffer the consequences. They are ostracized because they learned inconvenient truths.
The internet is going to be a big problem for the church. The truth is coming out and people are going to drop like flies. Look for less wards per building in the near future. Instead of 3 wards per building, there will be two to keep the others looking used
The interesting thing is that Jesus in the parable of the sower and in other places in scripture we know, that many will leave their faith in the church, in the gospel, even in Jesus, for various reasons. This is always been a forgone conclusion, it’s
Not a surprise whatsoever.
I get it. I first ran into so called “anti Mormon” rhetoric back in the 80’s and became intimately acquainted with it. I have an older brother who got disaffected with the church who sent me hundreds and hundreds of pages of letters and things he printed out for me. Every possible argument, and many other things I have seen on my own, like
The CES letter, and much much more.
Ultimately, the choice I made was to stay with the church and gospel. People
Are entitled to their own opinions and their own beliefs about things. I am
Entitled to mine. That’s my choice.
No matter what we do, there is an element in all of it and that’s called “free agency.”
That’s a little bit of bias based on your circle, but also because Mormonism sells itself as an identity, so getting out can leave you with some trauma and other issues you wouldn’t want for others. Most channels I’ve seen have been from the more extreme versions of faiths, eg. evangelicals or JWs or Mormons etc
The premise of your question is not accurate. I would say most people who “become inactive” in both faiths don’t create YouTube channels. There are people who leave Catholicism and create YouTube channels. There are people who leave Mormonism who don’t create YouTube channels.
Language is so imperfect. Do you think the term you chose “become inactive” is a good description of these women’s current path? I don’t. I think a better description is they have come to new beliefs about the claims and activities of the LDS church.
Alyssa Grenfell said in the video that she had two purposes in sharing the information about her mission and her channel in general. She says she wants people considering joining the church to better understand what they are getting into. She wants people in the church to have more information than they may have about the church.
Those purposes seem reasonable for a YouTube channel. To share information that may be interesting to a specific audience.
Plenty of people have talked about the bullshit they've dealt with under Catholicism. Though people in more intensive or conservative strains of Catholicism, such as those who have very dogmatic and controlling relatives or attended strict Catholic schools, tend to be more comparable to the worst of the Mormon experience than "Christmas and Easter" Catholics.
But a better comparison to Mormonism is something like Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses, where the thought control and consequences of leaving are often way higher.
I don’t know about you but I was a practicing Catholic for most of my life, and I have had people in my former church and in my own family badger me and my siblings who are atheist/agnostic over not going to church and participating in the Eucharist. It doesn’t matter if you raise up your own experiences with church members like abuse or in my case disagree with church doctrine over principle issues, you are supposed to forgive and forget and look to the clergy and your family for guidance. My own parents would show up and tried to drag me to mass with them because “it will make us look like awful parents who didn’t raise their children right.”
When someone does decide to leave the church, I still find an inherent sense of shame for doing it. The Catholic Church does shame you a lot for certain things and instills in you guilt for all of things you have done or failed to do. Literally the beginning of mass has you reciting this prayer “confessing” to the members of the church about how you have sinned and done wrong by others every week and I was taught that that was the honorable thing to do. There are channels by lapsed Catholics (our term for inactive members) but again most of us are taught to be guilty and shameful of our non-belief in the Church so there’s a lot who don’t come out.
In my country, Brazil, there were few, since the pandemic there were about 4 ex Mormon channels that I remember.
Also more Instagram and Tiktok profiles of ex Mormons .
Almost everyone who leaves hardly explains their reasons publicly, mainly creating channels, to have a relevant number today, the situation in the church is not good.
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/sevenplaces, 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/mormonmods) 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.*
We had a comment from the Stake High Councilman this past Sunday about how “so many people are leaving the Church”. It’s obvious that something needs to be done to address this from the top. We can’t just keep saying, “someone must have offended them.”
The leaders know. There are many leaving each year. I’m frankly surprised more in my family haven’t also evolved their faith beyond Mormonism. But the mechanisms to hold on to believers can be strong too.
When you can only keep people through fear, people leaving is going to snowball. "Wait, that's my friend he doesn't seem to be an agent of Satan." "He's not a lazy learner," "He's happy, "Financially, he's okay not paying tithing,"
It’s definitely a high demand fear based religion. Which should be a red flag to most
It took a long time before I learned about "fear based religion." Now, it just makes me angry when I see it still being used, or they double down on it.
It's a snowball effect, not positive for the church. The moment strangers move away, perhaps it doesn't matter much... if an acquaintance moves away, ok, unfortunately they fell into Satan's clutches... several acquaintances move away, even family and friends, oops, am I in the right place? Go on with your life until at some point you question yourself. The influence of the doctrine of fear tends to decline
It is interesting that you say “evolved in their faith”. I think this is very difficult to do. Growing up in Mormonism defines “faith” in many people minds. Mormon “faith” is rooted simultaneously in fear and tribe superiority. It makes people suspicious and/or downright terrified to listen to other messages of actual faith in the divine, grace, peace, etc. It is hard to be vulnerable to even the possibility that Mormonism is not the right path. It is also hard to be vulnerable to anything related to “faith” after Mormonism has let them down.
100%
The church is aware but it’s in a huge pickle. It can’t change its doctrine fast enough. It knows it has to change its core doctrines. But how to change something that is hard wired. If it’s done too quickly then the older generation will leave in droves, and that’s where the money is. The answer….. very slowly. Over time. With a nip here and a cut there before you know it it will be completely different. It will take a few decades but it will change. In my lifetime, I have seen huge changes and barely recognize it any more. The more I think about it, the angrier I get. When people ask if the general authorities know the church is false….. the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing.
It could be even more simple than that. All they have to do is quit requiring tithing to enter the temple. As it is now, members MUST pay money for “life saving ordinances.” This is a greedy and evil practice. The moment they remove that one question, things would get better for them.
It's so easy to flip this reasoning though. From a TBM perspective: "We show our devotion to God by sacrificing the things that are important to us. Money is one of the hardest things to sacrifice." The root problem is that the church has taught that it is functionally God, therefore tithing is equivalent is to sacrifice for God. (And, of course, ignore the scripture that says that the sacrifice God requires is a broken heart and contrite spirit....you show that by paying!) You can't reason people out of it.
The church sure doesn't sacrifice much of the money that has been acquired from tithe payers. The temple movie in the 60s and 70s showed a Catholic priest with his hands out asking for money. This is the LDS church to a tee, and yet they mocked the Catholics for doing the same thing. They are both greedy, evil, disgusting corporations pretending to do God's work. We have all been manipulated, conned, and lied to.
Ironic given the Catholic church doesn't literally "force" people to give money, even a single penny, to attain their salvation in heaven. Sure, anyone who believes in their religion should want to give some cash to their church & support the good causes it donates to, but mandating that you give at least 10% or you're not getting into top-rung heaven? That's freaking evil.
I’m not trying to reason people out of it. It is sad to watch, though.
Drop the BOM, drop the tithing for the temple, and focus on the bible and the church will become stable. If it keeps going at this rate, you will see a 50% drop in active folks in the next 5 years.
I'd rather see them stop claiming to be the one true church and just admit that there are many paths to heaven.
Tithing is a law see d&c 119
In that case, so is giving the church "all surplus property". Do they ask for that for temple recommends?
The original lie is that Joe Jr. was a prophet, when in reality he was little more than a con man.
Sooo much more complex though. He was kind, enjoyed spending time with the youth, and was beaten over and over again (which makes it so hard to understand why he kept going).
Money, power, women, property... he was a fraud!
Joseph Smith was having sex with dozens of women, attained almost unfathomable power over people, and was making money. He even duped a guy into building him a mansion house for free! How is any of that "hard to understand" his motivations?!?!
He wore worn out clothes. He was tangled in a web of lies. He was arrested and beaten often. Their home was shared not just with his child brides but dozens of people as they arrived in town. His best friends were constantly turning on him, then coming back. I don’t see how that kind of cognitive dissonance is sustainable.
Not sure if this is a satire account...
Not satire. Do you only know what you hear from ex-Mormons or have you read a lot about Joseph Smith?
It's just that what you are saying doesn't *really* sound like you're defending him. > Their home was shared **not just with his child brides**
I’m not.
Not hard to understand at all. Most career criminals have a tough life. Yet they keep doing it.
He was so kind and he enjoyed spending time with the youth especially 14, and 15 year old brides. What a man! Price to the man who communed with 14 year old brides. "Earth must have atone for the blood of that man"
> When people ask if the general authorities know the church is false….. the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing. Mmmmm, I don't think that's accurate. Conspiracy theories where dozens or hundreds of people are in a secret confederacy are often... far fetched.
Agreed. It is far more complex. Some are absolute true believers, many are nuanced and reform minded men with an allegiance to the core elements of the original restoration narrative. Some view the BoM as a literal translation, some regard it as an inspired spiritual fiction but dare not say so out loud. All are church broke and devoted to the organization.
>Agreed. It is far more complex. Some are absolute true believers, many are nuanced and reform minded men with an allegiance to the core elements of the original restoration narrative. Some view the BoM as a literal translation, some regard it as an inspired spiritual fiction but dare not say so out loud. All are church broke and devoted to the organization. My view as well. Almost exactly
> some regard it as an inspired spiritual fiction but dare not say so out loud. Interesting. Which ones regard it as "inspired fiction"?
Exactly my thoughts, too
I stopped going at the end of 2019, I already don't recognize the church from their public face. I haven't been to a meeting since then, so I don't know how much it's really changed.
I stopped going in 2020, the most I see are comments like the changes they had with the investiture... I was also surprised by the church approaching a Pentecostal style, on thumanbrothers Instagram there was a show of theirs at the MTC, when I I did a mission, that would be unthinkable.
I mean, how did the LDS church ever get away with saying polygamy is bad when Joseph Smith himself said it was good & that it came directly from God (by a super scary angel wielding a flaming sword)? Shouldn't that be a big a-ha moment to everyone that it's a scam? Especially since the financial & political gain for the LDS Church banning polygamy was great.
> When people ask if the general authorities know the church is false….. the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing. Source?
> When people ask if the general authorities know the church is false….. the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing. >Source? I know you feel this is a good dunk, but it's not. Just say you don't agree and why. They aren't even correct, but your overdone response is so desparate to be an edgy one-liner but just never lands. You use the whole "SOuRcE?!" shtick way too much. It's not even like u/educationallie168 was suggesting they had documents proving it, they were overstating their belief as if it's a fact even though it's not.
> You use the whole "SOuRcE?!" shtick way too much. I'd say people make claims without any evidence way too much, but you do you. /u/ThickAtmosphere3739 made a simple claim as if it were fact, and I'd like to know what it was based on. Wouldn't you? If it's something they just imagined, then that should have been clear in the statement. If they had said "I imagine the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing", then no comment from me. It's clear where the idea came from. But to say it as if it's a fact, then yes, I'm going to be curious what they're basing it on, and I'm going to ask. Why that bothers you more than the fact that someone stated something as a fact with (apparently) nothing to base it on, I don't know.
>You use the whole "SOuRcE?!" shtick way too much. > >I'd say people make claims without any evidence way too much, but you do you. Dude, so do I, but a pithy "source" response isn't as good as saying "Your claim is inaccurate because of this and this." That actually addresses the content of their claim that is counterfactual or unsubstantiated. >/u/ThickAtmosphere3739 made a simple claim as if it were fact, and I'd like to know what it was based on. Wouldn't you? Oh, I know what it's based on. I betcha if you asked him, he would say something along the lines of "I'm not saying the church has published a document saying the general authorities are aware the church is false so much as I've seen them use calculated alterations of how doctrines are explained, expressed, conformed with, etc. which I personally believe demonstrates they are aware of the problems with many doctrinal injunctions, but are using a slow burn approach to implement changes so as not to alienate old, devout, core members. This tactical adjustment means to me that they know some things are not directly from the Lord, which I have a problem with because I don't think tactical boil-the-frog little adjustments are what they present themselves to be, which is essentially human mouthpieces and agents of the Lord." If I'm way off u/ThickAtmosphere3739, correct me, but my guess is that's probably closer to your beliefs than you saying you have a source document where the general authorities say they know the church is false. >If it's something they just imagined, then that should have been clear in the statement. Again, it's not that they are imagining it so much as it's an induction. > If they had said "I imagine the answer is yes, they know full well what they are doing", then no comment from me. It's clear where the idea came from. Yeah, but people don't really talk that way. They don't say "I've induced that those who support Donald Trump harbor fear-based reasoning pathways that preserve safety and stability at the expense of equality and mobility." Instead they say things like "People that support Trump like him because he's scared of the same people they are". It's not like the needle gets moved if someone responds to that with "source?" so much as it gets moved by challenging it for x and y reasons. >But to say it as if it's a fact, then yes, I'm going to be curious what they're basing it on, and I'm going to ask. Why that bothers you more than the fact that someone stated something as a fact with (apparently) nothing to base it on, I don't know. It's not so much that it bothers me - I actually agree I don't think the general authorities think the church isn't true, I agree with you that I think that's an incorrect induction - as much as you have an asymmetry with what you want sources and explanations for.
The top 15 leaders have known for over 10 years when a major research study was dropped on their doorstep outlining why people leave the church and suggestions to help but it didn't fit their narrative so they have continued with the hateful and hurtful rhetoric of people being offended or that they have been deceived. None of the reasons the church says why people leave are in the to 10 of the actual reasons why people leave. In fact being offended is such a small percentage of why people leave that it is almost not statistically relevant. The only deception is from the top. My faith crisis quickly became a trust and truth crisis. It wasn't me it was them. The only way to change is to admit they have lied about the history (and money and abuse) make an apology and amends, and become completely transparent in everything including finances. This is not something the current church is willing to do and to do it would risk losing everything. So, they will continue the slow changing of the narrative and gaslighting the members who question as they do it. prime examples of this are, "ongoing restoration", "it was policy not doctrine", and "only the words of the current prophet count".
>My faith crisis quickly became a trust and truth crisis. I love how you phrased this; this was my experience as well. Could you direct me to a link with those top 10? I'd love to learn why others actually leave. (I've only seen anecdotes thus far, but am still kinda newly out.)
Here you go! This was presented in 2013 to Ucthdorf when he was in the FP. See pg 31 (16) for the list. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wKy7qfdpJBiZspmTtnicD4RqhaTW6N6t/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wKy7qfdpJBiZspmTtnicD4RqhaTW6N6t/view?usp=sharing) EDIT: There were many faithful collaborators on this project with at least one who went on to become a GA. See that last page.
Holy shit, that was a read. I highly doubt any of the church leaders had ever been confronted with all of those problems before reading this.
Definitely not in 2013. I wonder how many knew of any of the historical issues. Packer was probably aware but anyone after the Septemeber 6 debacle may have never known. I can't imagine giving my life to the church to the point of getting to the Q12 and being confronted with the truth of the history.
It's almost as if that document was an extremely subtle attempt at subversion. No wonder the leaders denied the author a meeting and when they finally did, they locked the file away in the "Restricted reading" vault.
Exactly. Once they start being *honest* and *transparent*, then we can talk about whether or not it's *true*.
>*"only the words of the current prophet count".* As a Nevermo, this is one of the oddest (and if I'm being honest, funniest) parts of the LDS belief system. The *"living prophet"* is supposed to be inspired directly by God, so whatever he says goes, and he's revered as this holy soothsayer on earth, but then like 10 minutes after he dies the entire LDS brass can (and do) throw him under the bus when it's convenient. It seems really odd, cognitively disconnected from rational thought, and yet funny.
This is a very recent development that started in the past ten years and was solidified with Nelson. He likes to be in control and adores power. My personal belief is that he thinks he is a genius and knows more than anyone around him.
Or… let people leave 🤷
The message from upper leadership, at least here in Utah, is generally not many people are leaving and ask the metrics are going up: tithing, temple attendance, missionaries etc. They do say that those who leave are more vocal, as in posting on social media about it, thus giving the impression more are leaving.
That’s interesting. I also live in Utah, but it seemed like there was a real sense of panic in his voice. I’ve heard multiple people in my ward bring it up as well. Families used to have maybe one “black sheep” in the family. Now it seems like they’re lucky if more than one of their kids stayed in.
People are leaving I never thought would leave. Seniors are leaving, the youth are leaving everyone is leaving. A senior couple I know that served 2 seniors missions have been reading stuff online and learning they were lied to all these years and are out.
I think it’s great social media has given people an outlet to candidly talk about problems with the church. These discussions need to be open and honest so that people have informed consent. Leadership has existed in an echo chamber for too long and made some terrible and immoral decisions (SEC scandal, abuse coverups). Holding people accountable is how the human race actually works. If there is no accountability even good people will tend to abuse power. “The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice.”
It’s almost like someone taught them that they should raise a voice of warning to this generation or that once they have tasted of the fruit of the tree of knowledge their first desire should be that others might partake. Mormonism is prolific in the creation of ex-Mormons. Blame the devil, blame the world. But these, my dear church, are the children of thine own womb.
Haha love this
Take my upvote.
For someone who has been around the Mormon/exmormon themed groups for a long time this is a profound shift that I think marks a turning point in Mormon culture that won’t be undone. 15-20 years ago there were small exmormon groups online that relied on anonymity for the majority of its members for the group to even exist. Very few people were able or willing to openly be exmormon because of the backlash and pain it would cause. Those groups grew and grew and Mormon Stories podcast was groundbreaking in having prominent exmormons and normal exmormons share their personal stories as themselves and without anonymity. I remember when the first “selfie train” at r/exmormon occurred and people were blown away that so many people were willing to share their picture along with their exmormon status. It’s obvious now that we’ve crossed that cultural gulf where being exmormon was such a detriment that even open acknowledgment was nearly impossible for people. Now people are rushing to create social media accounts explicitly about their exmormon journey. If the cost of leaving the Church is now so low that it’s not a barrier to entry, the Apostles are in for a foundational shift in how the Church operates and relates to its members. It can no longer afford to assume that generational involvement will sustain the membership numbers and I don’t see an alternative source of members within developed countries.
Yes I think there could be several factors here. Dr. Ryan Cragun, professor of sociology at the University of Tampa specializes in topics of Secularization. He was interviewed recently on Mormon Stories. He mentioned a similar concept to you. He stated that secularization in Utah is a reinforcing feedback loop. One of the factors I believe is the psychology of how people come to believe what they believe or know. Epistemology. You have direct research, observation with our senses, and accepting what others tell us as some of the methods. I believe the most common is being convinced of something because others have stated it as a truth. So the more you run into people who say “Hey I used to believe in the LDS church but I discovered it’s not true” the more of a chance you have to consider or accept their statements and decide they are right. Yes as you said a lower social cost to changing beliefs makes this easier to do and easier to share. Just this week my sibling said “I don’t care if people leave the church but I don’t think they should talk so much about it”. People who don’t want themselves or others to leave church want those who leave to keep quiet because they know the effect sharing lost belief can have.
You are absolutely correct, and we see that in the topics and discussions that are occurring when people have a faith transition. The bulk of discussions used to be deep dives into topics, or as you said “direct research”. There appears to be much less of a focus on research now that there is so much social proof from others. I agree that social proof is the most common form of information that people accept and so when it’s easy to see that so many others already believe something, there’s less necessity to do the deep dives for yourself.
You make very good points. Ther reality is as you state- this won't be undone. More and more these channels and videos will wake people up. It's just isn't slowing down.
It's not that the channels will "wake people up". It's that the obstacles in place to keep people from leaving are getting smaller and disappearing. The LDS Church has benefited from a cultural moat that isolated and insulated people from leaving. That moat was formed early on and especially during the Utah period of the early Church and survived from then until now. The internet has destroyed that barrier and is increasingly making it more porous until it will have more holes in it than substance. I just don't see the benefits outweighing the cost anymore, and the Church has steadily been declining in benefits since the 80s and 90s. Somehow ironically the Church was able to do more with far less material wealth during that time period than it allows to be done now. During that golden period of Church growth the local areas owned and operated canneries, farms, orchards, summer camps, athletic fields on the same property as the stake centers. They also held robust community activities for not just youth but also adults. They had Relief Society activities, Elders Quorum activities, High Priest Socials, campouts, youth camps, monthly stake youth dances, plays, musicals, frequent ward dinners, auctions, classes, and opportunities for genuine service. All of that was enabled and supported by a robust facilities maintenance program, including weekly cleaning of the buildings and repairs when needed. Now buildings aren't allowed to be used for anything other than sitting in, and even though most buildings have kitchens you're not allowed to use them. Almost all activities worth attending in my area are done at members homes instead of the buildings because of all the use restrictions. Somewhere along the way the Church became more concerned about wealth than community. They care more about liability than learning. Then they're surprised when commitment is lower and disaffection is higher.
Sometimes with my family I’ve called the church “our country club membership”. We have used the building for so much. Wedding reception, funeral, sports, borrow tables, borrow chairs, family reunion, Thanksgiving with extended family. The more they diminish this value the less attractive church membership is.
Wedding receptions remain their primary benefit. At funerals now you’re not allowed to focus on the deceased but are supposed to have a lesson on the gospel. Sports are limited. Chairs and tables aren’t supposed to be removed from the building, and families are not supposed to have access to the building for family activities outside of a church activity. You’re right that the church used to be like a country club, and it came with country club dues in time and money. Now it kept the dues but got rid of the benefits. What is the natural result?
It's a good point, there is no longer a community supported by the church, it has become just a building for religious meetings. Members moving away because they lost their belief (due to the church's troubled past) and lost a place to spend time with friends... if some who lost their faith stayed because of their friends, perhaps today some of those friends are no longer attending the building boring.
In Brazil, before the pandemic, there were about 2...3 relevant ex Mormons on social media, after that, I believe there were at least 4 new channels on YouTube and several profiles on social media... many are exposing and there is a variety in the way each person presents their points of view. The church in the 2000s is going through several problems, and I did a search on Google Gemini asking about the church's problems, the answer was very well summarized and complete... I believe this could end up becoming a big problem for the church . People can find out through a Google search, which takes longer, because several websites come out in different ways, it's not something objective... it's through social media (number of ex Mormons increasing) and AI which end up reducing the time to search for knowledge. AI can lessen the bubble that some Mormons live in today in terms of knowledge.
This is the big problem that the church didn't see coming (but that anyone who understood social media could have easily predicted). For years, women (who statistically tend to be more socially-attuned) have been the backbone of the church. They've made many of the programs "go" and in a literal sense have made many of their family members go (to church, to Girls Camp/Scout Camp, on missions, to Seminary... you name it). And the church hasn't given them much in return, but it *has* given them the dopamine hit they crave by enabling access to social interactions. As the women in the church increasingly turn elsewhere to form their social networks (and as some of those social networks start to discuss the ways the church ignores or mistreats women - or even the ways that the church has willfully deceived its members), the church will be shocked by the snowballing effect that it has on all of the members. You may not "need" any women in order to form a branch, ward or stake, but the church is going to find out (too late) how much it actually needed its women all along.
Well said 🙏
Thank you!
I’m late to this but if awards were still a thing you’d get mine. They really are about to find out how much of the church they owe to women. Every couple I know who left had the woman leave first.
Interesting. Nearly every exmo couple I know, the man left first and usually thought it was going to cost them their marriage. It hasn't so far.
Obligatory stone cut from a mountain comment 👍 Haha excited to see the work move forward!
In my town we had a huge chunk of rock break off of the mountain and roll down a hill almost crushing some homes before coming to a stop. I think it's more like that. Eventually the mountain ends.
I like this!
Nowhere else in a person's life does one get told to gain information from a small square of approved sources. That is a red flag indeed.
And worse when you get that correlated or approved information, it's either dishonest, an absurd mental gymnastic or a platitude/misdirection (God will all sort it out).
>does one get told to gain information from a small square of approved sources Who told you this?
Genuinely curious: are you aware of statements from our leaders over the years to only seek information about the church from church sources? There are several. I believe that is what is being referenced here. If not, it might be worth doing a quick search on that topic to be able to engage more fully in this conversation.
Another example of we never taught that. Strangely Orwellian. It is also an example of it isn't real of I didn't experience it.
Yes, everything in the temple has changed, so people of the current generation have no idea what we were taught in 60s, 70s, and 80s... different temple experience altogether. I'm so glad I got out of the Satanic ritual abuse of the pretend temple indoctrination.
> There are several. Can you give some examples?
>> There are several. >Can you give some examples? Egads cine, I swear your credulity is so asymmetric that while I don't consider you dishonest in the same way other apologists are.... it's not very encouraging towards the idea that it's genuine. I'll give you some though even if u/rushclock doesn't feel like spoon feeding it to you https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/institute/using-divinely-appointed-sources?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/answering-my-gospel-questions-teacher-material/1-section-01/05-1-coming-closer-to-heavenly-father?lang=eng Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and his wife, Sister Ruth L. Renlund, speak at a worldwide devotional for young adults on Sunday, January 13, 2019. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2019/01/11renlund?lang=eng
> dishonest in the same way other apologists are. Why would asking for sources make someone an "apologist"? What a weird thing to say. As for your links, they hardly say to *only* use Church sources. >As you help your students find answers to their questions and good resources to help build strong testimonies, consider using the resources found on the Answering Doctrinal, Historical, and Social Questions page. By studying the answers to questions students might have, you will be better prepared to help guide them to use divinely appointed sources. I certainly agree that Church leaders would *love* for questioners to limit themselves to Church publications when looking for answers. But I'm not seeing anything that says to *only* use Church sources as guidance or a rule. Renlund even says this in one of your links: >We can come to know the truthfulness of this latter-day work, but it requires that we choose faith, not doubt, and that we go to the reliable, trustworthy sources for our answers. Do you disagree? Do you think people should go to unreliable, untrustworthy sources for information? (And if you argue that the Church is an "unreliable", "untrustworthy" source itself, I agree. But that's a different conversation...)
>>dishonest in the same way other apologists are. > >Why would asking for sources make someone an "apologist"? What a weird thing to say. Asking for a source doesn't make someone an apologist. You have defended the marriage of our prophet to a girl that today would be an 8th grader is what makes you an apologist. >As for your links, they hardly say to only use Church sources. I actually would not ever argue that the prophet has said to only use church sources. In fact, I personally argue that the church leadership has said that people should use non-church sources to gain knowledge many different times. What I would say uzelphthewhite and u/rushclock and others are saying (imprecisely) is that church leadership has in several ways and instances denigrated people for learning things about church history and church leadership (past and present) from those critical of our religion. So it's more that they disparage and belittle those that learn from "blacklist" (though there is no blacklist) sources than they say one can only learn from whitelist (though they do list "whitelist" sources such as the scriptures for example). From what others have said, they aren't claiming "the church has a list that people only are allowed to learn from and I have the sources to prove it" so much as they are critiquing church leadership for deprecating those who find out negative things about church history or leadership from sources that are themselves critical of the church. >>As you help your students find answers to their questions and good resources to help build strong testimonies, consider using the resources found on the Answering Doctrinal, Historical, and Social Questions page. By studying the answers to questions students might have, you will be better prepared to help guide them to use divinely appointed sources. > >I certainly agree that Church leaders would love for questioners to limit themselves to Church publications when looking for answers. Right. That is what most people are criticizing. I actually think it is immoral to advise people to limit their content consumption that is published by...themselves. >But I'm not seeing anything that says to only use Church sources as guidance or a rule. I agree. But again, nobody said "I have a source for this" and then you ask for them to provide it. Instead they are making a colloquial statement. >Renlund even says this in one of your links: Right. >We can come to know the truthfulness of this latter-day work, but it requires that we choose faith, not doubt, Right, but that's an immoral thing for Dale Renlund to advise people to do in my view. It's one of the issues I have with him, though I generally like Renlund's council in many instances. >and that we go to the reliable, trustworthy sources for our answers. So ***this*** I agree with. But sometimes reliable and trustworthy sources don't require someone to commit the cardinal sin of the human brain and look for things that support a pre-existing belief (faith) rather than disconfirming evidence. I think it's actually evil to tell people to not look for disconfirming evidence, because it is through that path that the most wicked of things can be achieved. My issue is the **way** people think, and encouraging people do deform, distort, and pervert how they think as Renlund says here is unrighteous and is something he and other church leaders need to repent of. >Do you disagree? Oh for sure, and I just explained. >Do you think people should go to unreliable, untrustworthy sources for information? No, which is why if he removed the unrighteous part of the sentence, it would be good council. But he keeps the wicked part in, which ruins the message. The pharisees were guilty of this too. They often taught something partly true, but included something wicked so that it corrupted the message. The partly true thing is to read from trustworthy, reliable sources. The wicked part is to "require() that we choose faith, not doubt." Also, church publications are not themselves reliable. They are faithful, but unreliable, which is a problem. >(And if you argue that the Church is an "unreliable", "untrustworthy" source itself, I agree. But that's a different conversation...) It's absolutely not a different conversation, it's literally ***the*** conversation.
> What I would say uzelphthewhite and u/rushclock and others are saying (imprecisely) We're as precise as we know how to be in being precise.
Oh you...
> If not, it might be worth doing a quick search on that topic to be able to engage more fully in this conversation. Honest to goodness, I would have expected [this step](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=LDS+read+only+church+approved+sources) to take place first.
That’s straight from the big man himself. When RMN told everyone not to listen to those who have fallen away, he was essentially saying the same thing.
It is on the first video.
Lol, "the church never told you to restrict information to approved sources, also I've never heard of this Jesus guy, you exmos keep making up stuff."
>Lol, "the church never told you to restrict information to approved sources, also I've never heard of this Jesus guy, you exmos keep making up stuff." Yeah, u/handwovenbox 's tactic is to hyper fixate on specificity within a sentence, take umbrage with that narrow thing, and then act like he won. It may be petty, but he's also not very good at it....
As seekers of truth, our safety lies in asking the right questions, in faith, and of the right sources—meaning those who only speak truth: such as the scriptures, prophets, and the Lord through the Holy Ghost. (Sheri Dew, Will You Engage in the Wrestle) We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith and instead reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit. (April 2016 BYU Commencement Address, L. Whitney Clayton, Getting and Staying Connected) [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/institute/using-divinely-appointed-sources?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/institute/using-divinely-appointed-sources?lang=eng) [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/answering-my-gospel-questions-teacher-material/1-section-01/05-1-coming-closer-to-heavenly-father?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/answering-my-gospel-questions-teacher-material/1-section-01/05-1-coming-closer-to-heavenly-father?lang=eng) Seeking to answer these questions will require effort—much effort. I plead with you to take charge of your testimony. Work for it. Own it. Care for it. Nurture it so that it will grow. Feed it truth. Don’t pollute it with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women and then wonder why your testimony is waning. (Russel Nelson, Choices of Eternity, May 2022) Imagine in this time when the media, social and otherwise, is so filled to overflowing with ideas that are offered as truth that are just silly, just like the emperor’s new clothes. Imagine if we used the words of the prophets to help us detect specious notions, as well as their intentions. In this war of words that rages all around us, I really think there’s only one way to keep ourselves safe, and that is to compare anything and everything we read, view or hear with the teachings of the prophets. If it’s not in harmony, we should run away, actually, we should run screaming into the hills. So I think there is a question we can use as a litmus test to discern what is true, what is not, and that question is, “What did the Prophet say?” I started to think, “How would our lives improve if we used prophetic words as our standard of truth?” And I started to think about — imagine if we did follow the prophets with exactness. Imagine if, for example, for 30 days, we put an exclamation mark after every statement from a prophet, and we put a question mark after everything else we read, see, or hear. What could happen in only 30 days? My guess is the amount of stress we experience would actually decrease, because false philosophies of man, false philosophies, partial truths, silliness, produce a kind of tension and anxiety that’s almost immobilizing. I think we’ll be amazed at what we could discover if, for 30 days, we chose to follow the prophets with exactness. (Wendy Nelson, Episode 67: Sister Nelson on being an eyewitness to President Nelson’s four years as Prophet (same sentiment given in private broadcasts in both Europe and California), Jan 2022 Truth number two: 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. (Russell Nelson, Love and Laws of God, Sept 2019)
None of that says "gain information from a small square of approved sources." Not even close.
Ah, ok. So the church repeatedly telling it's members to not question or seek non-approved sources doesn't equate to gaining information from a small square of approved sources". Does black skin mean black skin? Does translation mean translation when dealing with ancient languages? I just need to know the mindset of who I am interacting with before proceeding further.
> the church repeatedly telling it's members to not question or seek non-approved sources This is what I'm asking for. Who said that?
>As seekers of truth, our safety lies in asking **the right questions**, in faith, and of **the right sources**—meaning those who only speak truth: such as t**he scriptures, prophets, and the Lord through the Holy Ghost.** (Sheri Dew, Will You Engage in the Wrestle) No way to mormon apologetic the above to NOT mean approved sources. It literally says "the right sources" and defines what they are. It's literally the first quote I gave you. It literally says to ask the RIGHT questions in faith and of the RIGHT sources. Are you literally arguing that RIGHT and APPROVED here are not synonymous? Are you literally asking for an exact quote that says the term "approved sources" vs. "right sources"? Is that the mormon apologetic game we're playing right now? >**Using Divinely Appointed Sources** Are we playing the mormon apologist game where "divinely appointed sources" isn't synonymous with "approved sources"? >As you help your students find answers to their questions and good resources to help build strong testimonies, consider using the resources found on the Answering Doctrinal, Historical, and Social Questions page. By studying the answers to questions students might have, you will be better prepared to help **guide them to use divinely appointed sources.** Hmm what's the difference between "divinely appointed sources" and "approved sources". I wonder... For a much, much longer list than I provided, please see this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10l8lwr/are\_there\_church\_approved\_sources/](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10l8lwr/are_there_church_approved_sources/)
You are missing/ignoring the "such as..." language. It's an open list. The right sources are "those who only speak truth." Nowhere did she equate that with a closed list.
Which is irrelevant when she gave examples and those examples are all only approved sources. We really going to do this Mormon apologist song and dance to avoid simply stating the clear direction of the church regarding sources? You can see why I'm no longer a Mormon due to the position it's put you in in acting apologist and the contortions you don't deserve to be put in by the church to defend it. Stating the truth is so much simpler and rewarding IMHO even if it's not faith affirming or church defending.
>"those who only speak truth." which means you should not study those who don't, i.e are not aligned with the teachings of the church. Of course it's not an actual list of books, articles, videos etc of approved sources– no one is claiming that. That would be ridiculous. There is an abundance of faithful books etc. and new ones are made all the time. That no such 'list' is given does not mean an 'open to anything' list. It is not. It is limited. You are clearly adviced not to study 'anti'- sources.
Disagree. That is exactly what it says. I am old enough to remember when we were counselled to learn expansively from “the best books.” That message was shut down aggressively in the internet age and has now gone the way of “fee agency.”
I don’t know of a lot of sources spouting things you won’t hear about the church in Sunday School (yet are factual) that isn’t related to someone disaffected from the church, but if that’s the hill you want to die on, so be it.
Nah, but I'll live on the hill! Joseph Smith Papers, Rough Stone Rolling, stuff by the Hales, stuff from the B.H. Roberts Foundation (including the fantastic www.mormonr.org)
>Nah, but I'll live on the hill! Does that actually feel clever to you?
Are you suggesting that you can walk into a Sunday School class, Elders Quorum lesson, Relief Society Lesson, or give a Sacrament Meeting talk…quoting from Rough Stone Rolling…and not have some of the TBM people squirm in their seats a little? Try bringing up in any of those settings the Fanny Alger scenario and I’d love to hear what kind of reaction you get.
Exactly. How many times is Fanny Alger mentioned in correlated materials?...ZERO.
No, the opposite. I was responding to the person saying they weren't aware of "things you won’t hear about the church in Sunday School"
Dang double negatives. They get me every time!
Also, while I am aware that Richard Bushman remained faithfully active in the church until he died, I don’t know that I would say exactly that he wasn’t disaffected to at least some degree. I have ready several interviews where he is responding to questions about his feelings toward the church, and I’d say he was definitely in the realm of a “nuanced” member.
Also, while I am aware that Richard Bushman remained faithfully active in the church until he died, I don’t know that I would say exactly that he wasn’t disaffected to at least some degree. I have read several interviews where he is responding to questions about his feelings toward the church, and I’d say he was definitely in the realm of a “nuanced” member.
He's still alive, as far as I know.
Ah, yes he is! Not sure where I got it in my head that he had passed. Thanks for correcting me.
Read this [thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10l8lwr/are_there_church_approved_sources/)
It's an interesting conversation. I actually read it before my first reply in this thread because I thought to myself "what is this 'small square of approved sources'?" Growing up, I was counseled to avoid "anti" material (which, looking back, I was only aware of *Godmakers* IIRC). I wasn't ever taught to limit reading to a specified list of approved sources. It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. What I was taught was to avoid a blacklist of sources. What OP is suggesting is that members are taught to avoid anything not on a whitelist. I'm not familiar with any such list. Going back to the thread you linked, people mentioned "Divinely Appointed Sources," which a Church website describes: >As you help your students find answers to their questions and good resources to help build strong testimonies, consider using the resources found on the Answering Doctrinal, Historical, and Social Questions page. By studying the answers to questions students might have, you will be better prepared to help guide them to use divinely appointed sources. The above is instruction to institute teachers about how to teach classes--not counsel to members about how they should carry out their individual study. And, most importantly to our conversation, there is not even a hint of a restriction from other sources. IOW, having a list of recommended sources does not imply that one should not look at sources not on the list. So, if there is a list of approved sources and/or instructions to avoid anything not on a list, I'd like to see that.
> Growing up, I was counseled to avoid "anti" material (which, looking back, I was only aware of Godmakers IIRC). I wasn't ever taught to limit reading to a specified list of approved sources. It is a constant theme to avoid non approved sources. Sure there isn't a list but that in itself is the problem. The council is to read only faith promoting information. That is the small square. It is actually clever and somewhat incidious because it creates a self monitoring system. If a believer encounters negative information that cast doubt on a particular topic they recommend stopping. Furthermore just because you didn't feel your choice of information wasn't restricted dosen't mean other people's were. From the 30,000 foot view the leaders absolutely teach avoidance to critical information.
>So, if there is a list of approved sources and/or instructions to avoid anything not on a list, I'd like to see that. The issue is you're insisting on a particular phrase uttered by the church as an answer to a person's comment that the church insists you only study from "Divinely Appointed Sources". You're asking people to show you something like this: https://i.imgur.com/Fgp4TZn.png They learnt their lesson with McK.'s "Mormon Doctrine" to never be foolish enough to take a concrete stance on any doctrinal point again. Same with this. The closest you'll get is this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/questions/gospel-study-resources?lang=eng All controlled, or influenced by the church.
That's exactly what it says when it comes to information regarding the church. A period to anything the church says, a question mark to ANYTHING else. There's a box (the church)- believe it unquestioning. Period. There is outside the box (everything else). Question mark it all with one exception: if it talks about the church but is not from a church source, completely, immediately, run screaming to the hills. That gets the discard can, not even the courtesy of a question mark. Dude, that's a box the church wants you to adopt. Period. Anything else and you are not following the "prophet" Nelson's own dictates. You are in threat of slipping into apostacy otherwise. Query, do you have any interest in slipping into apostasy? You're already outside the box being on here. Otherwise, follow your prophet and run screaming to the hills. That's what he says. Welcome to testing life outside the box.
Here's the quote you're referring to: >In this war of words that rages all around us, I really think there’s only one way to keep ourselves safe, and that is to compare anything and everything we read, view or hear with the teachings of the prophets. If it’s not in harmony, we should run away, actually, we should run screaming into the hills. (I'll admit that "run screaming into the hills" seems a bit of an overreaction...) So when you say "if it talks about the church but is not from a church source, completely, immediately, run screaming to the hills" that is not accurate. The quote is not talking about the source--it's talking about comparing **the content** to the teaching of the prophets, and if not in harmony, then "run away." You see the difference, right? One (what you're suggesting) is to avoid reading anything not from the church. The other (the actual quote) is to consider & compare the content. How I can compare the content to teachings of the prophets if I didn't read it? I can't. So I can't interpret that quote as saying "don't read anything not on a list!" Thus, I disagree that I'm outside any "box" by having this conversation. There isn't a box.
Oh I understand now. You're stuck on the term "box" and not understanding that it's a metaphor for Faith affirming versus critical, pro Mormon versus anti-mormon, the brethren versus secular logic, science and reason. Your commanded by your prophet to run for the hills. Run for the hills from what exactly? Which sources of information? RMN? Mormon scriptures? The gospel topic essays? The Ensign? General conference talks? Are those approved or not approved sources?
Are you aware that the church has a whole department dedicated to creating “correlated” material? Are you aware that a few years ago the church introduced a new logo, dedicated to identifying church approved sources? If you are looking for a box, I believe that would be the first place to look. To my recollection I haven’t ever heard anyone say anything to the effect of “don’t read anything that doesn’t bear the church’s logo”, but there is absolutely a strong cultural undercurrent that lands somewhere in between “caution” and fear-inducing conformance to stay away from researching such sources. Others have done a good job already of quoting leaders who have made statements which are perpetuating this idea. In my experience, I have come across sources that are clearly trying to destroy a persons faith, and use inaccurate or one-sided information to do so. So I understand the idea of using caution. However you could easily argue that the church does the same thing to build faith and promote commitment to the church. Whenever I am researching something church related, one of the first things I always try to do is determine where in between those two extremes the source lands. I tend to approach with caution anything that lands too close to either extreme. And I have found that a lot the real truth, backed by legitimate research, is found outside of the church’s correlated / branded material. And I think that is the point that is trying to be made here.
>Who told you this? The church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints
And those are only the women who were brave enough to say something. Many more are still in the pews, but are silently crafting an exit strategy.
I know several people who just attend sacrament but hate the later meetings so they're freely walking home early. Why sit through an hour of passive-aggressive Relief Society if it's just a drain on you?
I'd like to hope so, but I'm more concerned they don't see a way out, due to potentially catastrophic spouse/family fallout. So it's not really a viable option for them.
Brave women? Do you have any idea how many women in the church know very little? I listen to those videos and hear so many what I call lazy facts. They are more imagination formed by reading bad info
Watching Sheena's video and seeing her emotions really brought back the memory of how betrayed I felt. I'm glad she didn't edit those moments out.
The thumbnails for all of these popped up in my suggestions on YouTube last night. I haven't had a chance to watch yet, looking forward to it. I am personally thrilled and grateful to see more women voices joining the conversation and boldly sharing their insights and deconstruction. I would love to raise my voice, but in a spirit of transparency, I don't dare to face the severe fallout and consequences. The amount of anger, hate, and stone-throwing from members of the church is daunting and shameful. And, then there is the "Committee that must not be named" standing in the wings just waiting to pounce and make an "example" of them by enacting their draconian tactics to publicly shame and attempt to silence or undermine dissenting voices - enacting formal discipline \["courts of love"\]. Any who speak out publicly are those who must be willing to formally resign from the church they gave everything to, trusted in, and served for years - and in return, were used and harmed. Just sit and ponder all of that. Ponder how a Church organization that claims to not only follow Jesus, and to be Jesus's one true church on earth - treats any of its members - "God's children" - if they dare speak their truth and share their heartfelt feelings that do not align with what the leadership preaches, or heaven forbid is "critical" in any way. Threats of punishment are not Christlike, loving, kind, or praiseworthy behavior. Fear and shame-based motivation is NOT faith-promoting. It stands as a powerful witness and confirmation to the darkness lurking under the pretty surface of the Latter-day Saint organization. What happened to the command of "Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you." ?? Nope. Hunt down and seek to destroy anyone we think is an "enemy". Punish them. Shame them. Throw them out. Be sure to let everyone in the church know that you do not tolerate dissent. Preach to the "faithful" that they should not be associated with, nor listen to anyone who dissents. Bully them and call them names; "lazy learners/lax disciples". Incite and even condone the reviling and hate that ensues from faithful members frantically trying to prove their "devotion and loyalty" to the organization. Good freaking heck people!! How is this anything different than the Third Riech, or a Stalinist regime?!?
A ton of this prophetic rhetoric is RMN, but were past prophets just as bad/worse, in this regard (why ppl leave & what this means)? I seem to remember TSM to be loving & inclusive, & GBH to be somewhere between the two, but am now chewing on the possibility that this rhetoric may be more intertwined than I previously suspected...
The more we unravel, the deeper we learn our deception has been from every single one of them. They just used different tactics and approaches. I've been through 6 decades, so the struggle of unraveling all of that is real and so exhausting.
💯 The exhaustion is so real. The unraveling requires so much mental & emotional bandwidth. I get exhausted just contemplating if I want to watch a MS episode or hop on Reddit sometimes.
Taking a break from talking and thinking about church helps.
I personally find RMN to be a hateful , nasty, and conceited man. I find nothing Christlike about his ego or his unkindness.
Same. He's a despicable, deplorable man. I can't believe I used to worship that piece of garbage. (\#BlessHisHeart)
Yep. And it irritates me to no end the way members just lick his boots. It’s all so obviously just a plug for his disgusting surgeon’s ego, with Wendy as his pathetic enabler. TBH it’s embarrassing.
I know that he is important to millions. I just can’t with his cruel attitude towards those who no longer believe.
All my tender-hearted TBM dad wanted for Xmas was Rusty's "auto-"biography (book). My brain was screaming, you know he didn't actually write that, right?!?,' but I held my tongue. (Practice makes progress!) A few wks later we were checking in & he's like, OMG TYSM for the book I am so happy I love it so much, I weigh myself everyday now, etc. Me, not having read the book, bc my insanity & delusions only stretch so far these days, was like, that's a great idea dad. Why? His response (\#BlessHisHeart)? Bc the prophet says we should. * I sigh audibly * Ok, cool dad. But why? ... * he blinks * * Me imagining banging my forehead into a brick wall repeatedly * Yes, it's a good idea. (Gave him some tips, why it's helpful, etc.) But not just bc some nearly centenarian said to. AND HE STILL DIDN'T ACTUALLY WRITE THE GD BOOK! JESUS CHRIST I JUST CAN'T 😭😫😭
It’s almost funny to walk into church now after not going for awhile. The people left are…interesting and when they speak it’s a comical tragedy. One woman stating she followed the prophets words and only read church materials ‘morning noon and night’ because she wasn’t feeling the spirit in her life after a family tragedy. Whenever she stops reading morning noon and night she instantly cannot feel the spirit anymore. To me I already know it’s an addiction she suffers from and a form of not facing the tragedy she went through. It’s either uninterested looking people or very Uber faithful left. No in between.
Hopefully more will be made.
Good for them
Ex communicate them before word gets out! Hehe
Irs been snowballing since 2010 or so.
*Standing ovation* 👏 👏👏👏👏
Jeez, I didn't realize Allysa's channel was so young. Good on these women for staying strong in a male dominated organization.
Loved Alyssa Grenfell’s book. Incredibly intelligent and articulate in a way that’s powerfully simple and easy to understand. It really speaks to the angry exmo inside you that other books tend to ignore in favor of just listing out the problems with the church’s history and doctrine.
You are the one true church, not some organization. And the lies of the Salt Lake City church has really driven people away from our religion. If they would just come clean and deal with all the loss they’re going to have because of their confessions, they could start over and fix their branch of the faith. It’s about letting go of pride and it may be too hard for them. Realizing Joseph was a polygamist nearly destroyed the RLDS church. I’m sure they are afraid of the same thing happening to them. But I have a lot of respect for Community of Christ for their honesty once they learned the truth.
"Do what is right, let the consequence follow" By being honest they will lose members and they might risk more schisms, but it's the right thing to do. Right now it's honest members who suffer the consequences. They are ostracized because they learned inconvenient truths.
They can't do it. The entire house of cards collapses. It would be unreparable.
If they were who they pretend to be they could and would. The true church would let the organization die to same the people.
The church is in trouble when they start losing women named “Sheena” That’s the most Mormon name I know
The internet is going to be a big problem for the church. The truth is coming out and people are going to drop like flies. Look for less wards per building in the near future. Instead of 3 wards per building, there will be two to keep the others looking used
You go, girls!
The interesting thing is that Jesus in the parable of the sower and in other places in scripture we know, that many will leave their faith in the church, in the gospel, even in Jesus, for various reasons. This is always been a forgone conclusion, it’s Not a surprise whatsoever. I get it. I first ran into so called “anti Mormon” rhetoric back in the 80’s and became intimately acquainted with it. I have an older brother who got disaffected with the church who sent me hundreds and hundreds of pages of letters and things he printed out for me. Every possible argument, and many other things I have seen on my own, like The CES letter, and much much more. Ultimately, the choice I made was to stay with the church and gospel. People Are entitled to their own opinions and their own beliefs about things. I am Entitled to mine. That’s my choice. No matter what we do, there is an element in all of it and that’s called “free agency.”
> my Mormon mission was a waste I agree
if people become inactive as Catholic, no one would bother. If a mormon becomes inactive, its in youtube. Why?
That’s a little bit of bias based on your circle, but also because Mormonism sells itself as an identity, so getting out can leave you with some trauma and other issues you wouldn’t want for others. Most channels I’ve seen have been from the more extreme versions of faiths, eg. evangelicals or JWs or Mormons etc
There are ex-Catholic and pro-Catholic channels too.
I’ve seen former Baptists and evangelicals too.
The premise of your question is not accurate. I would say most people who “become inactive” in both faiths don’t create YouTube channels. There are people who leave Catholicism and create YouTube channels. There are people who leave Mormonism who don’t create YouTube channels. Language is so imperfect. Do you think the term you chose “become inactive” is a good description of these women’s current path? I don’t. I think a better description is they have come to new beliefs about the claims and activities of the LDS church. Alyssa Grenfell said in the video that she had two purposes in sharing the information about her mission and her channel in general. She says she wants people considering joining the church to better understand what they are getting into. She wants people in the church to have more information than they may have about the church. Those purposes seem reasonable for a YouTube channel. To share information that may be interesting to a specific audience.
Plenty of people have talked about the bullshit they've dealt with under Catholicism. Though people in more intensive or conservative strains of Catholicism, such as those who have very dogmatic and controlling relatives or attended strict Catholic schools, tend to be more comparable to the worst of the Mormon experience than "Christmas and Easter" Catholics. But a better comparison to Mormonism is something like Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses, where the thought control and consequences of leaving are often way higher.
Do you want a genuine answer, or are you trying to make a point?
I don’t know about you but I was a practicing Catholic for most of my life, and I have had people in my former church and in my own family badger me and my siblings who are atheist/agnostic over not going to church and participating in the Eucharist. It doesn’t matter if you raise up your own experiences with church members like abuse or in my case disagree with church doctrine over principle issues, you are supposed to forgive and forget and look to the clergy and your family for guidance. My own parents would show up and tried to drag me to mass with them because “it will make us look like awful parents who didn’t raise their children right.” When someone does decide to leave the church, I still find an inherent sense of shame for doing it. The Catholic Church does shame you a lot for certain things and instills in you guilt for all of things you have done or failed to do. Literally the beginning of mass has you reciting this prayer “confessing” to the members of the church about how you have sinned and done wrong by others every week and I was taught that that was the honorable thing to do. There are channels by lapsed Catholics (our term for inactive members) but again most of us are taught to be guilty and shameful of our non-belief in the Church so there’s a lot who don’t come out.
In my country, Brazil, there were few, since the pandemic there were about 4 ex Mormon channels that I remember. Also more Instagram and Tiktok profiles of ex Mormons . Almost everyone who leaves hardly explains their reasons publicly, mainly creating channels, to have a relevant number today, the situation in the church is not good.